Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Economic and Social Supports

[Mass_SkinsFan]

The idea of REWARDNG people who have children they neither want nor can afford by giving them government money is ridiculous in my mind.

If we want to get this problem under control we need to do it by PUNISHING those who choose to have children that they cannot afford.

[techboy]

Many of us consider ourselves values voters so I simply have to wonder why it is only certain values that should be reflected in our government and not all?

It depends on your perspective on government. If you're a liberal, your perspective (on helping the poor) makes perfect sense. If you're a conservative or libertarian, it does not.

The mistake you are making is to assume that people who oppose big government social programs do so because they don't care about the poor. For some, that's true, but then some liberals might support said programs for less than altruistic reasons as well.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The idea of REWARDNG people who have children they neither want nor can afford by giving them government money is ridiculous in my mind.

If we want to get this problem under control we need to do it by PUNISHING those who choose to have children that they cannot afford.

Well Mass, what you mean by punishing is probably not what I mean by accountability, furthermore the system was designed flawed in that it "rewarded" single mothers and "rewarded" having more children, two things that are the opposite of accountability.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It depends on your perspective on government. If you're a liberal, your perspective (on helping the poor) makes perfect sense. If you're a conservative or libertarian, it does not.

The mistake you are making is to assume that people who oppose big government social programs do so because they don't care about the poor. For some, that's true, but then some liberals might support said programs for less than altruistic reasons as well.

Agreed, here's my reasoning: I would love it if the government programs were not needed in this country, I would love it if the church answered its call to help the poor (as many try), but the reality is that the problem is so big and so widespread that the church (which unfortunately is fractured) is not able to adequately meet the needs of the people, as such if there were no government programs and we simply relied upon the churches then we would simply create a larger problem. I would like to see some way that these government programs could be designed to integrate bodies of faith into being part of the solution, but unfortunately many right now would resist this idea on the basis of Church and State separation. The problem with such a hard distinction is that it does not provide the government with the ability to hand off these programs to non-governmental entities.

The real kicker to all of this is that prior to the Emperor Constantine healthcare (hospitals) orphanages and homes for the elderly were the sole domain of the church, when Constantine came along and the Church merged with the state then these things became part of the State's responsibilities, and then when the church split with the state the state kept those social programs and the church began to exist without them.

History...its not just an elective.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Well Mass, what you mean by punishing is probably not what I mean by accountability, furthermore the system was designed flawed in that it "rewarded" single mothers and "rewarded" having more children, two things that are the opposite of accountability.

I'm talking about a system where those individuals & families who have more children than they can afford lose access to ALL Federal and State aid. If they want to pop these kids out pell mell, they can deal with it, not the state.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm talking about a system where those individuals & families who have more children than they can afford lose access to ALL Federal and State aid. If they want to pop these kids out pell mell, they can deal with it, not the state.

Umm...so I guess you don't see the inherent contradiction in your statement...or maybe you do. Either way, you've created a paradox because on the one hand you say that if families (on the system) have more children than they can afford then they lose all assistance...yet if the families didn't have more children then they could afford then they would have NEVER been on the system to begin with, ergo no need for the system to begin with. :doh:

What's more is your approach is completely child-like in that it ignores the broader issues, circumstances and systems that create the situation to begin with. You simply say...blame the families, as if there are not other factors at play, and that seems either naive or intentionally obtuse.

[DRSmith]

Umm...so I guess you don't see the inherent contradiction in your statement...or maybe you do. Either way, you've created a paradox because on the one hand you say that if families (on the system) have more children than they can afford then they lose all assistance...yet if the families didn't have more children then they could afford then they would have NEVER been on the system to begin with, ergo no need for the system to begin with. :doh:

What's more is your approach is completely child-like in that it ignores the broader issues, circumstances and systems that create the situation to begin with. You simply say...blame the families, as if there are not other factors at play, and that seems either naive or intentionally obtuse.

To prevent this from happening we instead start a system where you need a liscience to to be able to bear children

[AsburySkinsFan]

To prevent this from happening we instead start a system where you need a liscience to to be able to bear children

:doh:

Will the license application include a spelling test?

*I tease.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Umm...so I guess you don't see the inherent contradiction in your statement...or maybe you do. Either way, you've created a paradox because on the one hand you say that if families (on the system) have more children than they can afford then they lose all assistance...yet if the families didn't have more children then they could afford then they would have NEVER been on the system to begin with, ergo no need for the system to begin with.

Who ever said they were already on the system. There's nothing saying that the family/individual had to be on the system to begin with. I'm saying that if Suzie Sweetheart and her husband Bob have a kid they can't afford they lose ACCESS TO ALL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS. Whether they're related to child care, welfare, or anything else. No more government sponsored money or assistance in any form. Even if they weren't on government assistance in any way before hand.

What's more is your approach is completely child-like in that it ignores the broader issues, circumstances and systems that create the situation to begin with. You simply say...blame the families, as if there are not other factors at play, and that seems either naive or intentionally obtuse.

