quote:You really should not try to interpret the way I view the world from your hateful, ignorant perspective. Just because YOU would be thinking such stupid things if you supported the idea doesn't mean that I am.
My hateful and ignorant perspective? My perspective was that you should trust in people, that was my point, that maybe if you argue the view logically and thoughtfully that people will be moral and righteous, and that though this issue seems like one that is divisive down party lines, it isnt. When you say that "it is absolutely disgusting that our government is reduced to outright bribery to protect the most helpless people under its care.", I inferred that you believed that it shouldnt be legal in the first place and that people should believe what you believe, but inherently, that also implies that you know you are right and that the people are incorrect, willingly immoral, and that the state has to resort to bribery because the baby cannot protect itself from the person that tries to abort it. And if they need protection from that person, then inherently that person is a horrible and bad person, but more than that, you fail to allow for the notion that they arent willingly being immoral or horrible and that maybe, if the absolute moral situation is pro-life, that they could be intelligent people who when shown the truth will do the right thing. Trust in the people dagonee, trust that they will do right, and they just might. We are great as both a race and a being, trust that we CAN do what is right--that is my point.
I have no doubt that this issue raises the emotional to the logical at times, but when my argument is simply that you should trust the people more, I am not being hateful or ignorant. I dont believe you are being hateful or ignorant either, I believe you are being passionate, and there is difference. To conflate the two is to simply be incorrect, IMO. I understand that we disagree and thats cool, but emotional arguments that claim my side is hateful and ignorant tend not to have either the impact or logical reasoning that most arguments that dont begin with the word "hate" invoke. If I am wrong, if you do not mean to say that inherently its sad that the state must bribe women because they do not make the right decision on their own, then just say that. Ill respect you more, and I might actually believe you...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But more than that, these people consider abortion to be murder because the child is a person. Great, but you just bought the child, the person, for 500 dollars. I am not trying to start something, and I am not trying to make a point about pro life/pro choice, but what I am saying is that sometimes the solutions, no matter how innocuous they may seem, are ridiculous in nature.
That's not what's being done at all. The party paying the $500.00 doesn't own the person, they've paid the pregnant woman the money not to kill the person (or to some people's terminology, to not terminate the pregnancy).
That's not remotely the same thing. Your assertion that it is is laughably ignorant, and certainly seems like you're trying to start something, to have missed such an obvious point.
quote:For you, its not even about the act itself anymore, its that you dont like the people, the women who would get an abortion--you dont like the people. You think they should be bribed instead of argued or persuaded, you think so little of them that you think the way out isnt speak of them like humans but to bribe them with a meager sum, the acceptance of which only proves your point about what horrible people these women are in the first place.
First of all, it's plain you know nothing of how Dagonee feels about women who get abortions, whether he likes them or not. Clearly he disapproves very strongly of abortion, but that does not mean he hates or despises them as you're implying.
You also reveal your ignorance in this fashion: Dagonee feels that abortion is the killing of the unborn. Now, I don't know about you, but that's a pretty urgent situation, wouldn't you say? To someone who believes that, I mean, not necessarily to someone like you who "isn't trying to start something".
If paying people $500.00 not to kill the unborn would work (and he has not stated it will), why not do it? Answer me that. Questions of dignity and bribery are irrelevant when compared to the gravity of the situation, if you believe abortion is the killing of the unborn. If you believe that, the abortion itself is like the house being on fire, and questions of distasteful persuasion methods are like some chipped paint in the basement.
quote:That the crux or implication of both arguments is that, we dont like or trust the people?
That's the crux of your argument. It's not the crux of his.
quote:...I inferred that you believed that it shouldnt be legal in the first place and that people should believe what you believe, but inherently, that also implies that you know you are right and that the people are incorrect, willingly immoral, and that the state has to resort to bribery because the baby cannot protect itself from the person that tries to abort it
Correct up until you get to the willingly immoral part. You don't know that Dagonee believes that. Stop stuffing your own arguments down his throat and acting like he's talking.
quote:Of course, within that argument is a denouncement of the person who has the abortion.
Only if Dagonee explicitly stated that he believed everyone who had an abortion believed and knew that they were killing an unborn child would the denouncement you describe automatically follow.
quote:If I am wrong, if you do not mean to say that inherently its sad that the state must bribe women because they do not make the right decision on their own, then just say that. Ill respect you more, and I might actually believe you...
