Jerry and I went far afield in the Good Jobs post. So I am going to keep it going here.
As I said...
"You are happy to encourage big government to get between this woman and her doctor to prevent an abortion. And yet after the baby is born you are against government ensuring that the baby is kept safe, healthy, fed and educated..."
Continually you blame the Public Schools and the Social System for being responsible for the achievement and wealth gaps when in my view the Religious Conservatives are equally or more responsible. Continually Religious Conservatives fight against making birth control and emergency contraception cheap and readily available to girls and women of child bearing age. (ie not to mention early term abortions)
All because of the Religious values argument. When for the good of our society these methods should be free and readily available so that as few children as possible are born into households that are not wanting or ready for them.
And then after fighting inexpensive steps that could help prevent these unwanted births, the Pure Religious folks espouse that "the babies are not their responsibility" and that the irresponsible, sinful, immature, often poor and/or stupid Parents should be responsible. All the while somehow preaching that these irresponsible, sinful, immature, often poor and/or stupid Parents can do right by their children.
In fact often stating that these irresponsible, sinful, immature, often poor and/or stupid Parents "know better what is right for their kids than the trained Social Workers, Early Ed professionals and K-12 teachers."
I'll never understand how Conservatives rationalize their views... Either one values and takes responsibility for the life of a baby or they don't. Ensuring the baby is born and then turning ones back on it has to be one of the least Christian things I can think of...
It is kind of like ensuring the baby is safely in it's car seat, before you let the very drunken Father drive off with it... It makes no sense. Thoughts?
As I said...
"You are happy to encourage big government to get between this woman and her doctor to prevent an abortion. And yet after the baby is born you are against government ensuring that the baby is kept safe, healthy, fed and educated..."
Continually you blame the Public Schools and the Social System for being responsible for the achievement and wealth gaps when in my view the Religious Conservatives are equally or more responsible. Continually Religious Conservatives fight against making birth control and emergency contraception cheap and readily available to girls and women of child bearing age. (ie not to mention early term abortions)
All because of the Religious values argument. When for the good of our society these methods should be free and readily available so that as few children as possible are born into households that are not wanting or ready for them.
And then after fighting inexpensive steps that could help prevent these unwanted births, the Pure Religious folks espouse that "the babies are not their responsibility" and that the irresponsible, sinful, immature, often poor and/or stupid Parents should be responsible. All the while somehow preaching that these irresponsible, sinful, immature, often poor and/or stupid Parents can do right by their children.
In fact often stating that these irresponsible, sinful, immature, often poor and/or stupid Parents "know better what is right for their kids than the trained Social Workers, Early Ed professionals and K-12 teachers."
I'll never understand how Conservatives rationalize their views... Either one values and takes responsibility for the life of a baby or they don't. Ensuring the baby is born and then turning ones back on it has to be one of the least Christian things I can think of...
It is kind of like ensuring the baby is safely in it's car seat, before you let the very drunken Father drive off with it... It makes no sense. Thoughts?
17 comments:
And then to make it worse...
Then yelling at the police officer when he pulls over the Father... And blaming him for the baby being at risk... Or telling the officer that the Father knows what is best for his child...
I still like my plan where the trained professional Teachers get to grade the Parents... Just like the police get to pull over the father...
"When for the good of our society these methods should be free and readily available..."
Ah, yes. And we should also provide free food, clothing, shelter and HDTVs. TANSTAAFL.
The next thing you will be proposing is that we order forced sterilization of the "undesirables" among us.
You assume that everyone on welfare is poor, uneducated, immoral and probably black. I prefer to see people as individuals of innate human worth who, even if they have made mistakes, need to be treated with dignity and compassion. Government simply cannot do that; only people can. Now, if we restored welfare to a temporary aid system during which social workers helped each individual "family" out of their mess (and towards self-sufficiency), we would solve the problem over time. What you're suggesting has the same compassion level as just shooting them.
