I will concede for the sake of discussion that a human exists at the moment of conception and that a woman no longer has any rights over what goes on from that point onward. But I must ask...
Who will take care of the unwanted children, particularly those of the poor? Certainly not conservatives who voted against the child tax credit extension which took millions of children out of poverty. Certainly not conservatives who vote against family leave, children's head start and other programs available among the developed economies of the world (but not in the richest country in the world).
Not only do many (not all) conservatives not actually care about the life of the unborn, they are consistently hostile to them. They just look at them as moochers or parasites of the people's tax money. Cruel hypocrisy.
joj,
This is a wonderful point that you've made previously(with the great quote from your mom) and I agree with you about the blatant hypocrisy here from many on the right.
They treat unborn babies as a creation of God.....until they are born. Then they are against assistance to help the mothers most in need to help raise the most unwanted babies that by far, are the ones most likely to have an abortion because they can't afford to feed another mouth.
You provided several perfect examples of this.
I'll let people here from the (far) right answer for themselves because its a dang good question and provide the response based on MY personal belief system.
This is me and my values........all those things you mentioned that republicans are against, joj I am mostly for.
https://www.americanadoptions.com/pregnant/reasons-for-adoption-instead-of-abortion
If you’re debating whether abortion or adoption is right for your unplanned pregnancy, you can get free support now by calling 1-800-ADOPTION.
metmike: While adoption is not for everyone, based on the debate and absence of it being mentioned, you would think that it's not for ANYONE.
I have a sister that adopted under much different circumstances
This is one of my sisters:
http://www.pattimaguirearmstrong.com/2012/03/our-sons-from-kenya.html
Scholarly studies show that black women are far likelier to terminate their pregnancies than whites.
THE EFFECTS OF ABORTION
ON THE BLACK COMMUNITY
Janet Yellig was basically making the same point as you, joj and we discussed her in this link but did not give proper weighting to your point...........which we should do now.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/84339/
I won't use this to morph into the value of human life being based on affordability or value to society (and euthanasia) because it sends us on a track that you are not confronting which is:
The blatant hypocrisy/contradictory application, when it comes to ethical principles for human life, especially the most vulnerable early in life, by the right.
It's s standard dodge of the left to accuse conservatives of not caring when they oppose the often corrupt and generally ineffective and wasteful government programs.
Private sector programs, which generaly get far more bang for far fewer dollars are completely off their radar.
The left truly believes with every fiber of their souls that if the government doesn't do it, it won't get done.
I have years of experience in my adult life that puts the lie to that nonsense. My small church alone does all kinds of good works in our community. But JOJ has already insisted that our contributions and efforts are really self serving amounting to having some sort of country club.
I think spending a Saturday in our church's community pantry, where I just made another significant delivery of assorted canned goods, etc, would be a very eye opening experience for him.
Finally, confiscating money from one person to gift it to another is not a sign of compassion. But the left has used that exact premise to prop them up on thier high horses for decades.
Those of us who actually use our own sweat for honest compasion find it insulting.
I cannot speak for others, but My wife and I have strongly supported the local pregnancy help center. We adopted our oldest child. She has been a blessing to us. She is now the head nurse in charge in 1 department of children's hospital. When we adopted her there were far more people willing to adopt than babies available.
A society is judged by how it treats its weakest.
Thanks for the responses!
Not one of you addressed his points. Please read them again.
Maybe I mislead with my response. However, I am FOR these programs below and Tim, you are clearly against them.
joj: Who will take care of the unwanted children, particularly those of the poor? Certainly not conservatives who voted against the child tax credit extension which took millions of children out of poverty. Certainly not conservatives who vote against family leave, children's head start and other programs available among the developed economies of the world (but not in the richest country in the world).
Those of us who actually use our own sweat for honest compasion find it insulting.
Tim, how about honestly answering the question/points that joj made then.
Not generalizing about government programs and condemning them all for the same reason.
Specifics please about those programs that joj mentioned that made THEM not worth supporting for you.
True compassion is not about helping just specific agenda that makes you feel good. It's looking at everybody and everything objectively and seeing THE REAL NEEDS without the politics and judgment or belief that certain people don't deserve compassion because they didn't earn it, like you/us.
However, I do commend you for the compassion that you show for the groups that you pick to be deserving of it.
If you think that all that's needed is to just do what Tim is doing, then all the poor and needy will be taken care of, then you are living in a bubble that doesn't see what's actually going on in places that don't have volunteer programs that come close to meeting the needs of what the programs joj mentioned do.
