Which Party's policys are likely to increase the number of abortions?

[Matt Black]

Paragraph and line beginning 'However...'.

 

[targus]

1. Married couple - three existing children. Husband main or sole breadwinner, so not in receipt of welfare. They try - successfully - to conceive a fourth child as on husband's wage they can afford this. Husband then loses job due to recession. Welfare benefit cuts by Republicans mean they can't really afford their three pre-existing children, let alone a fourth.

Why would such a family immediately fall into poverty upon the husband losing his job?

In the U.S. a laid off worker gets 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.

2. The same couple but husband loses job before they try for a fourth. They use contraception. It fails and wife becomes pregnant.

Ditto

You seem to have no concept of how deep and wide the safety net is in the U.S.

99 weeks of unemployment benefits
Welfare
Food stamps
Bridge cards (debit cards)
Free breakfast and lunch at schools (often when school is out for vacation)
Tax credits that are refunds of taxes never ever paid
Subsidized transporatation
Subsidized home heating
Subsidized housing
Free cell phones
Free internet access

The list is endless.

 

[Matt Black]

Do you agree though that the Republicans' policies aim to reduce the width and depth of that safety net.

Also, children tend to stick around for a bit longer than 99 weeks, as can unemployment during a recession.

 

[Revmitchell]

Paragraph and line beginning 'However...'.

Thanks, Maybe you are ignorant of some facts. If we stopped all spending on all Military, the judiciary both houses of congress in fact everything except entitlements we still could not balance the budget. The Entitlements in this country far exceed the amount of revenue being taken in. This is not sustainable and we cannot stop spending in those other areas. Be sure you know all the details before speaking on a subject.

 

[Matt Black]

It's not a matter of ignorance of facts, as you so eirenically put it, but a difference of opinion as to the priorities when you have both a downturn and a deficit. We are faced with the same dilemma in the UK. The likes of Greece got themselves into a mess by over-extending themselves fiscally but, now they are in this mess, their attempts at fiscal consolidation (ie: cuts) are making the situation worse by deepening the recession there. It's a moot economic point as to whether such policies would have beneficial or detrimental effects in the UK or US...

 

[targus]

Do you agree though that the Republicans' policies aim to reduce the width and depth of that safety net.

Also, children tend to stick around for a bit longer than 99 weeks, as can unemployment during a recession.

There are many who abuse the safety net.

The government taxpayer support of the poor exceeds the need in many areas.

Many people who are not in true need simply play the system.

Should no program ever be cut even though it may be wasteful and inefficient?

 

[Revmitchell]

It's not a matter of ignorance of facts, as you so eirenically put it, but a difference of opinion as to the priorities when you have both a downturn and a deficit. We are faced with the same dilemma in the UK. The likes of Greece got themselves into a mess by over-extending themselves fiscally but, now they are in this mess, their attempts at fiscal consolidation (ie: cuts) are making the situation worse by deepening the recession there. It's a moot economic point as to whether such policies would have beneficial or detrimental effects in the UK or US...

Wow! Let's see how can I reword this. We cannot afford, as a country, the unsustainable and current level of welfare programs. It doesn't matter what the need is. We cannot afford it. We have to cut back. That is what we are trying to do.

 

[Zaac]

First, some interests to declare:

1. I am not a US citizen. I have no vote next month. Nevertheless, the decision you guys make has a profound impact on the rest of the world, including the little island off the north-west coast of Europe I call home; thus, in my view, I am allowed at least to comment as opposed to voting.

2. I am pro-life, anti-abortion, whatever you want to call it. But I am pro-the whole of life, not just the nine months of it before birth. I am however in favour of policies which are likely to reduce rather than increase the number of abortions both in your country and in mine which may or may not include criminalising abortion.

3. I accept - reluctantly - that an outright ban on abortions is unrealistic in our respective countries probably in my lifetime, although a lowering of the numbering of weeks at which abortion becomes illegal may not be.

4. I also read with interest - and sometimes participate in - the various threads which touch upon and concern this subject, particularly with regard to the forthcoming Presidential election. I try to imagine the dilemmas faced by you on this subject, bearing in mind that abortion in the UK is not the polarised party-political issue that it seems to be on your side of the Pond.

So...the dominant thinking on these boards appears to be that a vote for the Democrats is a vote for more abortions whereas a vote for the Republicans is the opposite. But I'm not convinced it's as straightforward as that...

From what I can gather, Democrats are more likely to increase funding for abortion clinics. This, I agree is a Bad Thing and is likely to increase the number of abortions.

However, Republicans are more likely to reduce funding for poorer sections of the community, for example in this vote. This - experience and stats suggest - will have the effect of making abortions in such poorer sections of society more likely, since women who are pregnant are more likely to resort to abortion if they will be unable to afford the child; thus the number of 'unwanted' pregnancies will increase and so will the consequent number of abortions, as surely as night follows day. This, I say, is likewise a Bad Thing therefore.

