Time To Make A Difference

[FrankJL]

If laissez faire and capitalism doesn't work, can you name me one (just one) country with a centrally planned economy that has a higher standard of living then we do?

Google "rinkonomics" by Daniel Klein it will explain it for you.

edit.. Directed at ogre, Elph you posted right as I was

[the Ogre]

If laissez faire and capitalism doesn't work, can you name me one (just one) country with a centrally planned economy that has a higher standard of living then we do?

Google "rinkonomics" by Daniel Klein it will explain it for you.

edit.. Directed at ogre, Elph you posted right as I was

Fortunately, we also do not live in a laissez faire system either. Many people think it would be a good thing. Many people would like to see complete nationalization of various private enterprises. I think both are wrong equally. Both are equally stupid.

You want to flush those without the economic blessings you have down the toilet, continue supporting a philosophy that is anti-poor.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of survival of the fittest-for animals. But when we have been commanded by the L-rd to throw off the natural man, that includes this kind of domination based thinking.

Libertarianism is a elitist philosophy just as national socialism in the US has become. Both are wrong. Both are worth spurning as one would slugs on peapods.

Edited to include rinkonomics: this system is simple, everyone goes as a group around a roller-rink at approximately the same speed as a group even if no one consulted the other about it. That is fine in a perfectly homogenized roller-skating rink where everyone has the same basic, descent ideas of how to roller skate.

What about those excluded by the system (those who could not afford the skates) or those who do not want to do what the rest want to (kids on skateboards, people going against the flow). These people eventually get excluded from the society of the roller rink as social outcasts or criminals.

These social outcasts are the ones that libertarianism hurts and also does not care about. Laissez faire economic theory is just another way middle-class American have deluded themselves into excluding those that do not fit in by some type of artificial social group.

Think about the laissez faire behavior of the suburbs. Most neighborhoods do not have the same building codes regarding the plants one can plan, or what one can side the house with, but everyone gets along and makes sure their home is not offensive to neighbors and makes sure the kids follow the code of conduct that says don't do anything that will cause you to stick out. The middle-class motto: the nail that sticks out gets hammered down. SO then what about the guy who does not cut the grass? Or what about the guy who xeriscapes? These guys have violated the code and so society then reacts to them excluding them.

Who is the mindless, hands-free group to determine what is right and what is wrong. This is what makes libertarian economics so oppressive. It does not value the diverse and in fact might actively oppose the diverse. Who is going to tell them not to in a laissez fair system? The government has no power to protect those that can not protect themselves from artificial social-constructs that exclude and punish one for being different.

[prisonchaplain]

When do the school districts say this? I'm not saying they don't. I just don't know about it.

Elphaba

Do a google on "parental notification." It's a huge controversy. Pro-choice advocates usually adamantly oppose laws that require parents be notified when their child has an abortion. The nurse can't give your kid an aspirin without your consent, but you do not even have to be told your child has had an abortion. The arguments offered are that the child will be afraid to have an abortion because her parents will be told. Parents can be cruel, physically abusive, etc. So, for the sake of the child, this child is empowered with the knowledge that mommy & daddy never have to know.

[the Ogre]

Do a google on "parental notification." It's a huge controversy. Pro-choice advocates usually adamantly oppose laws that require parents be notified when their child has an abortion. The nurse can't give your kid an aspirin without your consent, but you do not even have to be told your child has had an abortion. The arguments offered are that the child will be afraid to have an abortion because her parents will be told. Parents can be cruel, physically abusive, etc. So, for the sake of the child, this child is empowered with the knowledge that mommy & daddy never have to know.

Man, this is one of the things that makes me wish I had home-schooled. I do not like it when schools step in thinking they know more then the parents do.

Educators tend to be as self-righteous as any bible-bashing Oklahoma Republican. What right do these people have in taking away the rights of a parent regarding something this important?

This is the kind of thing that makes the abortion debate so hard to deal with. The people who make sensible arguments then turn around and say something that is obviously wrong and irrisponsible.

[FrankJL]

<div class='quotemain'>

If laissez faire and capitalism doesn't work, can you name me one (just one) country with a centrally planned economy that has a higher standard of living then we do?

