Stanek Sunday funnies 2-13-11
Here were my top picks for the week, beginning with an example of how liberals try to pigeonhole attempts to defund abortion and the abortion industry as simply moral intrusion, by Paul Szep at GoComics.com…
But in reality, being pro-life is good fiscal policy, a point pro-lifers must keep making. Here’s what I mean, by Chuck Asay at Townhall.com…
Congressman Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, posted a great op ed driving home this point at BigGovernment.com on February 12. Excerpt…
Our national debt exceeds $14 trillion and after running a federal deficit of $1.3 trillion last year, we will see a $1.5 trillion deficit this year. I get one clear message in talking with the American people – promote job growth and control government spending.
The federal government funds thousands of programs and projects, and Congress must look at all federal expenditures and reduce or eliminate those that do not meet the needs of the American people.
Taxpayers deserve accountability, and recent undercover videos taken at Planned Parenthood centers demonstrate the egregious abuse of taxpayer funds. These videos show that PP is willing to use public funds to commit a federal crime….
Although PP eventually ordered new training for its employees, I have a better solution – defund it. Why should taxpayer funds go toward an entity with a history of skirting or violating reporting laws and that promotes abortion, even for children under 14 years of age?
Although PP is barred from using taxpayer funds to perform abortions, these dollars are fungible, federal funding allows the group to use other funds for abortions.
In 1997, the group received $160 million from taxpayers and performed 160,000 abortions. Last year, it received some $360 million and performed over 324,000 abortions. As taxpayer funding increased, so did the number of these life-ending procedures….
Defunding PP should be a fiscal and moral priority for Congress, and for the American people.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Apparently, the more money Planned Parenthood gets, the more human beings this horrible organization kills.
Wow, it looks like all that free/cheap access to birth control and sex education/family planning that PP provides is really working. More federal funding for more “health services” = more abortions = more $$$. Excellent work, PP.
Actually, from a purely fiscal standpoint, continuing to fund Planned Parenthood and repealing the Hyde Amendment, allowing federal funds to be used directly for abortions, would make more sense. Paying $300 or $500 bucks once, for a single procedure, is a lot more cost effective than a lifetime of welfare payments.
Before I get slammed with a lot of “well, isn’t that just typical, don’t address the underlying problems, just throw abortion at them as a solution!” type-comments, realize that I am simply responding to Jill’s argument about how defunding Planned Parenthood would be good fiscal policy rather than engaging in an in-depth type discussion of the links between poverty and abortion.
Enigma,
That argument is older than you are. This was a favorite battle cry of the liberals and feminists when Hyde went into effect. It was assumed that poor women were totally inept at raising children. Oh yes, and poor women were going to die like flies from illegal abortion too.
I mean, have poor women ever raised children in the history of the human race? We’ve had 38 years of legal abortion. Shouldn’t poverty be virtually non-existent by now?
Mary,
No, it should not. Realistically, unless one lives in a completely egalitarian society in which everyone possess the exact same material wealth, there will always be poverty and there will always be poor people.
In the above statement, I said nothing about eliminating poverty. Most women who have abortions either have already had or will go on to have at least one child; if a woman on welfare ends three pregnancies and gives birth to two children, statistically speaking those two children are likely to grow up and go on welfare themselves. Ending those three pregnancies won’t all poverty even though there are, presumably, three less people in the welfare system.
I also said nothing about the relationship between money and one’s ability to raise children. Poor women can be horrible mothers, and so can rich women. Poor women can be wonderful mothers, and so can rich women. Neither money nor socio-economic status determines the quality of one’s relationship with his/her children.
You’re dancing around the issue rather than addressing it. My above statement was undeniable fact. Ending a pregnancy is cheaper than giving birth and raising a child. I don’t care if you find the idea of abortion morally abhorrent or whether you think that it’s God’s gift to women, you can’t argue with factual information. Doing so only weakens your argument.
Engima:
Killing human beings in the unborn stage (as well as the born stage) is a crime.
It cannot be a “solution” to anything. That would be like saying that the crime of armed robbery would be the “solution” to not having enough money. If something is a crime, it cannot be considered even if it would actually solve a particular problem.
The reason that prenatal homicide is an objective crime is because we human beings have a fundamental right to live our lives in accordance with our nature. As placental mammals, we must live through both the unborn and born stages, without either of which human existence is impossible. To “argue” that we do not have a right either to the unborn stage or the born stage is therefore absurd. We must and do have a natural right to all stages of our lives.
Therefore, killing us in the unborn stage and depriving us of our whole lives is every bit the crime that killing us later on is.
Enigma,
Not quite. As I said, your argument is older than you are. Yes an abortion may be cheaper, so would infanticide and genocide, so what are the results we have to show for this argument?
We still have poverty and welfare dependency. You may abort one welfare mother’s baby but what of her other children? Of her? What have you done to eliminate the poverty of her and her children? What have you done to eliminate the cycle of family breakdown and dependency?
You said nothing about eliminating poverty? So you think just eliminating the poor would suffice?
Three less people on welfare? Not so fast. Maybe she would have stopped at one or two. Perhaps easy abortion made her a little less responsible about having an unwanted pregnancy. So you still have a mother and two children on welfare. You’ve done nothing to prevent welfare dependency and its expense.
I worked with a nurse who had an abortion at 14. Solves the problem right? No, she became pregnant again at 16 and kept the baby, spending many years on welfare. This baby grew to be a welfare mother herself.
Now one could argue there would have been two children on welfare or one could also argue that the welfare dependency of a mother and child was only postponed a couple years. Either way, abortion did nothing to save the taxpayer’s much of anything or break the cycle of family breakdown and dependency.
Your argument reminds me of the inept police chief who tries to reassure a crime ridden community that their problems would be so much worse without him and his officers. Maybe so, maybe not. The residents only know they have to live behind triple locked doors so obviously the crime problem is not being addressed.
I guess if we look at this from a moral standpoint we could say which is more correct giving a woman money to assist her with herself and her children or paying money to assist in the killing of children. And from a purely financial standpoint who knows the contribution all the chldren being murdered would have made. If you take a look at history how many very good Presidents themselves came from disadvantaged or lets say homes that were financially challenged. And isn’t the same organization that doesn’t believe in teaching abstinence the same organization that receives money to kill the very situation that they contributed to in the first place. It’s almost like buying insurance on someone you plan on killing. Hmmm what’s wrong with that picture. Somebody needs to draw a revolving door with econimically disadvantaged woman going in and then exiting with a planned parenthood hand extended. And by faith I would draw a big big hand with the taxpayers dropping some wooden nickels in it. I can remember one President who came from a financially challenged home that personified what I consider greatness.
Joe,
I wasn’t discussing the morality of abortion, just the fiscal aspects of it. If you want to address those points feel free, but don’t fault my argument for not including points that it was never intended to address.
The the level of conjecture and assumption in your statements is also quite astonishing. You, personally, do not have an authority to say what is and is not a crime. Since your statement contradicts present law, it is incorrect when presented in such a manner; therefore, your entire argument is moot.
I can call a crime a crime. If we allow the killing or enslavement of human beings under “law”, I can still correctly argue that those activities are crimes under natural law.
Mary,
Your entire post is a non-sequitur. You have done nothing to disprove the facts that (A) Giving birth to and raising a child is more expensive than abortion, (B) that children of mothers on welfare are statistically more likely to go on welfare and (C) that the cost of a single abortion is less than the cost of a lifetime of welfare payments. Until you address those points, everything that you throw at me is smoke and mirrors.
Enigma claims:
Ending a pregnancy is cheaper than giving birth and raising a child.
If you want to be ridiculous, Enigma, I can match you. It is also cheaper to end the life of anyone than having them live for a whole lifetime.
Enigma,
That wasn’t the argument. (A)If you check my post I did acknowledge that an abortion was cheaper. One could say the same for infanticide and genocide. (B)What do you think I mean by the cycle of family breakdown and dependency?
You’re saying abortion could result in x number fewer children being on welfare.
I’m pointing out this is, at best, only speculation. We can’t say for certain abortion is cheaper if the woman only has a child later on and she winds up on welfare.
I’m arguing Enigma that so long as we have family breakdown and dependency we will not be saving money by abortion in the long run. We may at best only postpone welfare dependency. Hardly solving any problems or saving any money.
Again Enigma, do you see eliminating the poor and not poverty as a solution?
Enigma:
What if someone came to power and decided that it was for the betterment of society that we incarcerate a whole class of people–not that it would be cheaper but that we would all be better off. And what if after that happened these same people would begin to be more of an economic problem to maintain and so it did become cheaper to eliminate them?
I think your “cheaper to not have people than to have them” argument would have got you a high position in government circa the late 1930’s in Germany.
