Mississippi's only abortion clinic faces new hurdle

E-Z-B

E-Z-B

CAGiversary!
Meanwhile, 51% of Mississippi's children live in poverty. This goes to show that the anti-choice are deeply concerned about the welfare of children - until their born, anyway.

Mississippi's only abortion clinic is waiting to hear whether it will be granted a new state certification to continue performing its full range of procedures.

The requirement to meet higher standards came after an aggressive push by anti-abortion advocates, who are trying to shut down the clinic.

"We believe that if they comply and the clinic is safer for women ... at the very least, Mississippi has made the back-alley abortion clinic — or the front-alley abortion clinic as we call them — safer for women but not for unborn children," said Pro-Life Mississippi President Terri Herring.

The Jackson Women's Health Organization, which treats more than 3,000 women a year statewide, said a setback would not mean defeat and may only put the issue back in front of a judge. The clinic, which is still operating, risks having to scale back the kinds of abortion it can perform.

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051226/NEWS/512260358/1002/news

I can't believe we're still fighting this battle after so many decades of Roe v. Wade.
 
I wonder what the impact would be if abortion was ever made illegal in the US again.

Of course one thing is for certain, the rich would be ok (they always are). Rich people will just drive their knocked-up daughters up to Canada or private Mexican hospitals whereas poor people will be made to go through with having unwanted children.

Maybe the corporate-beholden neocon government will get what it wants in the form of a huge pool of cheap labor and more grist for the army's meat grinder.

Of course, the horrors of back-alley abortions will return and there may not be enough land/resources/jobs for all of the unwanted children.

I wonder if it would be a net gain or loss for our economy.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']The requirement to meet higher standards came after an aggressive push by anti-abortion advocates, who are trying to shut down the clinic.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe they just arent meeting practice standards and operating procedures. I can understand if they just want to make sure that IF it is done, that its done right.
 
If Mississippi can't forcibly shut down the clinics, then why not place heavy regulations on them so that the clinics can no longer afford them. I did a google search on Terri Herring. It's obvious what her motives are.
 
[quote name='Danro']Maybe they just arent meeting practice standards and operating procedures. I can understand if they just want to make sure that IF it is done, that its done right.[/QUOTE]

Some other maybes:

Maybe Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific view.
Maybe the church of scientology has purely altruistic goals.
Maybe most of the founding fathers were christian.

;)
 
If abortion was illegal like these hypocritical pro-life people want it to be, it won't make any difference about the number woman getting abortions. There where be abortions legally or illegally.
 
I thought the rest of the title was something like, women getting abortions must pass spelling and history test before recieving treatment
 
[quote name='camoor']
Of course, the horrors of back-alley abortions will return[/QUOTE]

And let's not forget all the snake oil abortions potions.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']If abortion was illegal like these hypocritical pro-life people want it to be, it won't make any difference about the number woman getting abortions. There where be abortions legally or illegally.[/QUOTE]

Yes but the government would be enforcing their, most likely religious, belief that Abortion is wrong. Let's be honest how many Atheists do you know that give a fuck about Abortion? Very few I think. This is religion trying to poke it's nose into government matters.
You're right it won't but it will please the Religious Right and keep more poor people distracted therefore not seeing as much of the fucked up shit happening or too busy with kids to protest VEHEMENTLY against it. However on the other hand I have my doubts whether it will EVER be outlawed and that the Republican Party will continue to milk this cow because if they lose Abortion by it being outlawed what's left to continue to get the Religious Right to the polls: religion in school and criminalizing gays. Also if our society breaks down some of these so-called "Christians" will be the first to lynch Gays.
 
I travel to Mississippi a lot, they need more abortion clinics; I have had to deal with some of the most uneducated, ignorant people while in that state. I never knew they had just one clinic; it all makes sense to me now.

I also meet some of the nicest people in the world there, but by far Mississippi is like a different world in certain areas.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Yes but the government would be enforcing their, most likely religious, belief that Abortion is wrong. Let's be honest how many Atheists do you know that give a fuck about Abortion? Very few I think. This is religion trying to poke it's nose into government matters.[/QUOTE]

Very thought-provoking post. I have gotten so used to viscerally responding to those who claim that abortion is wrong because it's supposedly forbidden in the "bayhbul" that I hadn't dug up the true philisophical issues in quite a while. Philosophy is a complicated subject, and I despair that many don't understand the issue beyond labels like "hypocrite" or "baby-killer" that are hurled back and forth.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Yes but the government would be enforcing their, most likely religious, belief that Abortion is wrong. Let's be honest how many Atheists do you know that give a fuck about Abortion? Very few I think. This is religion trying to poke it's nose into government matters.
[/QUOTE]

I know a lot of atheists who would like nothing better than to have religion wiped off the face of the earth. Many are suprisingly religious in enforcing their atheism. If both groups were equal size then I'm not sure who I'd have a bigger problem with.