There are no broader issues. They had a kid they can't afford. To use a popular phrase around here.... EPIC FAIL. If you can't afford to have a kid you do what's necessary to ensure you don't get pregnant. It's that simple.

To prevent this from happening we instead start a system where you need a license to to be able to bear children

That is one of the ways to deal with it, definitely.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There are no broader issues. They had a kid they can't afford. To use a popular phrase around here.... EPIC FAIL. If you can't afford to have a kid you do what's necessary to ensure you don't get pregnant. It's that simple.

Yep, either epically naive or intentionally obtuse.

[Koolblue13]

psst...lil' secret just between you and me....we believe that voting in line with our Biblical worldview will actually improve our country.

And some of us believe we live in a country where the government has no bearing on my religious views, nor anybodies religious views having a bearing on me. It's fundamental American values.

What happened to teach a man to fish instead of having a government take $20 from me to give the man a $2 fish?

I got into an argument with a lady at a garlic festival the other day when I asked her who she was voting for. Obama she tells me. The lady was wearing a bring the troops home alive sign and didn't care for me telling her to read up on Barry's plan(troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and then some), nor me telling her where on his web site it was.

Then she tells me how lucky I am to be smart , White and Attractive. I have it good she says. I say I grew up poor, with very little to no family with a lot of tragedy. I am covered in tattoos and have lived in mostly black neighborhoods before as well.

Well, at least you're smart she says, what would you do if you weren't?

Dig Ditches I tell her.

She went onto telling me the government should take care of us because we are not all equal, some are dumb, black, ugly and fat.

Fat? Nobody is born fat I say, that's absurd.

Then she went on to tell me how we are being ignorant for ignoring perfectly good socialism, for an out dated democracy.

How in the hell did so many Americans get away from what makes us so damn great. It is truly sad.

[AsburySkinsFan]

And some of us believe we live in a country where the government has no bearing on my religious views, nor anybodies religious views having a bearing on me. It's fundamental American values.

So your non-religious values should be able to affect me? Sorry but that is inherently hypocritical, because you are allowed to act and vote upon the basis of those things that form your worldview but I for no reason other than my views are religious must set my worldview aside and not vote according to my values.

What happened to teach a man to fish instead of having a government take $20 from me to give the man a $2 fish?

Well, first that's not a passage from the Bible, and second I suggest the following "teach a man to fish and give him a fish so that as he fishes he and his family won't starve".

I got into an argument with a lady at a garlic festival the other day when I asked her who she was voting for. Obama she tells me. The lady was wearing a bring the troops home alive sign and didn't care for me telling her to read up on Barry's plan(troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and then some), nor me telling her where on his web site it was......

Well I'm glad that you're basing your opinion off someone who is illogical and misinformed, but doesn't she simply prove the point that we aren't even teaching people how to fish well in this country?

[The Sisko]

Well Mass, what you mean by punishing is probably not what I mean by accountability, furthermore the system was designed flawed in that it "rewarded" single mothers and "rewarded" having more children, two things that are the opposite of accountability.

:troll:

[Special K]

It's also possible to be pro-life and believe that the poor and disadvantaged are not best served by big government social programs.

Let's not paint with too broad a brush.

I was too lazy to write and wasn't going to post in this thread, but then I saw this post and it is exactly what I wanted to say. Good job techboy!

[Special K]

To prevent this from happening we instead start a system where you need a liscience to to be able to bear children

Kinda like communist China. I hear their program works stellar over there.

[Koolblue13]

So your non-religious values should be able to affect me? Sorry but that is inherently hypocritical, because you are allowed to act and vote upon the basis of those things that form your worldview but I for no reason other than my views are religious must set my worldview aside and not vote according to my values.

Who knows if my values are religious? I haven't brought them up. Know why? They have no bearing a conversation about the government we the people created to handle those things outside of our daily lives we can not control.

Well, first that's not a passage from the Bible, and second I suggest the following "teach a man to fish and give him a fish so that as he fishes he and his family won't starve".

We give out plenty of fish and the hungry line doesn't get shorter.

Well I'm glad that you're basing your opinion off someone who is illogical and misinformed, but doesn't she simply prove the point that we aren't even teaching people how to fish well in this country?

I'm basing my opinion off all sorts of different things. I just felt the loon at the festival was a bit of a personification of what I have been hearing in general lately.

[Koolblue13]

Kinda like communist China. I hear their program works stellar over there.

People bash Chili and Chavez for being a crazed socialist state, while he gets 80% approval ratings from his people and we have folks now asking for socialism to save us from ourselves.

Boggles the mind.

[The Sisko]

It depends on your perspective on government. If you're a liberal, your perspective (on helping the poor) makes perfect sense. If you're a conservative or libertarian, it does not.

The mistake you are making is to assume that people who oppose big government social programs do so because they don't care about the poor. For some, that's true, but then some liberals might support said programs for less than altruistic reasons as well.

