Debate Now Birth Control vs Abortion vs Welfare

[Fair&Balanced]

A thread upstairs got me to thinking about this particular topic, but of course one can't have a truly substantive debate up there so I thought I would start this tangent of a conversation down here.

I often here the argument that people who are pro abortion don't care about a child until it's here and on welfare, while the opposite is said about pro life people.

Both arguments on the face of them seem silly to me. But they are there.

So the topic of this thread is this.

Why is it none of the tax payer's business who gets abortions and who doesn't, BUT if they do choose to have children they can't afford we the tax payer are supposed to pick up the tab? Conversely, why say it IS our business who is "murdering" babies oppose taxpayers getting involved in providing birth control.

Simple rules of this thread

1. Ad Homs are okay, if you post something stupid, you certainly should expect to be called stupid.
2. All responses should include some defense of your opinion. Don't just just tell another person their opinion is dumb, defend your own position.
3. If asked a question, answer it . Of course there are times when we just don't see questions we're asked, but the deliberate ignoring of questions is discouraged
4. NO trolling
5.No partisan blame game BS

I'll start off by saying that I think we should provide free birth control , that abortions should be a matter between a woman and her doctor up until an agreed upon time (say 3 months or whatever) (well I think the man should get a say so as well, but that is another matter) and that welfare requirements should be much more stringent.

And go

 

[Fenton Lum]

I say we just leave everything as it is so "both" parties have this as a wedge issue knowing full well "neither" of them are going near this. Kinda like guns..Great for fund raising and don't-let-the-boogeyman-appoint-the-next-supreme-court-justice game. All the system has to do is mention it and folk go batshit crazy. Why lose that? The little people go bonkers every time.

 

[OldLady]

The brunt of your argument seems to be finding a way not to pay for poor people's children. The safety net has become a hammock, a baby is the ticket to a free ride, etc. Alright. It is certainly cheaper to pay for prevention than the cure, but that is already in place. The Pill is so cheap that even without Medicaid everyone can scrape together the monthly fee. Low cost women's health centers can provide more the expensive options like IUD's. Most public schools include parenting/birth control in their health curriculums; teenagers know how to prevent pregnancy. Abortions cost several hundred dollars and are not covered by Medicaid, which is where a lot of these unwanted babies come in. To really address prevention thoroughly, abortions should be covered by Medicaid. They are legal and they should not be eliminated from reimbursement due to the moral indignation of the busy-body Right.

In Maine, our governor has been restricting and eliminating welfare benefits for several years. Our children are the ones suffering for it. At least in our state, cutting off benefits doesn't mean parents will automatically go out and work. They still don't have the education or the transportation or the affordable child care or--in rural areas, anyway--available jobs to earn a living. Yes, I've met the second and third generation welfare moms who consider it their primary job to squeeze every penny possible from the state pot. They know the regs better than the DHHS workers and they know how to manipulate their answers to get what they need. They are the exception rather than the rule, though, and as usual, it is the most vulnerable -- the kids -- who are paying the biggest price.

I hate the idea of generations of people living on welfare. I would love to see that all change, as much as you. But keep in mind that a person's intelligence and capacity to learn is enhanced or severely limited by their experiences and nutrition/health in their first five years. By punishing the parents for their perceived or real laziness, you could be sentencing the children to a life of poverty that has more serious ramifications than you probably realize.

 

[TNHarley]

A thread upstairs got me to thinking about this particular topic, but of course one can't have a truly substantive debate up there so I thought I would start this tangent of a conversation down here.

I often here the argument that people who are pro abortion don't care about a child until it's here and on welfare, while the opposite is said about pro life people.

Both arguments on the face of them seem silly to me. But they are there.

So the topic of this thread is this.

Why is it none of the tax payer's business who gets abortions and who doesn't, BUT if they do choose to have children they can't afford we the tax payer are supposed to pick up the tab? Conversely, why say it IS our business who is "murdering" babies oppose taxpayers getting involved in providing birth control.