And I don't see how you can blame the Religious Right for anything. Abortion is readily available. Contraceptives are readily available and mandated "free" by Obamacare. Welfare checks are handed out willy-nilly, without placing any responsibility on the parents. Public education is free.
Do you believe it is remotely possible that having government reward irresponsible behavior begets more of it? And that asking people to be responsible, as the RR does, is somehow to blame for... what, being ineffective?
Helping to prevent people from creating unwanted babies seems quite a bit more proactive, pragmatic and cost effective than paying for that free food, clothing, shelter, medical care, HDTV's, jail time, etc later when millions of unwanted children have been propagated.
Now that is quite a leap... Free birth control to "forced sterilation'. Do you wear a red cape when you fly that far? :-)
Now I assume you are kidding... "Abortion is readily available. Contraceptives are readily available and mandated "free" by Obamacare.
The Religious Right has been doing everything they can to make it hard for the irresponsible, sinful, immature, often poor and/or stupid from getting these services. In fact you were just praising Ohio's defunding of Planned Parenthood.
Finally I don't care about race or wealth... Poor Parents can be from any race or wealth category... However often it is easier for wealthy folks to pay for their mistakes with cash. "irresponsible, sinful, immature, often poor and/or stupid".
Now we know that free LARC would be a bargain for our society and tax payers, yet the Religious Right keeps putting their inconsistent values ahead of the good of our country.
Instead of being proactive, reducing the problem and preventing the unwanted children costs, they prefer to sit back, preach abstinence, look down on the sinners, ignore the cost to these kids and our society and complain that the government is failing these kids..
Silly Religious Conservatives.
So, all of society's problems are due to "unwanted children"? "Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset; We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get." That goes back to the idea that poor black kids can't learn and will never amount to anything, so just give them a check and let them continue the cycle. I thought welfare, free education and housing and childcare, etc., etc. was supposed to BREAK the cycle of poverty? If not, why are we spending so much on it?
You can offer these women all the free contraception you want, but since they are by your description irresponsible they won't take it. So your choice is to force them. Then, after they make that "mistake," you want to do nothing to redeem the situation except take the kids away, or wait until they fall into crime or destitution. What you have here is a serious case of resources out of place, and rather than try to "fix" these resources and make them useful, you want to buy more of them. Blame the RR all you want, but they aren't the ones promoting irresponsible behavior by subsidizing it.
Some Exchanges form MP along these lines.
"Hmm. Last I checked, should I opt for the big v, my insurance will cover it. There some other method I'm unfamiliar with?" Matt
"Tubes Tied: I am pretty sure a tubal-ligation was covered previously also. So?
What I am amazed by is that women feel so strongly about this. They pay for temporary birth control out of pocket or they pay more in insurance premiums so that they can have the insurance company pay for it. What is the big deal?
I have a wife and 3 daughters , so I am pretty sure I am paying a lot for birth control via premiums...
I am personally indifferent to this topic, however I find it fascinating. I keep trying to think of other medicines that insurance covers to stop a body from performing in a healthy and normal manner? (ie monthly cycle)
I mean if people want to protest, how about we work to mandate that healthcare coverage covers dental and eye sight issues... Now those are some big costs..." G2A
"Heard of steroids? Or pretty much any pain med ever invented? (You do understand that pain and inflammation are the bodies natural response to injury, right?) Of course, since the intent of opinions such as Lewis's have next to nothing to do with actual practical medical concerns, but rather with conservative social and moral engineering, the point is moot." Matt
"Pain: I think the word "pain" says it all. I don't think pain is an acceptable natural state. Also, most pain killers are over the counter now and paid for directly by the consumer.
Ironically I just posted a similar view on Tuesday... Though I question how you know Jason's intent?