The program that I mentioned hardly touches this problem but its a great start to help find homes for unwanted children but doesn't go much farther solving the MUCH BIGGER problem. I also spend a great deal of my time/resources helping in this community. Why is it that I think that's not nearly enough, Tim but that's your solution to the problem. (that was rhetorical)
I will make a prediction and so far, this principle has ruled almost 100% of the time here.
Politics will completely rule all responses and there will never be an admission that one's own political party is grievously flawed.
Anyone dare to challenge that with statements which contradict that on this topic?
Actually admit that there are numerous government programs that benefit people who did not earn it, other than being human beings needing SOMEBODY'S compassion that can deliver it without being judgmental.
Who will take care of the unwanted children, particularly those of the poor? Certainly not conservatives who voted against the child tax credit extension which took millions of children out of poverty. Certainly not conservatives who vote against family leave, children's head start and other programs available among the developed economies of the world (but not in the richest country in the world).
I specifically addressed these issues. And so did Cutworm. I don't know how you could have missed it, MM
Who do you think my church is feeding? We also help with shelters for abuse victims and the homeless. And that's just one church.
You obviously completely failed, or chose to not comprehend what's being said. Go ahead and join JOJ in condeming conservatives for "not caring" when in fact, we're actually doing something besides insisting the government take money from others and do a terrible job of it instead.
it is a tough topic. my wife and i did foster care for many years. we quit because we now have to take care of our disabled daughter. that is enough of a chore for us for now.
when we did foster care, there were several of the kids that we would have adopted IF they had been available for adoption. but that did not work out. there were a couple that we would Not have adopted.
ultimately, my wife got tired of dealing with the bureaucrats, and case workers. its not the kids so much that turned her off. it was the adults who turned her off.
i would do it again, but our own daughter is too much work. and that may last for years and years.
btw, joj, it is my job to take care of my child. it is your job to take care of your family. it is not the job of uncle sam to take money from one person to give it to another.
i do not mind a small amount of welfare for the poorest. but...
too much taxation, bureaucracy, and welfare, eventually will hurt the economy more than what it helps.
this is what i call the point of diminishing return.
like consuming beer. a little can be ok. but too much can be very bad, rather than good. very few people have a good grasp of this. (understanding the point of diminishing return).
armstrong has a good graph on this topic.
Tim, I'm sure your church and others do wonderful work. And anything that churches do is a good thing to be commended. But you won't persuade me until you show me some numbers. You showed none and claimed to have won the argument. Like millions of children being thrown into poverty due to elimination (thanks GOP) of child tax credits.
https://www.povertycenter.columbia.edu/news-internal/monthly-poverty-january-2022
Tax credits in the billions for corporations but not so much for children.
I agree bear that too much tax burden is unhealthy. But we are bringing up the rear among developed nations.
I read everything that everybody states here Tim.
Then I think/contemplate about what they are trying to say.
You gave us YOUR answer. That was great. I understand what you are saying and why you think government is bad.
Now please answer the question(s) that joj asked or show something to contradict his authentic facts without the generic republican rhetoric(which was YOUR answer).
Thanks in advance
bear, I greatly admire you for your commitment to your child and for opening your heart and home to others.
We need more people like you.
And to Tim and cutworm for their charity work too.
Tim,
Here is more compelling evidence to prove what joj is stating and help you to respond honestly to the actual question this time.....if you're able, (and not, instead insist that you did answer but it's our fault for not paying attention/ or our lack of reading/comprehending your answer).
Republican House and Senate Budgets
Would Harm Children and the Nation
https://www.childrensdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/fy2016-house-and-senate.pdf
https://www.childrensdefense.org/state-of-americas-children/
Nearly 11 million children are living in poverty in America. Here is how the crisis reached this point—and what steps must be taken to solve it.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/basic-facts-children-poverty/
How does UNITED STATES compare on child well-being?
https://www.oecd.org/els/family/CWBDP_Factsheet_USA.pdf
OKAY... I'LL "BITE" WITH MY OWN THOUGHT'S & BELIEF'S. LOL
I CAN'T BEGIN TO COUNT THE MANY TIMES I'VE CONFRONTED MY REPUBLICAN & DEMOCRAT STATE REP'S, WITH THIS QUESTION THAT NEITHER OF THEM WILL ANSWER! "WHY DO YOU KEEP GIVING OUT MORE FOOD STAMPS TO FAMILIES WITH SCHOOL CHILDREN, WHEN THE KID'S GET THREE "FREE" MEALS A DAY, AT SCHOOL???!!!!!!!
THEY NEED A WHOLE LOT LESS FOOD STAMPS, BECAUSE OF THAT! THERE ARE MANY MORE OBESE, MALNOURISHED & UNHEALTHY FOOD STAMP RECIPIENTS, PER CAPITA, THAN IN THE AVERAGE POPULATION.