Simple rules of this thread

1. Ad Homs are okay, if you post something stupid, you certainly should expect to be called stupid.
2. All responses should include some defense of your opinion. Don't just just tell another person their opinion is dumb, defend your own position.
3. If asked a question, answer it . Of course there are times when we just don't see questions we're asked, but the deliberate ignoring of questions is discouraged
4. NO trolling
5.No partisan blame game BS

I'll start off by saying that I think we should provide free birth control , that abortions should be a matter between a woman and her doctor up until an agreed upon time (say 3 months or whatever) (well I think the man should get a say so as well, but that is another matter) and that welfare requirements should be much more stringent.

And go

I have been saying that for years!
Truth of the matter is, party ideology is inconsistent.
/thread

 

[sealybobo]

A thread upstairs got me to thinking about this particular topic, but of course one can't have a truly substantive debate up there so I thought I would start this tangent of a conversation down here.

I often here the argument that people who are pro abortion don't care about a child until it's here and on welfare, while the opposite is said about pro life people.

Both arguments on the face of them seem silly to me. But they are there.

So the topic of this thread is this.

Why is it none of the tax payer's business who gets abortions and who doesn't, BUT if they do choose to have children they can't afford we the tax payer are supposed to pick up the tab? Conversely, why say it IS our business who is "murdering" babies oppose taxpayers getting involved in providing birth control.

Simple rules of this thread

1. Ad Homs are okay, if you post something stupid, you certainly should expect to be called stupid.
2. All responses should include some defense of your opinion. Don't just just tell another person their opinion is dumb, defend your own position.
3. If asked a question, answer it . Of course there are times when we just don't see questions we're asked, but the deliberate ignoring of questions is discouraged
4. NO trolling
5.No partisan blame game BS

I'll start off by saying that I think we should provide free birth control , that abortions should be a matter between a woman and her doctor up until an agreed upon time (say 3 months or whatever) (well I think the man should get a say so as well, but that is another matter) and that welfare requirements should be much more stringent.

And go

Monday’s Supreme Court decision does not only affect Texas. Many GOP-led state legislatures, especially across the South, have passed laws similar to the Texas law that are designed to regulate abortion clinics out of business. These so-called TRAP (Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws fly in the face of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the two major abortion decisions of the last century that prevent states from imposing an “undue burden” on women’s ability to get a safe and legal abortion.

Ginsburg made it clear in her concurring opinion on Monday that the high court will never allow these types of laws to stand.

“So long as this Court adheres to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey,” she wrote, “Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers laws like H.B. 2 that ‘do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion,’ cannot survive judicial inspection.”

 

[Fair&Balanced]

The brunt of your argument seems to be finding a way not to pay for poor people's children. The safety net has become a hammock, a baby is the ticket to a free ride, etc. Alright. It is certainly cheaper to pay for prevention than the cure, but that is already in place. The Pill is so cheap that even without Medicaid everyone can scrape together the monthly fee. Low cost women's health centers can provide more the expensive options like IUD's. Most public schools include parenting/birth control in their health curriculums; teenagers know how to prevent pregnancy. Abortions cost several hundred dollars and are not covered by Medicaid, which is where a lot of these unwanted babies come in. To really address prevention thoroughly, abortions should be covered by Medicaid. They are legal and they should not be eliminated from reimbursement due to the moral indignation of the busy-body Right.

In Maine, our governor has been restricting and eliminating welfare benefits for several years. Our children are the ones suffering for it. At least in our state, cutting off benefits doesn't mean parents will automatically go out and work. They still don't have the education or the transportation or the affordable child care or--in rural areas, anyway--available jobs to earn a living. Yes, I've met the second and third generation welfare moms who consider it their primary job to squeeze every penny possible from the state pot. They know the regs better than the DHHS workers and they know how to manipulate their answers to get what they need. They are the exception rather than the rule, though, and as usual, it is the most vulnerable -- the kids -- who are paying the biggest price.

I hate the idea of generations of people living on welfare. I would love to see that all change, as much as you. But keep in mind that a person's intelligence and capacity to learn is enhanced or severely limited by their experiences and nutrition/health in their first five years. By punishing the parents for their perceived or real laziness, you could be sentencing the children to a life of poverty that has more serious ramifications than you probably realize.