Google "rinkonomics" by Daniel Klein it will explain it for you.

edit.. Directed at ogre, Elph you posted right as I was

Fortunately, we also do not live in a laissez faire system either. Many people think it would be a good thing. Many people would like to see complete nationalization of various private enterprises. I think both are wrong equally. Both are equally stupid.

You want to flush those without the economic blessings you have down the toilet, continue supporting a philosophy that is anti-poor.

Don't get me wrong. I like the idea of survival of the fittest-for animals. But when we have been commanded by the L-rd to throw off the natural man, that includes this kind of domination based thinking.

Libertarianism is a elitist philosophy just as national socialism in the US has become. Both are wrong. Both are worth spurning as one would a pedophile or rapist.

:)

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

When do the school districts say this? I'm not saying they don't. I just don't know about it.

Elphaba

Do a google on "parental notification." It's a huge controversy. Pro-choice advocates usually adamantly oppose laws that require parents be notified when their child has an abortion. The nurse can't give your kid an aspirin without your consent, but you do not even have to be told your child has had an abortion. The arguments offered are that the child will be afraid to have an abortion because her parents will be told. Parents can be cruel, physically abusive, etc. So, for the sake of the child, this child is empowered with the knowledge that mommy & daddy never have to know.

Hi PC,

I know all about Parental Notification. I just didn't know they talked about it at the school districts. I thought it was discussed at the abortion clinics. So do they discuss it with the girls at their schools?

Honestly, I can see both sides. There are parents out there who would kill the girl, or punish her for the rest of her time at home, or even for the rest of her life. If I were that girl, there is no way I would want them to know I was having an abortion. My own father was one of those parents. Man, he would have killed me, no doubt in my mind. Of course, he practically did that anyway.

At the same time, the girl is still a minor, so I absolutely see where you're coming from.

I sincerely am conflicted about this. I don't think it's as black and white as I know you do. You're a kind person, and I'm sure a wonderful father. But not all parents out there are like you.

I don't know what to say on this one.

Elphaba

[pam]

Okay just a little twist on the subject. I found out when I called United Healthcare about some claims my daughter had...that because she was over the age of 12 I was not privy to that information. 12???? They informed me that was Utah law. The most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. I can understand 18 but 12??? But....I could have her go online and set up her own password etc so she could view them. So I did it for her. What the heck was the difference here?

[Elphaba]

Okay just a little twist on the subject. I found out when I called United Healthcare about some claims my daughter had...that because she was over the age of 12 I was not privy to that information. 12???? They informed me that was Utah law. The most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. I can understand 18 but 12??? But....I could have her go online and set up her own password etc so she could view them. So I did it for her. What the heck was the difference here?

When did this happen? That doesn't make sense.

I was always allowed to see my daughter's information until she was 18. And man, let me tell you, I had a hard time with that! I was so used to being Mama Bear, I still wanted to see everything. I had to let go, shut up, and let her be an adult!

I think someone is confused at your insurance company. That is not Utah law. Heck, in Utah they'd push it up to 30 if they could.

Elphaba

[the Ogre]

Ok your comparing libertarianism to pedophilia, and attempting to behind some "my ideals are holier then though" type response.

Such responses are so ignorant as to not warrant a response, other then to say I'm done with you.

Frank, that was a little strong on my part. I'm tired. I couldn't think of something I'd spurn quickly and completely. I'm not saying your a pedophile. Sorry about that.

I am saying that libertarianism is dangerous and worth moving beyond.

Now I know you think it is a worthy system. I disagree, but on the same hand I disagree with the system that libertarians disagree with the most as being equally dangerous and worth spurning.

I apologize for the nature of that comment, I'll edit it to make it seem less threatening while still carrying the same point.

Sincerely,

Aaron the Ogre

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

Okay just a little twist on the subject. I found out when I called United Healthcare about some claims my daughter had...that because she was over the age of 12 I was not privy to that information. 12???? They informed me that was Utah law. The most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. I can understand 18 but 12??? But....I could have her go online and set up her own password etc so she could view them. So I did it for her. What the heck was the difference here?

When did this happen? That doesn't make sense.

I was always allowed to see my daughter's information until she was 18. And man, let me tell you, I had a hard time with that! I was so used to being Mama Bear, I still wanted to see everything. I had to let go, shut up, and let her be an adult!

