From Here
However we have thousands of case studies of what happens when charity is poorly implemented... Even if the intent is very good. It can cause:
Feeding the Needy Causes Problems
Religious Right to Feed the Needy
Robs Parents of Opportunity to Teach Their Young
Children Understand
The Needy Unite
It Makes Me Feel Good
Should We Feed Them
"If only all citizens could be as intelligent, hardworking, and moral as you and your family members, but I don't see that happening so I am going to keep voting for liberals who will fund programs to alleviate poverty at least a little." Laurie
"Alleviating their immediate suffering is okay, unless it enables / encourages them to grow the impoverished population through poorly raising many many unlucky children. If your efforts to alleviate the short term discomfort leads to millions of additional dependent poor people. Did you do good or support hopelessness?
By the way, though I do disagree with "your keep buying them fish" policies. I truly do respect your chosen profession and your good intent." G2A
"I was going to post a link regarding how much safety net programs reduce poverty, but decided it was a waste of time. You guys keep repeating that these programs don't work because they haven't eliminated poverty. It would be interesting to me if you could talk to the many families at my school that receive subsidized food, housing, and healthcare. Maybe you could explain to the kids how these programs should be eliminated because they don't work. You could reassure them that there are homeless shelters and soup kitchens available to make sure they have a place to eat and sleep (and if these places are full there is usually space available in a church basement.)Now I understand Laurie's desire to feed the needy. I mean it makes us feel less guilty, sometimes happier, it helps the recipient in the short term, etc. I mean I understand this as well as anyone... I operate a blog named "Give2Attain" and give to a dozen or so charities in our community.
From my perspective these welfare programs work quite well. I believe they even reduce the poverty rate (as well as the depth of poverty experienced by families.)" Laurie
However we have thousands of case studies of what happens when charity is poorly implemented... Even if the intent is very good. It can cause:
- Over population
- Dependency
- Loss of life skills
- Children to learn bad behaviors
- Promote unhealthy diets and obesity
- Recipients to fight for more
Feeding the Needy Causes Problems
Religious Right to Feed the Needy
Robs Parents of Opportunity to Teach Their Young
Children Understand
The Needy Unite
It Makes Me Feel Good
Should We Feed Them
72 comments:
I clicked a couple of your links. I find comparing low income people to animals offensive. It seems likely that this is another topic where no insights will be made or opinions changed by considering a different perspective.
I already responded on the earlier thread, but I see there is more work to do on the subject, here. You said, "Now I understand Laurie's desire to feed the needy."
That is incorrect. Voting for liberals does not feed a single person. And if somebody DOES get fed, it is because someone that most likely did NOT vote for that liberal is paying taxes to cover the over-inflated cost. I desire to feed the needy more than a liberal does, because I actually go out and DO it. I don't demand that other people cough up money to the government to "let George do it."
Now try to swallow that judgmental view and answer me this very pragmatic question...
Especially for the non-religious, humans are just highly evolved animals. What is your rationale for believing that humans will respond differently to free food, lodging, etc than other very rational animal?
If you give humans food, shelter and healthcare via a check from the government with few or no behavioral expectations attached. How is this different from putting out a bird feeder?
Now I agree that some humans will strive for more, however there are others who will think they got to "retire real early" on an okay pension. And worse yet, they will model this method of living in front of their children.
I liked this quote the best...
"Animals, like humans, will take the easy way out. So if you feed them, they'll take the easy handout instead of working hard to survive. This is a problem, because when the animals aren't self-sufficient, when mother animals can't teach baby animals the ways to get their own food in the wild, these wild animals are screwed if you stop feeding them. It'd be like if the grocery store went away, and you had to forage in the forest for your dinner. Not going to end well."
Jerry,
That depends on the person, I am sure many Liber people do both. To me this is all about leveraging one's efforts.
Back when I started this blog I was lobbying to get a school referendum passed. Though I gave a fair amount each year, it made much more sense to donate $400 and some blogging time to ensure the school district received millions of more dollars each year.
I am fine with Laurie and others feeding the poor from the public trough. I think they mean well.