See, once again though, your solution is "more government money"

How much is enough? At what point do we tell people "live with the consequences of your actions?" I mean you DO realize don't you that if told people "no, the government will NOT give you money to help support your child" that poor people would be a hell of a lot more careful about using birth control, don't you?

I hesitate to compare grown adults to children, but let's face it, people who are having kids they can't afford, and so on and so forth ARE children. Sure they're in adult bodies, but they ARE children.

That's just the damned truth of it today, we don't expect poor people to bear ANY responsibility for their own actions. NONE. Have a baby you can't afford? Go sign up for welfare, working is for suckers anyway.

And the tax payer is just expected to pony up time after time after time. How much do we provide poor people now? Let's see

You can get

TANF
SNAP
Rental assistance
Free phone
Free internet
Free school lunches
Negative Income Tax
SSI for such stupid things as just too depressed to work
Free Headstart (aka babysitting)
WIC


and isn't it funny that every single one of these people who is completely unable to figure out how to not get pregnant is somehow perfectly capable of figuring out how to collect every single one of these programs?


When is it enough? Is 2/3 of my wages enough?

 

[OldLady]

If you go to work, you stop receiving all the things on your list (you forgot medical insurance for yourself and your kids). At minimum wage or a bit more, that is a huge financial hit, and you don't have to be a genius to figure it out. I'm not sure what the answers are, but Head Start is only for preschool kids, limited hours, and with limited slots. It is not a free babysitter for all working women. 90 minutes of phone service per month (it's for emergencies). Wow. No free internet where I live, and a lifetime cap of 5 years worth of benefits. We have lots of kids who depend on those free school breakfasts and lunches and are hungry when school is not in session.
Poverty is such a pervasive, insidious thing that people more blessed sometimes think they 'get it' when they really don't. I don't like freeloaders any more than you, but I understand a bit about what the real problems are that we are facing in getting people off welfare.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If you go to work, you stop receiving all the things on your list (you forgot medical insurance for yourself and your kids). At minimum wage or a bit more, that is a huge financial hit, and you don't have to be a genius to figure it out. I'm not sure what the answers are, but Head Start is only for preschool kids, limited hours, and with limited slots. It is not a free babysitter for all working women. 90 minutes of phone service per month (it's for emergencies). Wow. No free internet where I live, and a lifetime cap of 5 years worth of benefits. We have lots of kids who depend on those free school breakfasts and lunches and are hungry when school is not in session.
Poverty is such a pervasive, insidious thing that people more blessed sometimes think they 'get it' when they really don't. I don't like freeloaders any more than you, but I understand a bit about what the real problems are that we are facing in getting people off welfare.

Thanks, I DID forget medicaid.

The answer is simple.

We need to get rid of all welfare and switch to a Universal Basic Income, but there has to be some measure to make sure people don't just keep having kids to add to to their income. That is wrong , and you KNOW it is already happening. How much worse would it be if we just started handing out cash?

Here's my suggestion.

Each US citizen over the age of 18 receives $1K a month. Each minor receives $500 a month with a reduction of $100 per month for each parent per child over 2 children. As well as $100 less per child > 2 children

So if you are a single mom with 2 kids you get $1000 + $500 * 2) per month. If you have a third child, your money is reduced to $900 a month and you get $400 a month for that additional child. If you have a 4th child, your money goes down to $800 a month and you get $300 for that additional child. And so on and so forth.

The father, whether custodial or non custodial gets the same reductions in his money. Meaning if you are a married couple, you lose $200 a month from your own basic income for that 3rd child, but you gain $400 for the child, a net gain of $200 a month , which is enough to provide essentials for a child, but not enough to encourage a person to try to game the system.

 

[OldLady]

If you go to work, you stop receiving all the things on your list (you forgot medical insurance for yourself and your kids). At minimum wage or a bit more, that is a huge financial hit, and you don't have to be a genius to figure it out. I'm not sure what the answers are, but Head Start is only for preschool kids, limited hours, and with limited slots. It is not a free babysitter for all working women. 90 minutes of phone service per month (it's for emergencies). Wow. No free internet where I live, and a lifetime cap of 5 years worth of benefits. We have lots of kids who depend on those free school breakfasts and lunches and are hungry when school is not in session.
Poverty is such a pervasive, insidious thing that people more blessed sometimes think they 'get it' when they really don't. I don't like freeloaders any more than you, but I understand a bit about what the real problems are that we are facing in getting people off welfare.