Dagonee believes that abortion is the killing of the unborn. Given that belief, obviously it is sad that the state has to resort to bribery to stop the practice. Clearly, in most cases, since Dagonee believes that, he does not think women who abort are generally making the right decision.
You've certainly not shown yourself as someone who is willing to read and respond respectfully and carefully, so why on Earth should Dagonee-or anyone else for that matter-be remotely concerned with earning your respect, or your belief?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You've certainly not shown yourself as someone who is willing to read and respond respectfully and carefully, so why on Earth should Dagonee-or anyone else for that matter-be remotely concerned with earning your respect, or your belief?
You know, I am fairly new to the board, I dont know that many people on here, I know Storm Saxon and thats only because he wrote a reply in another thread, I dont hang around here much, and the only reason I did earlier was because of a friend who told me I had to come here. I dont know Dagonee at all, but if you think I responded to his post without reading everything he wrote in this thread, then you are mistaken. Did I go back and look at previous posts? I am not going to lie, I didnt, and I wouldnt even know how, so if you fault me for that, then fair enough. I argued a contrary position, and I am baffled how it wasnt respectful or careful. But you know, fair enough.
I raise my glass to you guys, and say cheers mates...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Trust in the people dagonee, trust that they will do right, and they just might. We are great as both a race and a being, trust that we CAN do what is right--that is my point.
And I showed how your point was wrong-- that it is completely unrelated to the pro-life perspective-- several posts back.
quote:This is because Texas is a wonderful example of a state that likes to be as miserly as possible with social support for women in need of social medical support for pregnancy and childrearing. Not the worst, of course, but it's still down there.
Texas paid for my prenatal care and childbirth and associated costs, and it was a LOT easier to go through that process there than it was in California. Just sayin'.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say if the whole program saved one single human life, it would be worth it.
Of course, I don't believe you can put a price on something as precious as an unborn child, but when it comes down to it, I'm only concerned with keeping the babies alive. In this situation, the purpose outweighs the means.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Why do I bother. Jesus, it's like talking to a brick wall.
OK, what the hell are you talking about? You said, "If this idea is not true, then I don't see how the $500 dollar idea is true."
I demonstrated how it that idea could not be true, and the $500 idea could be. If you disagree with that, address my reasoning. Don't pretend - and it must be pretense, because I know you can read - that I didn't address your points.
You also asked if he needed to provide numbers. I pointed out that at least one set of numbers is needed if the blue state/red state issue was to have any relevance to the $500 plan.
Perhaps you could point out what was non-responsive (that is what you mean by "brick wall," right?).
In fact, the brick wall comparison is a lot more applicable to you, since I actually responded to your points with analysis and reasoning. All you did was complain about how I answered.
And this from the man who makes a regular practice of commenting about how much other people here complain about posting style.
Whatever the hell your problem is with me Storm, either get over it or stop addressing me entirely. I responded respectfully and in detail to your substantive points. You swore and insulted me in return. Cut out the crap.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:If I am wrong, if you do not mean to say that inherently its sad that the state must bribe women because they do not make the right decision on their own, then just say that. Ill respect you more, and I might actually believe you...
So you'll respect me more if I lie? Why on earth would you do that.
I do think it's sad that Texas is thinking about resorting to this. I think it's sad that the final rampart of civil liberties - an institution that actually rests much of its jurisprudence on the idea of protecting those without access to the political process - has made it impossible for Texas to pass a less laughable law to protect the unborn. I'm sad that abortion is contemplated at all outside saving the life of the mother and that state intervention is necessary.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What part of using cash as an incentive to influence a decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy isn't disgusting in an 'ends justify the means' sort of way? I can relate to the anti-abortion mindset and agree with a lot of the non-religious-based arguments, but how is using monetary bribes to influence a social issue not seem at least unethical, if not outright disgusting?
Incidentally, any time abortion is brought up I am reminded of "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion." Before anyone knee-jerks, it's not an attempt to discredit the pro-life (as opposed to what, anti-life?) stance, it is an attempt to point out that this is one of those issues where the sides are not always black-and-white.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:how is using monetary bribes to influence a social issue not seem at least unethical, if not outright disgusting?
We, through the government, use monetary bribes to influence people's behaviors all the time. You can get tax credits for installing alternative-energy systems at home, or for driving an electric or hybrid car. We get to deduct mortgage interest in order to encourage/facilitate people to buy the homes they live in.
quote:pro-life (as opposed to what, anti-life?)