Engima says: February 13, 2011 at 12:41 pm
“Your entire post is a non-sequitur. You have done nothing to disprove the facts that (A) Giving birth to and raising a child is more expensive than abortion, (B) that children of mothers on welfare are statistically more likely to go on welfare and (C) that the cost of a single abortion is less than the cost of a lifetime of welfare payments. Until you address those points, everything that you throw at me is smoke and mirrors.”
==============================================================
Enema,
For arguement sake I will concede that your math is corect.
It cost ‘taxpayers’ more to pay for the birth and to raise babies to a adulthood who are born to mothers who are dysfunctional, than it does to just kill them enutero.
Why not just factor your humanist amorality into the economic equation and kill anyone who cannnot provide for themselves and their families?
I mean every human on the planet is going to die fall over and rot someday, so why not expedite the process and make it more efficient while we are at it.
Enema,
When your mamma was pregnant with you what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus?
@Enigma: Your assumption is that (A) everyone who has a child that would have otherwise had an abortion is on welfare and (B) everyone who is on welfare will remain so indefinitely. Also (C) the number of people on welfare is either static or growing.
A is obviously bunk. Not everyone who has abortions is on welfare. Everyone knows this. In fact, one of the favorite anti-life talking points is how “most women who have abortions are already mothers” or “are WASPs who got pregnant after their family is already complete” or however it goes. You are falling into the classist trap with this assumption. (And it is just typical, and it pretty much does make you a snob–at least, and all the other blahblahblah that you didn’t want to hear? Yeah, all of that goes right here.)
B and C you are assuming but haven’t actually really talked about. So, since you made the assertions, let’s hear you drag out some statistics.
I mean to ask this sincerely, so don’t get upset, anyone:
What exactly do you think will happen if Planned Parenthood were to be stripped of all government funds? Presumably, if the organization did not receive an outpouring of support from the public (which, at large, would call pro-lifers heartless and counterproductive and do insane damage to the movement), then it would cease to exist, at least on the scale that it exists now- it might be therefore limited to only a few Planned Parenthood centers nationwide.
What will happen if women cannot afford to get STD testing? What will happen if women need cancer screenings but can’t afford it?
Then there’s the obvious thing about birth control. I don’t mean to sound antagonistic, but what do you propose that we do to limit pregancies without birth control? Celibacy has never worked on as large a scale as people would hope to believe- a few individuals, yes, but will telling teenagers about abstinence, while they are listening to suggestive lyrics (really dumb songs we’ve got on the radio, truly), and watching shows and films that glorify having no intelligence, just sex, really work?
Again- this isn’t attacking anyone’s beliefs. I just want to know what you think.
Vannah,
All your questions assume that most women to whom PP caters are incapable of providing for themselves.
PP is one giant money laudering operation that provides funding for effectively one political party, the democRAT party.
PP is a subersive organization, a criminal enterprise, that undermines and circumvents parental rights and familial integrity.
PP’s solutions are counter productive and when they perdictably fail, PP benefits financially.
It is illogical to fund an entity to solve a problem and which is benefitted more by the failure of their solutions than it is from it’s successes.
PP is corrupt at it’s core and like a bad apple in a barrel of apples it corrupts that which it touches.
If an entity like PP is in demand then the free market will find a way to satisfy the demand and it will be more efficient and more effective.
Vannah,
Then there is the problem of all the pre-natal children that PP murders.
PP’s motto:
Your body, your choice.
Our motto:
Your choice, your body, your responsibility, your money.
Or as the former governnor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura put it:
‘Just exactly how did the taxpayer enter in to your choice to have sex?’
Wow – I hope Stearns reasoning doesn’t take off – I mean, if somebody in an office for Social Security suggested something illegal, we would defund it entirely? The military? Hospitals?
I mean, if a person doesn’t like Planned Parenthood, that’s fine – say that. I don’t like them. But his logical leap is well, a little lacking.
Heck, we would have defunded congress 100 times over by now!
With my A, B and C argument I made no assumptions. Each of those statements is entirely factual. Abortion is cheaper than raising a child, most children of people who are on welfare grow up and go on welfare themselves, and it costs the American taxpayer less to pay for an abortion than to pay for a lifetime’s worth of welfare payments (which, statistically, is what would happen otherwise).
Mary, I did not address your post because it is based solely on anecdote and speculation. You are correct to note that events in the past can alter the present and future, a rejoinder to the over-simplified example that I should not have made because I am well aware of this fact. Apart from that, anecdote and speculation do not an argument make. Unless you can disprove A, B or C the argument that that defunding Planned Parenthood and upholding the Hyde Amendment constitute good fiscal policy is simply wrong. Furthermore, the information that you would need to disprove C, or argue, as you have tried, that abortion, at best, only delays the cycle of welfare payments either supports my argument or cannot exist. You cannot prove speculation unless you have verifiable data at which it is no longer speculation.
Faulting abortion because it can’t solve every problem related to poverty is also non-sequitur–there is no single policy on earth that can solve every problem plaguing society. That doesn’t mean that all partial solutions should be ignored.
I am not arguing that there is no reason to support defunding Planned Parenthood or upholding the Hyde Amendment, I am asserting that Jill’s post about defunding Planned Parenthood in order to save money is wrong.
That said, there a lot of potential policies that could save money (for instance, making it illegal to carry a fetus with severe abnormalities to term, or instituting a policy that we should kill all people with diabetes or AIDS, ect.)–that doesn’t necessary mean that we should enact them. All that I am pointing out is that if you want to argue that Planned Parenthood should be defunded from a moral point of view have at it, but don’t pretend that it has anything to do with good fiscal policy. Doing so only weakens your argument.
there are better places for real health care, Vannah. I am sure there are hospitals that offer cancer screenings for low income women, especially during October. And I am sure that community health departments also offer screenings for men and women as well.
Planned Parenthood is an organization that ENCOURAGES pre-martial sex, non monogamous sex (meaning multiple “partners”) and helps protect child abusers (“don’t tell me his age”). That’s the last place I’d send a poor vulnerable young woman who needs a pap smear or mammogram.
I am asserting that Jill’s post about defunding Planned Parenthood in order to save money is wrong.
I would assert that if I defund my husband his allowance this month, I will save money. What is the difference between the two?
(We don’t really have allowances in my house, it’s just to make a point.:)
Cost of abortion: $500-$1000
http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/flyer.htm
Cost of raising a child in the US: $200,000+
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-raise-a-child-in-the-united-states.htm
Percentage of children of parents on welfare who will grow up to be on weldfare themselves: “Children raised on welfare are likely to have lower incomes as adults than children not raised on welfare. The more welfare received by a child’s family, the lower that child’s earnings as an adult tend to be, even holding constant such other factors as race, family structure, and education.31 According to one study, nearly 20 percent of daughters from families that were “highly dependent” on welfare became “highly dependent” themselves, whereas only 3 percent of daughters from non-welfare households became “highly dependent” on welfare.32″
http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/hhs/welfare-spending
Welfare payments differ by state, by I’ll use the figures provided below for my analysis
$437 a month
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/40516517.html
$437 a month every month for 18 years equals $94,392, not including the associated costs of that child growing up to go on welfare themselves. Even should this family not remain on welfare for 18 years, at the most 3 months of welfare at the level listed above would be sufficient to pay for an abortion.
Enigma,
You’re not laying out the full story. Think of the money spent as an investment. Invest in killing your unborn child, you get nothing back. Invest in the life, health and happiness of your children… PRICELESS!
Enigma,
“Ending those pregnancies won’t all poverty though, presumably, there are three less people in the welfare system.”
You were saying something about speculation Enigma?
Again, the big picture. Yes, one abortion may be cheaper than 18 years of welfare payments. Another speculation by the way, assuming someone will spend 18 years on welfare. Can we point to a massive reduction in welfare dependency because of abortion? If not then the argument is moot. Abortion may simply be used as a means of birth control. Instead of having a child on welfare now she’ll have one a year from now. Is this one less child on welfare or delayed welfare dependency?
Its seems Enigma that you focus on disposing of the poor as a solution, not the whole issue of welfare dependency itself.
Enigma – I wouldn’t worry about the cost to society -after the GOP is done getting rid of education, health care, head start programs and anything else that might benefit kids – well, the birth of that child won’t cost society anything!
Mary,
Forget 18 years, an abortion is cheaper than 4 months of welfare payments for a single mother and one child, not to mention the reduction in amount of time spent on welfare incurred when the number of people on welfare in a single family grows.
Again, the statement that an abortion is cheaper than 18 years of welfare payments isn’t speculative-it’s factual, regardless of whether it applies to everyone in the welfare system or not.
You haven’t disproved any of the facts that I have provided.
You haven’t been able to demonstrate that giving birth to and raising a child is less expensive than an abortion.
You haven’t been able to demonstrate that children who grow up on welfare aren’t more likely to go on welfare themselves.
You haven’t been able to disprove that the cost of an abortion to the American taxpayer, should the Hyde Amendment be repealed, would be less than the cost of (a) welfare payments until the child is 18, (b) the cost of lifetime welfare payments should the child grow up to go on welfare him/herself, or (c) approximately four months’ worth of welfare payments for a single mother and child.