I think someone is confused at your insurance company. That is not Utah law. Heck, in Utah they'd push it up to 30 if they could.

Elphaba

This was about 5 years ago. Seriously I was the policy holder and they would not answer ANY questions about my daughters claims when I called.

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Okay just a little twist on the subject. I found out when I called United Healthcare about some claims my daughter had...that because she was over the age of 12 I was not privy to that information. 12???? They informed me that was Utah law. The most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. I can understand 18 but 12??? But....I could have her go online and set up her own password etc so she could view them. So I did it for her. What the heck was the difference here?

When did this happen? That doesn't make sense.

I was always allowed to see my daughter's information until she was 18. And man, let me tell you, I had a hard time with that! I was so used to being Mama Bear, I still wanted to see everything. I had to let go, shut up, and let her be an adult!

I think someone is confused at your insurance company. That is not Utah law. Heck, in Utah they'd push it up to 30 if they could.

Elphaba

This was about 5 years ago. Seriously I was the policy holder and they would not answer ANY questions about my daughters claims when I called.

What about since then?

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Okay just a little twist on the subject. I found out when I called United Healthcare about some claims my daughter had...that because she was over the age of 12 I was not privy to that information. 12???? They informed me that was Utah law. The most ridiculous thing I had ever heard. I can understand 18 but 12??? But....I could have her go online and set up her own password etc so she could view them. So I did it for her. What the heck was the difference here?

When did this happen? That doesn't make sense.

I was always allowed to see my daughter's information until she was 18. And man, let me tell you, I had a hard time with that! I was so used to being Mama Bear, I still wanted to see everything. I had to let go, shut up, and let her be an adult!

I think someone is confused at your insurance company. That is not Utah law. Heck, in Utah they'd push it up to 30 if they could.

Elphaba

This was about 5 years ago. Seriously I was the policy holder and they would not answer ANY questions about my daughters claims when I called.

What about since then?

I haven't had them since the end of that year.

[FrankJL]

Yes, I know. And I would agree with you on many of those.

But you're young, Frank. As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, you have yet to have need of any of these programs. If it weren't for Medical when my son had a neuroblastoma tumor in 1980 he would have died because I had no way to come up with that kind of money. If it weren't for welfare way back then I wouldn't have made it through university. If it weren't for Medicare part D I would be paralyzed with pain today. If it weren't for Social Security Disability I'd be on the streets.

No I have not had any need for government programs, I have my own health insurance, and it has served me well so far. I have not even used any federal/state grants for school. I've paid my own way through school. Charity and benevolence is not the job of government, as stated by Madison in Federalist paper 43. I really do doubt that you would be homeless and dead if it wasn't for these programs. Charity does exist in this country (we give more to charities per capita then nearly any other country in the world). Specifically in reference to medical access, our government has become a major bottleneck in getting medical advances to the public to lower cost and improve effectiveness. Getting a new pill to market takes an average of 5 years and 250 million in funding, we have let China and France get ahead of us on advances from stem cell research because of a few religious zealots here, and doctors still need to pay 5 or 6 figure payments for malpractice insurance because of out of control ambulance chasing lawyers like John Edwards.

When I look around at the people in my "predicament," I do not see sloth. I see people in need who are willing to work as best they can under trying circumstances. I've even met some of them on this site who put me to shame.

Some may need the services, very few probably do though. Some better management of personal finances, and people coming to realize what are true priorities in life would do them a lot better then just getting sent a check every month, or waiting for the 15th for your "Access Card" (what PA uses for its EFT benefits) to be updated. As a joke my advisor (an Al Franken type liberal), thought it would be and "educational experience" for me to do one of my summer internships at the local welfare office, in hopes that I would see the hardships these people go through, and come about in my thinking. If anything this experience only bolstered my opinion that many are scamming the system, with the encouragement of the people that work there. For two weeks, day in and day out I watched the workers in there guide people into how to "correctly" (i.e fraudulently) fill out the forms. Once I even heard a lady tell a couple not to get married because they could collect more, if they each filed separately. Nearly everyone that came in had a cell phone. The cars in the client side of the parking lot looked better then the one in the employee section of the parking lot. So i did learn a lot from that little experience.