I am not okay with them denying the pain, suffering, reduction of hope and de-humanization they are causing for generation after generation.
I mean Laurie's response is so typical.
"I find comparing low income people to animals offensive"
Yet they continue to enable these people like an Owner who provides food and water to a male and female gerbil in a cage. Then they wonder why they have 1000's of gerbils in the cage after a few years.
To me I can think of nothing crueler. And worse yet, then they defend the status quo public education systems who are failing the unlucky kids who have true "gerbils" for parents.
Who cares more? Is it the person who gives of their time and money to help the poor survive, well we try to help them better their situation so they do not need us anymore? Or is it the person who adjusts their halo in the voting booth knowing that "uncle George" is going to take money away from everybody and give it to the people they think deserve it, just for being poor, and because heaven knows those poor folks can't help themselves?
I am not sure one can say "who cares more"? I think they can both care equally and have different beliefs regarding how to have the greatest impact.
I mean I am certain that Laurie cares as much as any of us, however I think she just finds it hard to say no to a family/person who is doing stupid things. (ie too many kids, drugs, lazy, etc) Even if reducing the negative consequence of their poor decision sets them and their children up for making more poor decisions.
DS Obama Admits Welfare can Cause Dependency
Norway Study: Welfare Increases Dependency
Wiki Welfare Culture
Wiki Cycle of Poverty
Get a Job? Most Welfare Recipients Already Have One
From the article.
"It’s poor-paying jobs, not unemployment, that strains the welfare system.
That’s one key finding from a study by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, that showed the majority of households receiving government assistance are headed by a working adult.
The study found that 56% of federal and state dollars spent between 2009 and 2011 on welfare programs — including Medicaid, food stamps and the Earned Income Tax Credit — flowed to working families and individuals with jobs. In some industries, about half the workforce relies on welfare."
From the study report:
"To calculate the cost to state governments of public assistance programs for working families (defined as having at least one family member who works 27 or more weeks per year and 10 or more hours per week), we mainly rely on two sources of data: the March Supplement of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data from the Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, EITC, and food stamp programs."
Okay let's say that this is actually good news. 56% of the money is going to people who work some. And by the way EITC is there to help motivate people to work.
Wiki EITC
Where is the other 44% going?
And could this apply in general to all US programs? Meaning that:
~$560,000,000/yr is going to help poor academics and single mom's who at least are willing to work.
does this mean that
~440,000,000 is going to ????
By the way, I missed 3 zeros... It is in Billions.
And could this apply in general to all US programs? Meaning that:
~$560,000,000,000/yr is going to help poor academics and single mom's who at least are willing to work.
does this mean that
~$440,000,000,000 is going to ????
Here is the take from a wapo journalist on the same study:
When work isn’t enough to keep you off welfare and food stamps
the last paragraph is very fitting as John has already made this point with his comment:
"This data may be its own Rorschach test: Maybe you look at it and see not the third of families on welfare who work, but the two-thirds who don't for various reasons. But the important point here is that it is quite possible to work hard in this country and still need help buying dinner — a fact that says more about the nature of work in America than a shortage of work ethic."
more fun facts;
"SNAP eligibility rules require that participants be at or below 130% of the Federal Poverty Level. Recent studies show that 44% of all SNAP participants are children (age 18 or younger), with almost two-thirds of SNAP children living in single-parent households. In total, 76% of SNAP benefits go towards households with children, 11.9% go to households with disabled persons, and 10% go to households with senior citizens."
WP Link
72% Unmarried
"Sitting in Carroll's waiting room, Sherhonda Mouton watches all the babies with the tender expression of a first-time mother, even though she's about to have her fourth child. Inside her purse is a datebook containing a handwritten ode to her children, titled "One and Only." It concludes:
"You make the hardest tasks seem light with everything you do.
"How blessed I am, how thankful for my one and only you."
Mouton, 30, works full time as a fast-food manager on the 3 p.m. to 1 a.m. shift. She's starting classes to become a food inspector.
"My children are what keep me going, every day," she says. "They give me a lot of hope and encouragement." Her plans for them? "College, college, college."
