NationStates Jolt Archive

Another article I came across in the local paper.

http://newsok.com/article/3131059/1190435468

Now first of all, it seems ridiculous to charge someone with the murder of a person who does not yet exist, is still part of her body, in a country where abortion is still nominally legal.

Second, if the state would pay for poor womens first trimester abortions, we might have avoided the whole problem. Obviously, with her history, she is not fit to raise children. Though a great believer in reproductive freedom, I would have no problem with the state offering every incentive to get sterilized. Including a bit of uncomfortable pressuring.

Another thing. Apparently, the majority of drug rehab programs will not take pregnent women. Especially, since if she waits until she's pregnant to enter rehab, she's admitting to using drugs while pregnant. Which she can be prosecuted for. Nice little catch-22.

that newspaper is fairly disappointing;)

I must say I agree with you wholeheartedly.

How I love not living in the U.S.!;)

Edit: Damn these timewarps, they make normal conversation almost impossible.

Another article I came across in the local paper.

http://newsok.com/article/3131059/1190435468

Now first of all, it seems ridiculous to charge someone with the murder of a person who does not yet exist, is still part of her body, in a country where abortion is still nominally legal.

Agree, this law is ridiculous to say the least. I figure it was a backward way to make people realize abortion was wrong.


Second, if the state would pay for poor womens first trimester abortions, we might have avoided the whole problem. Obviously, with her history, she is not fit to raise children. Though a great believer in reproductive freedom, I would have no problem with the state offering every incentive to get sterilized. Including a bit of uncomfortable pressuring.

Problem with this is that offering sterilization and paying for abortions would raise the ire of anti-abortion groups. I am sure this would backfire on the politicians in office that allowed it to happen. After all politicians are voter driven and do not want to upset a voter block. You may also here cries from human rights groups claiming that the state was intentionally trying to kill off the poor people by aborting the poor peoples children.

Another thing. Apparently, the majority of drug rehab programs will not take pregnent women. Especially, since if she waits until she's pregnant to enter rehab, she's admitting to using drugs while pregnant. Which she can be prosecuted for. Nice little catch-22.
There is not a medical reason for this? Do they not give you counter active drugs in drug rehab to help you kick your habit? I don't know but just speculating. Maybe going through withdrawals can cause problems?

Another article I came across in the local paper.

http://newsok.com/article/3131059/1190435468

Second, if the state would pay for poor womens first trimester abortions, we might have avoided the whole problem. Obviously, with her history, she is not fit to raise children. Though a great believer in reproductive freedom, I would have no problem with the state offering every incentive to get sterilized. Including a bit of uncomfortable pressuring.


I might consider allowing the state to use my tax dollars to sterilize people, but to use my tax money to pay for an abortion I say, No.

Comes from the same state that has a license plate motto of: Oklahoma is O.K. !

Well, at least they go out on a limb and call it not just "good," but a "great!" place to do business, if I recall the welcome signs at the border correctly. Or was that Kansas? Same difference, yeh? :p

that newspaper is fairly disappointing;)

I must say I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Comes from the same state that has a license plate motto of: Oklahoma is O.K. !

Agree, this law is ridiculous to say the least. I figure it was a backward way to make people realize abortion was wrong.



Problem with this is that offering sterilization and paying for abortions would raise the ire of anti-abortion groups. I am sure this would backfire on the politicians in office that allowed it to happen. After all politicians are voter driven and do not want to upset a voter block. You may also here cries from human rights groups claiming that the state was intentionally trying to kill off the poor people by aborting the poor peoples children.

There is not a medical reason for this? Do they not give you counter active drugs in drug rehab to help you kick your habit? I don't know but just speculating. Maybe going through withdrawals can cause problems?

Yep. I know the kind of fire the anti-choice folks would light. People object to a great many sensible things. Doesn't make them less sensible.

And as for the medical reasons for not accepting a pregnant woman into rehab- it's safer to leave her on drugs? Certainly more fun to imprison her for having a dead baby.

I might consider allowing the state to use my tax dollars to sterilize people, but to use my tax money to pay for an abortion I say, No.She already has five kids in foster-care. I don't really care how we keep her from breeding at this point.

I'm not bashing anybody's state, but...
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff287/johnnybmetal/oklahoma_poster.jpg

I'm not bashing anybody's state, but...
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff287/johnnybmetal/oklahoma_poster.jpg

You have just pissed off all the people in the Eastern part of the state of OK. :eek:

I do not believe the state should pay for abortion, not because that I don't think there should be abortions, If I believe that the state, and the federal government should leave abortion up to the general population and let them decide, then by that same logic, I will have to disapprove of the state paying for someone's abortion because not everyone is for abortion and to use taxpayers money to pay for something that not everyone approves of, is wrong.

Second, if the state would pay for poor womens first trimester abortions, we might have avoided the whole problem. Obviously, with her history, she is not fit to raise children. Though a great believer in reproductive freedom, I would have no problem with the state offering every incentive to get sterilized. Including a bit of uncomfortable pressuring.
This would be hard to see as anything other than a culling of the poor. Even though it's not 'forced,' it would ultimately be a further 'second classing' of the poor, almost class Eugenics.

Another thing. Apparently, the majority of drug rehab programs will not take pregnent women. Especially, since if she waits until she's pregnant to enter rehab, she's admitting to using drugs while pregnant. Which she can be prosecuted for. Nice little catch-22.
Fucked up beyond belief, and the kind of Catch-22 that is all too common.

I do not believe the state should pay for abortion, not because that I don't think there should be abortions, If I believe that the state, and the federal government should leave abortion up to the general population and let them decide, then by that same logic, I will have to disapprove of the state paying for someone's abortion because not everyone is for abortion and to use taxpayers money to pay for something that not everyone approves of, is wrong.
So countries shouldn't go to war unless the entire population agrees with it?

I do not believe the state should pay for abortion, not because that I don't think there should be abortions, If I believe that the state, and the federal government should leave abortion up to the general population and let them decide, then by that same logic, I will have to disapprove of the state paying for someone's abortion because not everyone is for abortion and to use taxpayers money to pay for something that not everyone approves of, is wrong.The government makes us all pay for some shit we don't necessarily approve of. You'll just have to suck it up with the rest of us.

While we're at it, why does medicare pay for shit like viagra, but the government won't pay for birth-control or abortion? I may not approve of Granpa getting his groove on.

So countries shouldn't go to war unless the entire population agrees with it?

Hey you elect the President and Congress, the President is Commander in Chief, and Congress does control the war purse, so ya get what you voted for, or through inaction.

This would be hard to see as anything other than a culling of the poor. Even though it's not 'forced,' it would ultimately be a further 'second classing' of the poor, almost class Eugenics.

Fucked up beyond belief, and the kind of Catch-22 that is all too common.If the poor reproduced less, there'd be fewer of us to second-class. We'd be less poor and those children born to poor parents would have a better opportunity to climb out of poverty.

I'm not saying completely control the reproduction choices of the poor. I say give them a few incentives to not have kids, a couple of disincentives to have kids. (Have to think hard on what disincentives wouldn't be detrimental to the kid once born)
That way, if Mom and Dad have a kid anyway, you know they really value him and will do their best job.

You have just pissed off all the people in the Eastern part of the state of OK. :eek:

The demotivator couldn't fit the whole state. Besides, I wasn't mindlessly bashing.

You have just pissed off all the people in the Eastern part of the state of OK. :eek:

:p

You know the mental health system right now doesn't help pregnant ladies either? They tell them to go to the obgyn for help:rolleyes:

:p

You know the mental health system right now doesn't help pregnant ladies either? They tell them to go to the obgyn for help:rolleyes:

When I lived in Edmond, before I had insurance, I ran into the opposite problem. I went to the little community mental health clinic and was refused services. They told me if I were pregnant or had a chemical dependency problem, they would see me. Apparently being bipolar wasn't serious. My reaction- "What? You want me to make sure my life is totally screwed before I come in?" :rolleyes:

If the poor reproduced less, there'd be fewer of us to second-class. We'd be less poor and those children born to poor parents would have a better opportunity to climb out of poverty.

I'm not saying completely control the reproduction choices of the poor. I say give them a few incentives to not have kids, a couple of disincentives to have kids. (Have to think hard on what disincentives wouldn't be detrimental to the kid once born)
That way, if Mom and Dad have a kid anyway, you know they really value him and will do their best job.
Breeding out the poor seems an entirely crass way of 'solving' poverty.

Breeding out the poor seems an entirely crass way of 'solving' poverty.Crass?

There will always be poor. I believe even the Bible admits this. Fewer offspring always seems to equal less poverty. I'd like to think we can find ways to reduce the amount of reproduction anong poorer folks without becoming the ovary police.

I agree with that law for the most part. That woman did not choose to have an abortion, so she, until she killed her child/fetus/whatever you want to call it, was planning on bringing it to full term. Unless she planned on aborting it, the child/fetus already exists as a child in the mind of the mother and therefor should be protected from negligence, stupidity and the actions of others. There was a case by me where a man killed a pregnant woman. He was charged with both the woman's and the child's death. Since in both cases, the woman did not actively choose to kill the fetus, whomever causes the fetus's death should be held responsible whether it be the woman herself through negligence or someone else.

:p

You know the mental health system right now doesn't help pregnant ladies either? They tell them to go to the obgyn for help:rolleyes:

Jeez.