Yes, in exactly the same way that pro-choice is opposed to anti-choice, which is how your article labels that side.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:What part of using cash as an incentive to influence a decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy isn't disgusting in an 'ends justify the means' sort of way? I can relate to the anti-abortion mindset and agree with a lot of the non-religious-based arguments, but how is using monetary bribes to influence a social issue not seem at least unethical, if not outright disgusting?
What ethical principle does it violate? We use monetary bribes to influence a lot of social issues - getting an education, not doing drugs, signing up for the selective service, buying a house, conserving energy. Is it only the ones where someone wants to stop an actual killing that disgust enters the picture?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, it's not my article, and if you had read it all you would see a number of different names used. I used different names in my post for that reason, to illustrate how it all depends on your premise. That you still choose to make it a black-and-white issue is your choice.
I maintain it isn't that simple, and it tends to only be that simple to people who haven't been faced with the terrible situation where they have had to choose, whether through support or with their own body. That, however, is only based on my experiences and articles like the one I linked. You don't have to take that as a scientific statement.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What ethical principle does it violate? We use monetary bribes to influence a lot of social issues - getting an education, not doing drugs, signing up for the selective service, buying a house, conserving energy. Is it only the ones where someone wants to stop an actual killing that disgust enters the picture?
Like my response to mph, it seems to all be about perspective. I'm not maintaining that it's black-and-white here. You are.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not maintaining that it's black-and-white here. You are.
I am? Where?
If you think I think abortion as an issue is "simple" or "black and white" then you are sadly mistaken. It's very complex.
You'd do a lot better to stop telling me what I think or what I'm maintaining and just concentrate on a simple question: You've implied that this must seem at least unethical. If it must seem that way, it should be a simple matter for you name the ethical principle at issue.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak for Dagonee, but I too think that abortion is wrong, that the fetus is alive, and that it is murder. I do think that women who make these decisions are wrong, and maybe even immoral. But that doesn't mean I hate them, or think they are horrible people. I just think their decision is wrong. And I think they're wrong because they are wrongly informed.
And frankly, I don't trust people to do the right thing. Because the right thing has been obscured by people who don't understand what pregnancy and life truly is. And I do think it's sad that a state would resort to bribing people to do the right thing and not abort a life. That's not a hateful statement, but I would be wrong to sit here and pretend that I don't think abortion is wrong and immoral. I think pro-life people have trusted others to do the right thing, and that trust has been proven wrong. Otherwise abortion would not be legal in the US.
That doesn't mean I hate them. And because I think they're wrong doesn't make them a 'bad' person. But I think that choice is wrong, and it's immoral. I have pity and sympathy and compassion for any woman who does make that choice. Mostly from what I've heard many women feel horribly about the decision, many suffer emotion problems and issues, many turn to staunch anti-abortion advocates.
Many will disagree, and you have a right to disagree just as much as I have a right to my opinion. But when it comes to this issue I will not budge, or be silenced, or ignore the issue and walk the other way. Frankly, I don't think it's something that can be decided in a democratic manner with a majority rule. If it's wrong, it's wrong. No other murder is allowed to be mitigated by popular opinion in this country. No other murder is allowed to be mitigated by someone else's right to committ murder.
And I don't think it's fair to assign motives and opinions to someone who you do not know, nor understand their position, just because you don't agree with them.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That you still choose to make it a black-and-white issue is your choice.
What the heck? The only thing I've said in thread is that the using monetary bribes/incentives to change behavior is extremely common, and that the terms "anti-choice" and "anti-life" are analogous.
How in the world did you pull from that the idea that it's a black-and-white issue for me? You don't appear to know the first thing about my actual views on this issue.
Even more, I don't see how my personal views on the issue of abortion are relevant to whether or not it's immoral to use monetary incentives/bribes for social issues.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: can't speak for Dagonee, but I too think that abortion is wrong, that the fetus is alive, and that it is murder.
Almost, but not quite: abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.
Some (maybe most) intentional killings are deserving of criminal sanction. The application of the same principles to abortion as are applied other forms of intentional killing of human being is what I seek.
Turning to Jutsa's conclusion concerning my views on the subject: Whether a killing is deserving of criminal sanction is hardly a black and white issue, despite the ability to easily classify many killings as deserving of criminal sanction and many as not deserving of criminal sanction.
