With the recent controversy surrounding the newest octuplets, I have noticed a growing debate on other sites regarding this issue. The most glaring conundrum presented is how those who are against abortion tend to voice some support for measures of population control. There are so many contradictions on this issue that it amazes even me; and I have been aware of conservative hypocrisy for awhile now. But I digress…
I hold firm to my belief that children should not be punished for their mother’s ignorance. As much as it seems to eerily get mentioned as a solution, "sewing her up” would be considered cruel and unusual punishment in any court of law.
Fertility science has certainly opened up a whole new book on ethics. The risks of fertility treatments, which this woman was well aware of, muliply the issue further with even more questions. Being that my wife and I are currently planning on trying fertility treatments; we are already having to ask some of these tough questions ourselves. What if we get pregnant w/ multiples? We could handle one or two on our incomes; but more than that, and we will be financially strapped beyond what we can afford which would require government assistance? Would we consider selective abortion to get it down to two, or one? Would we consider having all of them and put some up for adoption; but risk my wife’s health in the mean time? Not that I need to justify my life choices based on the beliefs of others, but I am most curious what some of you think about such things?
Then there is the Catholic prohibition of contraceptives and such. With the Roman Catholic Church, as well as some other far right denominations, taking such a hard stance on birth control; the possibility of “multiplying like cockroaches” (as one person liked to refer to it) is certainly an issue. But what are the realistic solutions to all of these questions? We can half-heartedly joke about sewing people up, or putting them in prison for abusing entitlement programs by having too many children; but doesn’t that just put more of a burden on the programs anyways? I mean, now we have these children with no parents that we, as a society, have to take care of. We don’t do a very good job of taking care of the other “wards of the state” in our care. Have we taken these children away from the possibility of having at least one mother only to put them into the black hole abyss we call “foster care?”
What is an acceptable, and ethical, form of population control? For now, abortion is a legal remedy available to the government. Based on current polling numbers, those who are against abortion are for some form of population control, even if their motivations are suspect (rising population of minorities, alleged abuse of entitlement programs, etc.). I admit I have no solution to offer. Only questions about where we should draw the line in the sand. This is uncharted territory, folks! Science and technology have certainly passed us by; and so, as a result, the effectiveness of a political solution as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
I gotta side with Matt. Is there anything the population of candidates at U4Prez won't bitch about?
Hey, Matt! Do I sense a touch of cynicism towards us there?
I agree that a character limit wouldn't be a good idea. I wouldn't call it censorship, but it's good to allow in-depth replies.
If we did a character limit on posts, people would just bitch that we are somehow censoring them.
There needs to be a character limit on these replies. Sometimes, I look at the size of them and don't even want to read them.
Conservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.
personally I think some people do CHOOSE to be poor. They wake up in the morning and instead of looking for a job they wait for their monthly handout from the tax payers and spend their days smoking crack or shooting heroin or just laying on the couch being lazy. I don't want to give them my money. I don't mind helping those that are struggling to make ends meet yet still get up and go to work or at least try to find work. I have no sympathy for a lazy man, let him starve. I think that conservatives prove they care, take a look at the charitable contributions, religious conservatives give far more than the ordinary liberal. We do it by choice, we give to places that make a difference, local food pantry's, the local Church, adopt a family for Christmas,,,, I could go on. Liberals want to force us to give to the folks they deem worthy through taxation when it appears many of them do not pay their own taxes. It is a cheap shot to say that conservatives don't care about the poor,,, truth be told, we do more for the poor than most.
Oh yeah, firday. I forgot. Those people chose to die because they were uninsured. And yes, it is illegal to turn them away in an emergency. Cancer is not an emergency. You're just another conservative that doesn't want to own up to reality. You think poor people want to be poor, the unisured want to die, and America is number 1 at everything. You are severley unaquainted with reality.
No, there are millions and millions of Americans who won't afford health insurance. There are no Americans who can't afford health insurance and don't have some sort of government or other substitute available to them, especially with the expansion of SCHIP. Hospitals cannot turn people away for emergency care because they don't have insurance. It's illegal. What is your experience that you keep talking about?
Ok, friday. My personal experience would suggest that the American healthcare system is good something, and terrible most of the time. As I said, the capitalist class already decides who lives and dies. Insurance companies turn away many people, and hospitals turn them away because they're not insured. Thats a fact. You can't debate it. There are millions and millions of americans that cant afford health insurance. Its a fact that I know the "faith over facts" crowd doesn't want to accepts. I will debate political philosophy all day, but I reguse to debate fact.
18% of abortions are performed on evangelical Christians. 37.4% of abortion are perfromed on Protestants, and 1.3% of Jews. Catholics account for 31.3% of abortions. And women with no religious affiliation account for 23.7% of all abortions. Not really relevant, but kinda interesting.