While we're at it, why does medicare pay for shit like viagra, but the government won't pay for birth-control or abortion? I may not approve of Granpa getting his groove on.

Because ED is a medical condition, but pregnancy is a Gift From God.

After all, women only get pregnant because God lets them. IT has nothing to do with being bent over a pool table, grabbed by the ankles and riden like ... OK, we won't go there. But all I have to go by are my own experience with getting people pregnant.

Of course, using that sort of BS thought process I'd just argue that if God wanted someone's dick to be hard he'd make it hard!

But the short answer is: "because an extremely vocal subset of voters raise a big stink about anything to do with sex." And because politicians are cowards who would rather pander to vitriol than take a stand.

Hey you elect the President and Congress, the President is Commander in Chief, and Congress does control the war purse, so ya get what you voted for, or through inaction.
Your train of logic makes no sense

Abortion: Sense the whole population is not for it the government should not be sponsering it

War: Sense the elected officials are for it and they got elected it is fine

That makes no sense

Would not a more constant standpoint based off of your ideas in war be that if the politicians that can write the checks get in power it is just fine that the state sponsors abortions?

To completely ignore the article and just answer the question "Can't we just pay for an abortion?"

According to certain translations of the Bible - yes we can ! According to those if a woman miscarries due to physical abuse by a third party the penalty is that the husband can demand monetary compensation if he so desires.
This translation of the eye for an eye passage is however not very popular with the Christians in front of abortion clinics.

I would have no problem with the state offering every incentive to get sterilized. Including a bit of uncomfortable pressuring.


If we cannot allow the state to 'sponsor' religion through 'observing' religious occasions with public property then we also cannot allow the state to transgress the core tenets of the vast majority of religions of taxpayers with same said public money.

Sterilization is not against most religions - and is also completely voluntary for everyone involved without room for question or debate. Abortion, on the other hand, is very debatable.

I for one would have NO problem with state sponsored or encouraged sterilization - heck - would've saved me some dough a few years ago. However some wackos seem to think that it is discriminatory to do this. They feel that the state should instead offer free abortions on demand without regard for anything. The exact opposite of what I would consider a simple solution.

Here is an example of some of the objections to sterilizations. This is an example where people are PAID to be sterilized - but most of the arguments would apply even i they were not paid based solely on socio-economic issues...
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0244,basu,39531,5.html

Second, if the state would pay for poor womens first trimester abortions, we might have avoided the whole problem.
Or the state could try to head the problem off with more comprehensive sex education and pregnancy prevention awareness.

Hey you elect the President and Congress, the President is Commander in Chief, and Congress does control the war purse, so ya get what you voted for, or through inaction.
Dude, I'm not american and my country stayed the fuck out of the clusterfuck known as Iraq because my prime minister at the time wasn't a total moron.

Also, my country doesn't have congress or a preseident.

Also, if a state/country were to elect a leader who said "free abortions for anyone who wants one" then they should be provided free of charge, correct?

When I lived in Edmond, before I had insurance, I ran into the opposite problem. I went to the little community mental health clinic and was refused services. They told me if I were pregnant or had a chemical dependency problem, they would see me. Apparently being bipolar wasn't serious. My reaction- "What? You want me to make sure my life is totally screwed before I come in?" :rolleyes:

a friend of mine has only state insurance and is 7 months pregnant and deeply depressed, I took her to the mental health clinic and they told her to go to her obgyn for help because they had to help people who didn't have access to other health care, and when I explained to them that her obgyn wasn't equipped to help her (can't check her into the behavior health ward) they said she was just "out of luck".


apparently suicide only matters if you have money or aren't pregnant. I asked them if they would check me into the hospital if I were suicidal, even though I had insurance and they said "sure", and when I asked why they wouldn't help her, they said "we did, we advised her to go see her doctor":rolleyes:

a friend of mine has only state insurance and is 7 months pregnant and deeply depressed, I took her to the mental health clinic and they told her to go to her obgyn for help because they had to help people who didn't have access to other health care, and when I explained to them that her obgyn wasn't equipped to help her (can't check her into the behavior health ward) they said she was just "out of luck".


apparently suicide only matters if you have money or aren't pregnant. I asked them if they would check me into the hospital if I were suicidal, even though I had insurance and they said "sure", and when I asked why they wouldn't help her, they said "we did, we advised her to go see her doctor":rolleyes:

First of all - an OBGYN CAN refer to a mental health specialist. Regardless - it sounds like your friend either chose the father very poorly or is a very poor planner - she should never have gotten pregnant. What's done is done though and now she needs constructive help. Kudos to you for standing by her. If she needs counseling that badly there are many churches who have programs specially tailored to young and expecting mothers. You should look into them before it is too late. The best ones have no cost nor expectation from the few I've seen - though I'd be careful which denomination and YOU should scout it for her to screen for the wackos... You will be surprized at the quality of care they can provide.

Or the state could try to head the problem off with more comprehensive sex education and pregnancy prevention awareness.

"Head the problem off" - is that supposed to be subliminal?


It would be so much easier if penises were detachable. Then we could license them. ;)

First of all - an OBGYN CAN refer to a mental health specialist. Regardless - it sounds like your friend either chose the father very poorly or is a very poor planner - she should never have gotten pregnant. What's done is done though and now she needs constructive help. Kudos to you for standing by her. If she needs counseling that badly there are many churches who have programs specially tailored to young and expecting mothers. You should look into them before it is too late. The best ones have no cost nor expectation from the few I've seen - though I'd be careful which denomination and YOU should scout it for her to screen for the wackos... You will be surprized at the quality of care they can provide.

First of all her sexual decisions are none of your business. Second, her OBGYN can't admit her to the behavioral health hospital, she needed impatient care.

First of all her sexual decisions are none of your business. Second, her OBGYN can't admit her to the behavioral health hospital, she needed impatient care.

I never said her sexual decisions were my business. I simply pointed out that from the information you shared it seems she has made a few bad decisions. (and at least two good ones) A very simple observation.

Now, if she were to expect me to pay for the care of her and her child that she was unable to provide then her sexuality absolutely becomes my business and the business of anybody else writing checks for her. I'm certain that she has learned a thing or two about responsibility through all this as evidenced by her decision to keep the baby. I certainly and sincerely hope that she can make of her future everything she hopes it holds for her child. It will be more difficult than had she planned better, but since when is taking responsibility easy?

OBGYNs can refer patients to mental health providers who can then determine if inpatient care is necessary. The referral must come from an OBGYN however.

As far as her depression goes - there are many no cost alternatives. I do hope you help her explore them if the OBGYN is unhelpful.

Another article I came across in the local paper.

http://newsok.com/article/3131059/1190435468

Now first of all, it seems ridiculous to charge someone with the murder of a person who does not yet exist, is still part of her body, in a country where abortion is still nominally legal.

Second, if the state would pay for poor womens first trimester abortions, we might have avoided the whole problem. Obviously, with her history, she is not fit to raise children. Though a great believer in reproductive freedom, I would have no problem with the state offering every incentive to get sterilized. Including a bit of uncomfortable pressuring.

Another thing. Apparently, the majority of drug rehab programs will not take pregnent women. Especially, since if she waits until she's pregnant to enter rehab, she's admitting to using drugs while pregnant. Which she can be prosecuted for. Nice little catch-22.
Yet people are opposed to embryonic stem cell research too because tax dollars would be used for it. While I agree with you with the incentives point, I'm hoping you're in favour of public funding for embryonic stem cell research as well. I'd like to mention that for most cases (with rape victims obviously being an exception to this) accidentally conceiving can be argued to be a consequence of the actions of those who do so. Getting type 1 diabetes is not. Granted, I suppose it isn't a consequence for the fetus either, or for the child if/when it's born; but yeah, having someone punished for the death of the unborn when abortion is illegal is inconsistent.

I never said her sexual decisions were my business. I simply pointed out that from the information you shared it seems she has made bad decisions. A very simple observation.

Now, if she were to expect me to pay for the care of her and her child that she was unable to provide then her sexuality absolutely becomes my business and the business of anybody else writing checks for her. I'm certain that she has learned a thing or two about responsibility through all this as evidenced by her decision to keep the baby. I certainly and sincerely hope that she can make of her future everything she hopes it holds for her child. It will be more difficult than had she planned better, but since when is taking responsibility easy?
She is married, btw.

OBGYNs can refer patients to mental health providers who can then determine if inpatient care is necessary. Those silly mental health care providers are really funny that way - they seem to think they know more about mental health than unlicensed people like you.
and when the mental health people she was referred to tell her to go back to her OBGYN? because that's what's happening now.