"Shades of gray" does not mean "every case is a hard case." It means "a significant number of hard cases exists."
And the fact that a case is hard does not prevent one from arriving at a conclusion concerning its outcome. For example, based on the accounts I've read, I think Bernard Goetz's shooting on the subway is an act that should produce criminal liability but that both his prior experiences and the situation preceding it are highly mitigating (i.e., culpability-reducing, not culpability-eliminating) factors. I don't think it's a black and white issue. Rather, I've reached a firm (yet caveated) conclusion based on extensive thought and analysis of quite a few complex issues.
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: it tends to only be that simple to people who haven't been faced with the terrible situation where they have had to choose, whether through support or with their own body. That, however, is only based on my experiences and articles like the one I linked. You don't have to take that as a scientific statement.
So you are at least willing to acknowledge that people like me (who have had relatives aborted but are still firmly pro-life... "black and white" as you call it...) exist. How gracious.
What you don't seem to get is that killing someone who isn't morally culpable for their own death (by, say, attacking you with deadly force) is a black and white thing. Now, as I said earlier, there is some dispute over whether mere empirical human life constitutes "real" (whatever that means)human life... but there is absolutely nothing "grey" about killing an innocent child if that is indeed what's happening.
There is no remotely common circumstance (I'm willing to allow that we may someday, wandering lost in the desert, encounter a child in the last, painful throes of cancer and execute a mercy killing) where we find a living child and say "well, let's just kill them, they're better off that way" -- not abusive parents, not horrible diseases, certainly not economic misfortune.
The "shades of grey" thing just doesn't fly when you are talking about killing a baby... which pro-lifers are.
Edit: As Dagonee points out, that's far from saying that there aren't complexities in the issue... I just am pretty sure they pale in comparison to ending a human life.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:the right thing has been obscured by people who don't understand what pregnancy and life truly is.
Or do not believe the same things as you about what they are/mean?
If it needs to be justified that way, and someone feels that is a correct opinion. But frankly I don't see it as an issue of what I believe vs what someone else believes. It's a hard fact. IMO, some people just don't understand that fact. And I think they're wrong.
As I said, you're free to disagree. But it's not going to change what the truth of this matter is.
Posts: 1042 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What part of using cash as an incentive to influence a decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy isn't disgusting in an 'ends justify the means' sort of way? I can relate to the anti-abortion mindset and agree with a lot of the non-religious-based arguments, but how is using monetary bribes to influence a social issue not seem at least unethical, if not outright disgusting?
To some pro-lifers, babies are being killed by abortion. This is not a difficult concept to understand at all, even if you don't agree with it. Once you're at Square One (Killing Babies), if bribing (a concept routinely practiced by the government both in respect to its citizens and to itself) works, you do it.
Man, I'm using a lot of italicization here, but I'm really having an extremely difficult time understanding why some people don't get this. To people who think this process is unethical (leaving questions of effectiveness aside):
If a person was standing in front of you with a knife to an infant's throat and said*, "Pay me $500.00 or I will kill this baby." In this artificial scenario, those are your only two choices: pay the money or the kid dies. What would you do? Obviously you fork over the $500.00 bloody dollars just as fast as your hands can get to your pocket and open your wallet.
*No, I am not characterizing pro-choicers as baby-murderers. I am simply saying that in this one situation, a baby is being threatened and the obvious thing to do is pay up. In another situation, from a certain perspective-not necessarily one you share, just another perspective-precisely the same possibility is offered.
You don't have to be a pro-lifer to understand why a pro-lifer would support this sort of policy aside from other considerations. It's pretty darned easy.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm envisioning a "save toby"-esque website, where a woman announces "I'm 6 weeks pregnant and unless I've raised $50,000 by the end of the second trimester, I'm aborting this baby" and has a paypal donate button set up.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed no one's done that yet.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I can see exactly why I should have left what I said with the link. I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of every one of your replies to me, but I am not convinced it would result in anything but us talking past each other. I don't see how I can really contribute to a conversation after being equated to a baby-killer. kthnxbai
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how I can really contribute to a conversation after being equated to a baby-killer.