On Mouton's right shoulder, the name of her oldest child, Zanevia, is tattooed around a series of scars. When Zanevia was an infant, Mouton's drug-addled fiance came home one night and started shooting. Mouton was hit with six bullets; Zanevia took three and survived.
"This man was the love of my life," Mouton says. He's serving a 60-year sentence. Another man fathered her second and third children; Mouton doesn't have good things to say about him. The father of her unborn child? "He's around. He helps with all the kids."
She does not see marriage in her future.
"It's another obligation that I don't need," Mouton says. "A good man is hard to find nowadays.""
Laurie,
You can try to side track this back to a minimum wage discussion, however until you get most "low academic capability" households to have 2 parents and ~2 kids you are barking up the wrong tree...
The systems you support helped to convince this woman and many like her that she can afford to have 4 kids by age 30 and that she does not need a man in her life. What do you think life looks like for her kids?
And even more interesting is that technically she is not committing welfare fraud or breaking the rules. The rules have simply encouraged her to do something very irresponsible.
We have 3 daughters and ~5 college degrees between us, and my wife and I still have our hands full caring for, nurturing, coaching, disciplining and all the other things good responsible parents need to do so their children grow up capable, self confident, etc.
Now I can understand that the woman likes the "love" she gets from her 4 babies. But I think for their sake she would be better off buying a cat or 2.
"I am not sure one can say "who cares more"?"
Sure one can. Was the contribution to the poor wholly voluntary? Or was part of it coerced by the Tax Man? Those who voluntarily contribute their time and money to caring for the poor care more than those who demand that somebody else-- "government"-- do the "caring."
Very good link, Laurie, thank you. What it points out is exactly what I have been saying. Some "wealth transfer" programs at least modestly encourage work, and others discourage it. To my knowledge, absolutely none of them offer the sort of individualized, "let me help you find a school so you can get a better job, and find a daycare for your kids while you do it, help you make your food dollar stretch further" sort of assistance that private charity can and does. If 70% of TANF is going to people not working that is a double waste of wealth. We're expending wealth on somebody not producing any wealth in return. And the definition of "work" here is rather strained. It used to be if you were poor you had TWO parents, and at least 3 jobs between them. Not 1 parent with half a job. People will take the easy way, especially if they "don't know better" and it is not expected of them.
"I mean I am certain that Laurie cares as much as any of us, however I think she just finds it hard to say no to a family/person who is doing stupid things. (ie too many kids, drugs, lazy, etc)" -- John
John, that is a characterization I am simply unwilling to make. These are all Children of God with individual and sacred worth. They have "fallen short," and for some of them WAY short and very often. But our compassionate human nature must be tempered by respect for human nature and for knowledge. Maszlow teaches that you can't feed a man's soul until you feed his belly. But if you don't do both, you haven't helped. Government assistance at this point does almost nothing to either permit or require changes to behavior that would reduce the need for further government assistance. Maintaining people in poverty when what they (at least more of them than you think) want, need and deserve is to escape it, is cruelty, not compassion.
When I read DJ Tice in the Strib this morning I thought you might enjoy the focus of his column, John:
A deep dive into data on work, family, race in Minnesota
I don't know if this data includes info on welfare benefits received, anyhow it looks interesting to me:
The Economic Status of Minnesotans
A Chartbook With Data For 17 Cultural Groups
I read that also and found it interesting, I am assuming one can tie single adult households pretty directly to welfare, medicare, etc recipients. I mean the idea of having 4 children, a limited education and no spouse bodes poorly for one's household income.
Page 45 Figure 19: Median Household Income (in 2014 dollars)
Pretty much shows it best. If you only have one working person in your household... Life will be hard. However I will need to research it further.
Without the great labor involved in looking at it in detail, I'm going to assume that all of this data simply describes the problem rather than offering up any solutions, or even suggesting what might be the causes of the data being what it is. Now there are some inferences that can be made, such as that one adult heading a household and not having a job can lead to poverty. We all knew that before the study was done, didn't we? When are we going to reform our government programs such that these conditions are alleviated rather than promoted?
I think the concern is that:
That one adult heading a household, having only a HS or no degree, and having a low level job can lead to poverty.