You continue to relay on unprovable speculation in order to make your argument (ie. that abortion merely delays, not prevents, the cycle of welfare payments that are incurred by the birth of a child to the same woman). Either provide facts, as I have done, or stop wasting my time.
Vannah, Excellent point! We can’t just slam PP and not offer an alternative. Pregnancy help centers need to go medical and start offering some of these services to women. Birth Choice, started by Kathleen Eaton 30 years ago in Orange County, California learned early on that having free ultrasounds available to abortion-minded women changed hearts and minds 7 out of 10 times. They are now gearing up to offer other medical services to women as an alternative to PP. Birth Choice is totally non-profit. It can be done! http://www.birthchoice.com
Enigma,
I didn’t say an abortion being cheaper than welfare payments is speculative. I said its speculative to say what number of children wouldn’t be on welfare because of abortion.
I’ve tried to show that you aren’t looking at the big picture. You can abort the woman but if she’s pregnant again a few years later, I’ve seen them a few months later, and goes on welfare you have saved the taxpayer what? What if abortion to her is just a form of birth control for now? Down the road she plans to have children, even if it means welfare dependency.
I still remember as a young and incredibly naive nursing assistant in a large city hospital being aghast when single welfare mothers, some having their 3rd plus child, told me they planned their pregnancies. Not much has changed in my experience. That’s why I argue that you are not looking at the big picture here.
You have to eliminate the problem, not kill off the victims. You still haven’t addressed my question as to whether you see killing off the poor as the solution as opposed to eliminating poverty.
EGV 4:49PM
Puleeeeze.
Mary,
And you still have provided no evidence for this “bigger picture.” If it exists, you should be able to find evidence supporting it. Since you have not and yet also have access to the internet, I can only assume that it either does not exist or that you lack the inclination to provide it, although I lean towards the former, since a few minutes on Google really doesn’t require that much effort. I don’t care how nicely you make things sound, or how many anecdotes you provide. Provide facts or statistics that support your position.
And I haven’t answered your question because it had nothing to do with my point. My argument was that supporting the potential defunding of Planned Parenthood, as well as the upholding of the Hyde Amendment, as a cost-saving measure was factually incorrect. In this context, I don’t care about the morality of abortion.
To answer your question however, I do not consider supporting abortion in this context to be analogous to killing the poor.
“PP is a subersive organization, a criminal enterprise, that undermines and circumvents parental rights and familial integrity.”
PP has become a convenient scapegoat. The firece opposition really speaks to fears about failed parenting. If you equipped your kids with the values you want them to have, then why so much worrying? BTW, America’s youth have grown up through two major wars of attrition. Aggressive militarism blasted from every media outlet for the past ten years has probably had more of an impact on their moral character than being able to access free condoms at Planned Parenthood.
“There are better places for real health care, Vannah. I am sure there are hospitals that offer cancer screenings for low income women, especially during October. And I am sure that community health departments also offer screenings for men and women as well…”
Isn’t that beautiful? You want to defund the largest provider of low-cost reproductive and sexual healthcare in America, and you don’t have a contingency plan. Oh, maybe the county health departments will take over…BS. I would like assurance that all Title X funding that PP receives will be redirected to other agencies with NO breakdown in the continuity of care. That is, unless you believe that low-income, unmarried, sexually active women should just pay for their sins by having their cervixes rot off.
Mary – I’m sorry – yeah, I forgot they want to kill Big Bird in the process so the kid doesn’t have anything to watch on TV either!
EGV, 7:06PM
And I thought you couldn’t possibly say anything more ridiculous…
Frebus,
That’s excellent! Women need access to prenatal care and children need healthcare. In an ideal world, no one would get pregnant unless they either planned on it or else liked happy accidents (not mistakes, accidents). :)
Unfortunately, the world is not ideal. Therefore, we must do what we can: education, healthcare, childcare, and death to stigmas. If centers want to help with the healthcare part of this, I say, “EXCELLENT!” :D
So the basic point is that we are equating life to = $500 or so? I think that Life is invaluable – that is why heroes risk theirs to save others.
Should we defund a business that has taken itself as an expert and is not doing well with what it does except perform and support abortion in all 50 states and abroad? Should we put women in the hands of actual health-providing hospitals and clinics that purposely do not end the life of the unborn? Can we use our money more wisely to help the poor and disadvantaged?
The answer to all 3 is an unqualified YES! And since PP keeps saying that abortion is a tiny pittance of it’s overall business – I think they should have no problem with giving up the money – after all – according to their own press – they are the experts and they do what can not be done by anyone else. So they should be quite successful doing that on their own! My own University sends their students to PP – all paid for by the University insurance.
Got you covered PP. No need for you to have $ from our government. You are too successful for that! ;)
Ex-GOP Voter says: February 13, 2011 at 3:26 pm
Wow – I hope Stearns reasoning doesn’t take off – I mean, if somebody in an office for Social Security suggested something illegal, we would defund it entirely? The military?…
Heck, we would have defunded congress 100 times over by now!…
=============================================================
Ex-RINO,
The Social Security is part of the federal government as is the military.
Most hospitals are not a creation of the federal government.
PP is a completely private enterprise, that receives tax dollars taken [as opposed to a conscious free will contribution] from tax payers.
PP is a whore that has been gorging herself at the federal teat for so long that she wrongly believes she is ‘entitled to our wealth.
As far as defunding congress goes, that is a suggestion worthy of serious consideration.
“It’s a good thing we don’t get all the government we pay for.”
Will Rogers
Enigma,
For the big picture just google welfare costs.
Total 2010 anti poverty spending $647,505 million, an increase of 89% since 2000. So show me the big bargain abortion has been.
EGV,
Let me indulge a rare political question, since it hits close to my own vocation (of teaching): in your above comment to Enigma, did you seriously mean to imply that a cut to the budget of the Federal Department of Education–or even the complete elimination of the Federal Department of Education altogether–would “destroy education”? Because, speaking as one who taught in the public schools for 10 years, I’d find that assertion to be hysterically funny, if the stakes weren’t so serious. Even our STATE Department of Education (Wisconsin DPI) would find that hilarious; they’d like nothing better than for the Feds to stay out of state business…
You also seem to equate the repeal of “Obamacare” with “destroying health care”. I see. So… you think civilization is utterly dependent on federal bureaus and departments? That’s… interesting.
Mary,
In order to actually calculate anything with that figure, you would a breakdown of where and how and that money was spent, as well as relevant abortion rate data for each year that you studied. A quantitative analysis of the percentage of women on welfare that don’t get abortions because of the cost, or an analysis of their views towards family planning and the number of children that they desired also wouldn’t go amiss. You’d need comparative data from different years in order to make the argument that you’re apparently aiming for. You’d also have to calculate the average cost per person per year, bearing in mind that the overall population of the county is increasing, so relative increases or decreases in the population on welfare have to measured accordingly. Throwing a figure at me doesn’t prove anything apart from your ineptitude with both facts and numbers.
Hello Palidin,
As a teacher you must be invested in the well-being of children. Care to enlighten us, then, on your thoughts of how parity in health care coverage for children can be achieved through a market-based system?
Enigma wrote, in reply to Mary:
Throwing a figure at me doesn’t prove anything apart from your ineptitude with both facts and numbers.
Throwing insults at others proves nothing but your lack of manners, and strongly implies your lack of a secure case, fellow. Can you not see that her figure at least casts serious doubt on the “golden promises” offered by the abortion lobby and the “war against poverty” supporters? Neither have worked, and both seem to be well on the way to backfiring horribly.
That being said: you do understand, don’t you, that the murder of an unborn child cannot possibly be excused by any financial or social advantage (or anything at all)?
Hello Palidin,
Hello, Megin! :)
As a teacher you must be invested in the well-being of children.
I am.
Care to enlighten us, then, on your thoughts of how parity in health care coverage for children can be achieved through a market-based system?
I’m sorry: why do you assume that a dismantling of federal agencies would in any way affect state-level systems? (I don’t support state-level mandates of health care either, mind you, but you seem to have a “feds or market-based” dichotomy in your mind, and I’m not sure what that’s so.)
As to your point (so far as I understand it), look at the following link:
http://samaritanministries.org/
My wife and I (and several friends) belong to it; it’s neither federally-mandated insurance, nor “market-based”, and children are welcome. Just curious: does it meet with your approval?
Paladin,
Actually, that figure doesn’t prove anything. At the very least, you’d need to factor in administrative costs, changes in how the welfare system is applied, variations in both the overall population of the county and the population on welfare, inflation, percentage of the GDP, and the overall state of the economy. You can’t take a complex issue and then throw out a figure devoid of all context as though it proves something, particularly not when one is concerned with a comparative measure.
I call arguments as I see them. Mary’s argument has, thus far, been incredibly weak, and has been based almost entirely on anecdotes and speculation. Unless any data that actually backs it up can be provided, I see no reason why it should not be dismissed out of hand.