Admit it. You didn't even read my post.
quote:*No, I am not characterizing pro-choicers as baby-murderers. I am simply saying that in this one situation, a baby is being threatened and the obvious thing to do is pay up. In another situation, from a certain perspective-not necessarily one you share, just another perspective-precisely the same possibility is offered.
quote:Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name: Actually, I can see exactly why I should have left what I said with the link. I'd be happy to discuss the finer points of every one of your replies to me, but I am not convinced it would result in anything but us talking past each other. I don't see how I can really contribute to a conversation after being equated to a baby-killer. kthnxbai
quote:At minimum, he needs to provide evidence that blue states provide more than $500 in care over that provided by Texas - something that would pretty much require numbers.
I'll give it to ya -- that really is a dead minimum.
I don't have to stretch very hard: I just work to present the fact that Texas is in the lowest quintile when it comes to medicaid benefits per recipient, which leaves its abnormally high quantity of people living under the federal poverty line sort of high and dry when it comes to dire potential financial issues, such as an unintended/unwanted child.
I give you A Chart:
MEDICAID SPENDING PER ENROLEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003
STATE IN QUESTION - TEXAS - $2,852.1
REPRESENTATIVE 'NOT VERY BLUE AT ALL, BUT STILL NOT TEXAS' STATE - GEORGIA - $7,838.6
REPRESENTATIVE 'OCCASIONALLY CONSIDERED BLUE' STATE - VIRGINIA - $9,592.2
REPRESENTATIVE 'MIDWAY' STATE - PENNSYLVANIA - $9,911.6
REPRESENTATIVE 'BLUE' STATE - NEW YORK - $12,407.7
REPRESENTATIVE 'HOLY CRAP THAT'S BLUE' STATE - MINNESOTA - $16,572.0
Notice the big leap between Texas and Georgia. How about Utah? $5,017.8.
Five hundred dollars wouldn't even get Texas up to Kansas levels of coverage for poor people needing medical assistance. It is not exactly a sterling example of governmental assistance for the poor. It is actually most often referenced by Texas citizens as a "sucky" or "terrible" system. It is a sore that liberal magazines delight in poking at. In fact: there's plenty of other reasons to point out that this senator's handout is a great way to help Texas legislators ignore the real issues. Children's medicaid and SCHIP in Texas has been on the decline in recent years, having been subject to a number of budget cuts that reduced many programs below redline efficiency estimates. Partially as a result, the state gets poor reviews for the availability of care and support to poor mothers. Issues like this contribute to the fact that despite having such a conservative populace and plenty of legislative attempts to stymie access to abortions, Texas still has an unusually high number of abortions per live births in its borders.
Any one of these women -- we'll call them the 'target demographic' for this state rep -- who is considering termination in such a way that a simple $500 will get her to cancel? By God, they're probably in that situation simply because the state's welfare system is underfunded and overloaded. This state representative is simply waving money at the aftereffects of anti-welfare policy, trying to act compassionate while (if at all possible) trying to avoid actual commitment to some worthwhile policy that might be called that uggo word, 'welfare.' No, this is 'saving children.'
Another thing that could help fix Texas' abortion rates is universal healthcare, which would relieve an absurd burden from the internal Texas tax system. Compared to the national average of 15%, Texas faces the issue that over 22% of their population has no health insurance. Uninsured folk create a burden, since they often receive little to no preventative care and end up as bigger expenses when they do require and qualify for assistance. This all leaves less support for potential mothers, who take this all into consideration when wondering if they have to make the choice to axe a pregnancy because they're literally too poor to handle it.
He wants to wave cash at the abortion issue and appear compassionate in doing so. In practice, it's an admirable distraction from things they could actually do to reduce a significant quantity of abortions, like medical coverage for mothers and families! Or working hard to dump the train wreck of Abstinence Only sex education systems.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Although I have to say that the quality of care, my doctor, wait times, and the hospital I delivered at were all better in CA.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My impression is that CA has higher "bars" to jump, but the quality of care once you jump 'em is superior to that of neighboring states. (Consistent with kq's experience.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm envisioning a "save toby"-esque website, where a woman announces "I'm 6 weeks pregnant and unless I've raised $50,000 by the end of the second trimester, I'm aborting this baby" and has a paypal donate button set up.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed no one's done that yet.
Damn, that is an interesting idea. If $500 is the starting price, how high are pro-life people willing to go?
If it's morally correct for a woman to accept $500 to keep a pregnancy she was considering terminating, is it wrong for her to ask for $5,000? How about $50,000?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm envisioning a "save toby"-esque website, where a woman announces "I'm 6 weeks pregnant and unless I've raised $50,000 by the end of the second trimester, I'm aborting this baby" and has a paypal donate button set up.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed no one's done that yet.