As far as her depression goes - there are many no cost alternatives. I do hope you help her explore them.
I am sure you know so much more about her situation than I do, I will just tell her to look into getting some sunshine and talking to a priest, maybe he can pray her out of depression. :rolleyes:

She is married, btw.
So? The planning (timing) was obviously flawed. Maybe they married too soon, maybe not. Bummer that birth control isn't 100%. (at least not for young couples) Similar thing happened to me - though not as dire. We were both well beyond college age - though her career was more established than mine at the time.


and when the mental health people she was referred to tell her to go back to her OBGYN? because that's what's happening now.
Sorry - I edited my reply while you were posting to more closely match what you had shared. The OBGYN is the primary caregiver for her - any referrals to other specialists must flow through the OBGYN. If you do not then they refer back to the OBGYN. Think of it like connect the dots - first 1, then 2, then 3. You can't skip steps. There are a multitude of reasons but they are all outside of the context of this discussion. (suffice to say that OBGYNs are among the highest liability of physician specialists and nobody wants any of their action - which they would assume if they become involved without the OBGYNs consent)


I am sure you know so much more about her situation than I do, I will just tell her to look into getting some sunshine and talking to a priest, maybe he can pray her out of depression. :rolleyes:
You obviously know very little about faith based charitable services. If you want to help your friend then you would do well to become open minded enough to investigate all of the options before dismissing something you know nothing about.

The problem is, that the women who want to fuck everyone when they're 17 will use my tax dollars to get sterilized, and when they're 30 and want kids they'll want my tax dollars to get a reversal. Not fun.

I'm pro-choice, as always. There's nothing much you can do to improve the situation, but making abortion legal will no doubt worsen it.

So? The planning (timing) was obviously flawed. Bummer that birth control isn't 100%. (at least not for young couples) Similar thing happened to me.
happened twice to me, it sucks. Luckily my husband isn't a lazy bum and he took another job for a while to make sure we could afford it and such.


Sorry - I edited my reply while you were posting to more closely match what you had shared. The OBGYN is the primary caregiver for her - any referrals to other specialists must flow through the OBGYN. If you do not then they refer back to the OBGYN. Think of it like connect the dots - first 1, then 2, then 3. You can't skip steps. There are a multitude of reasons but they are all outside of the context of this discussion. (suffice to say that OBGYNs are among the highest liability of physician specialists and nobody wants any of their action - which they would assume if they become involved without the OBGYNs consent)
yeah, we talked to the OB and he referred her to mental health who told her to go back to the OB, who told her to go to a general practitioner who told her to referred her to mental health who told her to go back to the OB.

it's frustrating.


You obviously know very little about faith based charitable services. If you want to help your friend then you would do well to become open minded enough to investigate all of the options before dismissing something you know nothing about.
you obviously assume too much.

The problem is, that the women who want to fuck everyone when they're 17 will use my tax dollars to get sterilized, and when they're 30 and want kids they'll want my tax dollars to get a reversal. Not fun.

I'm pro-choice, as always. There's nothing much you can do to improve the situation, but making abortion legal will no doubt worsen it.

what if your tax $ isn't used to reverse it? my insurance paid to snip my husband but they will never every pay to go the other way.....surely the government could do the same?

The problem is, that the women who want to fuck everyone when they're 17 will use my tax dollars to get sterilized, and when they're 30 and want kids they'll want my tax dollars to get a reversal. Not fun.

I'm pro-choice, as always. There's nothing much you can do to improve the situation, but making abortion legal will no doubt worsen it.

If that's all it would take to make 17-30 year old women want to fuck everyone then I'll gladly pay! Hell! it may be the best government program ever devised! You may have stumbled on the solution for world peace! - or at least world piece...

Hey - why would it be just women who are eligible? Why not men? Other than ruining the suspense of afternoon TV ("Which of these 13 men is the Father" shows) it would be great!

what if your tax $ isn't used to reverse it? my insurance paid to snip my husband but they will never every pay to go the other way.....surely the government could do the same?
Not sure I follow you on this. Must be tired. Going to sleep now...

I never said her sexual decisions were my business. I simply pointed out that from the information you shared it seems she has made a few bad decisions. (and at least two good ones) A very simple observation.

Now, if she were to expect me to pay for the care of her and her child that she was unable to provide then her sexuality absolutely becomes my business and the business of anybody else writing checks for her. I'm certain that she has learned a thing or two about responsibility through all this as evidenced by her decision to keep the baby. I certainly and sincerely hope that she can make of her future everything she hopes it holds for her child. It will be more difficult than had she planned better, but since when is taking responsibility easy?

OBGYNs can refer patients to mental health providers who can then determine if inpatient care is necessary. The referral must come from an OBGYN however.

As far as her depression goes - there are many no cost alternatives. I do hope you help her explore them if the OBGYN is unhelpful.

You are being totally judgemental

You don't know if this woman had mental health issues before she became pregnant, or even if she chose to become pregnant - you just assumed that's what has happened.

As anyone who has ever been pregnant will tell you hormones have a strong and often upsetting effect on a pregnant woman. Her mental health MAY be caused by her pregnancy. It MAY be caused be other factors. You don't know. I don't know.

The bottom line is she needs help.

You are being totally judgemental

There is nothing wrong with stating when someone has made a bad decision - we do it here every day. Sorry if it hurts your feelings or makes you uncomfortable - but there is no denying that becoming pregnant when you cannot afford to support a family is a poor decision. If we put on our blinders and pretend that everything is just dandy with having children without the resources to care for them then we really are just being willfully ignorant.


You don't know if this woman had mental health issues before she became pregnant, or even if she chose to become pregnant - you just assumed that's what has happened.
Mental health issues don't make a bad decision good. Also, nobody can 'choose' to become pregnant. They can only choose to engage in behavior which can result in pregnancy. Marriage to someone who is unprepared for parenthood does not excuse that decision. Just as people say to unmarried men who get women pregnant - If you can't afford to pay then you can't afford to play.


As anyone who has ever been pregnant will tell you hormones have a strong and often upsetting effect on a pregnant woman. Her mental health MAY be caused by her pregnancy. It MAY be caused be other factors. You don't know. I don't know.
So? Who is denying that?

The bottom line is she needs help.
Then she should seek it from any and every resource she can find.

Funny enough, lots of health insurance programs WON'T cover birth control pills, but WILL pay for a number of abortions per person per year.

Sick ol' world, ain't it?

Funny enough, lots of health insurance programs WON'T cover birth control pills, but WILL pay for a number of abortions per person per year.

Sick ol' world, ain't it?

What is the price of the average birth control pill? I really don't know. Does it compare to condoms? Should condoms be included?

If BC pills cost more than the the typical prescription deductible then certainly they should be included.

Crass?

There will always be poor. I believe even the Bible admits this. Fewer offspring always seems to equal less poverty. I'd like to think we can find ways to reduce the amount of reproduction anong poorer folks without becoming the ovary police.

The way to help is to educate the poor: Higher and better education translates to fewer children.

Also, if there's a greater chance of one child making it and less need for help later on in life - ie. free healthcare - there's a lesser need to breed.

In poverty having copious amounts of children is a way to obtain "life insurance".

The way to help is to educate the poor: Higher and better education translates to fewer children.

Also, if there's a greater chance of one child making it and less need for help later on in life - ie. free healthcare - there's a lesser need to breed.

In poverty having copious amounts of children is a way to obtain "life insurance".

How much education is enough? In the US people are given 13-14 year of free education - and a substantial number of people drop out prematurely.

I do not believe the state should pay for abortion, not because that I don't think there should be abortions, If I believe that the state, and the federal government should leave abortion up to the general population and let them decide, then by that same logic, I will have to disapprove of the state paying for someone's abortion because not everyone is for abortion and to use taxpayers money to pay for something that not everyone approves of, is wrong.

By that same logic, I feel that ugly people should have to wear bags over their heads because the pretty people don't like looking at them.

Seriously -- what?

Hey you elect the President and Congress, the President is Commander in Chief, and Congress does control the war purse, so ya get what you voted for, or through inaction.

Some of us voted against it twice, and we still get what we didn't want.
So why shouldn't medically necessary care be given because someone's got their panties in a bunch over someone else's supposed lack of morality?

How much education is enough? In the US people are given 13-14 year of free education - and a substantial number of people drop out prematurely.

No, good education. You know, where you actually learn stuff. Most public schools are horrible.

Another article I came across in the local paper.

http://newsok.com/article/3131059/1190435468

Now first of all, it seems ridiculous to charge someone with the murder of a person who does not yet exist, is still part of her body, in a country where abortion is still nominally legal.

Second, if the state would pay for poor womens first trimester abortions, we might have avoided the whole problem. Obviously, with her history, she is not fit to raise children. Though a great believer in reproductive freedom, I would have no problem with the state offering every incentive to get sterilized. Including a bit of uncomfortable pressuring.

Another thing. Apparently, the majority of drug rehab programs will not take pregnent women. Especially, since if she waits until she's pregnant to enter rehab, she's admitting to using drugs while pregnant. Which she can be prosecuted for. Nice little catch-22.


Hate to break it to you but the child does exist.

Secondly, that's what adoption is for.

So? The planning (timing) was obviously flawed. Maybe they married too soon, maybe not. Bummer that birth control isn't 100%. (at least not for young couples) Similar thing happened to me - though not as dire. We were both well beyond college age - though her career was more established than mine at the time.
Or, perhaps, depression can be brought on by hormonal imbalance or other stressors in her life, not to mention that people who are happy about a child are sometimes hit with it to? You seem to be making a LOT of assumptions here -- that she's unhappy with her partner, that she didn't want a kid....

Sorry - I edited my reply while you were posting to more closely match what you had shared. The OBGYN is the primary caregiver for her - any referrals to other specialists must flow through the OBGYN. If you do not then they refer back to the OBGYN. Think of it like connect the dots - first 1, then 2, then 3. You can't skip steps. There are a multitude of reasons but they are all outside of the context of this discussion. (suffice to say that OBGYNs are among the highest liability of physician specialists and nobody wants any of their action - which they would assume if they become involved without the OBGYNs consent)
The OBGYN referred her. The mental health "professionals" she was referred to said, "Go back to the OBGYN." Seems like the fault is NOT in the following of instructions.