Isn’t that beautiful? You want to defund the largest provider of low-cost reproductive and sexual healthcare in America, and you don’t have a contingency plan.
Oh stop with the fake outrage already! Now that Obamacare has been enacted, it is the feds’ responsibility to formulate a contingency plan.
I would like assurance that all Title X funding that PP receives will be redirected to other agencies with NO breakdown in the continuity of care
Then perhaps you should direct your concerns to Ms Sebelius and others vested with authority via obamacare.
unless you believe that low-income, unmarried, sexually active women should just pay for their sins by having their cervixes rot off.
You weren’t by chance a drama major, were you?
What will happen if women cannot afford to get STD testing? What will happen if women need cancer screenings but can’t afford it?
Vannah, did you watch the vids? PP staff were directing the actor ELSEWHERE for free services if he was unable to afford services at their site. By PP’s own admission, other options are available.
Hi Enigma,
Facts are so annoying aren’t they? Since 2000 an 89% increase in anti poverty spending. Can you show us where and how abortion has been a bargain?
Certainly you have all the analyses and figures at your fingertips.
Enigma, why don’t you just show us how abortion has indeed decreased overall welfare costs. Saying that one abortion is cheaper than paying out welfare, well dahhh. So, let’s see the facts and figures as to the overall drop in welfare dependency and costs and how funding PP brought this about.
Hi Paladin,
Thank you for the support!
:) Any time, O erstwhile jousting partner! (Time has been precious, and typing opportunities have been a bit more at a premium than I’d like, but I’ll try to keep my “virtual cubicle” on this blog at least somewhat warmed!)
Mary,
You’re the one making the argument–it’s up to you to support it. An 89% increase must include context in order to be relevant. What about this is so difficult to grasp? For instance, the economy is doing badly right now, so more people are on unemployment, welfare and disability. Viewing the statistics concerning the increase of people using thees programs doesn’t tell you anything apart from the fact that there has been an increase unless you look at other data. Similarly, you can’t throw out 89% and pretend that it proves something without providing the relevant data that supports your position. We spend more money on anti-poverty programs in 2009 as opposed to 2000. Check. Why? Were did the money go? Where new programs instituted? Did the number of people that these programs affect fluctuate?
Without at least pretending to answer any of these questions and break down the data, you have no argument.
@ Enigma: well… have you considered the idea that any social entitlement programs require a certain base population, and a certain rate of population growth, in order to be viable? (You might look at Japan, Scandanavia, and other places with less than 2.1% population growth, and look at the implosion of their retirement/welfare programs, to get an idea of what I mean.) Your talk of “abortions being cheaper than raising a child” (which, again, abstracts completely from the immorality of killing a child in order to save money–you don’t seriously support that, do you? This is just a “devil’s advocate” exercise for you, right?) doesn’t seem to factor this in; as the population diminishes (and countries with liberal abortion laws do tend to have low population growth, for some reason…), the strain on the “nanny state” programs increases, often to the breaking point. You seem to take two factors–the raw projected cost of an abortion, per se (no mention of any costs relating to therapy for PTSD, treatments for attempted suicide, fertility testing/treatments to try to counteract abortion-related sterility, costs related to breast cancer, etc.), and the raw projected cost of raising that child (ignoring the fact that large families almost never follow those predictions; did you never hear of hand-me-downs, homeschooling, etc.?), and abstract them completely from their proper contexts (which you criticize Mary for allegedly doing, eh?), while neglecting the above factors, and countless others. Isn’t that enough to suggest to you that your position isn’t exactly “air-tight”?
Enigma,
“Actually from a purely fiscal standpoint continuing to fund Planned Parenthood and repealing the Hyde Amendment, allowing federal funds to be used directly for abortion, would make more sense. Paying $300 to $500 once, for a single procedure, is a lot more cost effective than a lifetime of welfare payments”.
You’re the one who’s made the argument that funding of PP is more economical. So, you back up YOUR argument. Let’s see the decrease in poverty rates and welfare spending that have occured as a result of years of federal funding of PP.
Ya think maybe, just maybe, that poverty, social problems, welfare expenditures, and economic hard times are not easily resolved with a suction aspirator?
Paladin,
Yes, health care economies typically exist in hybrid forms, but there are generally two ideologies that shape health care system design:
a) The belief that the way to ensure universal access to affordable health care is to create a central entity that integrates the major functions of health care delivery
b) The belief that the government should have limited to no involvement in the provision of healthcare. The onus to ensure access to healthcare falls on the market system, communities and individuals.
IMO, Paladin, what you’re doing is a good thing. It still doesn’t assure me that any kid outside your network will have access to well-child checkups, medicine for childhood illnesses, or dental care, but the beauty of a market economy is that you don’t have to concern yourself with anyone outside the purview of your social (or individual) sphere.
“Oh stop with the fake outrage already! Now that Obamacare has been enacted, it is the feds’ responsibility to formulate a contingency plan.”
If only nothing here were censored, you can bet I’d tear you another one. Fake outrage? The equitable distribution of healthcare is actually important to those who don’t have their eyes glued to the ultrasound. And actually, legislators like Mike Pence owe it to their constituents to explain how they plan to use federal money which is supposed to be ear-marked for health care. Title X is a federal program. If PP is defunded, where will their Title X monies go? It’s a legitimate question.
Megan wrote:
IMO, Paladin, what you’re doing is a good thing. It still doesn’t assure me that any kid outside your network will have access to well-child checkups, medicine for childhood illnesses, or dental care,
Well… why can they not join this network, or (if they are not Christian) have other analogous networks created to hold them? It avoids the “market” aspect altogether, yes?
but the beauty of a market economy is that you don’t have to concern yourself with anyone outside the purview of your social (or individual) sphere.
I’m not sure that’s quite fair to market-economy supporters, you know; it’s rather cynical to suppose that all market-economy supporters (in this venue) are jaded, uncaring, etc., about those who cannot participate. Have you heard, for example, of Catholic Charities? They offer needed service to low-income families, and they are not part of the “market system” but they coordinate with it. I’m not sure why anyone would insist that health services need to be restricted only to “nanny state” or to “play your luck in the marketplace” extremes…
Mary: We’ve had 38 years of legal abortion. Shouldn’t poverty be virtually non-existent by now?
No, but there are a lot less cases of it than what we’d have without legal abortion.
Megan,
I’m old enough to remember the days pre-medicaid and medicare. My grandparents received all the needed hospitalizations and medical care. I visited the doctor and dentist regularly, much to my chagrin. My parents were working class and my mother was eventually a single mother. None of us went without health care when my mother became divorced then widowed with no other support but her income.
Our city had an outstanding hospital that offered service free of charge or what could be paid by low income people. Insurance covered only hospitalization.
Free market and competition ruled. The gov’t staying out of the medical business did nothing to lessen quality of care.
Megan wrote,
And actually, legislators like Mike Pence owe it to their constituents to explain how they plan to use federal money which is supposed to be ear-marked for health care. Title X is a federal program. If PP is defunded, where will their Title X monies go? It’s a legitimate question.
I’d expect that the funds would go toward paying down the deficit/debt (i.e. would not be “spent” in the first place), right? That is ostensibly the point of the cuts, after all; the idea of “where else would we spend it?” is something of a false one.
Doug 8:55PM
Source?? You PC folks love to proclaim how much worse a problem allegedly would be without abortion but do not address the fact abortion has done nothing to solve the problem.
Doug you remind me of the analogy of the corrupt and inept police chief who assures the citizens of a crime infested community that their crime problem would be so much worse if not for him and his officers, while the citizens remain behind triple locked doors.
Doug wrote:
No, but there are a lot less cases of it than what we’d have without legal abortion.
(??) All right, I’ll bite: how on earth do you justify that sort of claim? And in addition: even if it were (economically) true, how would you possibly justify the slaughter of unborn children to that end? If murder is a legitimate tool for reducing poverty, why not simply kill the born people who are actually poor, rather than relying on mere guess-work about which babies “might” grow up to be poor?
Mary,
I have already backed up my argument. You asserted that I was missing the big picture so please, enlighten me.
Paladin,
Properly conducted studies have shown that abortion alone does not cause psychiatric problems. Women that have these sorts of issues after having an abortion typically had a pre-existing problem. Dominant medical researchers and organizations say there is no breast caner-abortion link. Fertility problems after an abortion are relatively rare and most be considered within the context of maternal age (ie. if a forty year old can’t get pregnant, this inability may not be due to the abortion that she had 18). For homeschooling, you have to factor in opportunity cost (ie. what the homeschooling parent has to forgo–often working–in order to homeschool). Regardless, you also have to factor in food, clothing (not everything can be handed down), transportation, ect.
I do not support killing children. I do, however, support abortion rights.