An argument or maybe a label that can always be attached to any safety measure is that it "enables" risky behavior. Because of easy bankruptcy laws, home buyers or for that matter, Donald Trump can borrow more aggressively because they know if things turn sour, they can always shift the burden of their debt onto other entities. It's effectively, the argument that is often made about seat belts in cars or helmets in hockey. Most recently, Mr. Trump has been castigating Mrs. Clinton's efforts to save her marriage as a form of enabling.
As with much else, to label something as enabling, isn't the end of the discussion, rather it's just the start. Are bankruptcy laws wrong because they enable businessmen like Trump to take on risk, knowing that he can lay off some of that risk on banks and others? Do hockey players who wear helmets check harder and more dangerously? Do you drive more aggressively when you are wearing your seat belt? Should Mrs. Clinton sought to avoid criticism from the thrice married Donald Trump by not fighting to save her marriage?
--Hiram
"That one adult heading a household, having only a HS or no degree, and having a low level job can lead to poverty. "
So, we have two choices. We can hand out checks for the rest of her life, let her children end up thinking that's where money comes from and forsake THEIR educations, and maybe become unwed parents themselves, OR we can try to FIX that situation. Pay for child care while she looks for a job and/or gets her GED or vocational training. Help her find a job that pays better. Help her help the kids with homework, teach her how to budget and cook better meals. Of course, the latter would be treating people with respect and expectations, like individual human beings. One-size-fits-all government can't do that; can it?
"If you only have one working person in your household... Life will be hard."
Was this true in the 50s and 60s? If not, what has changed?
Joel
Joel,
The magnitude of the problem has grown immensely. This chart shows it best.
In the 50/60's ~20% of Black babies were born to unwed Mothers and now it is ~70%.
In the 50/60's ~3% of White babies were born to unwed Mothers and now it is ~28%.
Apparently our welfare funded free love culture has convinced a bunch of women it is okay to be a single Mom.
Remember the story above about the Mom who was shot by the Love of her life before getting knocked up 3 more times by 2 other guys... And we wonder why many low income kids struggle...
""This man was the love of my life," Mouton says. He's serving a 60-year sentence. Another man fathered her second and third children; Mouton doesn't have good things to say about him. The father of her unborn child? "He's around. He helps with all the kids." She does not see marriage in her future. "It's another obligation that I don't need," Mouton says. "A good man is hard to find nowadays.""
Interesting, and typical, that you focus on the woman's responsibility.
Joel
Well, isn't the woman at least one of the two responsible parties? And since the man in the equation has no apparent desire to carry his share of the responsibility (or can't, being in jail), who else CAN we assign the responsibility to? They're not your kids, are they?
And a question I just must ask, if "a good man is hard to find" why did you make babies with three that were not "good"?
Joel,
Make up your mind... Are you pro-choice or not?
I agree that it was the man and woman's choice to have sex. And that either of them, and preferably both of them in this case should have used birth control.
However in our current society the woman is 100% responsible for the choice if the baby will be born, and/or if it will be given up for adoption.
With that authority comes the responsibility. Do you disagree?
Perhaps she doesn't have access to an abortion provider. Do you know?
Joel
Now I am fine with laws that require the woman to name the baby's father before she can collect welfare. Are you okay with that?
Then social services and law enforcement can bill him for his share of the expense. And while we are at, maybe we should make welfare payments a loan that needs to be paid back once the child is grown....
Joel,
That may be the case in rural America... But give me a break...
The majority of people live in the cities and that is where the clinics are.
"Now I am fine with laws that require the woman to name the baby's father before she can collect welfare. Are you okay with that?"
No. Because I am pro life. Those children are at no fault. Why do you wish to punish them because of the mother's choices?
Joel
"That may be the case in rural America... But give me a break...
The majority of people live in the cities and that is where the clinics are."
You're making assumptions. Facts, please.
Joel
Joel,
I am not punishing the child. The Mother should know who the father is, or at least have a list of likely suspects.
Are you actually ProLife? I would have assumed you were ProChoice...
Here are some facts for you.
So if you want to take care of the baby... Are you okay with the state seizing the infant and adopting it to a more responsible Mother if the birth Mother does not know who the Father is?