I could just as easily determine that the pro-free birth control folks here are performing "social and moral engineering'. Soon our society will be a bunch of free love non-monogamous people end up broke in single parent households. Oops, maybe we are too late. :-)Single Parent Graph
"Hmm. Somewhat of a leap between insurance coverage of birth control and a 60's style orgiastic free for all, but thanks for illustrating the inanity of the conservative position here. BTW pain is what keeps you from doing more damage to yourself, it is no less "natural" than anything else, and last I checked there are whole classes of pain medications, opioids being the most obvious, that are neither going over the counter any time soon nor barred from insurance coverage for spurious religious reasons. There simply is no argument to be made against the coverage for birth control that doesn't rest solely on an authoritative, pearl-clutching, moral basis. Much like same-sex marriage, conservatism has no leg to stand on here. Finally, as to intent, I believe there are several years worth of bloviating, much of it recorded, that can be used to judge intent for the "celebrity" in question. Such are the pitfalls of broadcasting one's opinions for public consumption, and personal profit." Matt
"Inanity: "lack of sense, significance, or ideas; silliness"
I enjoy being in the middle and watching this from both sides. You accuse the Conservatives of social and moral engineering while the Liberals promote increased taxation, welfare, birth control, abortion, etc. All of which have made HUGE changes in our culture and society over the past 50 years. And as my link shows, not necessarily all for the better.
It is kind of like listening to the pot call the kettle black." G2A
"Only If one subscribes to the belief that movement in the direction you purport is deviation from what "should be". I look on with disbelief as those who actually hold views that closely align with one side or another haughtily claim the "middle" as a means of distancing their "pure and righteous" motivations from the sullying of association with the dirty partisans they perceive all others to be." Matt
"The Middle. That first sentence still has me scratching my head. So Liberals believe we should have more welfare, birth control, sexual freedom and abortion availability. And these have increased greatly over the past 50 years, as has the number of single parent households and the challenges associated with only having one parent in the house. Is this as you think it "should be"?
As for the middle, as long as Liberals call me a Conservative and Conservatives call me a Liberal, I am pretty sure I am close to center. The fact that Romney, Jeb Bush, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are the candidates I have been drawn to also supports that.
Personally, I think birth control, emergency contraception and first term abortions should be CHEAP and readily available. However I think that if a woman who is already on welfare bears a child, the government should require that the Mother / Family give it up for adoption. If you can not afford to raise the child responsibly, they should not be having more than one...
If you truly want to stop generational poverty, ensure children have what they need to be successful and to close the achievement gap... This radical concept makes sense." G2A
"Forced adoption for the poor. Yep, right down the middle there. How's about we deal with the backlog in kids waiting for adoption first before we start breaking up families whose lifestyles we find objectionable, ok? OR we focus on eliminating poverty, you know, the cause (not the effect) of all these social ills you find so disagreeable. Oops, that might involve someone getting something conservatives think they don't deserve, so there you go." Matt
"Causation
Matt, You are correct that I disapprove of people who have more children than they are mature enough to raise responsibly and that they can afford to feed and care for through their own efforts. Do you approve of people who have babies they are unprepared to care for and raise responsibly?
The fastest way to eliminate poverty is to eliminate single Parent households. Trying to raise a child(ren) well and pay the bills would be very difficult for most people. It is hard enough with 2 mature cooperating adults in the household.
American citizens go to great lengths to adopt infants. I don't think finding a good home for them would be too hard.
As for giving money to people to "eliminate poverty", many many lottery winners and millions of welfare recipients have proven that it mostly does not work." G2A
"Hatred for the poor. Again, right down the middle, it seems. 1. Other people's procreation and marriage habits are none of my, or yours business. I am not an authoritarian. That some may collect welfare is irrelevant, as welfare is not and should not be a conditional "wage". Welfare is provided by society so that society needn't suffer the consequences of unmitigated poverty, it has no other higher or lower moral purpose. If you choose to remain a part of society, a citizen, the taxes you pay for all aspects of societal maintenance, welfare included are not yours to administer, they are societies, and society has seen fit to support the needs of the poor you despise, whether you care for it or not." Matt
"Summary. So society has no responsibility to stop Parents from having more children than they can effectively raise, and yet society has a responsibility to take money from other families to subsidize the choices of those Parents. Is this what you are saying?
