Food poverty and especially child food poverty are inexcusable political choices. This political choice is supported by a small plurality of morally defunct voters who have been compromised by several decades of propaganda from the oligarch class via tabloids and the press.
I don't remember voting yes on any "starve the children" act, nor any of my representatives -- even though I suspect that my politics align with your "morally defunct" remark.
Some of us are more okay than others with society and life generating winners, losers, challenges, and hardships.
Do you have any outrage left over for the parents who brought children into the world without the ability to feed them?
I don't have many words for you, but I would like you to consider that:
"Do you have any outrage left over for the parents who brought children into the world without the ability to feed them?"
Is an unnatural question. One that is not just inhumane, but inhuman. It has been etched into the back of your brain by a continuous assault of vested media designed to manufacture your consent.
Wow. It's not often an HN comment leaves me speechless.
I hope I'm misunderstanding your point. Because it's pretty morally repugnant to suggest children should be made policy "losers" -- and "hardship" as a euphemism for "hunger" is wild. Not to mention that the circumstances of a child's birth are irrelevant when determining whether we should feed and care for them.
