a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by hootsbox
hootsbox  ·  4342 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Your Tax Dollars Hard at Work
What's the paradox? Asking someone to actually PAY for their OWN birth control - GOD forbid someone shoul take responsiblilty for their own sexual practices and choices - perish the thought!!!!




thenewgreen  ·  4342 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Oh, to answer your question: What's the paradox? The paradox is that the GOP adamantly opposes funding for organizations that provide contraception to woman that might otherwise go without. But they are also pro life. The best way to prevent abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy's period. Do you care about eradicating abortions? Then care about eradicating unwanted pregnancies. And don't talk abstinence, let's live in the real world, not la-la land.
hootsbox  ·  4342 days ago  ·  link  ·  
That is an inaccurate statment! Totally false and based on liberal hyperbole. The GOP will fund organizations that provide health screening and clinics, just not abortions. Again, the government is in the business of propogating poor choices and behavior and a child suffers because, in most cases, the mother doesn't want to be "punished" or "inconvenienced" so dump the kid (and it is a child). Since when does a person get the RIGHT to choose to end someone else's life. They are totally their own person, with their own DNA, their own gentic code, and their own life. They are not an appendage to a woman's body. Oh, and least I forget, we let the screwball dude, who can't keep his penis in his pants and brags about the number of women he impregnates, because the "government" will pay for the kid (should the mom choose to go full term), and we'll pay for the food, and such. Hey if you will take the responsiblity for my actions, go ahead - then I don't have to do it!
b_b  ·  4341 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I think there's a more pragmatic issue here, though. Even if the ideal situation is one in which people act in their own best interest all the time, we know from millenia of experience that this is impossible. In the end, although perhaps its a hard pill to swallow for some people, its orders of magnitude cheaper to prevent lower socioeconomic class children from being born, if the parents don't want them. They are much higher to require medicaid and go to prison, two of the most expensive things a government can do for a person. Birth control and abortions are negligibly inexpensive compared to these. Moral argument aside, the actuarial benefits are unassailable.
thenewgreen  ·  4342 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I'm a very fortunate person, I was raised in a family that had means and I was given a good education. This isn't always the case. Not everybody has access to birth control, not everybody can afford an extra expense and not everybody is aware enough to know the importance of their preventative choices. Planned Parenthood does a nice job of providing such things to those that otherwise would go without. There are those that preach that birth control is wrong and because of such things there are millions in Africa that have died of AIDS, there are children born to woman that are ill equipped to raise them and there are STD's spreading like wild fire all over college campuses. I'd be happy to see a "free birth control" store on every college campus in American, on the corner of ever city street in the US. I'd be glad to have my tax dollars fund this. Why not?

A bit of comic relief -Every Sperm is Sacred :-)

hootsbox  ·  4342 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Again my friend, you treat the symptoms and not the ROOT CAUSE which is the way welfare is structured (another post later perhaps), but a typical "big government" socialist type mindset. Let's start a poverty fighting program (welfare in 1965), then when we get unintended consequences such as exponential birth rates to unwed women, STD's, crime rates, dropout rates, etc., we can come up with 45 programs to treat all those horrid situations that came about because of a failed, ill-structured program. Yes, let's grow the "governement" even more and take care of everything; because someone will be without something sometime. Why don't we all just pay 85% of what we make and then, guess what, that won't be enough either because the "government" can never make up the gap between personal motivation, incentives, etc. Why don't we teach ethics and good morals (as a generic platform) in our schools to help abate the "mindset" of just do whatever I want and the "government" will pay for it. Why, because ill aimed organizations think that anything that has to do with those items are "religious" with is total bunk! That my friend is a ROOT CAUSE factor in our current situation that will NEVER be solved by the "GOVERNMENT" - which is comprised of you and I and all the hardworking folks out there who take responsibility for their own actions. Do we "cut off the faucet" all at once - NO - but we can start. Oh by the way, LBJ's War on Poverty, it hasn't changed the poverty rate for the good in this country for decades; it has only exacerbated the problem. Again, the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF ILL AIMED COMPASSION.
thenewgreen  ·  4341 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    Again my friend, you treat the symptoms and not the ROOT CAUSE
-A good doctor would treat both.