I don't like needing these things, and I am incredibly grateful to my country that I have them. I'm especially afraid, after getting sick and being so at the mercy of the system. I'm terrified my SSD is going to be taken away from me. I know that's not logical, but I don't feel anyone cares for the least of us anymore. And when it comes to the children who are at high risk, I don't think anyone gives a fig about them. Put me out in the streets, I don't care. But someone has to take care of them when those who should can't. How do they fit into your libertarian platform? I'm not being sarcastic. I really want to know.

Children are the responsibility of their parents, and that goes back to what I said earlier about personal priorities and responsibility. The choice to have children in itself is choice that the parentS (it does take two people to make a baby, so this is not just a woman's issue) make. If you know you are in an impoverished state and can't afford kids, then don't have kids. Don't use the excuse either that poor parents can't afford birth control, planned parenthood (a private organization) gives depo shots to poor women for free (or at least they do here in PA) If you do though, don't expect to burden others with the results of your choice. Children if anyone should not be worried, they are covered by so many programs its unreal, and we are adding another one now CHIPS, which defines children as being up to 25

[the Ogre]

Some may need the services, very few probably do though. Some better management of personal finances, and people coming to realize what are true priorities in life would do them a lot better then just getting sent a check every month, or waiting for the 15th for your "Access Card" (what PA uses for its EFT benefits) to be updated. As a joke my advisor (an Al Franken type liberal), thought it would be and "educational experience" for me to do one of my summer internships at the local welfare office, in hopes that I would see the hardships these people go through, and come about in my thinking. If anything this experience only bolstered my opinion that many are scamming the system, with the encouragement of the people that work there. For two weeks, day in and day out I watched the workers in there guide people into how to "correctly" (i.e fraudulently) fill out the forms. Once I even heard a lady tell a couple not to get married because they could collect more, if they each filed separately. Nearly everyone that came in had a cell phone. The cars in the client side of the parking lot looked better then the one in the employee section of the parking lot. So i did learn a lot from that little experience.

There can be no doubt that there is wide-spread abuse of the system, but isn't that reason to implement changes to the system and how it is managed? What you have stated does not provide reason enough for eradication of programs that do help many people that need the assistance.

[Elphaba]

No I have not had any need for government programs, I have my own health insurance, and it has served me well so far. I have not even used any federal/state grants for school. I've paid my own way through school. Charity and benevolence is not the job of government, as stated by Madison in Federalist paper 43.

I applaud your good choices. Seriously. I also had health insurance when I had my son. It's when he became ill with his neuroblastoma, and I had to quit my job that things took a turn for the worst.

I really do doubt that you would be homeless and dead if it wasn't for these programs.

I didn't say I'd be dead. And yes, I would be in the streets for about two years. Where do you think those people are in the streets come from? There are families in the streets, in the shelters now. Single mothers with their children. Most of them get there like I would have. They live paycheck to paycheck and then have a medical crisis, which takes up all of their money, and within two months they're evicted. That's what would have happened to me. Eventually my mother took me in, but it took a long time before that happened, and if I hadn't had my SSD, I would have had nowhere to go.

And I love it when I hear from people who have never needed a charity that charities will come through from them. I have yet to ever see that actually happen. When my son was in the hospital, before I knew if he'd qualify for Medical, I was told there was a charity that would pay for approximately $30,000 of his care, which was a drop in the bucket.

Oh, HE would have been dead. That's where you got that. And yes, he would have if Medical had not paid for his treatments. They came to almost $180,000. And no, no charity was going to pick up the tab, and there was no way I could pay for that. First he would have been paralyzed, then he would have died. Today he is 28 years old and perfectly healthy. According to you, society should have left him alone because of my poor choices?

Specifically in reference to medical access, our government has become a major bottleneck in getting medical advances to the public to lower cost and improve effectiveness. Getting a new pill to market takes an average of 5 years and 250 million in funding, we have let China and France get ahead of us on advances from stem cell research because of a few religious zealots here, and doctors still need to pay 5 or 6 figure payments for malpractice insurance because of out of control ambulance chasing lawyers like John Edwards.

I'm sure you're right and there are better ways. But I know that I receive the help I need.

And Frank, I didn't anticipate getting sick. I had health insurance all of my working life. I thought I was making the right choices at the time. People get sick unexpectedly and suddenly everything's gone! That's what happened to me.