By the way I do not hate poor people, it is actually that I love children and want them to be raised by responsible, mature, self disciplined Parents who can afford to provide them what they need to be successful in life. In this way they are far less likely to fail in school and become poor people themselves.
I do agree with you that being poor does make it harder to succeed. (ie it is a cause sometimes) Unfortunately it more often an effect. If one squanders their 13 years of free education and/or becomes a single parent at an early age, the effect is that you will likely be poor. And worse yet, if you don't value education and are poor it is likely you will continue the cycle with your children." G2A
As for Jerry's comment that I missed until now.
"So, all of society's problems are due to "unwanted children"? "Gee, Officer Krupke, we're very upset; We never had the love that ev'ry child oughta get." That goes back to the idea that poor black kids can't learn and will never amount to anything, so just give them a check and let them continue the cycle. I thought welfare, free education and housing and childcare, etc., etc. was supposed to BREAK the cycle of poverty? If not, why are we spending so much on it?
You can offer these women all the free contraception you want, but since they are by your description irresponsible they won't take it. So your choice is to force them. Then, after they make that "mistake," you want to do nothing to redeem the situation except take the kids away, or wait until they fall into crime or destitution. What you have here is a serious case of resources out of place, and rather than try to "fix" these resources and make them useful, you want to buy more of them. Blame the RR all you want, but they aren't the ones promoting irresponsible behavior by subsidizing it."
I agree... Giving people free stuff will never end poverty. Just like winning the lottery does not mean one will stay wealthy. What is your point?
Why are we spending so much on it? Because it makes people like Laurie and Matt feel better and less guilty.
For the good of society and the safety/ betterment of our citizens we pay for guard rails and other safety devices to protect us from our poor behaviors. We pay for police and a war on drugs to protect us from our poor behaviors. We expend money to prevent people from committing suicide. We expend money to protect people from being taken to the cleaners via fraud/ personal greed.
The RR's choice to try and stop ensuring the right guards are readily available make them just as responsible as if they were trying to remove the guard rails on a sharp curve where people like to drive fast. They may not be encouraging the behavior, yet they are doing nothing to help prevent the deaths and ruined lives.
As for the "irresponsible women/men won't use the protection" comment.
As noted in Whale Done, do you know how to train a killer whale to jump over a stick?
The trick is to start with the stick on the bottom of the pool... You make it so easy for them to succeed that failure is nearly impossible.
Currently people need to pay and expend effort to do the responsible thing, and many of them have little or no money so this encourages them to take the risk... You don't need to force anyone, you just make it so simple and inexpensive that it is easier to do it than to not.
Matt and I continue...
"In short yes. Your problem is addressing the situation from an individualistic perspective. Society "should" care not about the dynamics of individual family units, that has, and always has been the "conservative" perspective, no? Why should it be different when you question what your tax dollars are spent on. The goal of welfare is to ameliorate the societal effects of poverty, things like crime rate, public health, and safety. If your goal is to make others conform to your view of the proper lifestyle you are engaging in social engineering, full stop.
I notice you carefully word your governmental abduction plan to only include infants of the already poor, does your concern for children have an age limit? What of older kids, what of the children of those who become poor through life circumstance after being wealthier earlier? What if those who while married, still cannot provide your "proper" upbringing for their children? Surely you can grasp the further implications of your idea. Even liberal old me can understand the problems inherent in trying to legislate away behavior." Matt
"Told you so. I keep trying to tell you that I am not a Conservative... Oh well..
"The goal of welfare is to ameliorate the societal effects of poverty, things like crime rate, public health, and safety." Remember that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Your quote/goal sounds excellent however history is showing that the unintended consequences of the cure are likely worse than the initial malady.