One group labels the rest as sinners, the other labels the rest as idiots.

Pro life movements usually take on a religious tone because they have religious backing, but thats not to say its purely a religious cause.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B']Meanwhile, 51% of Mississippi's children live in poverty. This goes to show that the anti-choice are deeply concerned about the welfare of children - until their born, anyway.[/quote]

Yes, because the real solution to poverty is to just kill all the kids who would be born into it... :roll:

[quote name='E-Z-B']I can't believe we're still fighting this battle after so many decades of Roe v. Wade.[/QUOTE]

Get used to it. The country is about equally divided on the issue, with most favoring keeping it legal with some restrictions (no partial-birth abortion, parental notification, spousal notification, etc.).
 
[quote name='steveinneed']If abortion was illegal like these hypocritical pro-life people want it to be, it won't make any difference about the number woman getting abortions. There where be abortions legally or illegally.[/QUOTE]

I'd be interested to know what you feel is hypocritical. And you're dumb if you think that it would make no difference in the number of abortions. Do you also believe that pot smoking wouldn't increase if that were legal?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Yes, because the real solution to poverty is to just kill all the kids who would be born into it... :roll:



Get used to it. The country is about equally divided on the issue, with most favoring keeping it legal with some restrictions (no partial-birth abortion, parental notification, spousal notification, etc.).[/QUOTE]

I seriously doubt spousal notification has much support outside of those who want to ban abortion.

Though I think the reference to poverty is somewhat correct. When abortion is harder to have access to then the poor are the ones who often do not have the means to get to a place where they can have an abortion. Therefore you have more children born into families who cannot afford or properly support them.
 
I wholeheartedly endorse the killing of would be poor children. Why clog failing schools with kids that don't come from well off homes, can't learn and won't amount to shit? Why continue to pay welfare to poor mothers churning out additional monthly payments, er, uhm... children? Why not reduce the food stamps rolls? That's expensive you know. Why should we bother funding health care programs? Dammit, they're poor, didn't they know better than to be born? They should have been aborted.

Their life isn't going to be shit.... abort them all.

I'm curious.

You're the same people that want to fund every program known to mankind for the poor once they're born. You're the same people that also maintain that 51% poverty rates should necessitate more abortion clinics to prevent more people from being born into poverty. Oh, and you're also the same group of people that would be up in arms over concepts like eugenics and forced sterilization.

I wish I could crawl around in your minds just to experience the complete dichotomy you face on reconciling your positions.

I wish we aborted every poor, uneducated, would be poverty sticken baby. They never amount to anything. They certainly can't contribute anything meaningful to America.
 
A) There's a difference between aborting all poor children and aborting unwanted children, since unwanted children can be from any economic class.

B) Programs that are meant to help the poor are designed to try and get them on their feet again. Not to perpetuate their poverty, or give them a crutch to be lazy on.

C) Forced sterlization takes the choice out of pregnancy. Take a look at point A. There is a difference between poor people who don't want a baby and poor people who do want a baby.
 
[quote name='E-Z-B'] Mississippi's only abortion clinic faces new hurdle. Meanwhile, 51% of Mississippi's children live in poverty.[/QUOTE]

Seems to me it's pretty clear cut where E-Z-B stands. Poverty? Abort them.

There was another group of people that felt that society would be better off if a group deemed unworthy of any social or legal protections were, you know, just eliminated.

What were they again? Oh yeah, Nazis.

I had no idea E-Z-B was so in tune with Reinhard Heydrich's view of the world. You really do learn something new every single day.
 
It gives those who don't have the means to support kids, or the desire to support kids, a choice in deciding their life. It also helps prevents children from being born into an atmosphere where it cannot be cared for or is unwanted. The poor are most prone to not having the means to support their children, they have more abortions, and they have the hardest time getting an abortion if their is not a local clinic.

Its really about personal choice, with a side of ensuring children are born into environments where they are wanted.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I know a lot of atheists who would like nothing better than to have religion wiped off the face of the earth. Many are suprisingly religious in enforcing their atheism. If both groups were equal size then I'm not sure who I'd have a bigger problem with.

One group labels the rest as sinners, the other labels the rest as idiots.
[/QUOTE]

Seeing as most atheists aren't willing to die for their beliefs probably the former.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Its really about personal choice, with a side of ensuring children are born into environments where they are wanted.[/QUOTE]

So if an individual isn't wanted kill them? If a group of similar individuals isn't wanted and they're systematically killed that's okay? It's all under the umbrella of personal choice you know.

I think the Nazis had it wrong. Abortion was the key to their wishes. Liberals world wide would have praised their forward thinking if groups they opposed aborted themselves out of existence instead of actually killing them in gas chambers.

I propose we set up 25 abortion clinics for every county in the county below the poverty line and run PSA's informing every single resident dozens of times a week that if they didn't want to be burdened with children and they're pregnant the state would help them by paying for their "choice".

