Abortion or Poverty?

The problem is that a lot of poverty is caused by poor choices by individuals and poor choices by governments. We can give all the money we want but unless better choices are made by individuals and governments then poverty will pretty much remain as it is.

 

The Magnetic Poles plan to reduce the incidences of abortion:

• Scrap failed "abstinence only" education, and replace it with balanced sex-ed that teaches "abstinence first" but doesn't try to ignore biology.
• Institute a universal health care program so that lower income and unemployed Americans are not denied baseline healthcare, including contraceptives.
• Incentives for couples to adopt rather than take extreme measures to conceive on their own.
• Increase access to genetic counselling to reduce instances of abortion of "imperfect" fetuses.
• Parents stop ignoring their children. Good parent / child communication and involvement in their lives means they don't have to seek fullfillment through inappropriate outlets.
• Related to the last item, use of internet and broadcast filtering technologies (e.g. V-Chip) to keep kids from viewing prurient content on the web and television.
• Teaching of proper modesty in attire and behavior to teens, starting before they become teens.

 

I agree with points 3-7 but 1-2 are awful.

1. The government should stay of of sex education. For that matter, government should stay out of education. Period. We should have a complete separation of education and state. The more involved the government has become in education during my lifetime the worse our government schools have become.

2. Socialism is a major cause of the poverty in the world. Witness how the major pinnacle of socialism as economic policy, the Soviet Union, failed to lift its citizens up. The same goes for the current pinnacles of socialism, Cuba and North Korea. The more involved in health care that the government has become during the lifetime the more prices for health care have skyrocketed. I imagine under universal health care that the prices would rise even faster until only the Ted Kennedys of the world would receive any health care at all.

 

And it's not heading that way now?

 

Yes, it is.

These two areas - education and health care - have gone down hill the most since I was born in 1955. We have gone from hardly any federal government involvement in either one in 1955 to the federal government, for all practical purposes, running both today in 2006. I don't think that it is a coincidence that both have badly deteriorated as the level of federal government involvement has skyrocketed.

 

third job?

Abortion or Poverty? = third job . . .

 

What are your thoughts Joseph?

 

What are extreme measures folks take to conceive?

 

Maybe, except they better not touch my cable TV. They can have my starbucks and soda but DON'T TOUCH MY CABLE!

Moore basically suggest throwing money at the problem. Not government money but money just the same. I'm seeking a solution to the unemployment. I believe this will raise pride in the poorer communities and bring hope of a better way of life...

If you give a man a fish you feed him for one day. If you teach him to fish...

 

The cable part was a joke.

I don't see him suggesting ministering as much as he suggest what money we can give to the cause. Trust me, money won't hurt. If ministering what his point then we can do that without sacrificing soda, coffee or cable TV.

 

Fertility treatments (including drugs and surgery), in vitro fertilization, surrogate wombs and donated eggs and sperm.

I thought they are all spot on.

Many government supported universities are world-class. As for lower level public schools, the range is tremendous - from excellent to dismal. There does seem to be a positive correlation of the money a district has and the quality of the schools. Public schools are also now educating more people formerly considered uneducable (is that a word?) such as the severely disabled, the autistic, etc. and doing a pretty good job of it. Most parents of such children would be unable to afford that intensive, specialized schooling on their own.

How did the Russians do economically before the revolution? How did the freed serfs fare on their own? How are you determing what the pinnacles are? Seems to me that you are ignoring the successful examples like Scandanavia and focusing on the failures - who failure may have other causes (like a dictator government) than mere socialism.

 

1) Like the D. C. schools, eh? Care to explain how they prove your point?

2) Socialists seem to always have an excuse for their economic failures.

 

Just putting in my .02 worth about the abstinence argument.

It may not work perfectly, but it is better than the alternative. Just check and see the results from Tony Blair's method which was free condoms and increased sex ed. Compare that to Bush's abstinence approach and you'll see which is the better method.

 

This one is a no brainer. Abortion being the shedding of innocent blood must trump poverty any day. Why do Christians talk about reducing abortions instead of eliminating ABORTION? The poor will be with us always and there is a proper Christian response, but a society that cannot find the fortitude to protect the weakest and most innocent is headed for judgment. May God have mercy!

 

I'm not sure I understand your statement about federal involvement in education. As far as I know, schools are almost entirely funded at the local or possibly state level. At least that's the way it appears from looking at my sky high property tax bill. Wasn't it the same way in '55? (I was in school in '55.)

 

I have no idea what you're talking about - are you saying that the DC schools in good neighborhoods are as dismal as the ones in the slums? It would help if you were more explicit.

Well, the two countries you chose do have dictators. Kim Il Jong has plundered his country's coffers but I don't know much about Castro except that the US has forbidden most trade with them. What about the socialist democracies in Scandanavia? They're hardly economic failures.

The US spends more per capita on healthcare than Canada does, but we have a much worse infant survival rate and our old people die younger. How is this more successful?