People are able to make irresponsible decisions and transfer the cost directly to society. Be it the baby Daddy who spread his seed and does not pay child support. Be it the family who does not take education seriously and/or drops out and is unable to support themselves. Be it the girl who likes babies and their unconditional love, yet can not afford to feed them. And why struggle to keep a marriage together when Uncle Sam is there to help cover the expenses of the separated family.
The reality is that welfare is "social engineering". It in essence forces people who behave one way to give to "charity", and that money is used to mitigate the consequences of people who choose to behave a different way. It is like a fine that is applied to 2 Parent Households where the Parents have studied hard, had only the number of children they can afford, made good choices, gotten a job, etc.
I am using newborns in the example because that is direct result of having poorly protected sex, not using emergency contraception or having a first trimester abortion. And if you are on welfare already you should have done one of the above differently or you should be ready for the consequence.
As for legislating behavior, personally I don't care if people are sex addicts with a trail of partners. I just don't want children in homes where the adults can not afford to feed them and/or are too immature, irresponsible, incapable to raise them as they deserve. Just think of all the unlucky kids out there who show up at kindergarten way behind their peers in the areas of cognitive, knowledge, social, behavioral, physical skills, etc. This is not because their Parent was financially poor, it is because those Parents were irresponsible or incapable." G2A
I disagree with your analogy. We don't put guard rails on dangerous curves because people will CHOOSE to drive over the cliff without them. We put up guard rails to put them back on the right track if they make a mistake. And before that we put up a general speed limit sign, and then a specific curve warning sign with a recommended speed for that. People who ignore those laws and guidelines run the risk of severe car damage for which they become responsible. If you don't see that analogy applying to welfare, I'll spell it out for you.
You are correct, that all that is needed to improve the poverty situation is to make it easier to get out than to stay in. Right now it is harder to get out, thanks largely to the (can we say failed) efforts of government. Government's first duty is to protect us from others who would do us harm. But who protects us from the harm government does to all sides, when they take from millions of taxpayers to keep millions of non-taxpayers in poverty?
No I was talking about ensuring that birth control is free and readily available.
Just like people are going to drive around curves too fast at times, people are going to have sex... To deny that and not supporting and funding the correct protections is irresponsible silliness.
Worse yet, that once of prevention the RR folks choose to fight against could save our society a fortune in welfare, special ed costs, prison costs, etc.
As for... "to improve the poverty situation is to make it easier to get out than to stay in"
Once an under educated young woman becomes the Mother of one or more children, I don't see her escaping poverty for quite awhile... Unless she finds a supportive successful partner, gets a lot of education and childcare financial assistance, or her Parent's bail her out. So it is most cost effective to keep her from getting pregnant in the first place. Or to help her with emergency contraception or 1st tri abortion if she wants it.
"Just like people are going to drive around curves too fast at times, people are going to have sex."
Exactly. So you want to insist that they be given, and take, birth control. So what if they don't, or it fails? Just because we put gaurd rails on the road doesn't mean people will never drive through them, disregarding both law and sound advice. Do we not bother to take them to the hospital, or let (insurance, presumably) pay to have their car fixed? If, even after all our "advice" and maybe even laws the young woman makes a "mistake," do we just give up on her and the child rather than trying to fix what we know is a difficult situation?
"Unless she finds a supportive successful partner, gets a lot of education and childcare financial assistance, or her Parent's bail her out." What's wrong with that? The question is just who "provides" it, and how. All I'm suggesting is that our government "system" passes laws and gives "advice" (or allows it to be given by those terrible RR moralists) and then offers individualized assistance when they fail, to get each of them "over the stick" and break the poverty cycle. Sure, it's more cost effective to prevent the "irresponsible" behavior, but is cost-effectiveness the way we want to deal with real human beings?
Sorry. The RR seems better at preaching than helping...
Sorry. Our government seems incapable of either.
Post a Comment