After only a decade or two we'll turn around a positive birth rate into a flat growth rate or slight decline in real population growth. Second 10-20 years we can really kick things into high gear and speed up de-population of poor counties. Three generations removed from program incept we'll have aborted poor residents to the point of being just a general nuisance and not a systematic problem.

The great thing about this is we'll "win" the "war on poverty" and it will all be done from the free will of those valiant enough to make the right "choice".
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']So if an individual isn't wanted kill them? If a group of similar individuals isn't wanted and they're systematically killed that's okay? It's all under the umbrella of personal choice you know.

I think the Nazis had it wrong. Abortion was the key to their wishes. Liberals world wide would have praised their forward thinking if groups they opposed aborted themselves out of existence instead of actually killing them in gas chambers.

I propose we set up 25 abortion clinics for every county in the county below the poverty line and run PSA's informing every single resident dozens of times a week that if they didn't want to be burdened with children and they're pregnant the state would help them by paying for their "choice".

After only a decade or two we'll turn around a positive birth rate into a flat growth rate or slight decline in real population growth. Second 10-20 years we can really kick things into high gear and speed up de-population of poor counties. Three generations removed from program incept we'll have aborted poor residents to the point of being just a general nuisance and not a systematic problem.

The great thing about this is we'll "win" the "war on poverty" and it will all be done from the free will of those valiant enough to make the right "choice".[/QUOTE]


See this is the problem, people of your ilk who are against this sort of thing make it a moral issue and then dont come up with a solution. And dont give me the crap about certain groups are willing to take care of children till they are 18, that doesnt happen. You destroy the issue and make it a black or white issue. You also purposely misinterpret the poverty statistics. A well off person in MS could travel to the abortion clinic or one in a different state and get that abortion, while the poor dont have the money to travel cross state for a medical procedure which they prob dont have the money for. If they do have the child they bring it up in life of poverty, but this isnt about forcing the poor to abort, its about giving them the possibility if thats what they want. Why force them to have a child if they are not ready, mentally, physically or financially.

But that doesnt matter with you because everyone else's rights is your business. But when its something like gun control then you are all for everyone's right to have a gun, you then recite the Article by heart about your well organized militia. I dont like that but I accept it, you dont like something so you try to destroy it, and in the words of you "you would make a great Nazi", in trying to make everyone follow your blonde-hair, blue eyes way of life.
 
PAD, the whole argument hinges on whether an embryo, foetus etc. is a person. Biologically it is human, but has none of the human mental/emotional characteristics and therefore (in my mind) is not human and does not have value other than what the mother places on it. This begins to change somewhat when its viable, but then I think it should be a moral decision (I'm not fully comfortable with it morally, but its not a huge deal to me), not a legal one.

Though why are you even arguing here? You don't appear to be playing devils advocate and you've said, multiple times, that you are pro choice.

Though having health care pay for abortions isn't a bad idea. Maybe we can keep some cases where people pay for their own (ie. people no situational or economic reason, other than just lack of desire, for not having children), but I don't really care either way on that part. You also know I'd jump at the chance to have the state pay for health care.
 
Zo, I am pro-choice.

However the argument here made by E-Z-B wasn't at all about Mississippians losing their one and only abortion clinic and the abolution or dissolution of their ability to choose.

His argument is the state is poor, its residents are poor and poverty should be met with widespread, open and available abortion.

World of difference.

His position is why so many people cannot come to grips with pro-choice viewpoints. In my mind aborting a child because it may grow up poor is nearly as bad as sex selection or selective reduction in the case of twins or triplets.

His position, taken to its extreme logical stated position, is nothing more than de-population of would be troublesome societal groups.
 
Actually, I mentioned the poverty rate in MS simply because those anti-choice idiots who are so fanatical about saving every fetus don't give a shit about children who have no food to eat, no hot water to shower, and no clean clothes to wear. But in a sense, I do believe that accessibility to clinics everywhere, poor, middle-class, and wealthy neighborhoods, will reduce the number of unwanted children and may even help reverse the poverty and crime rate. And as mentioned many times before, this article is excellent and worth a read - though I'd still like to someday get the book:

http://www.freakonomics.com/ch4.php
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I wholeheartedly endorse the killing of would be poor children. Why clog failing schools with kids that don't come from well off homes, can't learn and won't amount to shit? Why continue to pay welfare to poor mothers churning out additional monthly payments, er, uhm... children? Why not reduce the food stamps rolls? That's expensive you know. Why should we bother funding health care programs? Dammit, they're poor, didn't they know better than to be born? They should have been aborted.

Their life isn't going to be shit.... abort them all.

I'm curious.

You're the same people that want to fund every program known to mankind for the poor once they're born. You're the same people that also maintain that 51% poverty rates should necessitate more abortion clinics to prevent more people from being born into poverty. Oh, and you're also the same group of people that would be up in arms over concepts like eugenics and forced sterilization.