Interesting those who care about racial differences don't object to the Margaret Sanger vision for Planned Parenthood, of aborting black babies as a matter of eugenics. Even now, an African-American woman is almost five times likelier to have an abortion than a white woman. And still unwed motherhood is vastly disproportionate in the black community.
I think there is a sensible and compassionate middle between taking all kids away and letting them starve. Just make them responsible for the kids (mom and dad BOTH), give them the help needed to exercise that responsibility, and then as a last resort remove the kids for those few parents who will not step up. But government welfare cannot do that.
"Just make them responsible for the kids (mom and dad BOTH),"
This from the guy who says Teachers should not be allowed to grade parental involvement/success?
If not the Teachers / schools, who do you think will evaluate the Parents to determine if they are being responsible?
Just like the Teachers, if no one is grading the Parent's performance and applying consequences, nothing will change.
John,
You misunderstand me. I am not Pro-Life, but I am pro life. I am not a religious fanatic.
"Are you okay with the state seizing the infant and adopting it to a more responsible Mother if the birth Mother does not know who the Father is?"
I don't know. Are you okay with more and bigger government? What if your suggestion causes government to cost more than 33% of the budget?
jerry,
"Just make them responsible for the kids (mom and dad BOTH), give them the help needed to exercise that responsibility, and then as a last resort remove the kids for those few parents who will not step up."
I don't really disagree with this, but are you okay with more government regulation? You are asking for the government to run people's personal lives. I think you forgot to mention forced sterilization.
Joel
Though it will never be implemented, personally I think it would shrink the cost of government.
Just imagine:
- Father and Mother of each child is fully documented and wages can be garnished.
- Babies are diverted from egregious welfare mom's and the payment for their care is covered by the adoptive Parents, not the government.
- Prospective Fathers and Mothers faced with these harsh consequences either abstain from risky behavior, protect themselves or abort the fetus.
I mean the Liberals would say "all mama's deserve to have babies whether they can not afford them or not" and the Conservatives would say "all mama's get to raise their kids however they want"... And the person screwed in this deal is the poor unlucky child...
Instead we will continue the failed methods:
- birth control and abortions will remain expensive for many or hard to get.
- questionable parents will be allowed to bear and poorly raise children
- society will pay the costs of these positions via welfare, education expense, special social worker expense, law enforcement expense, work force with poor capability, special education/disability, etc...
Choices, choices...
Joel,
By the way, Life Stops whether you stop the heart of a 26 week old preemie or a 28 week old fetus... One is murder and the other is supported by Pro-Choice folks, even though the fetus is 2 weeks older.
I am thinking it is pretty hard to be Pro-Choice and Pro-Life...
Your position is as untenable as the Conservative's view that the government can force the Mother to have the baby and then it is all her responsibility...
Joel, now we are getting somewhere. I am NOT okay with more government regulation, and I reject John's idea of having teachers (government) decide who are good parents and who are not. I believe that's something that neighbors and family should be doing, or that the welfare case worker (yes, we absolutely used to have legions of them) can do.
and asking parent to take responsibility is the OPPOSITE of having government run people's lives. Yes, they could pass laws saying you don't get welfare if you don't name the father, and you have to be in school or looking for work to get welfare, which puts the responsibility on the individuals where it belongs. Long tricky transition, assailed by liberal demagogues, but based in caring and compassion that government doesn't have.
"untenable?? Really? I can "ten" it very well. I don't think women should be allowed to kill their children, and government can "force" that by law. But after the birth, government should not "force" the mother to do anything with the child except care for it. she has the responsibility and can discharge it or abdicate it thru adoption. Her choice.
I don't think women should be allowed to kill their children, and government can "force" that by law. B
As has been made very clear in the recent news coverage, the pro life position is that woman are to be allowed to have abortions but it can't be with the aid of medical professionals. Abortion is ok as long as it is unsupported, unsafe, and kept in the back alley where it belongs.
--Hiram
"I don't think women should be allowed to kill their children."
They're not. They're aborting a pregnancy.