Thanks, I DID forget medicaid.

The answer is simple.

We need to get rid of all welfare and switch to a Universal Basic Income, but there has to be some measure to make sure people don't just keep having kids to add to to their income. That is wrong , and you KNOW it is already happening. How much worse would it be if we just started handing out cash?

Here's my suggestion.

Each US citizen over the age of 18 receives $1K a month. Each minor receives $500 a month with a reduction of $100 per month for each parent per child over 2 children. As well as $100 less per child > 2 children

So if you are a single mom with 2 kids you get $1000 + $500 * 2) per month. If you have a third child, your money is reduced to $900 a month and you get $400 a month for that additional child. If you have a 4th child, your money goes down to $800 a month and you get $300 for that additional child. And so on and so forth.

The father, whether custodial or non custodial gets the same reductions in his money. Meaning if you are a married couple, you lose $200 a month from your own basic income for that 3rd child, but you gain $400 for the child, a net gain of $200 a month , which is enough to provide essentials for a child, but not enough to encourage a person to try to game the system.

Why do I want to give Eric Trump $1,000 a month, again?

 

[OldLady]

If you go to work, you stop receiving all the things on your list (you forgot medical insurance for yourself and your kids). At minimum wage or a bit more, that is a huge financial hit, and you don't have to be a genius to figure it out. I'm not sure what the answers are, but Head Start is only for preschool kids, limited hours, and with limited slots. It is not a free babysitter for all working women. 90 minutes of phone service per month (it's for emergencies). Wow. No free internet where I live, and a lifetime cap of 5 years worth of benefits. We have lots of kids who depend on those free school breakfasts and lunches and are hungry when school is not in session.
Poverty is such a pervasive, insidious thing that people more blessed sometimes think they 'get it' when they really don't. I don't like freeloaders any more than you, but I understand a bit about what the real problems are that we are facing in getting people off welfare.

Thanks, I DID forget medicaid.

The answer is simple.

We need to get rid of all welfare and switch to a Universal Basic Income, but there has to be some measure to make sure people don't just keep having kids to add to to their income. That is wrong , and you KNOW it is already happening. How much worse would it be if we just started handing out cash?

Here's my suggestion.

Each US citizen over the age of 18 receives $1K a month. Each minor receives $500 a month with a reduction of $100 per month for each parent per child over 2 children. As well as $100 less per child > 2 children

So if you are a single mom with 2 kids you get $1000 + $500 * 2) per month. If you have a third child, your money is reduced to $900 a month and you get $400 a month for that additional child. If you have a 4th child, your money goes down to $800 a month and you get $300 for that additional child. And so on and so forth.

The father, whether custodial or non custodial gets the same reductions in his money. Meaning if you are a married couple, you lose $200 a month from your own basic income for that 3rd child, but you gain $400 for the child, a net gain of $200 a month , which is enough to provide essentials for a child, but not enough to encourage a person to try to game the system.

Sounds kinda cool.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If you go to work, you stop receiving all the things on your list (you forgot medical insurance for yourself and your kids). At minimum wage or a bit more, that is a huge financial hit, and you don't have to be a genius to figure it out. I'm not sure what the answers are, but Head Start is only for preschool kids, limited hours, and with limited slots. It is not a free babysitter for all working women. 90 minutes of phone service per month (it's for emergencies). Wow. No free internet where I live, and a lifetime cap of 5 years worth of benefits. We have lots of kids who depend on those free school breakfasts and lunches and are hungry when school is not in session.
Poverty is such a pervasive, insidious thing that people more blessed sometimes think they 'get it' when they really don't. I don't like freeloaders any more than you, but I understand a bit about what the real problems are that we are facing in getting people off welfare.

Thanks, I DID forget medicaid.

The answer is simple.