No Enigma,
You simply showed how one abortion is alleged to be cheaper than a lifetime of welfare payments. BTW, what’s a lifetime? Is it 18 years, 80 years? You say funding of PP should continue as good fiscal policy.
OK, so let’s see how funding of PP for all these years has led to a decrease of welfare dependency and expense. Let’s see how funding has truly been such good fiscal policy.
The equitable distribution of healthcare is actually important to those who don’t have their eyes glued to the ultrasound.
Equitable distribution? You mean the conservatives were right, that the Dem version of health care reform really wasn’t about affordable coverage and access for the uninsured? Imagine that!
And actually, legislators like Mike Pence owe it to their constituents to explain…..
No argument there. But that isn’t how you initially directed your question.
oh goodness – where have you been on the breast-cancer link where one prominent scientist reversed her previous position?
Are you now going to say that there is no link to anything and so it costs less for the financial picture? Be careful what you are advocating – get rid of certain people because it will cost less. Any thought at getting rid of certain people based on any arbitrary attribute creates a situation where every human is at risk.
Too poor – no problem. Wrong color? no problem. Wrong age? Wrong part of town? Wrong sex? Religion? Infirmity? Wrong medical condition? Wrong job? Wrong costs to society? etc…
1984 here we come. Atrocities – here we come. In the wrong situation – too bad!
Oops. Sorry – it’s already here – the unborn and the poor are expendable. what next? And when there is no one to stand up for you – who will say ‘NO?
No one – because there was no one left to defend you.
Enigma to Paladin,
Studies concerning an ABC link are inconclusive and ongoing. Claims of no ABC connection are irresponsible. Anyone can point to a study that “proves” their position. My daughter is a published researcher and has told me that no study ever gives a final answer and no researcher will say it does, unless he/she wants to be laughed out of the profession. Its usually groups or individuals that will point to a certain study and say “see, see, that “proves” I’m right”.
Properly conducted studies have shown that abortion alone does not cause psychiatric problems
I’m sure others here are more familiar with the literature than I am, but I do recall that the APA indicated that most of the published research has methodological flaws.
Source?? You PC folks love to proclaim how much worse a problem allegedly would be without abortion but do not address the fact abortion has done nothing to solve the problem.
Mary, there is no “solving” the problem totally. However, that does not mean that legal abortion hasn’t significantly decreased the number of cases of poverty, i.e. it’s not true that “abortion has done nothing to solve the problem.” Even without looking at the demographics, less people in general would mean less cases of poverty, all other things being equal.
And when we do look at the demographics, things are not equal – the women who have abortions are more likely to have comparitively disadvantaged kids who would be on welfare. Enigma made good points pursuant to that, and who would really think the statistics would bear otherwise?
____
Doug you remind me of the analogy of the corrupt and inept police chief who assures the citizens of a crime infested community that their crime problem would be so much worse if not for him and his officers, while the citizens remain behind triple locked doors.
The thing is that he could be correct – other factors affect crime rates, beyond the sole performance of the police force. However, with the police force perhaps it could be said that in theory, perfect performance would result in no crime. That’s not the same for legal abortion because not every pregnancy that will later result in somebody living in poverty will be ended per the wishes of the woman.
If, due to surprisingly good economic times, gov’t spending on poverty declined, would you then say that legal abortion has been a good thing? I don’t think so. The fact would remain that while nothing will entirely eliminate poverty, there are many factors involved in it, and the overall incidence, up or down, does not necessarily mean that one of the factors is not having the expected effect.
Mary,
You are correct–proven was a badly chosen word. I do actually have enough of a statistical and scientific background to know that, although occasionally am prone to slightly fudging my choice of words.
I love how you want me to provide everything and can’t even be bothered to list a single fact beyond a vague “look it up on Goggle, it’s gone up 89%.” You said that I was missing the bigger picture–I’m still waiting to be enlightened.
Yes, equitable distribution, Fed-Up. In a system with such advanced medical care, principles of social justice dictate that we make sure every kid can get immunized at an affordable price, and that people don’t have to forgo buying food in order to pay for medical expenses. It means a paradim shift. How do you propose that every child, in every state, has access to high-quality, affordable medical care? Or do you feel your concern for the welfare of the young can stop at the birth canal?
Paladin: There isn’t a reason why children can’t join that network. In terms of social justice, there remains the question of how to ensure that every child can access such a system. Are you confident that, without some kind of overarching organizing structure, every child will be able to receive affordable health care if they need to?
Hi FedUp,
I’m not surprised flaws were found. Please refer to my 9:20PM post. Research is constantly scrutinized, criticized, analyzed and reanalyzed. A researcher expects this and that likely another study will be forthcoming that shows altogether different findings.
What’s a properly conducted study? All researchers may not agree.
Paladin – I realize the conversation has gone way past the little comments 40 postings ago – but you are looking too far into a satirical, humorous post.
In your daily quest to trap me Principal Rooney, this is not one of those posts to take seriously enough.
We all know, for instance that nobody wants to kill Big Bird (as I suggested later) – the right is just hoping he forgets his legal documents somewhere so they can deport him back to wherever he came from*.
* Note to Paladin – this is not a serious statement. You do not need to dig through months of posts to try to find some sort of contradictions of reasoning in hopes of having a “got ya” moment, nor do you need to pull up a long string to snooty, big words in hopes of dazzling the locals and keeping your head slightly above the rest of the pack.
** Also, I know I’m a punk. I’m actually quite lovable in real life.
Paladin: All right, I’ll bite: how on earth do you justify that sort of claim?
I think it’s obvious. Had there been no legal abortion, there would now be many more people on welfare, many more people in poverty, etc. This would be true even with nothing more than a general increase in population, all other things being equal. Furthermore, the odds are higher that children of single women, women on welfare, etc., (groups with a higher incidence of abortion) will end up in poverty, versus the population as a whole, i.e. without legal abortion, we could expect more of an increase in poverty versus what could be expected from merely a general population increase.
_____
And in addition: even if it were (economically) true, how would you possibly justify the slaughter of unborn children to that end?
I wasn’t looking at the justification, at all, just saying, “this is the situation versus what it would have been without legal abortion.”
_____
If murder is a legitimate tool for reducing poverty, why not simply kill the born people who are actually poor, rather than relying on mere guess-work about which babies “might” grow up to be poor?
Who do you see saying, “Kill people because they are poor”? That is not the same as noting that less people, especially less people with a higher incidence of poverty, will mean less overall cases of poverty.
I’m not for legal abortion because of any such effects, I’m for it because to a point in gestation I think the woman should be allowed to make her own choice.
I’m not for legal abortion because of any such effects, I’m for it because to a point in gestation I think the woman should be allowed to make her own choice.
Doug,
Your moral relativism is showing.
Enigma, 9:34PM
Not a big deal, we all fall into that trap.
So Enigma, when do you plan to back your initial statement concerning the fiscal responsiblity of PP? You fail to connect any of the stats you put out to a decrase in the cost of welfare dependency. What is a lifetime? As we can see there is no decrease in poverty. So, can you point out where PP has truly made an important difference and funding should continue?
By the big picture I am referring to your claim that if a welfare mother aborts three children and has two, three children are at least not on welfare. I say that is speculative, as you are assuming she may not have had one or two children and then stopped. So are you saving welfare costs? You say rightfully so that children are likely to repeat the pattern. So then how has abortion solved the problem if the children the woman had grow up to repeat the same behavior, and their children do too? What of women who want to have children and stay on welfare? What if the woman goes off welfare when her children are young? There are a number of factors, i.e. a bigger picture here. Its not a simple matter of aborting and saving money.
Janet, I think it’s that way for everybody, or at least almost everybody. Who do you see being for or against abortion primarily on the grounds that with it/without it we would have less/more poverty?
So, Mary, when do you actually plan to provide any data that supports any of the claims that you have pretended to make?
Engima says: February 13, 2011 at 9:04 pm
“You asserted that I was missing the big picture so please, enlighten me.”
=============================================================
Enema,
Before Mary or anyone else will be able to ‘enlighten you’, you will have to extricate your head from where the sun don’t shine.
I know it may take a Herculean effort.
Listen for the ‘pop’!
Megan 9:34PM
Kids have been getting immunized for decades. Good grief the old timers on this blog will tell you that! I still remember screaming bloody murder in the doctor’s office. Go to the county health dept and get immunizations for free if you need to.
Somehow my working class mother got me to the doctor with no help from the gov’t or the principles of social justice. Somehow I did the same for my children. Somehow they take responsiblity for their own health as adults.
Please enlighten me. Are you under the impression that children have never received medical care in this country or what?
Enigma 1004PM
When do you plan to show how federal funding of PP is fiscally responsible and has led to the decrease of welfare expenditures? BTW, what is a lifetime?
I will have to second Mary’s GOOD GRIEF to Megan.
Where I live there are dental clinics and immunization clinics that are strictly at reduced prices or a free will DONATION! Our nearest hospital sponsors a FREE clinic one night a week.