You obviously know very little about faith based charitable services. If you want to help your friend then you would do well to become open minded enough to investigate all of the options before dismissing something you know nothing about.
You don't know much about Smunkee if you say this.

Not sure I follow you on this. Must be tired. Going to sleep now...

Please reread the thread when you're rested -- you've missed your turn quite a few times on it.

What is the price of the average birth control pill? I really don't know. Does it compare to condoms? Should condoms be included?

If BC pills cost more than the the typical prescription deductible then certainly they should be included.

OK, let's look at this logically:

You don't get "a" birth control pill. It's a prescription, and depending on your plan you can pay anywhere from $10 per month to $60 per month for it.

How much does it cost to have a procedure, prescribe antibiotics and pain killers, and potentially have the patient return for a hospital stay if the procedure is done incorrectly or she has a bad reaction?

You can get free condoms at school and at health clinics -- why not free birth control prescriptions? If used properly, the pill is 99% effective. The condom, while pretty good, has more margin for error.

Hate to break it to you but the child does exist.

Secondly, that's what adoption is for.

Hate to break it to you but you really should have read the article. That's what the link was for.

She didn't go out of her way to get rid of it -- she was a drug addict who wasn't treated and as a result, lost her baby.

No, good education. You know, where you actually learn stuff. Most public schools are horrible.
Most parents are terrible and act like teachers just exist to give the kids somewhere to go for the day while educating them fully with no input from the parents, which is dumb. I mean, my mom taught me how to read and write before I started kindergarten, she had addition and subtraction flash cards that she would test me with. When one of my sisters was having difficulty learning to read (it turned out she was mostly deaf in one ear so sounding things out was difficult) she spent hours helping her. Yet there are people who graduate highschool completely illiterate.

Most parents are terrible and act like teachers just exist to give the kids somewhere to go for the day while educating them fully with no input from the parents, which is dumb. I mean, my mom taught me how to read and write before I started kindergarten, she had addition and subtraction flash cards that she would test me with. When one of my sisters was having difficulty learning to read (it turned out she was mostly deaf in one ear so sounding things out was difficult) she spent hours helping her. Yet there are people who graduate highschool completely illiterate.

Well, I turned out alright, and my parents pretty much just left me to my studies unless I (very rarely... and never once I hit high school or so) specifically asked for help. They did just let the school be in total charge of education. But then, I went to that rare item: a really good public school.

Most parents are terrible and act like teachers just exist to give the kids somewhere to go for the day while educating them fully with no input from the parents, which is dumb. I mean, my mom taught me how to read and write before I started kindergarten, she had addition and subtraction flash cards that she would test me with. When one of my sisters was having difficulty learning to read (it turned out she was mostly deaf in one ear so sounding things out was difficult) she spent hours helping her. Yet there are people who graduate highschool completely illiterate.

Dakini -- I could hug you. Really. ;)

In some cases, though, it's a combination of apathy on the part of the student and parents who have multiple jobs just to keep food, clothes, and shelter going. It's not that they DON'T care -- but if they have a job where a single absence could mean getting fired, they can't afford to come to open school meetings, and don't know what their kids are doing in their absence.

(And yeah, I knew how to read by the time I was three, because both my parents read, read, read with us. My kindergarten teacher was blown away when during playtime, I asked her to help me read a book -- and I read it to her, only needing help with a couple of the longer words.)

Or, perhaps, depression can be brought on by hormonal imbalance or other stressors in her life, not to mention that people who are happy about a child are sometimes hit with it to? You seem to be making a LOT of assumptions here -- that she's unhappy with her partner, that she didn't want a kid....

Actually - you are the first person here to express that opinion - I never did. If that is how you feel then just say so - but don't try attributing it to me.

The OBGYN referred her. The mental health "professionals" she was referred to said, "Go back to the OBGYN." Seems like the fault is NOT in the following of instructions.
Actually that point (bolded for clairty) was not made before I posted - and it is still a bit murky. Regardless - muck-ups happen. Mental health professionals are not exempt from being human.


You don't know much about Smunkee if you say this.

You mean her dismissal of faith based charity simply because it is faith based? Really? I was unaware that she was an expert on faith based charity. Judging by her post I would say that is unlikely. I suppose that she would also believe that faith-based food kitches only pray you stop feeling hungry. Or faith-based hospitals only offer faith healing. The salvation army only prays for people to recover from alcoholism. :rolleyes: Yeah - some expert.



OK, let's look at this logically:

You don't get "a" birth control pill. It's a prescription, and depending on your plan you can pay anywhere from $10 per month to $60 per month for it.

How much does it cost to have a procedure, prescribe antibiotics and pain killers, and potentially have the patient return for a hospital stay if the procedure is done incorrectly or she has a bad reaction?

You can get free condoms at school and at health clinics -- why not free birth control prescriptions? If used properly, the pill is 99% effective. The condom, while pretty good, has more margin for error.
Are you expecting an argument from me on this? Why - when I pretty much agree.

Hmm...

At first, I was thinking that taxes should not pay for something that many people fundamentally disagree with on ethical grounds...
but then I realized that that is exactly what is happening with W's foreign policy.

Free abortions for all!

Or, perhaps, depression can be brought on by hormonal imbalance or other stressors in her life, not to mention that people who are happy about a child are sometimes hit with it to? You seem to be making a LOT of assumptions here -- that she's unhappy with her partner, that she didn't want a kid....
Actually - you are the first person here to express that opinion - I never did. If that is how you feel then just say so - but don't try attributing it to me.

Mystical Skeptics, honestly, it does appear that not only do you not read what others write, it appears you also don't recall what you write.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13075399&postcount=32
Your assumptions about Smunkee's friend -- based on...?

"Regardless - it sounds like your friend either chose the father very poorly or is a very poor planner - she should never have gotten pregnant."

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13075544&postcount=35
"I simply pointed out that from the information you shared it seems she has made a few bad decisions. (and at least two good ones) A very simple observation.... I'm certain that she has learned a thing or two about responsibility through all this as evidenced by her decision to keep the baby. I certainly and sincerely hope that she can make of her future everything she hopes it holds for her child. It will be more difficult than had she planned better, but since when is taking responsibility easy?"
Where did Smunkee ever post that she was depressed because she planned poorly, did not want the baby, or had chosen the father poorly? She didn't -- but that's what you wrote about.

Then Smunkee told you her friend's married, and when referred was told to go back to her OBGYN, yet you kept insisting that the OBGYN could refer her to a mental health professional, ignoring or missing what Smunkee said about being refused.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13075623&postcount=38
More assumptions:

"So? The planning (timing) was obviously flawed. Maybe they married too soon, maybe not. Bummer that birth control isn't 100%. (at least not for young couples)" and giving another answer that ignored Smunkee's telling you what steps she and this other woman took, namely, being told by the OBGYN to seek mental health, going, and being told to go back to the OBGYN. "The OBGYN is the primary caregiver for her - any referrals to other specialists must flow through the OBGYN. If you do not then they refer back to the OBGYN. Think of it like connect the dots - first 1, then 2, then 3. You can't skip steps."
How was the timing obviously flawed? Smunkee mentioned nothing but depression -- which I pointed out can be caused by hormonal imbalance and have nothing to do with wanting or not wanting a baby. Then you assume the birth control failed (without this having been said.)

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13076260&postcount=45 Still more assumptions, based nothing on what Smunkee actually said about her friend's situation:
"There is nothing wrong with stating when someone has made a bad decision - we do it here every day. Sorry if it hurts your feelings or makes you uncomfortable - but there is no denying that becoming pregnant when you cannot afford to support a family is a poor decision. If we put on our blinders and pretend that everything is just dandy with having children without the resources to care for them then we really are just being willfully ignorant."
Where did Smunkee say anything about her friend not being able to afford her child?

"Mental health issues don't make a bad decision good. Also, nobody can 'choose' to become pregnant. They can only choose to engage in behavior which can result in pregnancy. Marriage to someone who is unprepared for parenthood does not excuse that decision. Just as people say to unmarried men who get women pregnant - If you can't afford to pay then you can't afford to play."
Where does Smunkee say these people did not plan for children, were not prepared for children, and could not afford them?

You don't know a thing about Smunkee, because guess what? She's very religious and involved in faith-based organizations. But you dismiss her as being completely ignorant of them -- again, without knowledge.

Really, it does appear that you need to read more carefully, remember what you actually posted, and make fewer assumptions -- because apparently you saw a whole lot more in Smunkee's anecdote than she ever posted here.

As for me being the only one to point this out?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13076058&postcount=44

I'm not CharlieCat.

Most parents are terrible and act like teachers just exist to give the kids somewhere to go for the day while educating them fully with no input from the parents, which is dumb. I mean, my mom taught me how to read and write before I started kindergarten, she had addition and subtraction flash cards that she would test me with. When one of my sisters was having difficulty learning to read (it turned out she was mostly deaf in one ear so sounding things out was difficult) she spent hours helping her. Yet there are people who graduate highschool completely illiterate.