PEOPLE, LONG BEFORE WELFARE STARTED, SURVIVED & MOST WOULD GO FIND ANY JOB THEY COULD GET. AT THAT TIME, NEIGHBOR'S HELPED NEIGHBOR'S. ABORTIONS, WEREN'T THE "NORM". ADOPTIONS WERE. EACH COUNTY HAD A CHILDREN'S HOME. IN THE MID TO LATE 60'S, WE WOULD BRING 2-3 OF THOSE KID'S IN THE CHILDREN'S HOME, TO OUR HOUSE FOR A DAY OR TWO ON WEEKENDS.
IN THE LATE 90'S, MY COUSIN'S DAUGHTER & SON-IN-LAW TRIED TO ADOPT, IN THE STATES. IT WAS A LENGTHY PROCESS (2 YEAR AVERAGE WAIT, ON A LIST). THEY EVENTUALLY GAVE UP & ADOPTED 2 GIRL'S FROM CHINA. THEY GOT THEM BOTH, IN LESS THAN 2 YEARS. THE ONE GRADUATES HIGH SCHOOL THIS YEAR, WITH HONOR'S. THE YOUNGER ONE WILL FOLLOW SUIT, IN 2 YEARS. (THE AMERICAN ADOPTION AGENCY, NEVER CONTACTED MY COUSIN'S DAUGHTER & SON-IN-LAW) THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY TO BE MADE ADOPTING KID'S OUT, WHICH I BELIEVE IS 100% WRONG! THEY AREN'T LIVESTOCK!!! JUST LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY TO BE MADE KILLING BABIES & SELLING THEIR PARTS.
GOVT. HANDOUT'S HAVE MADE PEOPLE LAZY & WITH NO SENSE OF SELF WORTH.
OKAY, I'M "STEPPING DOWN", NOW. LOL
I read everything that everybody states here Tim.
Then I think/contemplate about what they are trying to say.
So you read what everyone says and then interpret it in a way that suports your point of view?
At least that's what I think/contemplate you are trying to say.
And then you post opinion peices on how republicans appear to not suport government programs.. While my entire point has been I do not support government programs, feeling that private sector efforts are far more effective for several reasons. And you feel this bolsters your side of the argument?
And then you continue to insist I have not addressed any of the points, when in fact I have.
But you, like JOJ, are firmly committed to the concept that if government doesn't do it. it won't get done, and anyone who doesnt support this government malfeasance simply doesn't care.
You want to see numbers? Look at multigenerational dependency. Look at the poverty rate since the "Great Society". If had been in a nose dive leading up to it. But has leveled and even increased since. Look at how many trillions the government has spent and divide that by the number of people they've actually helped.
Meanwhile, my church of about 200 members is feeding 30 families for a fraction of what the government would spend. One small church, and I pass 4 others on the 5 mile drive.
But of course, when the question "Who will take care of the unwanted children" comes up, MM will insist that none of this qualifies as an answer.
So obviously, once again, a pointless exchange.
Thanks Tim,
Churchs, Food Banks and countless charities all help a great deal but the % of children in our country in poverty even WITH their help is still greater than in most developed countries.
The one source remaining that's able to step in to make a difference is the government.
Previous discussions on this that related to non governmental assistance:
Homeless tents
Started by wglassfo - Jan. 10, 2022, 5:34 a.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/80163/
We seem to have a food problem
Started by wglassfo - April 6, 2020, 6:32 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/50118/
Fall Festival
Started by metmike - Oct. 9, 2019, 12:25 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/40690/
Biden camp faking a photo op of Biden(the biggest political scrooge in history with his personal money) giving to a homeless man:
Joe Biden/homeless person
Started by metmike - March 18, 2019, 7:38 p.m.
The one source remaining that's able to step in to make a difference is the government.
Thanks for proving my point. We have a growing mindset in this country that "The government is the only one who can help.".
Very libertarian of you BTW :-).
Fact is, much of the poverty in this country is a direct result of government. They teach it, they foster it, and then count on votes from people who believe that they are the only ones who can solve the problems they created, while they perpetuate them.
And gawd help us if we ever get School Choice. Losing control of substandard schools would be a major blow to the cause.. But I digress.
What did we ever do before "Great Society" gave us multi-generational poverty?
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/86361/#86383
As always, this was very predictable.
Tim, this is not about a political affiliation for me, like it is for you.
All I care about is the best way to get help for children in need.
All I care about is the best way to get help for children in need.
Let's not get into predictable. You'd hate how that would turn out. :-)
I hope you're not implying that I put political affiliation before chiildren in need. If you are, you are quite wrong.