I don't disagree that the welfare system is severally broken but government exists as a function to first protect it's citizenry. I think providing affordable and easily accessible birth control is one way to do this. Don't you?

hootsbox  ·  4327 days ago  ·  link  ·  
I think that you stretch the meaning of the Declaration of Independence's clause: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

First of all, the Declaration states that it is the government's first responsibility to protect the "pursuit of happiness" not the "happiness". And notice, the Federal Government did not endow these rights, it was the Creator and they are inalienable (meaning no government should be able to deny them – or in the modern day case, become the “Creator” – how arrogant, elitist, and prideful! If you uncouple the Declaration from the Constitution, as many "Progressives and New Era Socialists" do (beginning in earnest with Woodrow Wilson and FDR), then you can uncouple the Declaration’s "happiness and general welfare clause" from the enumerated powers of the Federal Government outlined in the Constitution. Once you do this destructive, regressive, and ill-defined act of "uncoupling" of the welfare clause, then where does it end? My happiness: may be that I expect the federal government to pay for my housing, my car, my health practices (even though I might be an abuser and reckless), my sexual practices, my drinking habits, etc. - because all that is for my "happiness and therefore my welfare (as defined by me of course!), is then the responsibility of the “government” and not myself. Only modern day, Marxist influenced (and I am ashamed to say mostly my "hippie" generation manufactured these axioms and teach in our universities - and being older now - having been a reckless hippie myself - I see how much the Marxist doctrines have infiltrated our colleges and universities) learners and students have this view of history. The Marxist "tainted" doctrines of "social justice" have wreaked havoc in the world and they have been some of the most destructive, inhumane and enslaving doctrines in history (and history proves this)! Government cannot, and should not, be in the business of "making me happy". They are about safeguarding the "opportunity" or "pursuit" of happiness for me. If one minority, naturalized immigrant (like the Vietnam Boat People who came here with the clothes on their backs only) and have made great strides by self-reliance, hard work and determination (the good kind and not the independent, arrogant kind), can make it, then all can. If one individual from a deprived, poor, "oppressed", class (so to speak) makes it, then the opportunity exists for all to make it - period! Then all others can "replicate" or follow their lead and make it the same way - effort, hard work, faith (if applicable), a sharing "heart", etc. This is the extent of the Declaration and the Constitution - period! To make it anything different is to fly in the face of solidly documented history, common sense, and pragmatism, and a record of a mindset that has allowed the most vibrant, successful, charitable, and noteworthy citizenry in history!

thenewgreen  ·  4327 days ago  ·  link  ·  
In the preamble to the Constitution it clearly states that one of the purposes for creating it was to promote the general Welfare. For the well-being of our nation, I think it would be wise to eradicate the HUGE number of unwanted pregnancies in the US. We can make a dent in this number by providing free contraception as well as educating young people as to how to use it and what the consequences of not using it are.

I'm not interested in getting in to a debate with you about how your hippy generation embraced marxism and how the US is now heading down a dangerous path of socialism and if the people would just lift themselves up from their boot straps like so many great immigrants....

I am interested in what you would do to curb unwanted pregnancies? I know abortion is off the table. Are you tired of paying to perpetuate the cycle of welfare? Me too, let's reduce the population that's on welfare by helping the people that can't afford to have kids, not have kids. Let's also reform the welfare system and make it one of enablement and not reliance. In short, let's treat the symptoms and the cause like any good doctor would.

hootsbox  ·  4325 days ago  ·  link  ·  
The Declaration sets the tone for the Federal Government's span of control:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Notice it says it is government's role to "secure" those unalienable rights by "promoting the general welfare" as the Constitution states.

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

What it does NOT state is" it is the government's responsibility to "provide" the general welfare - there is a difference between promoting and providing. In the Constitution’s case, it speaks more to securing the avenue of being able to attain individual (not collective) happiness, protecting the "opportunity" and to secure individual property rights (real, intellectual, fruits of one's labor and the like). It is about protecting the individual's right to "pursue happiness" and not the collective’s right to provide that happiness. This is the fallacy of modern day interpretations that have "bastardized" the original meaning of the phrases almost beyond their original intent (which is supported by 150 prior years of jurisprudence, educational records, inscriptions on public monuments and buildings, etc.). To say one's desire to return to original intent is to return to: no voting rights for women, a return to slavery, encourage poverty and sickness among the infirm and like statements is the most absurd, inane, demented postulate being bantered about in the press and other media forms. Nobody wants that? We have women's voting rights, abolition of slavery, and other such items because "we the people" amended the Constitution accordingly. If one wants to adhere to the "principles" in the original documents is in no way "backwards" and "Neanderthal-like" and only the most bigoted, biased, racist and self-aggrandized people with an inflated view of self-importance would say that.

thenewgreen  ·  4325 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Again: I am interested in what you would do to curb unwanted pregnancies?