I wish I could crawl around in your minds just to experience the complete dichotomy you face on reconciling your positions.

I wish we aborted every poor, uneducated, would be poverty sticken baby. They never amount to anything. They certainly can't contribute anything meaningful to America. [/QUOTE]

I don't think every liberal thinks that every poor kid should be aborted. Most liberals just support the right to choose for everyone. Some liberals (like me) believe that choice should be carefully considered, and investigated from all sides including whether there will be adequate food, shelter, etc for this clump of cells once it turns into a baby and gets born. However if a desparately poor mother with 12 kids wants to have one more, I dare say that there is almost noone in America who would support forcing an abortion on her. I would cut her benefits for irresponsible activity, and maybe advocate forcibly having her tubes tied if she was a crack addict, but I would not support forcing an abortion on her.

I don't necessarily think that a limited form of personally applied eugenics is a bad idea, but as a tool of the state I am violently opposed to it. However if you find out that your clump of cells will turn into a baby that has something like spina bofida or a baby with a lifespan of 4 months, I think it should be your choice whether to abort it.

Just as long as it promotes individual choice, and less government involvement in people's lives. You know - that whole "freedom" thing.
 
Pro-life is hypocritical because they put out no alternative or any other option to fix the problem. Really the only logical solution is to keep it legal and teach and encourage abstinence while keeping the choice there for isolated incidents such as rape.

Religion should have no role in terms of people's individual rights. You may still believe what you think is right but don't shove your beliefs on other people's right to choose.
 
[quote name='camoor']I don't think every liberal thinks that every poor kid should be aborted. Most liberals just support the right to choose for everyone. Some liberals (like me) believe that choice should be carefully considered, and investigated from all sides including whether there will be adequate food, shelter, etc for this clump of cells once it turns into a baby and gets born. However if a desparately poor mother with 12 kids wants to have one more, I dare say that there is almost noone in America who would support forcing an abortion on her. I would cut her benefits for irresponsible activity, and maybe advocate forcibly having her tubes tied if she was a crack addict, but I would not support forcing an abortion on her.

I don't necessarily think that a limited form of personally applied eugenics is a bad idea, but as a tool of the state I am violently opposed to it. However if you find out that your clump of cells will turn into a baby that has something like spina bofida or a baby with a lifespan of 4 months, I think it should be your choice whether to abort it.

Just as long as it promotes individual choice, and less government involvement in people's lives. You know - that whole "freedom" thing.[/QUOTE]

Camoor I was just trying to be absurd. You can't tie a need for abortion on demand to poverty rates. It's just plain sick.

I'm much like you in that people need to carefully work through the scenario of how can they raise this kid, if they can't would adoption be a good option and all the other moral and mentally difficult decisions that go with it. I guess I'm a bit more sensitive to this issure for two reasons; first, I'm adopted, second, one of my exes was a social worker who dealt with at risk teenage girls.

They would be positively giddy at 16-17 when they got pregnant for the first time. They had no education, could get no job, couldn't afford the necessities for themselves, put a roof over their heads let alone provide for a baby. Of course there was going to be no father but damn, they were going to be a mom! They knew the litany of state, federal and county programs for kids and single parents like you and I know game publishers and developers.

They refused to go to the Salvation Army, Goodwill or any other second hand store. "My baby's only gonna have new stuff." is a line I'll never forget out of the mouth of a 17 year old mom to be. Why could they say this? An obscene amount of money being made available from the alphabet soup of government agencies. We're not talking a few hundred but a few thousand.

Any chance this kid is going to grow up and not repeat the process? Not a chance in hell.

That kind of moral and financial poverty is not reflective of being poor. There's never a shortage of athletes, entertainers and people in general that come from large, poor families describing the sacrifice loving parents and relatives made for them. If there's love, if there's caring, if there's involvement and discipline a poor child can and will succeed and break out of their upbringing.

When you're dealing with morally bankrupt individuals, like the young woman I mentioned, no amount of money or government funding, education and programs will ever overcome the fact that a selfish young girl didn't know what the fuck she was doing and likely was going to raise a demon spawn.

To collectively lump poverty rates with a need to provide easier access to abortion is just plain barbaric. It's not about what you have so much as who you have. To say that the stronger determining factor is economic is a place to draw the line as far as arguing the rightness or wrongness of a very tough issue.

[quote name='steveinneed']Pro-life is hypocritical because they put out no alternative or any other option to fix the problem.[/QUOTE]

If you've ever seen a rally or protest outside an abortion clinic you'll find one thing is prevelant. There is almost always someone from an adoption agency, service or organization willing to provide a pregnant woman a place to live, education, health care and a means of getting their would be baby into an adopted home.

You only know of no alternative or option because you refuse to see, or just don't want to see, how commited many people are to this issue. Why do you think it is Americans are adopting Romanian, Chinese and Russian babies? There just aren't enough babies put up for adoption for childless couples to bring into their homes.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Camoor I was just trying to be absurd. You can't tie a need for abortion on demand to poverty rates. It's just plain sick.