Some may need the services, very few probably do though. Some better management of personal finances, and people coming to realize what are true priorities in life would do them a lot better then just getting sent a check every month, or waiting for the 15th for your "Access Card" (what PA uses for its EFT benefits) to be updated. As a joke my advisor (an Al Franken type liberal), <snip>Nearly everyone that came in had a cell phone. The cars in the client side of the parking lot looked better then the one in the employee section of the parking lot. So i did learn a lot from that little experience.

That absolutely breaks my heart. Because there are people who desperately need this help. I've told this story before and was mocked, but when I applied, I drove my mother's car. Many people who apply don't have cars. But that is a weak point when looking at the whole picture that you're describing. And it makes me sick for all of the people who truly need the help. I wish you could see a true picture of them, but now I don't know how you could.

Children are the responsibility of their parents, and that goes back to what I said earlier about personal priorities and responsibility. The choice to have children in itself is choice that the parentS (it does take two people to make a baby, so this is not just a woman's issue) make. If you know you are in an impoverished state and can't afford kids, then don't have kids.

You're absolutely right Frank, and I'll be the first to admit I made a horrible mistake when I got pregnant. But you know what? People are not perfect. I certainly wasn't. I was very flawed. I had my son for all of the wrong reasons, and I admit that. I even thought of having an abortion, which would have made all of the financial mess I created for the government go away. But I didn't. And because I didn't, I needed help.

So, once the child is born, and the parents, or in my case, mother need help, what do you say then? Because, like I said Frank, people are flawed. We're not all as thoughtful as you, and I seriously mean that as a compliment. I can't tell you how many times I've said to myself, "If only I had stopped, and thought!" But once it's too late, it's too late! So are you going to abandon a child once it's too late? Are you going to go back to the '30s when children starved because there was no safety-net for them?

"Don't use the excuse either that poor parents can't afford birth control, planned parenthood (a private organization) gives depo shots to poor women for free (or at least they do here in PA) If you do though, don't expect to burden others with the results of your choice. Children if anyone should not be worried, they are covered by so many programs its unreal, and we are adding another one now CHIPS, which defines children as being up to 25."

That's great! Because CHIP was slashed here in Utah. So if it's coming back I'm very glad. CHIPS covers those children who have no coverage and I for one am glad. Because it covers not only the children of stupid women like me, but also families who planned their children and thought they could make, but discovered they couldn't.

I'm sorry, Frank, but not everyone is as smart as you, though we should be. I should have been. But there are reasons I wasn't that you will never understand. They are poor excuses, but at the same time it's not surprising what I did. Bottom line, I'm just a very flawed human being who did not have the wherewithal you have. And I don't think my child should suffer because of that, and I think a society that doesn't think so either is a better society. And until I become ill and had to go on SSD, I had almost paid society back.

If only humans were as calculating as you are. You're right. We'd all be better off.

Elphaba

[FrankJL]

'm sorry, Frank, but not everyone is as smart as you, though we should be.

If only humans were as calculating as you are. You're right. We'd all be better off.

Oh the sarcasm

I hope thats sarcasm at least

I know you deserve a better answer, but I need at least a few hours of sleep...Sacrament meeting starts in 3 hours

So I'll have to take a rain check and delve into this tomorrow.

[Elphaba]

'm sorry, Frank, but not everyone is as smart as you, though we should be.

If only humans were as calculating as you are. You're right. We'd all be better off.

Oh the sarcasm

I hope thats sarcasm at least

I know you deserve a better answer, but I need at least a few hours of sleep...Sacrament meeting starts in 3 hours

So I'll have to take a rain check and delve into this tomorrow.

No, Frank! Wait!

It isn't sarcasm at all. I'm very serious. I applaud your ability to stop, think, plan and live.

I wish I had done the same.

Elphaba

[Gabelma]

I have been one of those children and yes had I been in a country like the US chances are I would still be on the streets and my daughter and I would be dead, when my parents had me my Dad was on a good salary, I lived next to my millionaire auntie and uncle in a house that would now be worth £1 million dollars. Not exactly a poor background. We also had private health insurance

By my 15th birthday I was homeless for the first time (despite having skivved off school and worked 20 hour days to keep my Mums business going). My Dad had taken my brother didn't really want me and my Mum was living with another woman and an alcohlic so her family wanted nothing to do with her and that also included me. I was at that point squating in a building with no heating or water and it was February, I was surviving on food from my Mums business. Because of where I live Mum managed to get a house before we evicted entirely. And help to furnish it, money to pay the rent and food. I was able to go to school.