This is actually the biggest problem my mom has as a reading specialist in elementary education. The parents having a job is really no excuse. Having a job as a full time teacher didn't stop my mom from reading to me when I was 2.

Mystical Skeptics, honestly, it does appear that not only do you not read what others write, it appears you also don't recall what you write.


Where did Smunkee ever post that she was depressed because she planned poorly, did not want the baby, or had chosen the father poorly? She didn't -- but that's what you wrote about.


And you should not read more into something than what is there.

I did not speculate even once on the cause of her depression. Nor did I say,. even once, that she did not want the baby. In fact I DID positively acknowledge her decision to keep it - which implies want.

I did suggest that it was possible that she may have chose the father poorly, but it was not an assigned observation. It was a statement of possibilities. From the information presented at the time nobody could determine if the father were a good choice or not. (ie - if he was standing by her and providing for her)



Then Smunkee told you her friend's married, and when referred was told to go back to her OBGYN, yet you kept insisting that the OBGYN could refer her to a mental health professional, ignoring or missing what Smunkee said about being refused.


Really? She said that? Because in post #31 she said this;

a friend of mine has only state insurance and is 7 months pregnant and deeply depressed, I took her to the mental health clinic
Nothing about being referred there by an OBGYN.

Then in post 34 she said

her OBGYN can't admit her to the behavioral health hospital, she needed impatient care.

Not until post 40 does she say anything whcih could be construed as being referred;

when the mental health people she was referred to tell her to go back to her OBGYN? because that's what's happening now.
which could be interpreted with two different meanings - that they would simply refer her back to the OBGYN again even if she were referred - or that she has been referred and is being sent back to the OBGYN. I selected the first because it was consistent with her prior comments.

Finally in post 40 she said;
yeah, we talked to the OB and he referred her to mental health who told her to go back to the OB, who told her to go to a general practitioner who told her to referred her to mental health who told her to go back to the OB.

Which is when it became clear that, unlike her original post said, they had already been through the referral process. You want to fault me for not knowing what she hadn't told me? In fact what was the OPPOSITE of what she had initially said? Nice.



How was the timing obviously flawed? Smunkee mentioned nothing but depression -- which I pointed out can be caused by hormonal imbalance and have nothing to do with wanting or not wanting a baby. Then you assume the birth control failed (without this having been said.)
Where did Smunkee say anything about her friend not being able to afford her child?

Where does Smunkee say these people did not plan for children, were not prepared for children, and could not afford them?


The timing and planning are obviously flawed - we have a couple who cannot even provide for themselves (as evidenced by "has only state insurance" (aka Medicaid) who is now assuming responsibility for another person - but I did not assign that as the cause of her depression. Not even once.

Timing issues can be cause by poor planning or failed birth control. If you know of other things which could lead to people like these to having a pregnancy when they are ill-prepared to handle it then please share.


You don't know a thing about Smunkee, because guess what? She's very religious and involved in faith-based organizations. But you dismiss her as being completely ignorant of them -- again, without knowledge.

She made an ignorant statement. Of course I would dismiss it. I still do. Let me remind you of it;

I will just tell her to look into getting some sunshine and talking to a priest, maybe he can pray her out of depression.
Would you believe that illustrates a great and profound knowledge of faith based charity?


Really, it does appear that you need to read more carefully, remember what you actually posted, and make fewer assumptions --
.

Likewise.

And you should not read more into something than what is there.

Both your groundless opinions and ranting posts tell me that even to this day you are very insecure with your social position, and that to compensate you relentlessly challenge the intellect or psychological state of others.

Edit: Besides, Kat's a mod. If she starts reading more into things than what is there, her work would never be done.

Both your groundless opinions and ranting posts tell me that even to this day you are very insecure with your social position, and that to compensate you relentlessly challenge the intellect or psychological state of others.

Edit: Besides, Kat's a mod. If she starts reading more into things than what is there, her work would never be done.

I'm sure that somewhere there is an insult in there - it's just not clever enough to deserve finding.

I'm sure that somewhere there is an insult in there - it's just not clever enough to deserve finding.

Hey man, I'm just doing precisely what you advocate.

This is actually the biggest problem my mom has as a reading specialist in elementary education. The parents having a job is really no excuse. Having a job as a full time teacher didn't stop my mom from reading to me when I was 2.

It didn't stop my mom either but I literally have students whose parents have two and three jobs. If you work 16 out of 24 hours, there's a time management problem -- and it's unlikely to be fixed.

While I'd like to think id never have a child im responsible for aborted, i must say our society needs the right. So many people are being brought up in the wrong circumstances due to accidental pregnancy, its having a severly detrimental effect on society. If youre brought up by a single, drug-addicted mother who cant even remember what morals are, before you know it theres another pregnant teenager and the cycle's turning again.

Pregnancy support should be open to all, especially seeing as drug users are in the most vulnerable group and need it the most. As for free abortions, im not so certain... i can understand why state-funded abortions seem a necessary idea in instances like this, but give people too easy a way out and they tend to abuse it, besides 2 grand or more every time some stupid teenager gets knocked up is quite a national bill, in both australia and the states. However, perhaps both nations need support programs on this topic, and perhaps some kind of painless payment plan, so anyone can afford an abortion with government support.

And you should not read more into something than what is there.

I did not speculate even once on the cause of her depression. Nor did I say,. even once, that she did not want the baby. In fact I DID positively acknowledge her decision to keep it - which implies want.
Nice backpedal. Too bad everyone else can see what you already wrote. If you cannot see that there is a correlation between your insistence that there is "poor planning" "poor choice of partner" "inability to afford child" and "failure of birth control" -- none of which were alluded to in the original posts that Smunkee made -- and the reaction of several of us that you are making assumptions pulled seemingly out of nowhere, there is little use in discussing anything. There appears to be a rather large disconnect from reality in your line of argument -- or rambling tangents that have little to do with the matter at hand.

I did suggest that it was possible that she may have chose the father poorly, but it was not an assigned observation. It was a statement of possibilities. From the information presented at the time nobody could determine if the father were a good choice or not. (ie - if he was standing by her and providing for her)
And so you suggested it, from a position of zero knowledge because...?

Again, huge assumption.



Really? She said that? Because in post #31 she said this;

Nothing about being referred there by an OBGYN.

Then in post 34 she said


Not until post 40 does she say anything whcih could be construed as being referred;

which could be interpreted with two different meanings - that they would simply refer her back to the OBGYN again even if she were referred - or that she has been referred and is being sent back to the OBGYN. I selected the first because it was consistent with her prior comments.


Finally in post 40 she said;

If you cannot see that you were answering based on assumptions and at crosspurposes to each clarification that Smunkee was giving you, I suggest rereading again.

Which is when it became clear that, unlike her original post said, they had already been through the referral process. You want to fault me for not knowing what she hadn't told me? In fact what was the OPPOSITE of what she had initially said? Nice.
I fault you for not reading her further posts and continuing to comment on her friend's mental health, ability to afford a child, choice of partner, and how the referral process works when Smunkee was clearly telling you, "But that's not what's going on."




The timing and planning are obviously flawed - we have a couple who cannot even provide for themselves (as evidenced by "has only state insurance" (aka Medicaid) who is now assuming responsibility for another person - but I did not assign that as the cause of her depression. Not even once.
Really? They have insurance. They have a roof over their head. Assumption again and a poor one. And your instistance, knowing nothing about this family that it's "poor timing and planning" is uninformed and insulting.

Timing issues can be cause by poor planning or failed birth control. If you know of other things which could lead to people like these to having a pregnancy when they are ill-prepared to handle it then please share.
Again, it's the assumption that they are ill-prepared to handle having a child that is at issue here. You don't know them. You don't know anything about them. And yet you're lecturing about poor planning, birth control -- all things NOT evidenced in the original anecdote that you are purportedly responding to. If someone seems to be pulling their argument completely out of the ether and NOT in response to the facts posted here, it's never a surprise when someone else asks, "What are you talking about?"


She made an ignorant statement. Of course I would dismiss it. I still do. Let me remind you of it;

Would you believe that illustrates a great and profound knowledge of faith based charity?
I believe it illustrates frustration with a smug approach that pulls ideas from the ether, apparently unconnected to anything that she wrote about.

Likewise.
I think I illustrated quite clearly that not only can I read and comprehend, but I can refer back to previous posts to illustrate it as well, whereas you accused me of "attribution" of an opinion you clearly posted earlier.

It didn't stop my mom either but I literally have students whose parents have two and three jobs. If you work 16 out of 24 hours, there's a time management problem -- and it's unlikely to be fixed.

You're right. Unfortunately, a good start on education is not the only thing these kids are missing out on.

My one major problem with abortion is that it's really not an ethical treatment in the US. However I also think there's a lot of things that are lacking in the US health care system in general especially when heath care concerns the poor or substance abusers.

I might consider allowing the state to use my tax dollars to sterilize people, but to use my tax money to pay for an abortion I say, No.
And to not use my tax money to pay for abortions, I say,
No.

So I guess we break even, huh?

i can understand why state-funded abortions seem a necessary idea in instances like this, but give people too easy a way out and they tend to abuse it,
Wait, do you seriously think women are going to "abuse" the right to abortion if they are actually allowed access to it? What do you consider "abuse" of abortion?

Just out of curiosity, have you ever had an abortion? Ever been present when one was performed?