I'm much like you in that people need to carefully work through the scenario of how can they raise this kid, if they can't would adoption be a good option and all the other moral and mentally difficult decisions that go with it. I guess I'm a bit more sensitive to this issure for two reasons; first, I'm adopted, second, one of my exes was a social worker who dealt with at risk teenage girls.

They would be positively giddy at 16-17 when they got pregnant for the first time. They had no education, could get no job, couldn't afford the necessities for themselves, put a roof over their heads let alone provide for a baby. Of course there was going to be no father but damn, they were going to be a mom! They knew the litany of state, federal and county programs for kids and single parents like you and I know game publishers and developers.

They refused to go to the Salvation Army, Goodwill or any other second hand store. "My baby's only gonna have new stuff." is a line I'll never forget out of the mouth of a 17 year old mom to be. Why could they say this? An obscene amount of money being made available from the alphabet soup of government agencies. We're not talking a few hundred but a few thousand.

Any chance this kid is going to grow up and not repeat the process? Not a chance in hell.

That kind of moral and financial poverty is not reflective of being poor. There's never a shortage of athletes, entertainers and people in general that come from large, poor families describing the sacrifice loving parents and relatives made for them. If there's love, if there's caring, if there's involvement and discipline a poor child can and will succeed and break out of their upbringing.

When you're dealing with morally bankrupt individuals, like the young woman I mentioned, no amount of money or government funding, education and programs will ever overcome the fact that a selfish young girl didn't know what the fuck she was doing and likely was going to raise a demon spawn.

To collectively lump poverty rates with a need to provide easier access to abortion is just plain barbaric. It's not about what you have so much as who you have. To say that the stronger determining factor is economic is a place to draw the line as far as arguing the rightness or wrongness of a very tough issue.



If you've ever seen a rally or protest outside an abortion clinic you'll find one thing is prevelant. There is almost always someone from an adoption agency, service or organization willing to provide a pregnant woman a place to live, education, health care and a means of getting their would be baby into an adopted home.

You only know of no alternative or option because you refuse to see, or just don't want to see, how commited many people are to this issue. Why do you think it is Americans are adopting Romanian, Chinese and Russian babies? There just aren't enough babies put up for adoption for childless couples to bring into their homes.[/QUOTE]

Honest question. Do you believe a pregnant woman has the right to abort that baby regardless of your own personal beliefs to it being right or wrong. I recall you saying that your pro-choice.

I'll take Bill Clinton's position on abortion. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

From what I see pro-life people just say abortion is wrong and yell out "baby killers" instead of trying to fix the problem. Regardless of what you think or what anyone else thinks it's none of our god damn business.
 
I would cut her benefits for irresponsible activity, and maybe advocate forcibly having her tubes tied if she was a crack addict, but I would not support forcing an abortion on her.
Click to expand...

YAY! For Forced sterilization!

If you've ever seen a rally or protest outside an abortion clinic you'll find one thing is prevelant. There is almost always someone from an adoption agency, service or organization willing to provide a pregnant woman a place to live, education, health care and a means of getting their would be baby into an adopted home.
Click to expand...

And there are always people telling them they're going to hell and scaring the women going in and out of the clinic, and calling them murderers.

Though the ones I saw didn't have what you mentioned, unless you count the ones who were saying they'd take them to a place where they could do that. Considering the behavior of those people and the people around them it isn't the most inviting option.

Why do you think it is Americans are adopting Romanian, Chinese and Russian babies? There just aren't enough babies put up for adoption for childless couples to bring into their homes.
Click to expand...

People think they're doing good by adopting a poor baby, and its usually quicker.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Camoor I was just trying to be absurd. You can't tie a need for abortion on demand to poverty rates. It's just plain sick.

I'm much like you in that people need to carefully work through the scenario of how can they raise this kid, if they can't would adoption be a good option and all the other moral and mentally difficult decisions that go with it. I guess I'm a bit more sensitive to this issure for two reasons; first, I'm adopted, second, one of my exes was a social worker who dealt with at risk teenage girls.

They would be positively giddy at 16-17 when they got pregnant for the first time. They had no education, could get no job, couldn't afford the necessities for themselves, put a roof over their heads let alone provide for a baby. Of course there was going to be no father but damn, they were going to be a mom! They knew the litany of state, federal and county programs for kids and single parents like you and I know game publishers and developers.

They refused to go to the Salvation Army, Goodwill or any other second hand store. "My baby's only gonna have new stuff." is a line I'll never forget out of the mouth of a 17 year old mom to be. Why could they say this? An obscene amount of money being made available from the alphabet soup of government agencies. We're not talking a few hundred but a few thousand.

Any chance this kid is going to grow up and not repeat the process? Not a chance in hell.

...