Because of my country;s welfare state I was able to get to university, where I had an offer to study forensic anthropology to Phd level, held down 2 jobs and walked 7 miles a day. Then I got sick, my diagnosis was handed down when I was 21 just 5 days after I came off my Dads private health insurance, I couldn't get my own to cover it because ti was an existing illness. I couldn't fucntion and came home, thanks to my government when Mum lost it an attacked me, they again gave me a home and assured I was cared for.

Things didn't go as planned for my husband and I either due to immigration trouble we have never earned a huge salary, private health insurance is out of the question (despite being half the price of the US equivelent), I do ponder would I have gone into the Drs the day my face was swollen, I was pregnant and assumed I had a bit of an allergy, because I was pregnant I knew Iwouldn't even need to pay for any medication. Its unlikely I would have been alive a few days later if I hadn't gone in.

I don't feel guilty heck its why I pay taxes, why previous generations paid tax and national insurance, yes our tax is high, but you know what I like it, we have much better services down to subsidised bus routes. I don't think captalism as it stands is fair - why should a footballer get paid more than a nurse? shouldn't the nurse be the one in luxury oh yes thats right people won't pay as much in taxes as they would for a ticket to a game. What about those in services that give their lives? oh yes of course we need more overpaid movie stars lol

-Charley

[prisonchaplain]

Sorry for the conservative source, but here's an example of schools keeping secrets from parents (under threat of legal action if they do otherwise):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=41747

[prisonchaplain]

I've taken note of the effort to link a pro-life stance with increased spending on government programs. Both may be legitimate causes, by they are not linked.

The Pro-life stance is not about getting as many babies born as possible. It's about not killing babies. It is immoral to blackmail those of us who are saying we cannot sanction the killing of babies by demanding that if we won't let them be killed, then we are obligated to financially support them. That would be sort of like the descendents of slave owners demanding reparations for the loss of property the suffered as the result of the Emancipation Proclammation.

[Elphaba]

I've taken note of the effort to link a pro-life stance with increased spending on government programs. Both may be legitimate causes, by they are not linked.

The Pro-life stance is not about getting as many babies born as possible. It's about not killing babies. It is immoral to blackmail those of us who are saying we cannot sanction the killing of babies by demanding that if we won't let them be killed, then we are obligated to financially support them. That would be sort of like the descendents of slave owners demanding reparations for the loss of property the suffered as the result of the Emancipation Proclammation.

PC,

I am not saying that every baby who is not aborted is entitled to government programs. I'm only referring to those who come from high-risk environments.

That's the only population I have been talking about throughout this entire thread. And yes, I do believe that if the Pro-life groups are going to be so insistent they are going to fight to prevent a woman who lives in a high-risk lifestyle from having an abortion, then they are responsible for providing programs that give this high-risk baby a chance at a decent life. It's just a fact that the baby's parents are not going to be able to do this, which is evident from the moment the baby is conceived.

Is it right that these parents cannot take care of the child? Absolutely not. Should they have become pregnant in the first place? Of course not. Were they irresponsible? Yup. Should they have adopted the child out? Of course. But they didn’t. Just like thousands and thousands of other parents in this country. And at this point, what does it matter. There is a new, vulnerable, high-risk baby who will never succeed if these high-risk, violent, illiterate, depressed and poverty-stricken parents are the only ones who will raise this child. Eventually this child will be a huge burden on society, and worst of all, an unhappy human being full of pain, resentment and anger for a lifetime.

I also never said anything about financially supporting them, though I can see why you might have thought that. What I have said is provide programs that give them the best start in life that other children get who are not high risk babies. Head start has been proven to work. It has been proven that children who eat breakfast perform better at school. High-risk children do not have enough food, so breakfast programs provide that food and they perform better.

Is it right that we have to step in and help take care of these high-risk children? What does it matter? They're innocent babies born into poverty, hunger, despair and abuse. It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong.