Has anybody in this thread actually been in the same room while an abortion was being performed?

I have. And let me tell you something: women who have had abortions 1) usually don't want to be there in the first place, 2) NEVER want to have to go through it again after they've experienced it the first time.

I've talked with a lot of women who have had abortions. A lot. I have held a lot of hands. And you know what? I have never, in my entire life, encountered a single woman or girl who said, "You know, since I have such great access to safe, legal medical abortions, I think I'm going to come back for a couple more of them!"

So you'll forgive me for wondering exactly why so many people actually think there would be some kind of "abortion abuse" going on if abortions were actually made available to all the women who sought them.

If my state legislature passes a law saying that our state is going to fund abortions for unable to pay for them by themselves it's ok with me. If someone is going to say that there is a 'right' to have it paid for without my elected representatives passing a law I'm opposed to taxpayer funding.

How much education is enough? In the US people are given 13-14 year of free education - and a substantial number of people drop out prematurely.
Yeah, there were a lot more drop outs from the "poor" demographic of my high school class than there were from the middle-class or rich demographics. I guess that means poor people aren't seeking education, right?

Hmm. Although...

The poor kids knew, from day 1, that they would never be able to afford college or post-high school education. Kind of sucks some of the motivation out of the whole process.

The poor kids were already working at least one job, usually 2, and this often cut into their study time and fucked over their GPAs.

The poor kids were teased and marginalized by most of the nice clean suburban kids. Makes school a lot less appealing when that happens.

The poor kids also knew that they needed to make money to help support their family NOW. Going to work as a landscaper = $15/hour right now. Going to school = 0$/hour now. Family needs money now. Hard choice.

I could keep going.

Poor kids aren't stupid. Poor kids aren't saying, "Boy it's awesome being poor! I think I'll just goof off and not bother to get an education!" Poor kids are doing a cost-benefit analysis, and the sad fact is that it costs them a fuckton more to get educated than it costs a nice middle- to upper-class kid.

I'm not saying completely control the reproduction choices of the poor. I say give them a few incentives to not have kids, a couple of disincentives to have kids. (Have to think hard on what disincentives wouldn't be detrimental to the kid once born)
That way, if Mom and Dad have a kid anyway, you know they really value him and will do their best job.
I don't think it is a good idea to try to control the reproductive decisions of the poor at all.

I also think it's a lousy idea to try to use "disincentives," because all those will accomplish is they will hurt poor people and poor people's children.

And, honestly, incentives aren't even really needed.

All you have to do is remove OBSTACLES.

It has been shown, time and time and time again, that when women are educated and given access to contraception and reproductive health care, they choose to limit their family size. You actually don't have to convince them or bribe them or anything. Women, on average, don't WANT to pop out more than 2 or 3 babies. A huge percentage of them do so because they are not given the option to not have more babies. They are either never taught about how to control their fertility, or they are flat-out denied the ability to do so.

Nice backpedal. Too bad everyone else can see what you already wrote. If you cannot see that there is a correlation between your insistence that there is "poor planning" "poor choice of partner" "inability to afford child" and "failure of birth control" -- none of which were alluded to in the original posts that Smunkee made -- and the reaction of several of us that you are making assumptions pulled seemingly out of nowhere, there is little use in discussing anything. There appears to be a rather large disconnect from reality in your line of argument -- or rambling tangents that have little to do with the matter at hand.

Not at all my dear friend. You are simply projecting what you want to see where it does not exist. You do not like I pointed out the obvious - this pregnancy was poorly planned if planned at all. You are attempting to draw lines where none exist in your subconscious desire to rationalize your rejection of that point. That other people have done the same is irrelevant. If everyone thought the world were flat it would not make them correct.


And so you suggested it, from a position of zero knowledge because...?

Again, huge assumption.

There is a difference between an assumption and a speculation. You would do well to recognize the difference. I still stand by the speculation I made with the information she shared; that either she made a poor choice in father, poor planning decision or faulty birth control and/or any combination of the above.

Even after she said that her friend is married - simply being married does not make a man an instant ideal candidate for fatherhood. He must be responsible, financially secure, supportive, emotionally prepared, devoted, etc. The fact that they are dependent on state insurance is an indication that he is not presently financially secure.

Does it mean he will be a bad father? Difficult to say - but it does indicate that he is at least having trouble filling the role of provider. It is a bummer - but reality can be that way. Pretending it is not there won't make it any better. To fix a problem you must first acknowledge you have one.


If you cannot see that you were answering based on assumptions and at crosspurposes to each clarification that Smunkee was giving you, I suggest rereading again.
I would suggest you do. I laid them out quite simply in my prior post for you. I made no assumptions - just a few speculations.


I fault you for not reading her further posts and continuing to comment on her friend's mental health, ability to afford a child, choice of partner, and how the referral process works when Smunkee was clearly telling you, "But that's not what's going on."

And I fault you for not noticing that there was not one occasion where she said "but that's not what's going on". I also fault you for not noticing that her description of the event changed 180 degrees when I challenged her on it.


Really? They have insurance. They have a roof over their head. Assumption again and a poor one. And your instistance, knowing nothing about this family that it's "poor timing and planning" is uninformed and insulting.

Reality is not insulting. The reality is that if they are dependent on state insurance then they are most likely not financially secure. The reality is that parents have multiple responsibilities to their children - including a financial responsibility. The reality is that not one time did Smunkee say anything about their housing condition yet you did - so, which one if us is making assumptions?


Again, it's the assumption that they are ill-prepared to handle having a child that is at issue here. You don't know them. You don't know anything about them. And yet you're lecturing about poor planning, birth control -- all things NOT evidenced in the original anecdote that you are purportedly responding to. If someone seems to be pulling their argument completely out of the ether and NOT in response to the facts posted here, it's never a surprise when someone else asks, "What are you talking about?"
If a parent does not has a financial obligation to provide for their children then you are right - otherwise I am.


I believe it illustrates frustration with a smug approach that pulls ideas from the ether, apparently unconnected to anything that she wrote about.
I believe your approach is irrational and emotional rather than objective and rational.


I think I illustrated quite clearly that not only can I read and comprehend, but I can refer back to previous posts to illustrate it as well, whereas you accused me of "attribution" of an opinion you clearly posted earlier.
I believe you are mistaken.

Yeah, there were a lot more drop outs from the "poor" demographic of my high school class than there were from the middle-class or rich demographics. I guess that means poor people aren't seeking education, right?

Hmm. Although...

The poor kids knew, from day 1, that they would never be able to afford college or post-high school education. Kind of sucks some of the motivation out of the whole process.

The poor kids were already working at least one job, usually 2, and this often cut into their study time and fucked over their GPAs.

The poor kids were teased and marginalized by most of the nice clean suburban kids. Makes school a lot less appealing when that happens.

The poor kids also knew that they needed to make money to help support their family NOW. Going to work as a landscaper = $15/hour right now. Going to school = 0$/hour now. Family needs money now. Hard choice.

I could keep going.

Poor kids aren't stupid. Poor kids aren't saying, "Boy it's awesome being poor! I think I'll just goof off and not bother to get an education!" Poor kids are doing a cost-benefit analysis, and the sad fact is that it costs them a fuckton more to get educated than it costs a nice middle- to upper-class kid.

You are drawing your conclusion from your one high school experience. I would suggest you get a larger sample size.

Being poor is certainly hard and it is certainly unpleasant. All the more motivation to not be that way. School would be even more difficult for the poor if they had to pay for it. I don't care if their life - or anyone else's life - is shit. HS students have a valuable resource which is given to them for free - they have no quarters to complain about this gift.

Success in high school is not about economics, race or college. It is about the student - nothing more.

I don't think it is a good idea to try to control the reproductive decisions of the poor at all.

I also think it's a lousy idea to try to use "disincentives," because all those will accomplish is they will hurt poor people and poor people's children.

And, honestly, incentives aren't even really needed.

All you have to do is remove OBSTACLES.

It has been shown, time and time and time again, that when women are educated and given access to contraception and reproductive health care, they choose to limit their family size. You actually don't have to convince them or bribe them or anything. Women, on average, don't WANT to pop out more than 2 or 3 babies. A huge percentage of them do so because they are not given the option to not have more babies. They are either never taught about how to control their fertility, or they are flat-out denied the ability to do so.While part of me squirms uncomfortably at the idea of placing any sort of pressure on a womans reproductive choice, part of me thinks "gee, maybe a little pressure somewhere might be best for everyone concerned." We put pressure, in the form of incredibly high tobacco taxes, on people to stop smoking. For their own good. Exactly where do we confine our do-goodism interference?

And bravo for educating females. It's been shown in developing country after developing country that the single most effective way to bring down birth rates is to educate women.

You are drawing your conclusion from your one high school experience. I would suggest you get a larger sample size.

Being poor is certainly hard and it is certainly unpleasant. All the more motivation to not be that way. School would be even more difficult for the poor if they had to pay for it. I don't care if their life - or anyone else's life - is shit. HS students have a valuable resource which is given to them for free - they have no quarters to complain about this gift.

Success in high school is not about economics, race or college. It is about the student - nothing more.Why aren't you a millionaire? After all, anyone with brains and determination should be able to rise to the top in no time. The only thing limiting us is a little sweat and brains. Are you lazy? Stupid? Crazy? If not, I assume you are a millionaire.:rolleyes:

Regarding sig:
Oh, like weekends off? Like overtime if you work more than 40 hours a week? Thank a communist. Many of the early labor unions who brought us these innovations were just a bunch of commies. Thanks, Mother Jones.