I just told you the World Health Organization study was flawed. Don't you read my responses before responding to them? How about testimonies of American and foreign patients? I just said that's where I got my information from. Pay attention.
How about the World Health Oragnization? How about real life experience with the American healthcare system? How about testimonies of American and foreign patients, and administrators of American and foreign healthcare companies? Are those good resources? You, friday, need to come to grips with reality.
Imagine, don't sit back and accept what Micheal Moore tells you.
The World Health Organization's study left out many different variables and included non-healthcare related variables such as who pays for the healthcare, without recognizing that when a government pays for healthcare the people pay for it. The study was flawed. And for your information, I don't listen to Hannity. I do listen to doctors I know who have patients who come (illegally) from Canada with their life savings to get basic operations in the US because Canada won't do it or won't do it well.
The World Health Organization rates Frances healthcare system as the best. The United States' is ranked number 37. The American Healthcare system is not acessible to all. In your delusional bullshit comcept of 'the American dream' it is, but in reality is not. Its not even debatable. I've seen people rejected first hand rejected by our healthcare system. You've been mislead about foreign healthcare systems. Do real research about hiow the systems really work and listen to the testimonies of real people. Don't sit back and accept what Sean Hannity tells you about Canada and France.
The American health care system is open and freely accessible to all. Socialist health systems, like the Netherlands, won't treat elderly people who have outlived their life expectancy. That is where we are heading. In the US you can be a 100 year old vegetable and we'll keep you plugged in as long as there is someone out there telling us to.
Imagine, who would get to survive in a rationed social health care system?
Oh knock off the crap. No one is pro-abortion? That's good, cause no one is pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-abstinence, or anything like that either. I really don't have time to get into a debate on abortion right now, but what about the point I actually made? Any thoughts?
The capitalist class already gets to decide who lives an dies. It's call, the American Healthcare System.
The sad part in deciding who gets to live is that politicians will choose. And does anybody here think they're not going to save themselves?
Theres a party that promotoes abortion? Now, I'm not typically this partisan but I'm going to deffend the democrats here. First of all, no one is "pro-abortion". The majority of the Democratic Party believes in a womans right to chose. Next, abortion rates were high under Reagan and Bush, they were lower during Clinton, then they went back up under Bush. Why? Simple. Logic. Liberals and the center-left typically promote expansive sex education, and contraception which helps to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Less unwanted pregnancies, less abortion. Not difficult to understand. Next, the left tends to support social programs. lots of women can't afford to raise a child so they abort it. More social programs, more money to raise a baby, less abortions. Simple concept. The right tends to favor absitnence only sex education and oppose the availability of contraception. less sex ed, less contraception, mor unwanted pregnancies, more abortions. They also tend to support cutting social programs. Less money for the poor, more women that can't afford babies, more abortions. Very simple to understand. What we need to do to reduce the number of abortions is be logical.
Here is what scares me about this debate. Consider also Nancy Pelosi saying that government spending millions on contraception is good because kids are a drain on society. Think about it. Kids are a drain for 16 years, then they get jobs and start paying into social security. How long will it be until the party that promotes sucking the brains out of half-born babies realizes that the elderly are the true drain on society. I'll tell you right now, it will happen just like in every country with socialist healthcare, when have to start rationing our socialist medicine and determine what the standard life-span for each person should be. I'm telling you right now, they already have it in other countries, we are not that far away.
"Gangster rap was created by the government to make blacks kill each other." -Alicia Keys- I dunno, man.
Who dropped names? I pointed to a liberal research firm that has posted its findings on the web. Now, I know you won't read them, nor will you rebutt with anything of factual value. So who cares what your suppossed wife's favorite movie is because it is irrelevant.
Demo jumped me a while back about China's policies in trying to curb overpopulation, their one-child-only laws. I've written in my own blog about the very real horrors that await us and starting to play themselves out as we speak. If BigDaddy's going to drop names, here's a name for you. Thomas Malthus, he predicted this kind of thing back in 1800. He predicted the worldwide population will achieve equilibrium, but not before a whole torrent of terrors overwhelm us, from rampant famine to massive starvation to world wars over dwindling resources. I told myself long ago, I wasn't going to father children, I was not going to bring another soul into this world with these kind of problems. One of my wife's favorite dystopian movies from the early 70's was ZERO POPULATION GROWTH, where there was a 30-year span in which giving birth was illegal. I would like to think human beings themselves will come to their senses and curb their behavior, because I am dead sure, if they don't on their own accord, Nature will.
Well since nothing in this "blog" is fact based, Goto the Guttmacher Institute (google it for address) and read what the research arm of planned parent hood has found. that abortion suppresses the minorities and the poor at an alarmingly higher rate. Maybe Abortion is population control, just not endorsed by Conservatives rather supported and endorsed by liberals.
|
|
<< Home