NPR Iowa Bans Most Abortions As Governor Signs 'Heartbeat' Bill
What fascinates me is that the folks who fight against:
are the first ones to want to place the government between a woman and her doctor.
These same people who are concerned that the fetus is delivered often seem to be the first ones to turn their backs on the baby once it is born.
For more on my less than popular views.
This another FB follow up. I don't what is happening lately but the pro-lifers are bombarding FB with this type of stuff. No solutions on how to help:
Just joy at using government to force the unprepared and/or incapable mother to bring them into this world.
What fascinates me is that the folks who fight against:
- government intervention in their lives
- thorough sex education in school
- making quality birth control free
- ensuring father / mother are capable
- funding parent education
- funding early childhood education
- funding child welfare funding
are the first ones to want to place the government between a woman and her doctor.
These same people who are concerned that the fetus is delivered often seem to be the first ones to turn their backs on the baby once it is born.
For more on my less than popular views.
This another FB follow up. I don't what is happening lately but the pro-lifers are bombarding FB with this type of stuff. No solutions on how to help:
- help prevent these unwanted pregnancies
- help these unwanted impoverished babies when they are born
Just joy at using government to force the unprepared and/or incapable mother to bring them into this world.
13 comments:
Jerry and I just started arguing the NY law over here.
It seems to me that Iowa is fighting to see how far Right the SCOTUS has moved.
Roe v Wade
According to the framework, in the first trimester (the first three months of the pregnancy), a woman’s right to privacy surrounding the choice to have an abortion outweighed a state’s interests in regulating this decision. In the first trimester, having an abortion does not pose a grave danger to the life and health of the mother, and the fetus is still undeveloped. The state’s interests are not yet compelling, so it cannot interfere with a woman’s right to privacy by regulating or prohibiting her from having an abortion during the first trimester. During the second trimester, the state’s interests become more compelling as the danger of complications increases and the fetus becomes more developed. During this stage, it may regulate, but not prohibit abortions, as long as the regulations are aimed at protecting the health of the mother. During the third trimester, the danger to the woman’s health becomes the greatest and fetal development nears completion. In the final trimester the state’s interests in protecting the health of the mother and in protecting the life of the fetus become their most compelling. The state may regulate or even prohibit abortions during this stage, as long as there is an exception for abortions necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.
For your consideration:
Abortion Facts and Data
So, you prefer to have government FORCE parents to be capable, etc., or to NOT have children, or to "want" the children they have? And to force taxpayers to subsidize those who, quite naturally, will break these laws?
What I want is to eliminate child poverty, child abuse and child neglect.
Neglect and Abuse Facts
Child Poverty by State
Child Poverty - National
Do you have any new ideas? Other than vouchers...
I know. Let us have the federal government declare a "War on Poverty," wait 50 years and see if the results were worth the money spent. If not, we should switch over to some system-- call it a hybrid if you want-- which uses funding from government but a methodology from private charity. Basically all carrots, allowing that some will still refuse.
If anyone wants more info regard Jerry's dream system, please feel free to read the comments over here.
In summary, it requires a lot of super social workers to work with poor folk to turn their lives around. And the Social Worker has the power to deny benefits to those who do not meet some undefined requirements. And we are not quite sure what happens to the kids at that time. There are a few details to be worked out... :-)
Your objections are theoretical, just like your solutions. What I am suggesting is that we treat people like human beings and offer them the opportunity to learn, grow and become productive members of society who care for their children. That sounds like human nature, whereas you seem to want to thwart it through the force of government. I KNOW this approach works because I have seen it many times, where private charity, given the means, can turn an individual life around with individual human caring. If government KNEW how to solve this problem, surely in 50 years they would have done it. Something in the opposite direction needs to be done.
As you know, I support many charities and believe in them. They do a good job with people who want to change and grow, just as the government does. The question is what to do with those people who are change resistant and their children???
The easiest steps are:
- to ensure every teenager receives a thorough sex education
- to ensure every sexually active person has easy free access to reliable birth control
And yet... You resist something so simple, logical and proactive.
I still believe you have a rather dark view of your fellow human beings. People who are unhappy with poverty and welfare WANT to change but the "system" does not make it easy. Those slim FEW who are happy in their freeloading lifestyle will reject the opportunities offered them, and suffer the consequences. If they can manage without the help, which in my experience is a substantial number of them, no problem.
Actually I have great faith in the efforts and caring of our current social workers.
Please remember that they succeed with tens of millions of cases. Unfortunately that still means there are millions of people who are not ready to try.
I repeat the axiom that good people in a bad system produce bad results. I have nothing but praise for our current crop of social workers, but I have much more faith in our charitable institutions and THEIR people. It's just a different and better system, but with far fewer resources. I propose combining the attitudes and system of the latter with the resources of the former. Why is that so difficult to grasp?
The fault is NOT in those "not ready to try." It is in those not willing to give them the chance.
Some things just are not easily scalable. And you still have not told me what you are going to do with those people who fail to perform to your satisfaction? And their children?
Post a Comment