Asbury is correct that there's a disconnect between how evangelicals look at government's role in some areas vs others. So some evangelicals will argue fervently against abortion and yet support capital punishment. Likewise, many will argue for the compassionate ideals of Christianity and yet will balk at supporting public programs that help the poor.

Quite frankly, I'd challenge many of you to answer the WWJD question on many of these issues. If you're honest, you'll find that your personal beliefs don't always jibe with your faith. Unfortunately, that makes the religious justifications for some of your positions hypocritical if you're willing to ignore what your faith says with regard to other issues like say, raising your taxes to help the poor or satisfying the urge to avenge murder etc.

Once again though, this is a case where I think our being herded into strictly defined left vs. right camps does us all a disservice. Clearly helping the poor without creating dependence or a sense of entitlement is the common sense way to approach the problem. However, because most of us are so sold on the consensus liberal vs. conservative ways of problem solving, we end up painted into ideological corners that aren't always consistent with our overarching belief system and/or that just aren't effective.

At the end of the day I'm a big believer in practicality-do what works and discard what doesn't.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Who knows if my values are religious? I haven't brought them up. Know why? They have no bearing a conversation about the government we the people created to handle those things outside of our daily lives we can not control.

Your values whether religious or not have just as much bearing here as mine do, why? Because, I'm a citizen, voter and tax payer just like you, and our values steer our beliefs and as such direct the way we vote, and the causes that we advocate, thus our values direct the government for the pure and simple fact that our government does not act independantly of the citizenry; i.e. you and me. If you want the government to act independantly of your opinion that's fine, but don't ask me to do the same.

We give out plenty of fish and the hungry line doesn't get shorter.

That's because we've been doing a terrible job of teaching them to fish.

I'm basing my opinion off all sorts of different things. I just felt the loon at the festival was a bit of a personification of what I have been hearing in general lately.

I know what you were doing, but it simply proves what I just said in that if "she" is the personification of what you keep hearing then we are seeing the direct evidence of the fact that while we are good at handing out fish we have not done a good job of teaching how to fish, nor empowering/encouraging people to move from the fish line to the fishing pond. The solution will not come in an "either or" response but instead a "both and".

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well said Yusuf06.

[The Sisko]

The really interesting thing to me about our staunch support for a strict capitalist approach to things is that we spend a heck of a lot of money on corporate welfare but nobody seems to have a problem with that. Could it be that we all know the companies we work for are recipients of said welfare and hence don't have a problem with welfare when it benefits US? Nah, that couldn't be it.

And for comparison's sake we're talking about $92 billion for corporate welfare vs. $28.5 billion for TANF. It's justified though because those golden parachutes and tax lawyers to avoid corporate taxes don't come cheap. Yeah, that's the compassion Jesus believed in-help the wealthy and let the poor fend for themselves.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230

The federal government spent $92 billion in direct and indirect subsidies to businesses and private- sector corporate entities — expenditures commonly referred to as "corporate welfare" — in fiscal year 2006.

Oops, there I go with my facts and figures again. I probably just ended another thread. Sorry 'bout that.

[Koolblue13]

ASF, your view is equal to mine, that's fair and understood. Use your church's teachings to make your decisions about who to vote for and I'll use the core values I've come up with myself. That is what it's about. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Yusuf, If I ever make it to GA, I would love to have a beer with you. One of the best posters on this board. (despite my rarely agreeing with you)

[AsburySkinsFan]

The really interesting thing to me about our staunch support for a strict capitalist approach to things is that we spend a heck of a lot of money on corporate welfare but nobody seems to have a problem with that. Could it be that we all know the companies we work for are recipients of said welfare and hence don't have a problem with welfare when it benefits US? Nah, that couldn't be it.

And for comparison's sake we're talking about $92 billion for corporate welfare vs. $28.5 billion for TANF. It's justified though because those golden parachutes and tax lawyers to avoid corporate taxes don't come cheap. Yeah, that's the compassion Jesus believed in-help the wealthy and let the poor fend for themselves.

I think those people forget who the real poor are.....

Ezekiel 22:29 The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery; they have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the alien without redress.

Amos 5:11 Therefore because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine.

[AsburySkinsFan]

ASF, your view is equal to mine, that's fair and understood. Use your church's teachings to make your decisions about who to vote for and I'll use the core values I've come up with myself. That is what it's about. I wouldn't have it any other way.

Agreed, and I wouldn't want it any other way either.

And I'd be happy to share a beer with both of you...well maybe a glass of wine.

[Koolblue13]

I think those people forget who the real poor are.....

Ezekiel 22:29 The people of the land have practiced extortion and committed robbery; they have oppressed the poor and needy, and have extorted from the alien without redress.

Amos 5:11 Therefore because you trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain, you have built houses of hewn stone, but you shall not live in them; you have planted pleasant vineyards, but you shall not drink their wine.

Who is doing the taking? We are talking about abortion correct?

Unless raped, you earned it. If we are talking about money, the only money you HAVE to give up is for taxes, that's it. Everything else is your own doing. Nobody is being oppressed.