To collectively lump poverty rates with a need to provide easier access to abortion is just plain barbaric. It's not about what you have so much as who you have. To say that the stronger determining factor is economic is a place to draw the line as far as arguing the rightness or wrongness of a very tough issue.[/QUOTE]

Yes, that story of the welfare mom who declares her baby will only have new things just boils my blood. From an emotional perspective, I want to protect the right of abortion for the promising yet poor youth who just made a bad choice at a young age. I want to give a choice to the young pregnant women who doesn't want to raise a fatherless child using my tax dollars.

I'm only trying to point out that if abortion is made illegal, then the rich will have access to a safe, clean procedure because they can fly their daughters out for a privatized and professional abortion in Canada or Mexico. It is the poor who will lose access to a medically professional abortion, and be forced with a choice between supporting an unwanted baby, giving an unwanted baby to strangers, or having a dangerous back-alley wire hanger abortion.

As an aside I was conjecturing how abortion affects the economy and military/religious recruitment. Philisophically this should not enter the picture, but since when was public policy decided by asking impartial philosophers? I question the motives of the businesspeople, religious organizations, and government officials that fund or support the pro-life movement.
 
I'd hate the day policy was decided by philosphers.

Though the woman who said her kid will only have new stuff, I'm assuming she's telling what will happen. She probably wants the best for her kid despite the poverty, and wants to try to give him/her every advantage she can. She may find its not feasible, but it seems like its out of care for the child than anything else. Especially since what you said suggested that she really only wanted new things for the child, and did not mention herself.

I'm not sure about there, but there's a stigma associated with anyone shopping in those stores for clothing around here. When I was a kid my mother would go in there to look for decorations sometimes. I was only 4 or 5 at the time, and everytime I'd look at some kids thing (other than action figures which they always had a giant bin of) she wouldn't let me buy it because she felt it was dirty. Considering how kids tend to spit and suck on everything its probably not wrong.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Why do you think it is Americans are adopting Romanian, Chinese and Russian babies? There just aren't enough healthy, white babies put up for adoption for childless couples to bring into their homes.[/QUOTE]
Corrected.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']YAY! For Forced sterilization![/QUOTE]

So what is your brilliant solution for what should happen to a desperately poor crack-addicted woman with AIDS of child-bearing age who has already had 5 children and annouces that she plans on having more?
 
[quote name='camoor']So what is your brilliant solution for what should happen to a desperately poor crack-addicted woman with AIDS of child-bearing age who has already had 5 children and annouces that she plans on having more?[/QUOTE]

Increased funds into drug rehab, open rehab centers (ie. countries that allow people to show up whenever they want, regardless of how often they have failed or how willing they seem, have higher success rates than those who run the centers more strictly like here), incentives for treatment and increased services for poor children. You can't legislate every poor decision, and there is sometimes nothing that can be done to completely stop certain actions.
 
[quote name='camoor']So what is your brilliant solution for what should happen to a desperately poor crack-addicted woman with AIDS of child-bearing age who has already had 5 children and annouces that she plans on having more?[/QUOTE]

A revolver holds 6 shots.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']I'd hate the day policy was decided by philosphers.

Though the woman who said her kid will only have new stuff, I'm assuming she's telling what will happen. She probably wants the best for her kid despite the poverty, and wants to try to give him/her every advantage she can. She may find its not feasible, but it seems like its out of care for the child than anything else. Especially since what you said suggested that she really only wanted new things for the child, and did not mention herself.[/QUOTE]

I hate how today welfare policy is decided by suckers like you.

There are plenty of working middle-class and poor who buy items for their babies in thrift stores. I'm sure they'd love to buy new name-brand department store clothes and trinkets for their babies, but it just isn't in the cards.

Yet you want to use my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of the working poor, to buy the luxury of brand-new baby clothes for a welfare mother?

A welfare mother should be given just enough money so that her children can stay fed, clothed, and housed - if she wants luxuries she should postpone having children and get a job instead.
 
[quote name='camoor']I hate how today welfare policy is decided by suckers like you.

There are plenty of working middle-class and poor who buy items for their babies in thrift stores. I'm sure they'd love to buy new name-brand department store clothes and trinkets for their babies, but it just isn't in the cards.

Yet you want to use my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of the working poor, to buy the luxury of brand-new baby clothes for a welfare mother?

A welfare mother should be given just enough money so that her children can stay fed, clothed, and housed - if she wants luxuries she should postpone having children and get a job instead.[/QUOTE]

That is absolutely...correct! Only the essentials should be involved with a welfare check, nothing more.
 
[quote name='camoor']I hate how today welfare policy is decided by suckers like you.

There are plenty of working middle-class and poor who buy items for their babies in thrift stores. I'm sure they'd love to buy new name-brand department store clothes and trinkets for their babies, but it just isn't in the cards.

Yet you want to use my tax dollars, and the tax dollars of the working poor, to buy the luxury of brand-new baby clothes for a welfare mother?