I would rather pay for an abortion then pay for a child on welfare...more economical.

The problem is I know people who really weren't that financially well off yet they've still made it through high school and college. I currently have friends who are paying for their own tuition at a private US university.

Reproductive rights should not have such a negative attatchment of "liscence to kill".

One right does not deter another. You cannot posess rights unless you're alive to excerscise them, so abortion is in it's purest form tyranny.

Evidently anyone who claims to be prochoice only puts on the tough guy act of reproductive rights up untill they've been backed into a corner, then suddenly they puton the water-works about poverty in this country and how women are just in idol desperation and doing what they feel they must.

Desepration isn't much of a choice. Apparently the pro-abortion are not for choice, rather short term solutions, accompinied by the rapid destruction of more the united state's worth of human liberties. For every fetus aborted, that's another life lost, a life full of ambitions and possibilities. This country is styfled of creative thinking, workers, and possibility because the prochoice are too conservative to giveup thier precious liscence to kill.

How can we expect to live in a country of critical thinking when we killoff all the new minds? Obviously we're not going to see much change if it's always the same faces..

Abortion is as much about politics as any other sortof depravity. Ignorance is not a partisian thing. It's just a stupid people thing.

This entire argument rests on your assumption that fetus is a human with rights. Until you can demonstrate that (without resorting to superstition) your argument is invalid.

Furthermore, there is a strong argument that nobody has the right to use your body without permission. For example, doctors can't demand you donate your kidney to anybody-- even your own family. Even if you are the only possible donor and your family member will die without that bit of your body. Therefore, even if the fetus is a full human with rights, it can't use your body to keep itself alive without your permission.

The problem is I know people who really weren't that financially well off yet they've still made it through high school and college. I currently have friends who are paying for their own tuition at a private US university.

I made it through highschool while working 50 hours a week, it sucked, I doubt I would have been able to do it if not for my meth addiction. It can be done, but most people won't. If you want to give up your health and well being for a piece of paper.......by all means, but I would rather eat.

snip

And I believe that your post is condescending, and based on some alternate reality to which the rational have no access.

The proof "dear friend," is in all of your posts.

Success in high school is not about economics, race or college. It is about the student - nothing more.

I suggest you do some research, then. There is a plethora of pedagogical studies showing that socioeconomic status and race have a great deal to do with predicting the tendency of a student to succeed.

I suggest you do some research, then. There is a plethora of pedagogical studies showing that socioeconomic status and race have a great deal to do with predicting the tendency of a student to succeed.

Who are you to use facts and evidence? Don't you know that gut-feeling is just as good, or better? Truthiness! The gut has more nerve endings than the brain!

Reproductive rights should not have such a negative attatchment of "liscence to kill".

One right does not deter another. You cannot posess rights unless you're alive to excerscise them, so abortion is in it's purest form tyranny.

Evidently anyone who claims to be prochoice only puts on the tough guy act of reproductive rights up untill they've been backed into a corner, then suddenly they puton the water-works about poverty in this country and how women are just in idol desperation and doing what they feel they must.

Desepration isn't much of a choice. Apparently the pro-abortion are not for choice, rather short term solutions, accompinied by the rapid destruction of more the united state's worth of human liberties. For every fetus aborted, that's another life lost, a life full of ambitions and possibilities. This country is styfled of creative thinking, workers, and possibility because the prochoice are too conservative to giveup thier precious liscence to kill.

How can we expect to live in a country of critical thinking when we killoff all the new minds? Obviously we're not going to see much change if it's always the same faces..

Abortion is as much about politics as any other sortof depravity. Ignorance is not a partisian thing. It's just a stupid people thing.

What is your address so I can give it to social services...they will be overjoyed in knowing someone is stepping up and taking in all the unwanted children in the system.

What else could a fetus possibly if it isn't human?


A precursor to a human and therefore not yet a human

"Precursor to human" isn't good enough.


It may not be good enough for your definition of human but it's great for mine.

Maybe TV-stations can catch up and introduce "The Big Abortion Showtm".

Four pregnant Hillbillies (http://www.womensfunnyvideos.com/funny-pictures/hillbillyOveralls.jpg) contest each other and the winner gets a free abortion.

To make it more interesting, the actual abortion will be filmed.

It may not be good enough for your definition of human but it's great for mine.

Usually when people argue abortion, they argue over when a human becomes a person. The fetus is definitely human but is it a person? (btw I believe it is but that's my opinion.)

Abortion is a right:

• If you think it is murder, then you are not forced to have one.
• On the other hand, if you think it is not murder, you can have one if you’re in a need.

I never understood the extremists that are fighting these sane statements.

If some woman wants to have an abortion, that's fine, but the moment my tax money is being used to kill children, I have a serious problem with my government. Government-funded abortions are sick.

If some woman wants to have an abortion, that's fine, but the moment my tax money is being used to kill children, I have a serious problem with my government. Government-funded abortions are sick.

So are government-funded churches and mosques.

Or government-funded wars.

Or government-funded anything-I-can't-stand.

Point is, the government isn’t taking care of you only, but for its entire inhabitants.

Odds are high, that people that needed an abortion in the past, are paying indirectly for stuff they don't like and which have advantages for you, personally.

Abortion benefits all through population control.

That doesn't make sense, if it's not human then what is it?

"Precursor to human" isn't good enough. That's not a species.



Why am I even arguing with you? You kill babies.. or atleast defend it.. what could I possibly learn from consulting with serial killers?


You should all be friggin lockedup. If not prison then the loony bin. I suppose that's up to the state to decide.
A sperm will eventually become a human. Therefore, you must believe that birth control is evil, or you are inconsistent. And no, you can't just say "that's different," but you must demonstrate what, specifically, about the fertilization makes it different.

As to the bolded part... you'll never learn anything if you always assume that you're right and that the other side can never have a point, just because they disagree with you. I pity you, for you are doomed to remain at your current state of knowledge (or ignorance) without improving for the rest of your life.

I hate to resort to ad-homs, but you're fucking retarded.

If you hate to use ad hominem, then don't do it. Easy.


What else could a fetus possibly if it isn't human?

Is it some kindof alien from outerspace?
Is it a dog?
It is a cat?

No.. it's a human. A human at the earliest stage of development..
Apparently school doesn't teach kids anything if they don't even know what a fetus is.

It's a bundle of cells that, if left to follow its own course, will eventually develop into a child.


No-one has the right to kill without permission, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

First of all, you seem to be implying that I've had an abortion. That'd be very surprising, considering that I am a male. Second of all, the point is this. You do have the right to restrict somebody from using your body for their own survival, even if it will certainly lead to that somebody's death. Accepting for the sake of argument that a fetus is a full human with rights, why, then, should we treat them differently in that regard?

Women have only themselves to blame for pregnancy. Why should thier recklessness result in someone else'es death? Why should anyone else have to pay?

Pay? All that's happening is that a child will not be born. It won't be a person, ever.


I can understand socialists believing that, but not a capitalist.

... what the hell does that have to do with anything?


How hard is it for a man to NOT cum in a woman?

Did you never learn about safe sex? There have been (fairly small) studies that have shown that while it's rare, pre-cum can get a woman pregnant.


You have a right to take birth control
You have a right to have sex
You have a right to plan pregnancy
But you don't have a right to kill

The right to birth control is inconsistent with your claim that anything that will become a human is already a human.


Instead of getting pissed off with me, where's your frustration and "debate" against your government?

Who restricts birth control to a beurocratic nightmare?
Who puts tabs on who can I have sex with who based on age?

I'm not telling you what to do
I'm just saying you can't kill people. It'd be like you running toward a puppy with a butcher knife and me grabbing your wrist and pulling you toward the ground.


I don't give a rat's ass about you, I'm worried about the puppy
You have a right to have a butcher knife
You have a right to have a puppy
You don't have the right to stab the puppy with a butcher knife
Instead of blindly assuming that a fetus at any stage of development is already a child, why don't you attempt to demonstrate that a bundle of cells, without even a nervous system or identifiable organs, counts as a human. Why not respond to your opponents' arguments instead of simply repeating the ones you used already?

A sperm will eventually become a human. Therefore, you must believe that birth control is evil, or you are inconsistent. And no, you can't just say "that's different," but you must demonstrate what, specifically, about the fertilization makes it different.

The only way a sperm cell will ever become human is if it fuses with an ovum. So a sperm cell by itself will never become human. The difference between a sperm cell and a fetus is that the fetus has an extremely high probability of being born compared to the individual sperm cell that has a low probability of fusing with an ovum.

It's a bundle of cells that, if left to follow its own course, will eventually develop into a child.

Not even. It's a bundle of cells that, if attached to a biological life support (womb) will possibly develop into a child, barring complications.

"Left to follow its own course" will have it shriveling up and dying from lack of nutrition.

The only way a sperm cell will ever become human is if it fuses with an ovum. So a sperm cell by itself will never become human. The difference between a sperm cell and a fetus is that the fetus has an extremely high probability of being born compared to the individual sperm cell that has a low probability of fusing with an ovum.

