>meaning that the school lunch may be the only decent meal they get

"Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime."

By giving away food you are getting people stuck in a bad situation. Preventing a reconfiguration of people's lives. A kid could have figured out how to get 3 proper meals a day if they had to figure out how to get food themselves instead of sustaining themselves on a single daily handout.

>Kids don't have money to purchase what they need

Again you are underestimating the abilities of kids. They are capable of providing value to others and consequently receiving money or goods that they need.

>parents have a duty to feed, clothe, house etc them.

But this duty is not because their children don't have money. The duty is because they are family. I wouldn't expect a patent to take in every homeless person to their household because they don't have money to purchase what they need.

>Intentionally not providing children what they need, like food, is abuse, period.

I think it's more complex. Parents have power over children and using that power they can restrict what they do and make it impossible for them to acquire what they need. To me this restriction is what is abusive and it would apply to anyone else. If you locked anyone in a room and denied them water, that would be abuse.

> Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.

It’s a lot easier to teach someone when they aren’t starving.

Teaching someone to fish almost certainly requires giving them a fish.

That’s how teaching works. First you do it for them, then you ask them to try and you help them when they falter.

> By giving away food you are getting people stuck in a bad situation. Preventing a reconfiguration of people's lives. A kid could have figured out how to get 3 proper meals a day if they had to figure out how to get food themselves instead of sustaining themselves on a single daily handout.

You realize this is a completely invented statement of faith, right? It has no data or research supporting it.

> >parents have a duty to feed, clothe, house etc them.

> But this duty is not because their children don't have money. The duty is because they are family.

I'd like to live in a society where we extend this duty to the society. It is the parent's duty foremost, but we as a society should see this as our duty as well, at the very least for our children (and let's think of it that way, we are in this together, at least when it comes to our children).

> A kid could have figured out how to get 3 proper meals a day if they had to figure out how to get food themselves instead of sustaining themselves on a single daily handout.

I'm with you as far as the principle of personal responsibility is concerned, we are all better when everyone contributes, and I agree that we should teach our children this principle. However, the whole reason that, even legally, we don't treat kids as adults is that they are not adults, cannot and should not be held to the same standards. Withholding the basic necessities of life is not the way to teach this principle.

It doesn't even work consistently. I'd argue that many of the people that are fraudulently taking advantage of welfare programs are doing so because they were taught, as kids, that society doesn't care about them. So why should they care about us? Why shouldn't they take advantage of whatever they can? I'm not justifying this position, or even saying it is logically sound, but kids are not adults. If withholding school lunches is your method for "teaching responsibility" it is really ineffective.

Just feed the kids. We're not giving them free Xboxes. We're keeping them healthy and alive so that they can learn.