Joel
Joel,
Whether they smother the 26 week old or have a Doctor slice up the 28 week old fetus. They are ending a human life.
Or do you want to try to explain the fine point to the dead baby who's heart is no longer beating?
"Life Stops whether you stop the heart of a 26 week old preemie or a 28 week old fetus... One is murder and the other is supported by Pro-Choice folks, even though the fetus is 2 weeks older."
Whether they smother the 26 week old or have a Doctor slice up the 28 week old fetus. They are ending a human life.
But, we have had it explained to us, nobody has a problem with the abortion itself, the objection is to the medical professionals whose job it is to perform the abortion safely. They are the targets of the pro life advocates.
--Hiram
I must have missed that discussion...
Really? Under conservative legislative proposals who gets charged with a crime if an illegal abortion is done -- the woman or the doctor? The proposals that require doctors to have admitting privilges at hospitals within a certain distance or imposing facility requirements or requiring increased inspections -- those are all directed at doctors to make it financially impossible for them to remain in business while providing abortions.
Sean, You are not really playing in Hiram's world today...
I think all of us disagree with this statement.
"nobody has a problem with the abortion itself"
Please remember that Conservatives will also go after practitioners who perform illegal abortions. The goal is to discontinue the stilling of human hearts / brains that are attached to healthy fetuses. Sometime we get into the silliest side tracks.
Remember that almost everyone is willing to treat the woman as a victim... Yet if she delivers the baby and throws it in a dumpster she could go to jail.
Though viability is as good of a middle ground as I can think of... It is still very poor.
I think you're missing my point (and Hiram's).
I must be...
It came when Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a rare moment of clarity, told Chris Matthews that women would have to be punished for having abortions. The outcry in response from pro life groups was immediate. It won't be a crime for a woman to have an abortion, we were told, rather it would be the medical professionals who performed the abortion who would be prosecuted. For the fans of logic out there, what that means is that it's not choosing to have an abortion that should be criminal, rather the crime is committed by those who safely perform the abortion the woman has chosen to have. Admittedly the criminal law implications of this are unusual, I know of know other crime where the aidors and abettors are charged but the principal is not, but then, that isn't my argument.
--Hiram
Some other examples...
- sex workers in slave trade
- children criminals coerced by their parents
- person deemed temporarily insane
- person committing crime under duress
- etc
Often we give victims the benefit of the doubt. And in this case many people feel the Mother is the victim if someone convinces her to kill her unborn child... I mean what sane rational loving Mother would kill her child...
I mean what would you think of a Mother who smothered her 26 week old preemie because having it live would be inconvenient? Does that seem rational?
Or maybe if she just started pulling her daughter apart like a rotisserie chicken...
Often we give victims the benefit of the doubt.
Is that why we let Michael Corleone off the hook because it was his associates who killed the Barzini Family?
children criminals coerced by their parents
What other crimes can women commit because like children, they are incompetent? How widely are you expanding this get out of jail free card?
person committing crime under duress
What other crimes are women allowed to commit because they are under a lot of pressure?
Do men get these same exemptions from the criminal law?
--Hiram
Hiram,
If you want to advocate for punishing distraught stressed Mom who kills their unborn fetus. Please feel free to.
I think most of us would be concerned with the punishing the one who actually illegally stops that beating heart.
"If you want to advocate for punishing distraught stressed Mom who kills their unborn fetus. Please feel free to."
Well, I'm pro-choice, so no. But I fail to understand why conservatives insist on infantilizing women and saying they aren't competent to make their own choices?
If you want to advocate for punishing distraught stressed Mom who kills their unborn fetus.
That is, of course, what pro choice people are against, as oppose to advocate. But the reality is, being distraught just isn't a defense to a criminal charge anywhere else. And of course, many women who have abortions aren't distraught. Lacking that defense, does that mean those women should be convicted of a crime?
==Hiram
Should a woman be denied the opportunity to obtain a safe abortion performed by a medical doctors simply because she is distraught?