Damn, that is an interesting idea. If $500 is the starting price, how high are pro-life people willing to go?
If it's morally correct for a woman to accept $500 to keep a pregnancy she was considering terminating, is it wrong for her to ask for $5,000? How about $50,000?
It is, isn't it? Wholeheartedly depressing, but an interesting line of thought to explore.
Edit to pre-emptively add: I'm not sure that pro-life people are saying paying a woman money to not abort a child is morally correct, only that it's significantly less immoral than letting the child be aborted.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: Edit to pre-emptively add: I'm not sure that pro-life people are saying paying a woman money to not abort a child is morally correct, only that it's significantly less immoral than letting the child be aborted.
I'll accept that.
Still the question remains, how much is it worth to pay a mother not to have an abortion? If a woman said, "I'm planning to have an abortion, because I can't afford to raise this child right. I need $30,000 to do that." is it reasonable to pay the woman to keep the child?
Are there pro-lifers who are willing and able to put their money where their mouth is? How important is that unborn child REALLY? Are you willing to cash in your children's college fund to prevent an abortion? Sell your house to save an unborn child?
Quite an interesting moral can of worms.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
Too bad it's based on extremely faulty data. It all sounds nice and straightforward until one actually examines his claims. For example, this is untrue, assuming "unusually high" does not mean "the median":
quote:Issues like this contribute to the fact that despite having such a conservative populace and plenty of legislative attempts to stymie access to abortions, Texas still has an unusually high number of abortions per live births in its borders.
Texas is 21st in spending per adult enrollee ($2,419), 31st in spending per child enrollee ($1,478). Note both these exceed the average spending per enrollee for the entire U.S.
Minnesota is only one place higher in spending per adult enrollee ($2,440). They are significantly better in spending per child enrollee ($2,254). But even that difference is not quite (as in ~$12,000 less bad) the difference Samp stated above. I found the source of Samp's numbers, and they were quite misleading. The numbers were for the "Medically Needy," which is a term of art in Medicaid.
Virginia $1,393 per child enrollee, $2,354 per adult. Georgia $1,302 per child enrollee, $2,606 per adult. Pennsylvania $1,780 per child enrollee, $2,491 per adult. New York $1,885 per child enrollee, $3,418 per adult.
Only New York's adult number is higher than Texas's by more than $500 - almost $1000. Only Minnesota's child number is higher than Texas's by more than $500 - by less than $300.
And, of course, no one has addressed the incentive/perception issue nor the fact that a mother giving a child up for adoption can usually find an agency to pay for the medical costs and sometimes even living expenses. (I don't count accusations of being a brick wall as "addressing.") If the $500 simply causes someone to look into their options a little more closely then it will be helpful.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Compared to the national average of 15%, Texas faces the issue that over 22% of their population has no health insurance.
Of course, if that includes illegal immigrants, there's no guarantee that national healthcare would fix that. Texas's Medicaid Page doesn't mention if they cover illegals, but it does say pregnant women automatically qualify.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by erosomniac: I'm envisioning a "save toby"-esque website, where a woman announces "I'm 6 weeks pregnant and unless I've raised $50,000 by the end of the second trimester, I'm aborting this baby" and has a paypal donate button set up.
Actually, I'm kind of amazed no one's done that yet.
Damn, that is an interesting idea. If $500 is the starting price, how high are pro-life people willing to go?
If it's morally correct for a woman to accept $500 to keep a pregnancy she was considering terminating, is it wrong for her to ask for $5,000? How about $50,000?
Is it morally correct for someone to kidnap an orphan and hold it for ransom... how far would people be willing to go?
If it's morally correct to pay a $500 ransom, is it wrong for the kidnapper to ask for $5000?
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: Of course, if that includes illegal immigrants, there's no guarantee that national healthcare would fix that.
I *think* the situation with illegals is, typically, this:
they present a false SSN and receive medicaid-based treatment. Doctors are not allowed, by law, to turn them away.
The Doctors then file for medicaid reimbursement, which then refuses the claims.
Doctor goes unpaid and raises prices on everyone else to compensate.
I could, however, be entirely wrong about that--- it's just the impression I have from the debates on Medicaid and Illegal Immigration.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Are there pro-lifers who are willing and able to put their money where their mouth is?