    To say one's desire to return to original intent is to return to: no voting rights for women, a return to slavery, encourage poverty and sickness among the infirm and like statements is the most absurd, inane, demented postulate being bantered about in the press and other media forms. Nobody wants that? We have women's voting rights, abolition of slavery, and other such items because "we the people" amended the Constitution accordingly. If one wants to adhere to the "principles" in the original documents is in no way "backwards" and "Neanderthal-like" and only the most bigoted, biased, racist and self-aggrandized people with an inflated view of self-importance would say that.
-Who claimed this? Who on earth are you talking to? When did anything I wrote suggest this?
hootsbox  ·  4327 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Reducing the population on welfare is not to have the feds provide birth control, it is about re-constructing the basic design of the welfare system that promotes generational dependency albeit one child or five. How about teaching our kids that it is not "alright to just have sex with no protection and with irresponsibility". How about the feds supporting or undergirding good, old fashioned monogamous marriage before having a "litter" of human kids at the government’s expense. I know that you will not eradicate all of unwanted pregnancies, but you will, over time, reduce them. How about the federal government not being at odds with common sense marriage/relationship tenants that have been around for 8000 years or more? It is like saying, "because some will act irresponsibly, we have to have 45 government programs to deal with the aftermath of that irresponsible behavior and have the government services designed around that type of behavior"! Why not deal with a lot fewer cases, on an individual basis with secular and religious and family support systems (which welfare has systematically destroyed over the last 40 years) and let the larger number go on with a healthier, more constructive life?
thenewgreen  ·  4327 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    How about teaching our kids that it is not "alright to just have sex with no protection and with irresponsibility"
I was taught that, you were likely taught that too... how did that work out for you? Let's be honest here, it's human nature to begin having sex when your hormones kick in to overdrive and make you want to have sex 24/7. Instead of pretending that abstinence works, let's be realistic -It doesn't. Have you ever known a girl that was brought up in a "traditional environment" that had a child out of wedlock? -I'd be willing to bet everything I own that you do. Maybe if she or the guy that impregnated her were taught to use protection, it may have been avoided.

    How about the federal government not being at odds with common sense marriage/relationship tenants that have been around for 8000 years or more?
-Can you elaborate on this one? How is the Fed govt at odds with marriage tenants? -Also "common sense" is a subjective thing.

Still my question is "why not reform welfare (we both agree it's broken) and simultaneously provide birth control? One takes care of the long term problem and the other takes care of the immediate".

hootsbox  ·  4325 days ago  ·  link  ·  
To say that, "Have you ever known a girl (and the guy too by the way) with traditional values that got pregnant" as a rule for not teaching traditional values is like saying "Have you ever seen a three legged calf?" Yes, but that does not mean all calves are three legged. The answer is: of course we have seen that! But to then say "abstinence" or traditional" values should be done away with or discouraged in our schools (I did not say do away with sex education, just the government paying for all your paraphernalia) because a "traditional" values girl got pregnant is a huge stretch of the imagination. The instances, or percentage, of those raised with traditional values (and what is to stop the parents from educating their children on birth control and sexual behavior?) is probably lower as compared to the total population of those that hold the same values, than those raised with little or no value input or without traditional values.

Here's one note on the "abstinence" hypothesis:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02...

And another:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1234011...

While one can find any "article" that supports his or her "theory", the bottom line is that the percentage may be less with those who are encouraged to wait (needless to say it would have a more positive impact on STD's and the like). It is hard to catch an STD if you don't "pass the plate around" so to speak.

Mankind is saddled with a natural "nature" that tends to allow all kinds of horrible attributes: murder, genocide, theft, lying, cruelty, abuse of power, and the like. If time and "progressive ideas" worked so well, we would all be growing more altruistic and kind. Alas, that is not the case. I have my opinions about how to "in general" turn that nature around and "disable its negative power" so to speak, but that is a different discussion.

I have read some of the "atheist" hypotheses about abstinence like the one that concludes: those with traditional values have a higher birth rate than those who don't! Well duh! Those with more "religious" or "traditional" value would be more likely to carry the child full term because they tend NOT to choose abortion. That conclusion is about as useful as a two legged stool!

To say it is the government's responsibility (and therefore all taxpayers regardless of their beliefs) to pay for your birth control because someone got pregnant is a stretch.