--Hiram
"'I don't think women should be allowed to kill their children.' They're not. They're aborting a pregnancy."-- Joel
That's neither what the Supreme Court ruled nor what the scientific and medical data prove. At roughly 20 weeks, the fetus becomes able to live outside the womb. Premature deliveries at 26 weeks or so routinely live. Therefore, at the "point of viability," the fetus becomes a child and shouldn't be wantonly killed. By anybody.
"It came when Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in a rare moment of clarity, told Chris Matthews that women would have to be punished for having abortions."
I really wonder how these ridiculous stories get started and circulated, unless maybe the media has a bias? Trump was asked very directly, "If abortion were against the law, what should happen?" His reply was that the law should be obeyed and enforced. The usual campaigning rule is that you don't answer hypotheticals, but Trump doesn't follow the usual campaigning rules.
His reply was that the law should be obeyed and enforced.
He said quite clearly that the woman should be punished.
" The usual campaigning rule is that you don't answer hypotheticals, but Trump doesn't follow the usual campaigning rule"
Are questions about policy hypothetical? Trump gave a blunt answer to a question every other Republican candidate was willing to answer too. There wasn't anything unfair about it. There is no reason to think that either the question or the answer fell into the category of issues, presidential candidates are allowed to duck.
--Hirsm
" But I fail to understand why conservatives insist on infantilizing women and saying they aren't competent to make their own choices?"-- Sean
So, if a woman chooses to murder her husband, that's OK? Why should it be different if she murders her child? The only way to be pro-choice beyond the Roe v. Wade threshold is if one denies the scientific and medical (and ethical and legal) reality that a second person is involved.
I think the extreme pro-life and extreme pro-choice people are both absolutists that insist on their view throughout a pregnancy, rather than recognize the point of viability as some (admittedly compromise) break point. Of course, if I must choose sides, I side with the pro-life people simply because simple science supports their claim that the fertilized ovum IS a human being, just as it denies the pro-choice claim that a 38-month-old fetus is not.
Hiram, that question is not about policy, unless the policy question was "should the law be followed?" He answered correctly for the hypothetical asked. The way it was asked and most certainly the reporting of it afterward, were deliberately biased and unfairly distorted. It certainly did not reflect on the policy preferences of Mr. Trump or, more broadly, on the pro-life majority of voters.
if a woman chooses to murder her husband, that's OK?
The argument seems to be it's ok if she is distraught. What I gather from the pro life position is that women are not competent to make some decisions. So I guess the next question is, which decisions are they competent to make?
" the extreme pro-life and extreme pro-choice people are both absolutists that insist on their view throughout a pregnancy, rather than recognize the point of viability as some (admittedly compromise) break point."
Pro life people work very hard to avoid the implications of their position. The argument here, for example, is that such issues are "hypothetical" and therefore need not be answered. But the fact is, politicians answer hypothetical questions all the time.
--Hiram
I would say it would depend, legally at least, on the definition of "distraught," none of which would normally apply to a choice abortion. The typical pro-choice extremist position is usually described as "any abortion, for any woman, for any reason, at any time." The law, and common sense, precludes that philosophy for murder of postpartum humans.
To get back to the point of this discussion from where we are...
If a woman is on welfare because she has no "man in the house," should government pay for an additional child? Should the government require an abortion? What is the message if those steps are NOT taken?
If a woman is on welfare because she has no "man in the house," should government pay for an additional child?
Is that why she is getting welfare? Because she doesn't live with a man? Or because she has a child in need of support?
I have to say, I know a number of women who don't live with men, and without knowing all the details of their household finances, I would be surprised if most of them received welfare. Indeed some of them are doing quite well.
--Hiram
Is that why she is getting welfare? Because she doesn't live with a man?
Absolutely. FDR started welfare for "widows and orphans." Later it became "Aid to Families with Dependent Children" (= no man in the house). Until LBJ, there were "surprise visits" to AFDC homes to INSURE there was no man in the house, and now we pay extra for additional children born to welfare recipients even though, we are asked to believe, there is no man in the house.
It's a good reason to collect welfare, that one struggles as a single parent. It is no reason whatsoever to allow welfare to encourage that situation.
I know a number of women who unintentionally became single parents with nothing, collected welfare (or more likely charity) for a short time, and then modestly succeeded.
Post a Comment