So I'm sorry you see it as blackmail. I see it as recognizing the reality that there is a faction of high-risk children born into high-risk families. Babies cannot protect themselves and high-risk babies are especially at risk. A society that sees a responsibility to protect this particular faction of vulnerable babies, including providing programs that can give these children a chance to prepare for life, which they'd never get from their parents, is a society that understands you do the right thing, even when it's not the easy thing.

It is not blackmail. It is compassion.

Elphaba

[prisonchaplain]

PC,

And yes, I do believe that if the Pro-life groups are going to be so insistent they are going to fight to prevent a woman who lives in a high-risk lifestyle from having an abortion, then they are responsible for providing programs that give this high-risk baby a chance at a decent life.

I absolutely disagree. I am morally obligated to do my utmost to prevent the killing of babies. My effort to save them from killing does not obligate me to financial support them, regardless of their background or current living situation. Save babies from being willfully killed is a different matter from public support for at-risk children. You may have a cause, but there is no link between these two issues. One does not beget the other.

It's just a fact that the baby's parents are not going to be able to do this, which is evident from the moment the baby is conceived.

Actually, most often, I'd guess it is the case that the dude refuses to help, and it's not with the expense to force him to do so. So, single mom is stuck trying to raise the child alone, and she may well be little more than a child herself.

Is it right that these parents cannot take care of the child? Absolutely not. Should they have become pregnant in the first place? Of course not. Were they irresponsible? Yup. Should they have adopted the child out? Of course. But they didn’t. Just like thousands and thousands of other parents in this country. And at this point, what does it matter. There is a new, vulnerable, high-risk baby who will never succeed if these high-risk, violent, illiterate, depressed and poverty-stricken parents are the only ones who will raise this child. Eventually this child will be a huge burden on society, and worst of all, an unhappy human being full of pain, resentment and anger for a lifetime.

And? You make a good case for strong public schools, for Headstart programs, and certainly for communities of faith to continue and to increase their children's "outreach" programs.

I also never said anything about financially supporting them, though I can see why you might have thought that. What I have said is provide programs that give them the best start in life that other children get who are not high risk babies. Head start has been proven to work. It has been proven that children who eat breakfast perform better at school. High-risk children do not have enough food, so breakfast programs provide that food and they perform better.

I'm not necessarily against any of these. What a reject is the insistence that Pro-lifers are hypocrites unless they jump on this band wagon. Preventing the killing of a child does not obligate the hero/oine to contribute to the almost-victim's on-going care.

Is it right that we have to step in and help take care of these high-risk children? What does it matter? They're innocent babies born into poverty, hunger, despair and abuse. It doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong.

So I'm sorry you see it as blackmail. I see it as recognizing the reality that there is a faction of high-risk children born into high-risk families. Babies cannot protect themselves and high-risk babies are especially at risk. A society that sees a responsibility to protect this particular faction of vulnerable babies, including providing programs that can give these children a chance to prepare for life, which they'd never get from their parents, is a society that understands you do the right thing, even when it's not the easy thing.

It is not blackmail. It is compassion.

Elphaba

It becomes blackmail when you insist that Pro-lifers are hypocrites unless they sign on to your campaign for enhanced government programs. The two causes may run parallel, but their are plenty who support your proposed programs who are pro-choice, and there are pro-lifers who do not believe those government programs are the best approach to solving the problem of at-risk children. Neither are, of necessity, hypocrites.

[FrankJL]

why should a footballer get paid more than a nurse?

Basic economics. Supply and demand, scarcity of services.

[Gabelma]

why should a footballer get paid more than a nurse?

Basic economics. Supply and demand, scarcity of services.

yeah which is why I believe the forms of capitalism we have in the UK and US are wrong. We have the wrong values. It stinks whether I were to pay high tax here or ridiculously high health insurance in the US I get crap nursing staff at the major medical centres, that is why you get people that can't speak English taking care of you in hospital. Why because they can't afford to live there. If you want less corruption in public services we need to pay for it. And personally I can live without the movies and the ballgames.#

-Charley

[FrankJL]

Move to Cuba then.

They don't care for capitalism either.

After all hasn't Micheal Moore shown us all the wonders of Cuba's health care system

ps...didn't you just say a few posts ago you are glad to pay higher taxes to support you NHS?