Should be then do away with the law "do not commit murder" (where have I heard that before?) and its accompanying punishments because someone gets murdered? You would say no way (unless you are Mao Zedong), Pol Pot, Che Guavara or Joseph Stalin - not to mention that Adolf guy). So, to say we should not encourage "waiting" is to say the same thing. By the way, having laws against murder doesn't alleviate the problem of murder, but it does tend to discourage it - would you not agree.

Point Two:

There have been many cases in the courts where, even on a scientific basis with facts about STD's, premature educational dropout rates, increase in the tendency towards poverty (there is a University of Wisconsin study on these items), and increased crime rates, “abstinence” or something similar to “abstinence education” has been stricken because it supposedly violates the "separation clause" (another discussion on this misled, non-factual and precedence-less Supreme Court conclusion later) and is deemed "religious" in nature. Schools around the country have been prohibited from supporting a "traditional" sexual practices rule on the same, "lame" (and unfounded prior to 1947) rule.

thenewgreen  ·  4325 days ago  ·  link  ·  
    "Have you ever seen a three legged calf?"
-No, I haven't because they aren't that common. Unwanted pregnancies are quite common though.

    to then say "abstinence" or traditional" values should be done away with or discouraged in our schools
-I never suggested they be "done away with", just that they don't work for everyone. If studies are showing that they are more effective then previously thought, why not have a comprehensive approach of abstinence and protection?

You use the word "traditional" a lot in your response. In your previous comment you said,

    "How about the federal government not being at odds with common sense marriage/relationship tenants that have been around for 8000 years or more?"
-Let's be honest here, marriage has changed a LOT over the past 8000 years.

This article states this well

    "Christian marriage has not always been between “one man and one woman.” For most of recorded biblical history, polygamy was seen as normative. For example, the patriarch Jacob had at least three wives (Genesis 30), King David had at least eight, and his son Solomon had 700 (1 Kings 11:1-3)—not to mention 300 concubines!

    Even during the early centuries AD when the books of the New Testament were being written and compiled, polygamous marriages were common. In several of his epistles, Paul specified that those in positions of leadership in the early church should be the “husband of but one wife” (see Titus 1:6, 1 Tim. 3:2).

    Marriage in the early church bore little resemblance to the institution we know today. It was primarily an institution of the state. Once a Christian couple had been legally married, they would attend liturgy, received the Eucharist together, and be blessed by the local bishop. The features we recognize as typical of a wedding ceremony—the use of a simple white veil and the symbolic joining of the couple’s hands—did not begin to appear until the time of Augustine (354-430)".

We know there are two things that work to prevent unwanted pregnancies; 1. Abstinence 2. Contraception. We should be promoting both and if the government can lower unwanted pregnancies (especially amongst the poor) then I'm all for it. If it's a matter of needing more tax revenue, then let's tax the churches.

I'd love to go on, but I have to go to work.

hootsbox  ·  4313 days ago  ·  link  ·  
But remember that Jesus said, "It was not that way from the beginning", but due to the "hardness of your hearts" Moses allowed divorce (and polygamy I might add). I do agree with both abstinence and contraception (the rhythm method seems to produce a pregnancy more often than not). If one's heart intention is not "hard" then he, or she, will give their lives unabashedly and fully, to their one mate with the intention of making their, not our, lives more fulfilling and enjoyable, and thus, enjoy their lives more. As Zig Ziglar said, "If you help enough other people get what they want in life, you will get what you want"! Truer words, especially in a monogamous marriage relationship, were never spoken. I have read it said, "If the grass seems greener on the other side of the fence, then you are not fertilizing the grass on your side of the fence"! I agree wholeheartedly, we can make it work. True "Christian" and most other religions I might add, do adhere to "one man and one woman" tenants. It is better that way, and I, as a hippie with "many love interests" that only lasted as long as I, selfishly, was enthralled with the state of the "relationship" (and it accompanying shallowness of relationship without true commitment), and, if it didn't accomplish that selfish goal, it ended. The commitment was only, "skin deep" so to speak! For thousands of years as well, monogamy and "being the husband of ONE wife" prevailed, and produced a more healthy macro-economic and "emotional" state than the alternative!
hootsbox  ·  4320 days ago  ·  link  ·  
To get back to what I would do to prevent unwanted pregnancies from your earlier question, I would suggest these on a conceptual basis. It is also good to remember that we got here over 50+ years, so whoever is in charge, it will take a longer, concerted effort with permanent changes in policy design and policies. So, I would:

1. Redesign the welfare system to encourage more "workfare". We have that now in states (thanks to the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 signed by Clinton and proposed by Republican legislatures), however, I would:

a. Limit welfare benefits to a maximum of five years under normal circumstances, and extend to 7 years if the recipient was enrolled in a school program or job training program. However, we should discourage "generational" welfare or welfare as a "lifestyle" as it has become in historical perspective. b. We would have to provide assistance for child care during this period of education for the recipient. However, after a decade or two, we may not need this assistance because the family structure would be "restored" or repaired. c. We should "stair step" the benefits as the recipient earns more money. Once able to achieve "self-sufficiency", they will be able to provide for themselves. I believe most welfare recipients DO want to do this. d. We should begin to teach "generic morals" in primary schools and encourage waiting until marriage to have sex. Is this going to "cure" sexual promiscuity? No, but it could have a positive effect in reducing the number of unwed pregnancies. I do believe we can also teach the positive effects of using birth control has. The parents can also be invited to become involved or provide "mentors" from both secular and religious organizations to help educate the kids and parents. The "abstinence" education and other "sex education" together; they are NOT mutually exclusive. e. We should allow marriage while on welfare, and then encourage both to become self-sufficient. Again keeping the overall benefit timeframe is good. To cut off all or most benefits because a guy marries his "knocked up" girlfriend is not in the long term interest of the nation.

2. Redesign the Department of Education by reducing its size and influence. We can achieve this by attrition and redefining the responsibility and scope of the department. The department encourages more "elitist" theories than old fashioned "three R's". They should be more of a "clearing house" of ideas that bubble up from local and state initiatives that are proven to be successful and quit "dictating" the educational platform for local and state boards. In fact, I believe we should combine the departments of HHR, HUD, and the Department of Education into one department - the Department of Internal Affairs and reduce the entire staff by a third of one half of their current size. We have become more a nation of the "rule of oligarchy" than a constitutional republic. We are ruled by bureaucratic "elites" instead of ruled by congressional legislative processes. The OWS folks should be demonstrating about this as well as the "1%". Political elites are as dangerous as the "wealthy few"!

b_b  ·  4319 days ago  ·  link  ·  
We can agree that the Dept of Ed is a tyrannical organization, and that we would be better served if they were in the business of support for local school districts than in the business of dictating curricula. We actually have W to thank for a lot of that, with the advent of No Child Left Behind, the biggest federal takeover of local schools in US history. BO has certainly done nothing but amp it up.

On the first point, I would argue that teaching about waiting to have sex until marriage is far from a generic moral; it is a religious ideal, and it has no place in most modern people's lives. To call it generic moral is so far from reality, as to be pure fantasy. To me, generic morals are essentially that which infringes on the freedom of others; i.e. don't murder, steal, etc. Anything to do with sex is a personal choice, and personal morality. Its not for any school to be teaching religious norms.

hootsbox  ·  4313 days ago  ·  link  ·  
Or...one could argue, and overwhelmingly I might add, that the opposite is also an infringement on the freedom of others, others that, by the way, are protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, that they also, don't get "marginalized" and pushed as an irrelevant "minority", when, in reality, are the majority and made the majority of the citizens in the founding of our nation. One can look at STDs, growth in the crime rate, poverty levels, high school dropout rates, and other like indicators, and see that teaching "generic" morality based on the actual results of NOT following monogamy and abstinence from a statistical point of view (see the Statistical Abstract of the United States).

Also, to say that the modern Western "rule of law" has no basis in religious "ten commandments" or, universally, the "big eight” which are shared by all world religions, is historically incorrect, un-factual, and is not grounded in "correct history" (only in revisionist history of the "progressives" post 1947) which is mostly what is taught in our "institutions of higher learning". Starting with Lord Blackstone, and the Magna Carta, most of the concepts of "freedom" are based in the Judeo/Christian ethic and rule of law! If you say that, for instance, stealing is wrong, but it is not based on the “ten commandment” mandates is to fly in the face of reason.

hootsbox  ·  4342 days ago  ·  link  ·  
That doesn't mean it is the "government's" responsibility either. Everybody has "ACCESS" to birth control at this point. I want a Viper too, and it "pains" me not to have it - so I want the "government" to pay for mine because somebody else with "means" has theirs - I want mine too!
thenewgreen  ·  4341 days ago  ·  link  ·  
If the GOP had their way everyone wouldn't -Every sperm is sacred after all...