A welfare mother should be given just enough money so that her children can stay fed, clothed, and housed - if she wants luxuries she should postpone having children and get a job instead.[/QUOTE]

Ahh yes, giving children just the bare minimum, what a wonderful way to raise succesful children!

Though since when were all new goods luxury brand items? If you notice though I said it seems she intended to that that, but has yet to find out if its feasible.

But what I see here is someone who actually cares for her child and wants the best for them. She's not doing it for herself, but for the kid.

And besides, we don't know her financial situation. Welfare checks also don't go very far, and she'd probably have to buy lesser stuff for herself to do that. I see no problem in that.
 
You can buy clothes for cheap at goodwill and it's not like its really hurting the child when they don't have top of the line baby clothes or whatever.

I think the point is no one needs anymore then "essentials" when its being handed to them.
 
[quote name='steveinneed']You can buy clothes for cheap at goodwill and it's not like its really hurting the child when they don't have fubu or whatever.[/QUOTE]

So if only fubu makes new clothing, how does non fubu clothing become used? You can buy new clothing for cheap if you know where to look.

I've seen enough kids raised in unfit environments. If someone actually cares about their kid (and again, the person referred only to the kid and not themselves) then thats a welcome benefit. They are still getting the same amount of money.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So if only fubu makes new clothing, how does non fubu clothing become used?

I've seen enough kids raised in unfit environments. If someone actually cares about their kid (and again, the person referred only to the kid and not themselves) then thats a welcome benefit. They are still getting the same amount of money.[/QUOTE]

You know damn well it has nothing to do with fubu, lol. I was just making a point. I don't care if she just referred to the kid there is absolutely no reason to go out there and buy exspensive clothing.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Increased funds into drug rehab, open rehab centers (ie. countries that allow people to show up whenever they want, regardless of how often they have failed or how willing they seem, have higher success rates than those who run the centers more strictly like here), incentives for treatment and increased services for poor children. You can't legislate every poor decision, and there is sometimes nothing that can be done to completely stop certain actions.[/QUOTE]

Every problem can be solved by bigger government? I'm going to resist the urge to say something flip, but I think you are not considering the practical ramificaitons of such a system (IE massive cost, low rates of success, fraud and waste of bureaucracy)

Listen, in this country (USA) we require that people pass a test and get a license to drive. Having a child is a much bigger responsibilty then driving - I am just suggesting some very reasonable, very strictly defined cases where it should be taken away. I'm sure the slippery-slopers will be all over this with their chicken-little arguements, but I have heard no policy suggestion that makes me feel better about supporting the ability of a desperately poor crack-addicted AIDS-infected mother of 5 to bring another child into a living hell (it's simply reckless endangerment).

Zo, you are correct in that you can't legislate every poor decision, but when there is a clear-cut legislative solution that will result in a far greater amount of happiness for all concerned, then I believe that we are morally obligated to go for it.
 
Why must your solution be to throw money at everything? Giving a fat lazy welfare skank with 5 kids isn't fixing anything. "Ya see keeds, alls ya gots ta due iz just have keeds and be stoopud ans the guvment'll pickup tha tab." Am I really supposed to feel bad for a woman that is single with 3 kids from 3 fathers and is pregnant with a 4? Oh noes! The system failed her! No, her ability to keep her legs shut failed her. I'd sooner put a bullet in her (yes, I'd do it personally) than have my tax dollars pissed away so she can have a free ride. Think of the children my left nut. If someone was really thinking of the kid they wouldn't have been born.

Bottom line is that throwing money at problems does is 1) shows that our government is horrendously inept at fiscal management and 2) lacks the ability to solve the actual root of the problem.

Why waste all this money throwing it at the problem? Direct it to the solution. Get decent schools and make sure the little shits attend. The school system cant fail children that don't even try. ...Why did I even start this? Philosophy is just mental masturbation- sure you feel good getting out, but it really doesn't accomplish anything.
 
Well, there's a lot of other things I'd do to rearrange costs. Hell, looking around the world it's not far fetched to say universal health care would be one effective way to reduce costs. And there's also a lot of excess spending, particularly with regards to the military, that could be put elsewhere, and a lot of recent tax cuts that aren't helping. It would not be just an addition.

A lot of countries do similar things (particularly increased child services and better drug rehab), no reason the richest nation in the world can't.

You also can't legislate what people can do with their own body. It is an innate human right to have kids, its not exactly in the privilege like driving is. What exactly do you do if someone gets pregnant and didn't take or can't pass the test? Force an abortion? Complain about a larger government all you want, yours is much more authoritarian regardless of its size.

You know damn well it has nothing to do with fubu, lol. I was just making a point. I don't care if she just referred to the kid there is absolutely no reason to go out there and buy exspensive clothing.
Click to expand...

But since when is all new clothing expensive? That's my point. I buy my stuff off clearance racks and end up paying 15-20 bucks for designer clothes. I can only imagine what the clearance racks at walmart look like.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']So if only fubu makes new clothing, how does non fubu clothing become used? You can buy new clothing for cheap if you know where to look.