All FOUR of my children receive the health care they need…we don’t have to choose between food or healthcare. btw we are still making payments on a broken leg….the bone has healed and the hospital is fine with monthly payments.
It is hard to take you seriously Megan when you do not have any children but speak to all of us mothers here like we have no idea how to care for our own.
Still would like to hear from someone that has been refused care because they weren’t sure how they were going to pay for it.
PS to Mary
I remember being lined up in the school gym for goodness sakes and getting immunized with that big gun thingy!!
Hi Mary @ 9:36. Yes, I agree. That 09 APA lit review that the proaborts like to refer to clearly indicates that most of the studies were significantly flawed.
Yes, equitable distribution … principles of social justice dictate that we make sure every kid can get immunized at an affordable price…
I think your notion of social justice and mine are two different things. In any case, equitable distribution of health care services will never happen, especially in a system like obamacare which POLITICIZES health care delivery. Nothing politicized ever becomes equitable. The only thing getting shifted around under Obamacare is responsibility for costs. Actual services themselves will remain unequitably distributed, and this would seem to be the intent as obamacare disincentivizes caring for many of those who are at present underserved.
How do you propose that every child, in every state, has access to high-quality, affordable medical care?
Interesting question. That’s one of my beefs with Obamacare. It places too big a squeeze on families in particular income ranges (despite subsidies, which have a downside I won’t go into here), and even for those with coverage, it doesn’t necessarily open avenues of access. Those unlucky enough to lose their current coverage and get stuck on Medicaid are likely to face more not fewer barriers to access.
Or do you feel your concern for the welfare of the young can stop at the birth canal?
Nope, it doesn’t stop there. But I’m guessing that unless I support the progressive, redistributionist health care agenda, I just don’t care ENOUGH.
So Carla – if a person lives in a rural area and doesn’t have access to free clinics, they just out of luck?
Also – while it is great you are paying off the broken bone, what if it were a bone marrow transplant that somebody needed? Those can run $150K to $200K.
Let’s say you had a real lucky situation – 1% interest – at 60 months, that would be $3,418.74 a month.
At ten years, you are at $1,752.08.
Thoughts?
Remember – Oprah’s Mom, Obama’s Mom and Bill Clinton’s Mom (I believe) were on welfare. So remember – what you are advocating is that poor women get abortions and save the economy.
And with those lives lost – so would their children, and their children and their children….
You can’t be sure who will get out of poverty, who will make huge or small contributions in this generation or the next.
Remember – we are talking about lives – and lives lost on purpose and people here are taking talking points like whether to get Chinese or Pizza, eat in or out, or what pair of pants to wear.
Unbelievable. These are lives of the unborn we are talking about – lives that are already living, hearts beating, moving in their mother’s wombs’ living. Real stuff – some future son’s Dad, some future girls’ Mom. Someone who will be buying milk, kissing boo boos, mowing the lawn, reading to their grandkids, delivering and making mail – studying – living- loving and yes – costing someone something.
We are not reducible to an equation of worth or worthiness. We are human – born of our Mothers – raised by someone – hopefully to be a difference in the world. Laughing, loving, hugging, wiping the tears, reading the books, riding the buses.
All of it, or none of it if the life is cut off – especially before birth.
Think Know Love. And then love some more. ;) We all deserve a chance.
So ExGP,
I live in a rural area.
What if? I do not live with What if. I do not live in fear of what might happen.
My husband and I do the best we can to meet the needs of our children.
I never thought that in 2011people would argue for the destruction of human beings to solve problems after all we know about genocide. Nowhere on this planet has genocide ever lead to a better society. It is brutal and is part of an overall syndrome that inhibits social and cultural development and results in deaths not in thousands, but in millions.
Megan and Enigma’s arguments are sick, as in socially ill. I don’t need to provide a three foot long post of links and statistics to know that killing humans by the millions is no way to solve any problems at all, and is, in fact, the worst problem plaguing humanity today. China is a good example of how genocide hasn’t solved anything. It’s one child policy is violently enforced and no one is clamoring to emigrate there. Do I need a list of statistics and links to prove it? If Megan and Enigma really believe what they post, put your money where your keyboard is and move to China. They enact the things you support. bon voyage.
Who do you see being for or against abortion primarily on the grounds that with it/without it we would have less/more poverty?
Doug,
During the Obamacare debate, a few Democrats claimed funding abortion would be cheaper than paying welfare. (Maybe that’s where enigma got the idea.) I don’t think it’s a provable assumption as others have said here. I’ve never seen proof. There are too many variables. What if abortion were illegal? Fewer women would abort and more babies would be raised by them or adopted to other families. These babies could grow up to make great contributions to society, employing thousands of people and all the positives that go with that. Steve Jobs of Apple, Inc. is one such person who was adopted.
joyfromillinois,
I see we had a similar idea. :)
“It is hard to take you seriously Megan when you do not have children but speak to all of us mothers like we have no idea how to care for our own.”
So silencing. So does that mean that since Paladin is a male and can’t get pregnant, he can’t speak his mind on abortion?
“Are you under the impression that children have never received medical care in this country or what?”
No, I am not, and I’m aware that people make do with the resources they have (and have always done so). But for a number of reasons (increasing costs of medical services, system fragmentation, lack of a focus on preventive care, etc.), adequate health care has become MORE difficult to attain over the past five decades. Why are there millions of kids who are uninsured? Are you assuming that they’re all getting the care they need through the largesse of big-hearted souls in their communities? I’d like to think so, but it just doesn’t happen. For example, I’m in a rural part of the country that has been designated a critical shortage area in terms of primary care providers. There’s one PCP for every 1,000 residents, and even fewer mental health care providers. Something tells me that not every kid is getting the health care they need in this area…
if a person lives in a rural area and doesn’t have access to free clinics, they just out of luck
There are a lot of assistance programs that are not connected to free clinics. And you’re naive if you think rural areas have no assistance programs. Your loyalty to obamacare despite your lack of understanding of the real world of health care is truly amazing, EGV.
Those can run $150K to $200K
Better hope you aren’t covered with one of those 30% deductible obamacare policies then. You’ll be at the mercy of the feds for how much of that 30% they decide to cap for your out of pocket max. The more the Dems need to show that obamacare is reducing the deficit, the more they’ll need to INCREASE the amount of that 30% you’ll be expected to cover out of pocket.
Hi ninek and joyfromillinois,
Great posts and summations of what I mean by the big picture.
Life, people, and problems are complex. Its not a simple matter of handing out a birth control pill or pulling out the suction aspirator and money is saved and our problems are solved. Life takes too many twists and turns. Its a thousand “ifs” a day. People with every opportunity life has to offer make a complete mess of their lives. People from the worst homes succeed.
Thank you both for summing it up so well.
Janet, certainly – having a single parent or being on welfare is no guarantee of how a given person would turn out. However, there are the generalizations that apply, and it’s true that kids of single parents tend to do worse in school, for example, than kids from two-parent homes. And what Enigma posted concerning the higher expected incidence of kids from welfare homes being on welfare themselves only makes sense.
It’s true – we don’t know what contributions to society a given person will make, or if they’ll be a serial-killer, for that matter. I certainly don’t think we can “engineer” things in advance, in this realm, nor that it’s much of an argument compared to the abortion debate itself.
As for an abortion being cheaper than welfare, well of course – but I certainly concede that we cannot know what would happen on a case-by-case basis as far as how somebody would turn out, i.e. it’s not like one given abortion can be directly pointed to and said to have surely reduced the future welfare rolls by one.
Megan 10:41PM
Government involvement has only increased expense, corruption, red tape and lack of availability.
How many kids are uninsured? Our state offers insurance for such children. You’d be surprised the parents who don’t care enough to get it, or take any responsiblity for their children either.
Do the parents of the children in the area you describe have vehicles? Is there a town or city nearby with doctor offices? Is there a school nurse? How about a hospital? How does the gov’t remedy this? Do they force doctors to go to these areas?
EGV 10:28PM
Let’s say you were falsely accused of a crime and your lawyer had to spend a lot of time and money to prove your innocence. What do you suppose that bill would cost you?
In fact I saw a case such as that on TV of a woman falsely accused of killing her husband. To pay her legal bills, her parents had to sell their home and she had to declare bankruptcy and lose everything she had.
Do you think legal reform should be next on the agenda?
Yes Mary, parents of uninsured children just don’t love their kids enough, I guess. Bravo for being a more competent, loving mother.
I have my discontents with government involvement in healthcare, and I haven’t mentioned anything about PPACA. But I agree with the general principles: everybody needs to be guaranteed access to healthcare, and the method needs to be systematic.
I am curious (a question for all):
If you are so concerned with supporting pregnant women, why would you balk at the thought that many individuals–not just the pregnant–have difficulty getting their medical needs met? Why would you treat a pregnant woman with such understanding and compassion, yet insinuate that a parent of an uninsured child is somehow ignorant, uncaring, or lazy?