So the fetus merely has a high probability of being born/becoming a human? Therefore, it is not yet one and does not have human rights. QED.

So the fetus merely has a high probability of being born/becoming a human? Therefore, it is not yet one and does not have human rights. QED.

Only if being born = becoming human. Although if you look at it genetically (scientifically?), a fetus is human from the moment of conception onward.

I hate to resort to ad-homs, but you're fucking retarded.

What else could a fetus possibly if it isn't human?

Is it some kindof alien from outerspace?
Is it a dog?
It is a cat?

No.. it's a human. A human at the earliest stage of development..
Apparently school doesn't teach kids anything if they don't even know what a fetus is.


No-one has the right to kill without permission, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

Women have only themselves to blame for pregnancy. Why should thier recklessness result in someone else'es death? Why should anyone else have to pay?

I can understand socialists believing that, but not a capitalist.


How hard is it for a man to NOT cum in a woman?


You have a right to take birth control
You have a right to have sex
You have a right to plan pregnancy
But you don't have a right to kill


Instead of getting pissed off with me, where's your frustration and "debate" against your government?

Who restricts birth control to a beurocratic nightmare?
Who puts tabs on who can I have sex with who based on age?

I'm not telling you what to do
I'm just saying you can't kill people. It'd be like you running toward a puppy with a butcher knife and me grabbing your wrist and pulling you toward the ground.


I don't give a rat's ass about you, I'm worried about the puppy
You have a right to have a butcher knife
You have a right to have a puppy
You don't have the right to stab the puppy with a butcher knife

Warned for flaming.
And in case you haven't noticed, in many places the government is against abortion. Surprise surprise -- it's the people whom other parts of the government serves who believe it is a necessary procedure and frankly, the business of no one save the woman and her doctor.

That doesn't make sense, if it's not human then what is it?

"Precursor to human" isn't good enough. That's not a species.



Why am I even arguing with you? You kill babies.. or atleast defend it.. what could I possibly learn from consulting with serial killers?


You should all be friggin lockedup. If not prison then the loony bin. I suppose that's up to the state to decide.

Warned for flaming. Learn to be civil, or take an (enforced) vacation.

I hate to resort to ad-homs, but you're fucking retarded.


Yeah right ... from what I have seen of your posts on the subject it is about the first thing you do in each post


Women have only themselves to blame for pregnancy. Why should thier recklessness result in someone else'es death? Why should anyone else have to pay?

Yeah right ignore all the other situations in which they are not at fault

I can understand socialists believing that, but not a capitalist.


Well you may want to re look into the falsehoods of that belief

How hard is it for a man to NOT cum in a woman?

Why would he bother if he was raping her? that happens you know

snip


Instead of getting pissed off with me, where's your frustration and "debate" against your government?

Who restricts birth control to a beurocratic nightmare?
Who puts tabs on who can I have sex with who based on age?

You must be new here most people here also do just that


I'm not telling you what to do
I'm just saying you can't kill people. It'd be like you running toward a puppy with a butcher knife and me grabbing your wrist and pulling you toward the ground.


I don't give a rat's ass about you, I'm worried about the puppy
You have a right to have a butcher knife
You have a right to have a puppy
You don't have the right to stab the puppy with a butcher knife
Sure they do ... people all over the world eat dog .. and we kill all sorts of animals for food.

Sure they do ... people all over the world eat dog .. and we kill all sorts of animals for food.

Just because people do it doesn't make it right.

Just because people do it doesn't make it right.

And just because you believe it is wrong, does not make it wrong either.

Another article I came across in the local paper.

http://newsok.com/article/3131059/1190435468

Now first of all, it seems ridiculous to charge someone with the murder of a person who does not yet exist, is still part of her body, in a country where abortion is still nominally legal.

Second, if the state would pay for poor womens first trimester abortions, we might have avoided the whole problem. Obviously, with her history, she is not fit to raise children. Though a great believer in reproductive freedom, I would have no problem with the state offering every incentive to get sterilized. Including a bit of uncomfortable pressuring.

Another thing. Apparently, the majority of drug rehab programs will not take pregnent women. Especially, since if she waits until she's pregnant to enter rehab, she's admitting to using drugs while pregnant. Which she can be prosecuted for. Nice little catch-22.

Hell no. I'm not paying for anyone's abortion. That's up to the mother and the father to decide and deal with. (or just the mother, if the father runs off)

Great, just fucking great, the mod's a bias baby killer and a liar to boot.

Most of the world is pro-abortion you stupid shit.



I should hack this place. Fucking idiots.



Question that morality you nihilist retarded cunts.

Oh snap, here comes a ban!

The government makes us all pay for some shit we don't necessarily approve of.

That doesn't make it right.

It needs to stop.

NOW.

Only if being born = becoming human. Although if you look at it genetically (scientifically?), a fetus is human from the moment of conception onward.
1) A fetus doesn't exist at the moment of conception. Hence, a fetus isn't anything at the moment of conception, least of all "human," since it doesn't exist at that point.

2) A fertilized human egg is, obviously, human. So is a human egg that has not been fertilized. So is a human sperm. Your pancreas is also human.

Saying something is human is different from saying it is a human. Your lungs are human. However, neither of your lungs is a human.

That doesn't make it right.

It needs to stop.

NOW.If the government only does stuff we all approve it won't do anything.:rolleyes:

I disapprove of your bridge. I disapprove of your school. I disapprove of drug law enforcement. Even the most extreme libertarians don't usually want to go that far.

If the government only does stuff we all approve it won't do anything.:rolleyes:

I disapprove of your bridge.
Correct; transportation infrastructure is not the legitimate role of government.

I disapprove of your school.
Correct; education is not the legitimate role of government.

I disapprove of drug law enforcement.
Correct; controlling what people put in their own bodies is not the legitimate role of government.

Even the most extreme libertarians don't usually want to go that far.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater

Correct; transportation infrastructure is not the legitimate role of government.


Correct; education is not the legitimate role of government.


Correct; controlling what people put in their own bodies is not the legitimate role of government.


What exactly do you see as the legitimate role of the government?

What exactly do you see as the legitimate role of the government?

It's not "what I see as the legitimate role of the government", but rather, what is, as a matter of objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe, the proper role of government. And that is:


Punishing those who initiate, attempt to initiate, or threaten to initiate physical force or fraud against the person or property of another individual without his consent.
Enforcing contracts between individuals
Defending against foreign aggression

It's not "what I see as the legitimate role of the government", but rather, what is, as a matter of objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe, the

It's really funny how you keep going on about the objective facts provable from the first principles of the universe, considering your complete and total inability to prove any first principles of the universe, or any objective facts derivived therefrom.

In other words, you fail.

It's really funny how you keep going on about the objective facts provable from the first principles of the universe, considering your complete and total inability to prove any first principles of the universe, or any objective facts derivived therefrom.

In other words, you fail.

What are the "first principles of the universe"? I'm sure a whole fuckton of physics Ph.D.s would be very interested in hearing this answer.

And by interested, I mean greatly, greatly amused.

A is A.
Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.

A is A.
Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.

Those are rules of logic defined by humans. They have no bearing on the universe at large.

A is A.
Both P and ~P cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense.

That's nice. Now define the qualities of A and P. Because I could just as easily say "A = the role of the government is to have absolute control of the population".

Now prove me wrong.

Fail.

And just because you believe it is wrong, does not make it wrong either.

You're right.

1) A fetus doesn't exist at the moment of conception. Hence, a fetus isn't anything at the moment of conception, least of all "human," since it doesn't exist at that point.

True I believe it's an embryo at that point right? It's been a while since I've studied human reproduction so please correct me if I'm wrong.


2) A fertilized human egg is, obviously, human. So is a human egg that has not been fertilized. So is a human sperm. Your pancreas is also human.

Saying something is human is different from saying it is a human. Your lungs are human. However, neither of your lungs is a human.
Right but the fertilized egg and the sperm are not from/ a part of the same human. I'm not exactly sure what point you are trying to make but I will try to respond. Your lung is a part of a larger structure. It's really not human in and of itself but a part of a human. The fertilized egg isn't a part of something else. It has it's own unique identity that is defined by its DNA and later its experiences.

Correct; transportation infrastructure is not the legitimate role of government.


Correct; education is not the legitimate role of government.


Correct; controlling what people put in their own bodies is not the legitimate role of government.


"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry Goldwater:rolleyes: Many of us disapprove of the Iraq war. Even ol' Barry thinks war is the business of gov't.

And most of us think the idea that government has no business educating the public or maintaining infrastructure is just plain silly. BTW, in what countries does the gov't not educate the populace? Or build roads and bridges? Give me an example of an actual successful gov't, please.



Bet ya can't manage that one. Though I do agree the gov't has no business telling me what I can put in my body. Or take out.

Bet ya can't manage that one. Though I do agree the gov't has no business telling me what I can put in my body. Or take out.

Or consent to have other people put in. :p

Or consent to have other people put in. :p

or take out. Or put in and take out repeatedly.

Or consent to have other people put in. :p


or take out. Or put in and take out repeatedly.
You two are very, very bad. Someone shall have to be punished. Shall we draw straws?

You two are very, very bad. Someone shall have to be punished. Shall we draw straws?

If we're going for lowest straw gets "punished," I'm bringing scissors :D

*backs out of thread.... after all, mods are often expected to hand out the spankings*