We need to get rid of all welfare and switch to a Universal Basic Income, but there has to be some measure to make sure people don't just keep having kids to add to to their income. That is wrong , and you KNOW it is already happening. How much worse would it be if we just started handing out cash?

Here's my suggestion.

Each US citizen over the age of 18 receives $1K a month. Each minor receives $500 a month with a reduction of $100 per month for each parent per child over 2 children. As well as $100 less per child > 2 children

So if you are a single mom with 2 kids you get $1000 + $500 * 2) per month. If you have a third child, your money is reduced to $900 a month and you get $400 a month for that additional child. If you have a 4th child, your money goes down to $800 a month and you get $300 for that additional child. And so on and so forth.

The father, whether custodial or non custodial gets the same reductions in his money. Meaning if you are a married couple, you lose $200 a month from your own basic income for that 3rd child, but you gain $400 for the child, a net gain of $200 a month , which is enough to provide essentials for a child, but not enough to encourage a person to try to game the system.

Why do I want to give Eric Trump $1,000 a month, again?

I think we can agree on some sort of upper limit. Say $100K a year income and you probably don't need the government's $1K a month. In fact, you would actually have to have such a limit otherwise you simply wouldn't have enough money in the kitty each month.

 

[OldLady]

Okay. You know it's almost impossible to live on that amount of money, but it would be a good 'safety net' and at least put groceries on the table while you looked for another job or whatever. Are you encouraging minus population growth, though? Why penalize people for having more than two kids?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Okay. You know it's almost impossible to live on that amount of money, but it would be a good 'safety net' and at least put groceries on the table while you looked for another job or whatever. Are you encouraging minus population growth, though? Why penalize people for having more than two kids?

No. I'm not penalizing anyone for having more kids. You can have a hundred kids if you want and can afford to do so. See that's a mistake we've made with our welfare system. Now when we talk about taking money away from those who keep having kids while on welfare, people start screaming that we are penalizing them. No we aren't , we're merely not rewarding them for having more kids while on welfare.

You have to admit, people who are only going to get an additional $200 a month if they have another kid are going to use birth control.

 

[Asclepias]

A thread upstairs got me to thinking about this particular topic, but of course one can't have a truly substantive debate up there so I thought I would start this tangent of a conversation down here.

I often here the argument that people who are pro abortion don't care about a child until it's here and on welfare, while the opposite is said about pro life people.

Both arguments on the face of them seem silly to me. But they are there.

So the topic of this thread is this.

Why is it none of the tax payer's business who gets abortions and who doesn't, BUT if they do choose to have children they can't afford we the tax payer are supposed to pick up the tab? Conversely, why say it IS our business who is "murdering" babies oppose taxpayers getting involved in providing birth control.

Simple rules of this thread

1. Ad Homs are okay, if you post something stupid, you certainly should expect to be called stupid.
2. All responses should include some defense of your opinion. Don't just just tell another person their opinion is dumb, defend your own position.
3. If asked a question, answer it . Of course there are times when we just don't see questions we're asked, but the deliberate ignoring of questions is discouraged
4. NO trolling
5.No partisan blame game BS

I'll start off by saying that I think we should provide free birth control , that abortions should be a matter between a woman and her doctor up until an agreed upon time (say 3 months or whatever) (well I think the man should get a say so as well, but that is another matter) and that welfare requirements should be much more stringent.

And go

In regard to abortions, its none of anyone's business because its not their body. They have to carry the child to term not anyone else.

As a tax payer your job in a capitalistic system is to pay taxes for the privilege you have making as much money as you chose to while those less advanced in the game of life benefit by using that tax money to help sustain the economy. If you have people not being able to feed, clothe and shelter themselves, all societal norms break down and the consequences of that is not something you really want to experience. Most people simply do not understand that in a capitalistic system its imperative to have 2 components. Haves and have nots. If everyone is a have then there are very few consumers.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

A thread upstairs got me to thinking about this particular topic, but of course one can't have a truly substantive debate up there so I thought I would start this tangent of a conversation down here.

I often here the argument that people who are pro abortion don't care about a child until it's here and on welfare, while the opposite is said about pro life people.