Do you have *any* idea how %%^*& insulting this question is?
A huge number of Pro-Life people give their time and effort both trying to convince people not to have abortions, and provide support for them when they do keep the child. When I had my second child I was recently fired, attending college and working a s a waiter with no health insurance. I received an immense amount of support from a crisis pregnancy center and from my church. As in "I would have been on the street delivering my second child in the rain without it" support.
And for their trouble,these organizations (which now outnumber abortion providers in some states) have to deal with Time magazine asking "are they playing fair?" on their front cover.
And yet people, repeatedly on this forum, say "I'll allow your opinion and maybe even listen to it when you pro-lifers put your money where your mouth is."
To which I and others have repeatedly said "we have" and I'm about to start shifting over to a big "F U, too".
And yet here on this thread, it's flatly asserted the pro-lifers that don't really care about the question... we just want an excuse to hate women who get pregnant out of wedlock.
Your (plural, pro-choicer) combined arrogance is sickening.
Edit: to explain what I mean, I'll go back to the kidnapping analogy. Imagine going up to someone and saying "what are you willing to do to stop kidnapping? what have you done? are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? until you prove that you do, I won't listen to any of your arguments as to why children deserve the protection of law."
posted
To back up Jim-Me, I would have to say that yes, I've put my money where my mouth is. I've donated time and considerable money to a crisis pregnancy center that specifically helps women with financial support for unexpected pregnancies. The group routinely holds baby showers and I've bought everything from diapers to bumper pads for cribs for mothers who could not afford to buy the things on their own.
People seem to get an impression that pro-life activists are all clinic picketers. There are many, many people who work for the pro-life cause in positive, affirming ways. By offering free pregnancy testing and counseling. By offering financial help for pregnant mothers. By offering post-abortion counseling for hurting, grieving women and men. By offering continued help and support for women who decide to keep their babies. I often hear the accusation that pro-lifers don't care what happens to the woman after the baby is born. That's extremely insulting, and not true. There are many ministries that commit to providing continued support for women after the baby is born. And no, you do not have to sign a belief statement or even say you are a Christian to use the service I work closely with. They will help you regardless of your personal beliefs.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:For example, this is untrue, assuming "unusually high" does not mean "the median"
Good thing I'm not assuming that at all. It is unusually high for a state that I mentioned as -- quote unquote --
quote:having such a conservative populace and plenty of legislative attempts to stymie access to abortions
If you put all the parts of my position together you can see I'm really not making any such mistakes.
For instance, is anyone denying the idea that a $500 payoff has not at all helpful? I think the actual counterpoint is that it is a stupid, reactive policy that will have an infinitesimal actual benefit.
quote:These are the category of people who have mandatory eligibility for medicaid coverage. These are the people who are "categorically needy" and may be covered by states. Neither set of people are included in the "Medically Needy" chart Samp grabbed his data from.
The threshold for the mandatory eligibility in Texas for pregnant women is to be living at or below 185% of the poverty level!
They are not excluded! They are not excluded from an overall per-capita analysis! Why would they be?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Good thing I'm not assuming that at all. It is unusually high for a state that I mentioned as -- quote unquote --
quote:having such a conservative populace and plenty of legislative attempts to stymie access to abortions
If that's what you meant, fine. But it's not what you said - you said "despite having" a conservative populace it has an unusually high ratio. That's a different statement entirely.
quote:The threshold for the mandatory eligibility in Texas for pregnant women is to be living at or below 185% of the poverty level!
They are not excluded! They are not excluded from an overall per-capita analysis! Why would they be?
Because you didn't give figures from a per-capita analysis of medicaid enrollees. You gave a per-capita analysis of SOME - a SUBSET - of medicaid enrollees.
The figures I showed were for all medicaid enrollees. Could you at least give some indication that you looked at the actual links. Yours were for "medically needy" enrollees, which does not include "categorically needy" enrollees:
quote:The option to have a "medically needy" program allows states to extend Medicaid eligibility to additional qualified persons who may have too much income to qualify under the mandatory or optional categorically needy groups.
Those two groups - mandatory and optional categorically needy groups - are NOT included in "medically needy." They are excluded from the figures you gave, no matter how many exclamation points you use. Why would they be? Because that's the definition of "medically needy."