I just happen to know that government isn't the only solution, and it's not the best solution, and it's most likely a major catalyst of the problem.
I think that people who actually believe that government is the best solution have painfully limited views and no grasp of history. I can accept that many/most are sincere, they are just terribly misinformed.
Here's an article from a libertarian magazine. Feel free to refute anything it says.
The dust has settled and the evidence is in: The 1960s Great Society and War on Poverty programs of President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) have been a colossal and giant failure. One might make the argument that social welfare programs are the moral path for a modern government.
They cannot, however, make the argument that these are in any way effective at alleviating poverty.
Here's a quote from Benjamin Franklin that you can file under "The more things change, the more they stay the same".
“I am for doing good to the poor, but…I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed…that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” ― Benjamin Franklin on the problem with welfare
The major difference between private charity and government charity is that government charity is anonymous. The benficiaries never have any interaction with their benefactors and both sides often develop at least some resentment for one another.
In private charity, this interaction is a big part of the transaction. There is a true sense of caring and often some guidance that helps the people in need actually gain some hope and work to improve. This is totally lacking in government charity which generally only succeeds in fostering dependency. It's self perpetuating.
There are wonderful articles on this very subject of you care to look.
I might concede that in the short term, government is a solution, but in the long term, it's terrible in that it perpetuates and arguably excacerbates the problem.
As Reagan said, the measure of success of a welfare system is not in how many are on it, but in how many get off of it. And in that regard, government has a terrible track record. Looking at the data, there are a lot of people that cycle in and out of the system. About 31.2%. The numbers for 3+ years is much higher. And there is no argument that our crime ridden inner cities are heavily popuated with multi-generational recipients.
Would this be the case without our government charity? I think an argument can be made that it would not be anywhere near the problem it is now.
Jean,
Thanks for your comments. Sorry for the delayed response. You touched on a ton of different things.
You do realize that the free meals at schools is the Federal government, correct?
This is making joj's/metmike's point exactly on needed government assistance.
Not all children of all ages have access to 3 free meals a day either.
Here's the latest on that:
With regards to government handouts making people lazy. I totally agree and am all for people working that are able and not rewarding those who won't.
Agree with you that many people will be less motivated to work if they get free stuff. It's a serious problem in this country for sure.
However, we are talking about the welfare of children here. Low income parents have a strong tendency to be sub par everything in their lives..........including being sub par parents, unfortunately. This is not stereotyping or judging but stating a fact.
I've run a local chess tournament here for years(that features schools/families from all parts of the income spectrum) and coached chess to 3,700 children and have years of observations to base that statement on.
With that fact being the case, there are things that we can do to minimize the damage of poverty on children with sub par parents......even if it means rewarding their loafer parents that don't deserve it. That's what I'm talking about.........the children.
On the enormous expenses of adoption. Wow, do I ever hear you on that! It's insane. You have to be wealthy or be willing to part with a massive amount of money to adopt an infant or baby.
I have a family in my chess program that adopted 5 Chinese children. Not sure on all the details of why they picked that path. They both are very high wage earners but it was clearly much cheaper and easier. 4 of them played chess.
Unlike most kids from the same family that resemble the parents and each other, most of them look very much different. They are all Chinese but are from different parents and even different regions of China and most look much different.
Their last child, a boy, who is starting 7th grade next year only has 1 arm. That's why he was rejected by his family in China.
Oddly, they have 3 boys and 2 girls. Other than the last one with the handicap, not sure how they pulled off the other boys. All are wonderful young adults.
The cost to adopt in the US in many cases is over 25,000. Tax credits do make it cheaper.
It varies according to the dynamics. The older the child, most of the time the cheaper it is. However, many older children have some baggage and most parents like raising a baby that starts with a clean slate and parental bonding from the get go vs taking over the responsibility of an unwanted child that includes dealing with some bad early experiences which define who they are and often, a damaged psyche that must be overcome.
I'm sure that bear can tell us a few things and we would all enjoy hearing them on a separate thread that doesn't have the politics in it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoption_in_the_United_States
With regards to obesity, malnourished and unhealthy people on food stamps........that's not true. The only correlation is between obesity and WOMEN on food stamps.
And one would have to acknowledge that low income people, are, generally speaking making bad choices in their lives that cause their situations, are also acting the same way when deciding what to eat. Not many low income people have expensive gym memberships to exercise or do any exercise. Mostly middle and high income people do that because they care about.............everything.
So being unhealthy is more of a function of the lifestyle of a low income person, not caused by the food stamps and a parent on food stamps that eats crap is likely to feed their child crap too.
However, many children need calories the most to fuel growing bodies.......even if it's crap calories.