Both arguments on the face of them seem silly to me. But they are there.

So the topic of this thread is this.

Why is it none of the tax payer's business who gets abortions and who doesn't, BUT if they do choose to have children they can't afford we the tax payer are supposed to pick up the tab? Conversely, why say it IS our business who is "murdering" babies oppose taxpayers getting involved in providing birth control.

Simple rules of this thread

1. Ad Homs are okay, if you post something stupid, you certainly should expect to be called stupid.
2. All responses should include some defense of your opinion. Don't just just tell another person their opinion is dumb, defend your own position.
3. If asked a question, answer it . Of course there are times when we just don't see questions we're asked, but the deliberate ignoring of questions is discouraged
4. NO trolling
5.No partisan blame game BS

I'll start off by saying that I think we should provide free birth control , that abortions should be a matter between a woman and her doctor up until an agreed upon time (say 3 months or whatever) (well I think the man should get a say so as well, but that is another matter) and that welfare requirements should be much more stringent.

And go

In regard to abortions, its none of anyone's business because its not their body. They have to carry the child to term not anyone else.

As a tax payer your job in a capitalistic system is to pay taxes for the privilege you have making as much money as you chose to while those less advanced in the game of life benefit by using that tax money to help sustain the economy. If you have people not being able to feed, clothe and shelter themselves, all societal norms break down and the consequences of that is not something you really want to experience. Most people simply do not understand that in a capitalistic system its imperative to have 2 components. Haves and have nots. If everyone is a have then there are very few consumers.

Blah blah blah, "you owe the poor" isn't a reasonable response to anything.

 

[Asclepias]

A thread upstairs got me to thinking about this particular topic, but of course one can't have a truly substantive debate up there so I thought I would start this tangent of a conversation down here.

I often here the argument that people who are pro abortion don't care about a child until it's here and on welfare, while the opposite is said about pro life people.

Both arguments on the face of them seem silly to me. But they are there.

So the topic of this thread is this.

Why is it none of the tax payer's business who gets abortions and who doesn't, BUT if they do choose to have children they can't afford we the tax payer are supposed to pick up the tab? Conversely, why say it IS our business who is "murdering" babies oppose taxpayers getting involved in providing birth control.

Simple rules of this thread

1. Ad Homs are okay, if you post something stupid, you certainly should expect to be called stupid.
2. All responses should include some defense of your opinion. Don't just just tell another person their opinion is dumb, defend your own position.
3. If asked a question, answer it . Of course there are times when we just don't see questions we're asked, but the deliberate ignoring of questions is discouraged
4. NO trolling
5.No partisan blame game BS

I'll start off by saying that I think we should provide free birth control , that abortions should be a matter between a woman and her doctor up until an agreed upon time (say 3 months or whatever) (well I think the man should get a say so as well, but that is another matter) and that welfare requirements should be much more stringent.

And go

In regard to abortions, its none of anyone's business because its not their body. They have to carry the child to term not anyone else.

As a tax payer your job in a capitalistic system is to pay taxes for the privilege you have making as much money as you chose to while those less advanced in the game of life benefit by using that tax money to help sustain the economy. If you have people not being able to feed, clothe and shelter themselves, all societal norms break down and the consequences of that is not something you really want to experience. Most people simply do not understand that in a capitalistic system its imperative to have 2 components. Haves and have nots. If everyone is a have then there are very few consumers.

Blah blah blah, "you owe the poor" isn't a reasonable response to anything.

I didnt say you owe the poor. I said you owe your taxes. I didnt ask if you thought it was reasonable. I just provided the response for you to use it to educate yourself.

 

[Jully Rowe Davis]

Birth control should be free. Some still won't use it. I had a discussion with someone who said "A women shouldn't have to pay for a mistake and what if she can't afford IT"(yikes) "Then she is on welfare or the child is in foster care and the adoption rules make it too difficult for people to adopt" well boo hoo.

I just heard of yet another STAR adopting from overseas. They can't adopt here at home? And abortion is not birth control. Women are so quick to take a stand and say it's my body but can't protect their body from getting pregnant. It's a when it suits ME situation. Maybe welfare should be harder to get


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com