I note you still haven't addressed the prenatal medical care available to women putting a child up for adoption through an agency.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then there's our confusion: the 1984 Deficit Reduction Act put the group we're talking about (desperately poor pregnant women) inside the classification of "Medically Needy" when it was implemented a year later. I ask why the pregnant women we're talking about would be excluded from a spending category that represents all and more of the demographic we're talking about.
Mandatory eligibility in Texas specifically for pregnancy starts at 185% under the federal poverty line. "Medically needy" doesn't exclude this category because it actually extended enrollment all the way back up to 100%. So the 'mandatory enrollment' preggers women is a subgroup entirely contained within the Spending Per Enrolee for the medically needy, as well as women who are relatively better off, as in, not living on about half the federal poverty line level, but still pretty poor.
Which is of cold comfort, since Texas is bottoming out in spending in that category?
quote:I note you still haven't addressed the prenatal medical care available to women putting a child up for adoption through an agency.
I could see it as being an immediate counterpoint if it was not more readily available in other states representing a 'better' welfare system?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dr. Bitch is apparently angry about it and I suppose it's not a surprise.
quote:Honey, $500 isn't even going to pay for the extra groceries you'll eat during a pregnancy. ...
Senator Patrick, would you agree to take care of a neighbor's dog for nine months for a measly $500? Where do you get the balls to offer women $500 to rent out their uteruses and sell their children?
quote:I ask why the pregnant women we're talking about would be excluded from a spending category that represents all and more of the demographic we're talking about.
Your stats were for a subset of medicaid enrollees. Making your heading ("MEDICAID SPENDING PER ENROLEE") wrong.
Further, pregnant women who qualify for one of the categories aren't included in your stats.
quote:Mandatory eligibility in Texas specifically for pregnancy starts at 185% under the federal poverty line. "Medically needy" doesn't exclude this category because it actually extended enrollment all the way back up to 100%
It does too exclude many of them - it excludes everyone at 100% or below, as well as everyone who fits one of the other categories.
quote:So the 'mandatory enrollment' preggers women is a subgroup entirely contained within the Spending Per Enrolee for the medically needy, as well as women who are relatively better off, as in, not living on about half the federal poverty line level, but still pretty poor.
Again, you miss lots of pregnant women using your stats.
quote:Patrick (R, as if you needed to ask--after all, they're the party of the free market and good strong capitalist values) is proposing a bill that would pay women $500 for their babies.
SB 1567 proposes to create an "Adoption Incentive Program" which would give
a $500 payment to each woman who is a resident of this state and a citizen of the United States who places a child for adoption rather than have an abortion.
Once you get over the "did they just say pay women for putting their children up for adoption?" shocker
Hell, I'm still not over the "Constitution requires government to allow people to kill babies." Maybe when I get over that I'll get around to being shocked by this.
quote:Where do you get the balls to offer women $500 to rent out their uteruses and sell their children?
Where does he get the whatever - I don't think balls is appropriate, because the operative brain part is lack of thinking brain cells - to compare "hey, please don't kill your child" with "renting out a womb."
I'm tired of trying to be civil about this. We hear all the time that pro-choice people aren't pro-abortion - they're pro-choice. Well, this law would simply give one additional choice to women.
What the f&^$ us wrong with that, Dr. Bitch?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The pro-life people are the ones who came up with the idea to pay women $500 to keep a baby they were considering aborting. I'm just asking why stop at $500? $500 is clearly targeting low-income women. If someone makes $50,000 a year, the extra $500 isn't going to make a significant dent financially to make it a deciding factor.
The kidnapping analogy is meaningless, and simply a way to ignore the question.
How much are you willing to pay so a woman keeps the baby? Is an unborn child only worth $500?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm still not convinced that it's an effective idea, but I really don't see why the government shouldn't provide incentives as a matter of policy. As others have pointed out, what's the difference between this and incentives for, say, solar panels or hybrid cars? The government is merely trying to influence behavior through non-coercive means. I think in many cases, that's a lot better than passing a law mandating or prohibiting a certain behavior (California lightbulb guy, I'm looking at you!). I know that some people feel that it's such an important issue that we ought to ban the procedure outright, but it seems to me that since it's unlikely to happen, it's best to do what we can to influence people not to have them unnecessarily.
quote:If it's not going to be particularly successful, then it won't waste much money.
That's a good point, Dagonee! Silly me for not thinking that through. Although implementing the program may cost a little bit, and women who were planning to give the child up for adoption anyway might apply for the money as well.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Texas did something for KQ better than California??? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