I think that the most expensive thing is to lose one’s heart and capacity to love.
What we are talking about here is is limiting the limitless, binding what we know to equations (and I love math) and deeming mankind to widgitry, usury.
We need to open our hearts wide – to the needy, to those who need love and care, to those we can give of our time, talent and treasure.
My husband just said to me yesterday that he knows he is working hard and can trade in the stress for other things – and yet he sees the gift of self and treasure he can give to truly make a difference in people’s lives. He sees an altruistic way to live and he is doing that beautifully.
We are not taking our gain to make us comfortable, to squirrel away just for us – we have a duty to share ourselves, and yes our hard-earned things for the betterment of others – and that is what we are all called to do – be our brother’s keeper.
When we support abortion – we are not our brother’s keeper – but we aid and help in the death of our brothers in the womb. We are not loving big – we are thinking of ourselves, our reputation, our ease of life.
Our hearts are shriveling. we are not growing, and we need to. remember the cost – in human life, in love and in eternal consequences. Abortion costs us big – bigger than most will acknowledge. Killing is not love.
Loving and helping is.
Actually, Megan, Mary has a good point. Applying for government programs can involve a lot of red tape. Surely you know that. I’ve met many people who let their Medicaid coverage lapse because they didn’t want to jump thru the hoops or deal with red tape for themselves or their kids. Belittle Mary if you must, but there are people out there who find it too much hassle to keep benefits current. Is it laziness on their part or too much bureaucracy on the government’s part? I can’t say. I just know that Mary is correct that a lot of people are unwilling to comply with what the government requires of them to prove eligibility for benefits.
Creating an even larger government bureaucracy is going to meet people’s needs? Are you smoking? We need less people at desks in government offices rationing “healthcare” and more clinics that provide the kind of basic care that clogs up emergency rooms. I am amazed that abortion advocates think that if we are pro-life we are somehow advocating starving children and poverty stricken mothers. Megan, you know as well as I do that many women go have their children killed at Planned Parenthood, not because they are so destitute and can’t find care, but because they don’t want it on their own medical records. And I don’t even have to take a survey among my pro-life friends as to whether or not they are communists: most of them are not communists. Why – I’d like to know – do you insist that if we are pro-life we must also think that welfare can take care of everyone? Who is drawing that connection? I’ll tell you who: hysterical abortion advocates. There is a bigger equation than just welfare or abortion. You remind me of me of that comedian’s bit about “cake or death,” except yours isn’t entertaining anymore. Hey Megan, guess what, just because I’m pro-life doesn’t mean I think people should be on welfare their whole lives. And hey Megan, guess what else? A lot of women who get abortions would have chosen otherwise with just a tiny bit of encouragement to carry their child to term. In many cases it’s not about money. That’s what thousands of post-abortive women have testified to on the steps of our courthouses, and the videos are all over the web for you to view and hear. Have you seen a parade of women who declare, “OH I’m so thrilled that after Planned Parenthood killed my kids, I got off welfare and now I make a six figure salary!” Abortion avoids welfare equals fairy tale. Abortion advocates probably secretly believe in unicorns, too.
Megan 11:12PM
After 40 years in the medical field plus a few additional years of life, I’m telling you there are people whose priorities are not what we think they should be, and that included being responsible for their children and their health care. Sorry, but its a fact of life.
No I don’t deserve any awards for motherhood. I was a parent who took responsiblity for making sure my children got the care they needec as did my mother and we did it without a gov’t agency. It can be done.
In a low income area near us a doctor offered his services for prenatal care free of charge. Not one woman came in. The doctor was concerned as there was a high incidence of drug, alcohol, and cigarette use, as well as obesity. He couldn’t force the women to come in. Again Megan, sometimes people just lack personal responsibility.
Mary – what is interesting is, if you are accused of a crime, you have an option if you can’t afford an attorney. Sure though, legal reform can be next. I think it is a terrible argument to simply say “well, other areas are broke, so let’s not work on ANYTHING, don’t you think?”
FedUp – So you are saying there’s a long line of organizations, out of the goodness of their hearts, that are going to pay for the bone marrow transplant?
COLFS (Culture of Life Family Services) is a facility that provides total care, free of cost, for a pregnant woman. They have two MDs on staff so it is really medical care and not just counseling about abortion.
And Megan what makes you think we balk at other medical care? You (and others) act like there is none outside of PP. I have used the county health department for immunizations, I have been hospitalized when I was out of a job and the bill was covered 100% between the hospital and government, and my friend (who was diagnosed with breast cancer in September) will have her out of pocket expenses from the hospital covered at 100% because her husband makes less than $90,000 a year.
If people look they can find affordable healthcare. After I read an article on Yahoo about how you could cut your doctor bill by paying cash up front I called my OB and got 20% knocked off my bill from my delivery.
Enigma said:
Cost of abortion: $500-$1000
Cost of raising a child in the US: $200,000+
Ability of aborted child to contribute to society: 0
Ability of living person to contribute to society: immeasurable
EGV,
:) Your snarky, petulant, self-pitying punk-dom is noted. And in deference to your lugubrious lamentations about my didactic efforts and overweening prose, I shall at least ponder, for the nonce, the utility of efforts to curtail such obstreperousness on the part of your humble servant.
Feel free to guess at how seriously to take that, dear sir. :)
raising a child costs $200,000+? Uh, maybe if you get clothes from Abercromie and Fitch or something….
Is this for ONE child or for 2.1 children? Is this assuming graduating with a C+ average and no scholarships? Is this shopping at high end stores for clothes or buying clothes at Target or another discount store? Is this cloth diapers or disposable?
So you are saying there’s a long line of organizations, out of the goodness of their hearts, that are going to pay for the bone marrow transplant
I said nothing about a long line, EGV. I said not all assistance is tied to free clinics and that rural location doesn’t disqualify residents from receiving assistance.
It only takes one program to serve an entire region. For example, I grew up in Amish country, which I consider pretty rural. There are numerous programs that can offer some assistance, but most of them are fairly small and only help with specific expenses of certain diseases. For example, the local diabetic association would help in a limited fashion with outpatient diabetic expenses but not cancer. So it would be inaccurate to say there is only one assistance organization in the area.
There is, however, one large organization that helps with inpatient and outpatient medical expenses. It serves numerous counties and does extensive outreach to get brochures, applications, and information about assistance into local hospital and physician offices, labs, etc. The fact that there’s only one group that assists with any type of necessary medical care doesn’t make that one group less valuable. The residents of the area are served.
Please note, too, that I said nothing about goodness of heart. I suspect in the case of the organization I referred to above, it has more to do with tax deductions and other benefits than pure altruism. Should it therefore be shut down?
I also said nothing about picking up the entire tab. I referred to ASSISTANCE, by which I mean just that. Assistance with the cost, as in discount or cancelation of various fees associated with treatment. For example, many costs associated with a procedure may be significantly reduced or waived entirely. It depends on the situation. Most people would rather pay off a smaller debt than a larger one. And, I dare say, based of my familiarity with other similar programs, most people are appreciative for what gets waived or reduced. But no doubt there are some like you who would sneer in sarcasm because the patient may be expected to pay some of the expense for care (after care is rendered, it isn’t an up-front requirement) or because the number of assistance programs doesn’t meet your expectation.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.icharts.net/ichart-download/0/ichart_239.png&imgrefurl=http://www.icharts.net/myicharts/app%3Fservice%3Dexternal%26sp%3DY3jRwg%3D%3D%26page%3DChartdetail&usg=__xFDNBTeZL58QeUf2aYVIiuFsYy0=&h=425&w=700&sz=16&hl=en&start=46&zoom=1&tbnid=nOzdhoAff_O_hM:&tbnh=143&tbnw=236&ei=bFhZTbWLM9CutweE0JCpDQ&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgdp%2Busa%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1340%26bih%3D679%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=406&oei=_ldZTbTFAsnagQeM-siyDA&page=4&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:46&tx=98&ty=88
GDP since 1929.
More people, more wealth.
For Americans, each hour of work produces $57 dollars in productivty toward our nation’s overall GDP.
147 million people working to deevlop wealth.
http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LEVEL
Where do these people come from?
1. ‘birds and bees.’
2. raise the child.
3. teen begins working, maybe 16 years of age.
4. work til when? 70? 75?
At this macro level, you can see it is ridiculous to say that killing a baby saves money.
Overall, the average human who is allowed to live contributes, rather than takes away.
If you argue the cost to raise a child versus kill it before birth, you miss the vastly overwhelming part of the whole equation: the adult productivity.
This is exactly the same as hiring and training and employee.
The first couple of weeks on the job, you, the new employee, produce no work – you are a drain, as people have to devote resources to training you.
Then, you turn around and start producing after training.
The argument that it is cheaper to kill a baby before birth rather than suffer the expense to raise the chld is as dumb as a growing company arguing it should opt to not hire employees, since it costs less to not-hire versus train for two weeks.