I've seen enough kids raised in unfit environments. If someone actually cares about their kid (and again, the person referred only to the kid and not themselves) then thats a welcome benefit. They are still getting the same amount of money.[/QUOTE]

I was angrier at the attitude of the woman.

IE "There's no way that my baby is going to wear used clothing, even though I irresponsibly had a child with no father at age 15, the taxpayers will chip in to make sure that me and my progeny will enjoy the luxury of new baby clothes"

As a tax payer I have no problem If the welfare mother can parlay the amount of money that would normally buy some used clothes at Sal Army into some new clothes at a different store.

Granted I could be reading alot into this, my buddy tells me all the time how people on medicare routinely have the nicest luxury clothes and fanciest cell phones - while the working poor who actually pay their bills will wear respectable but unflashy garments - that's what angers me the most.
 
Oh God forbid you take away their "right" to fuck aimlessly. While I'm all for selective breeding, it doesn't seem likely in any way shape or form for atleast 50 years.

I think a test should cover general intelligence, income/ablity to support a child, lifestyle and probability of passing on a horrible disease/illness. Something simular is done to people looking to adopt.

[quote name='camoor']Every problem can be solved by bigger government? I'm going to resist the urge to say something flip, but I think you are not considering the practical ramificaitons of such a system (IE massive cost, low rates of success, fraud and waste of bureaucracy)

Listen, in this country (USA) we require that people pass a test and get a license to drive. Having a child is a much bigger responsibilty then driving - I am just suggesting some very reasonable, very strictly defined cases where it should be taken away. I'm sure the slippery-slopers will be all over this with their chicken-little arguements, but I have heard no policy suggestion that makes me feel better about supporting the ability of a desperately poor crack-addicted AIDS-infected mother of 5 to bring another child into a living hell (it's simply reckless endangerment).

Zo, you are correct in that you can't legislate every poor decision, but when there is a clear-cut legislative solution that will result in a far greater amount of happiness for all concerned, then I believe that we are morally obligated to go for it.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='Kayden']Why must your solution be to throw money at everything? Giving a fat lazy welfare skank with 5 kids isn't fixing anything. "Ya see keeds, alls ya gots ta due iz just have keeds and be stoopud ans the guvment'll pickup tha tab." Am I really supposed to feel bad for a woman that is single with 3 kids from 3 fathers and is pregnant with a 4? Oh noes! The system failed her! No, her ability to keep her legs shut failed her. I'd sooner put a bullet in her (yes, I'd do it personally) than have my tax dollars pissed away so she can have a free ride. Think of the children my left nut. If someone was really thinking of the kid they wouldn't have been born.

Bottom line is that throwing money at problems does is 1) shows that our government is horrendously inept at fiscal management and 2) lacks the ability to solve the actual root of the problem.

Why waste all this money throwing it at the problem? Direct it to the solution. Get decent schools and make sure the little shits attend. The school system cant fail children that don't even try. ...Why did I even start this? Philosophy is just mental masturbation- sure you feel good getting out, but it really doesn't accomplish anything.[/QUOTE]

That's what I was saying, have services available where they can get help and are directed towards solutions. If she utilizes them then her children can hopefully grow up and avoid the same mistakes. To set up those things takes money, money which can be redirected from elsewhere.

The 5 kids scenario was an unfortunate one where I said you can't just stop it completely, like camoor wanted to do. The one this debate focused on was a person who wanted her kids to have new clothes. As far as I can tell she would need to redirect money from herself to pay the possible extra. It shows a concern for the child more than anything. Maybe it could be better placed, but its hard to argue she didn't care, which is a problem in many cases.

Whether they should be born or not is irrelevent at a certain point, they're there and its best to try to make them into succesful adults. You have to work with whats available, and try to prevent more similar incidents.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, there's a lot of other things I'd do to rearrange costs. Hell, looking around the world it's not far fetched to say universal health care would be one effective way to reduce costs. And there's also a lot of excess spending, particularly with regards to the military, that could be put elsewhere, and a lot of recent tax cuts that aren't helping. It would not be just an addition.

A lot of countries do similar things (particularly increased child services and better drug rehab), no reason the richest nation in the world can't.

You also can't legislate what people can do with their own body. It is an innate human right to have kids, its not exactly in the privilege like driving is. What exactly do you do if someone gets pregnant and didn't take or can't pass the test? Force an abortion? Complain about a larger government all you want, yours is much more authoritarian regardless of its size.



But since when is all new clothing expensive? That's my point. I buy my stuff off clearance racks and end up paying 15-20 bucks for designer clothes. I can only imagine what the clearance racks at walmart look like.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I realize in some circumstances the top of the line brands, such as fubu, are on clearance...heh. My point is don't overspend on luxury items with a welfare check. If she can pay the same amount of money then i'm fine with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top