Of course, to accept my view, you have to have HOPE that each child can grow up and live a decent, contributing life; if you are classist, or elitist, or racist, like most “liberals” have become, you do not believe in the ability of Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, or Barack Obama to rise above their impoverished beginnings.
This is what is different from “liberals” touting “hope:” that is a slogan to develop a crippled dependent class. Everything is misery and a sob story and an excuse, with some white person as the evil bad guy.
The numbers say something different.
Hope. Also, have faith that things will work out, as they have been for millenia. And love. If you love your fellow human, whether black or white, rich or poor, it is not too difficult to see the glass as half full.
yep – and I guess that to take the direction of the conversation to it’s logical conclusion – every Rich person should just off themselves, since they are so costly to have around.
Just kidding, of course.
Substitute ‘toddler’ in place of the poor. Or how about ‘the nobel prize winner’ How about ”my mailman” or ‘my children’s teacher’ or ‘my doctor’ or ”my mechanic” or ‘ my Dad’ or ‘my mother’ or ‘my grandmother.’
See how idiotic it sounds? As soon as we ration life based on productivity or cost or any artificial constraint – we have huge room for abuse and human right’s violations.
Save the baby humans, save the grown humans, save all the humans.
We are savvy enough, smart enough, inventive enough, loving enough and generous enough to create a world where everyone is welcome.
Everyone is welcome. Every human deserves a chance.
Love big, give big, hope big and trust big. We can do it.
And every time you say abortion is ok for whatever reason – imagine the face of someone you love not being here because someone else wanted him/her gone. That is the choice of abortion…
EGV 6:38AM
Not necessarily. If you are wrongly convicted you will need the best legal eagle you can get, as the woman I posted about did. She didn’t set out to find the most expensive lawyer, but the one best qualified to help her.
Again, not the point. Why should people go broke exercising their right to legal representation? Why should anyone have anything less than the very best legal minds? Certainly its no problem for the wealthy. Fair is fair.
Had there been no legal abortion, there would now be many more people on welfare, many more people in poverty, etc. This would be true even with nothing more than a general increase in population, all other things being equal.
Had there been no legal abortion, we’d be much further down the path of learning how to love one another. People would be taking more responsiblities for their actions and thinking more about others first instead of themselves. They would not be misusing sex as they are now.
Legalized abortion has led our country off of that path and making abortion illegal will be the start to getting us back on it.
we may have had a cure for cancer by now if that person hadn’t been aborted. We may have had self driving cars invented if that person hadn’t been aborted. Not everyone who has abortions is a poor mother with 4 children that is on welfare. when I’ve prayed at the abortion facility, I’ve seen decent looking cars, not a whole lot of clunkers. Many of the women are young and vulnerable, being told they can’t raise a baby.
Ex-GOP Voter says: February 13, 2011 at 10:28 pm
…”if a person lives in a rural area and doesn’t have access to free clinics, they just out of luck?”
=============================================================
Ex-RINO,
No. You just post your checking, savings, credit card account numbers, complete with your PIN and you pay for their health care.
That is what you are advocating, except you want use the IRS to take our wealth before it ever makes to our banks.
Enigma raised the issue about supposed economic gains to be had by killing unborn babies. A great deal of back and forth ensued.
A little research on the broader economic consequences of a declining birthrate–abortion must be considered a part of that statistic—gleaned from none other than one of the world renowned management and business experts of our time, Peter Drucker, yields the following.
In his book, Management Challenges for the 21st Century, Peter Drucker addresses the upcoming demographic implosion in the West due to the declining birthrate. According to Drucker this implosion is the “number one fact businesses must consider” and that “no developed country is likely, therefore, to have stable politics or a strong government. Government instability is going to be the norm.” He further states: “Of all developments, the collapsing birthrate is the most spectacular, the most unexpected, and the one that has no precedent whatsoever”.
Against Drucker’s prescient prognostications (he published the work in 1999 and they are already coming true in Europe’s struggles with masses of immigrants who have far higher birthrates) the puny arguments about saving a dollar here or there when killing unborn children fades into irrelevancy. It is a perspective the rabid pro-aborts ought to consider, if for no other reason at least to save their own hides.
Ex GOP claims: (at least 24 hours ago)
Enigma – I wouldn’t worry about the cost to society -after the GOP is done getting rid of education, health care, head start programs and anything else that might benefit kids – well, the birth of that child won’t cost society anything!
I don’t get it, ex. You once told us that what “ex” means is not that you never vote GOP, but rather you don’t vote GOP straight ticket. And then you told us after the elections in November you voted GOP for gov in your state of Wisconsin.
It would seem that by your votes you support the very things you disdain.
Enigma claims:
I do not support killing children. I do, however, support abortion rights.
Gibberish! Your admission that abortion ends the life of a human being and therefore “saves money” in as much proves that you do know an unborn baby is a child. Therefore, you do support the killing of children.
“Why – I’d like to know – do you insist that if we are pro-life we must also think that welfare can take care of everyone?”
I wasn’t necessarily talking about a welfare system, just a systematic way of ensuring that everybody in this country has access to affordable healthcare. It’s great that physicians are willing to offer free medical clinics, but these don’t have a habit of springing up everywhere they’re needed. Yep, fewer physicians these days want to move to rural areas because they pay isn’t as good as it would be in a bigger city. So you have people driving 5+ hours to the nearest critical access hospital. That’s a reflection of a fair system?
But I still don’t get it. In your eyes, pregnant women are vulnerable fools who need all the support they can get from crisis pregnancy centers and the protection of anti-choice legislation, yet parents who can’t find adequate health insurance coverage for their kids are somehow incompetent, lazy or stupid. Inconsistencies, inconsistencies.
Megan wrote:
I wasn’t necessarily talking about a welfare system, just a systematic way of ensuring that everybody in this country has access to affordable healthcare.
Megan, I actually sympathize with your desire (that everyone gets the health-care they need), and even (though I find it unwise) with your attraction to a “big government” solution. Here are some of the problems, though (just off the top of my head):
1) Universal Government Health Care(TM) isn’t financially feasible… especially in a culture which is increasingly self-absorbed and child/family-phobic, whose members are less and less willing to give up job, career, money, etc., for families. If the population growth of that country is less than about 2.1 children per family, the country population will start shrinking, and “nanny state” programs will implode, since there won’t be enough new members to support the older members (who were far more prolific).
2) Your principle in this matter (i.e. “it’s okay to mandate health care contribution, by law”) seem to be at odds with your attitude toward abortion; why force people to contribute when they don’t wish to do so? Why not “change hearts and minds”, rather than put your laws on the bodies (and pocketbooks) of others who disagree with you?
3) As Praxedes rightly (and wisely) brought up: putting “services” onto a centralized government has the psychological effect of removing the human connection between donor and recipient, which degrades both the donor and the recipient. It violates the principle known as “subsidiarity” (i.e. things ought to be done/managed at the lowest/most local possible level, rather than having an autocracy trying to micromanage everything).
4) As experience has shown (and common sense could have predicted), a lumbering behemoth of a federal bureaucracy is far less efficient at managing anything than are local community sources. I’m sure you can think of examples, on your own.
5) The entire mentality of “wealth redistribution” is self-defeating, even for non-imploding populations (as communism and other socialism-based ideologies have shown, over and over, when tried); if it becomes impossible for person [x] to make more than person [y], no matter how hard he works or how skillfully he performs, why should he excel? Why should he bother? It’s nice to hope that some people will be altruistic enough to excel simply for the common good (which sounds a bit like your lament that “it’d be nice if free clinics popped up everywhere”), but you really can’t guarantee that (and any efforts to fight Christianity would, ironically enough, fight against one of the few consistent sources of such altruistic behaviours).
But I still don’t get it. In your eyes, pregnant women are vulnerable fools who need all the support they can get from crisis pregnancy centers
The word “fools” was yours, not ours; and I hardly know why you use it, here. No pro-lifer on this board, to my knowledge, thinks that a woman in a “crisis pregnancy” is a fool for needing help and support with an overwhelming situation. (Would you have called Albert Einstein a “fool” if he’d become disoriented at his wife’s death? Some things are simply traumatic and equilibrium-destroying, no matter how wise a person is.) Delete the word “fools”, and I’d agree with your statement completely.
and the protection of anti-choice legislation,
Anti-abortion legislation, you mean. 99.999999999% of the other choices normally available to people in her position would still be available to her, if the “right” to have her child ripped to pieces were removed from the books.
yet parents who can’t find adequate health insurance coverage for their kids are somehow incompetent, lazy or stupid. Inconsistencies, inconsistencies.
Straw men often have a habit of sounding rather weak and shaky, that’s true. Perhaps you might try portraying our position accurately, rather than painting a caricature at which you can shoot? I’m trying very hard to find any commenter who said anything of the sort that you mention, here, and I haven’t yet succeeded. Could you point me to some quotes?