Now, some here may say, "Well, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place." Maybe. But why have the unborn child bear the punishment for the alleged sin of the parents? I've used 'maybe' and 'alleged' here advisedly, as we need to consider one or two scenarios other than the stereotypical 'feckless immoral single mom':

1. Married couple - three existing children. Husband main or sole breadwinner, so not in receipt of welfare. They try - successfully - to conceive a fourth child as on husband's wage they can afford this. Husband then loses job due to recession. Welfare benefit cuts by Republicans mean they can't really afford their three pre-existing children, let alone a fourth.

2. The same couple but husband loses job before they try for a fourth. They use contraception. It fails and wife becomes pregnant.

That'll do for starters. This is why I said on another thread re Dems and Reps 'a plague on both their houses'. I don't envy you your choice next month...

Very good post Matt. I fear that Republicans are being pimped by the party with abortion. You rarely see anybody in the party making it a national issue until there's an election.

I would like to know what all these folks are doing about abortion during that down time because for an issue they pretend to care so much about, the party doesn't seem to REALLY be doing much at all about it other than using it as a bullet point every four years as to why conservatives should support them and not the Democrats.

 

[Matt Black]

There are many who abuse the safety net.

The government taxpayer support of the poor exceeds the need in many areas.

Many people who are not in true need simply play the system.

Should no program ever be cut even though it may be wasteful and inefficient?

It's pretty much the same here, but should we risk penalising those in genuine need in order to cut out those who abuse the system?

 

[targus]

It's pretty much the same here, but should we risk penalising those in genuine need in order to cut out those who abuse the system?

Why would that be the case?

Is it not possible to determine the level of need based on verified information provided by the person seeking assistance?

 

[Matt Black]

An example from over here which I suspect you have over there too:

We have an underclass of young women who are in effect professional welfare claimants. They have large numbers of children, often by different fathers, starting whilst they are still at school, and they have no jobs or any intention of finding jobs; reproduction is their sole achievement in life. They get an uplift in welfare payment every time they have a new child, assessed on their need. A crude caricature, perhaps, but based on at least a degree of truth.

The government here is seeking to limit the payment of child welfare benefit, partly in response to the above examples and also to reduce our deficit. It proposes to freeze welfare payments after Child #3 is born ie: any more children you pay for yourselves. At first blush, and as a taxpayer, I cheered at the news but, having thought further, I have my qualms. Firstly, whilst it might curb irresponsible behaviour, very probably it won't. Secondly, it's the children who are invariably hit by such cuts, not the parent(s) and such a policy therefore amounts to punishing the children for the sins of the parent(s). Finally, it's a bit of a blunt instrument, a sledgehammer to crack a (admittedly annoying) nut: it would unjustly penalise the sort of family referred to in my OP.

 

[Revmitchell]

The government is not the answer to all the worlds woes nor can it effectively resolve it. Marxism creates lazy people who lack enough imagination to address these issues in a real and reasonable way. It warps the brain.

 

[Matt Black]

What would your answer be then to those in genuine need? Your above post is a fine piece of rhetoric but lacks substance in addressing the problems presented by the OP.

 

[Andy T.]

I disagree with the underlying premise in the OP that government solutions to poverty are the only viable solutions - i.e., that if the gov't spends less on "fighting" poverty, that the poor will do worse under that scenario. Thus, since the initial premise is false, debating Matt on this is a non-starter.

 

[Matt Black]

Same question to you, then: what is your solution to the couple in the OP?

 

[Zaac]

What would your answer be then to those in genuine need? Your above post is a fine piece of rhetoric but lacks substance in addressing the problems presented by the OP.

The answer is supposed to be the Church. But we all know that the Church and the Republican Party or conservative aren't synonymous.

The Church has the wealth to wipe out need. We just have lost our way and find it more "timely" to build large buildings and hold fall festivals than meet the needs of the poor, the widowed and the orphaned.

 

[targus]

An example from over here which I suspect you have over there too:

We have an underclass of young women who are in effect professional welfare claimants. They have large numbers of children, often by different fathers, starting whilst they are still at school, and they have no jobs or any intention of finding jobs; reproduction is their sole achievement in life. They get an uplift in welfare payment every time they have a new child, assessed on their need. A crude caricature, perhaps, but based on at least a degree of truth.

Yes, three, four and even five generations of this is what pretty much created the same problem here.

The government here is seeking to limit the payment of child welfare benefit, partly in response to the above examples and also to reduce our deficit. It proposes to freeze welfare payments after Child #3 is born ie: any more children you pay for yourselves. At first blush, and as a taxpayer, I cheered at the news but, having thought further, I have my qualms. Firstly, whilst it might curb irresponsible behaviour, very probably it won't. Secondly, it's the children who are invariably hit by such cuts, not the parent(s) and such a policy therefore amounts to punishing the children for the sins of the parent(s). Finally, it's a bit of a blunt instrument, a sledgehammer to crack a (admittedly annoying) nut: it would unjustly penalise the sort of family referred to in my OP.

In the U.S. the problem was addressed by requiring those on welfare to work, enter a training program and then work in order to collect.

Free day care was provided so that the children would not be neglected.

The result was a dramatic reduction in the number of people on welfare as many found that they could earn more working than they were receiving on welfare.

Obama removed the work requirement and we then saw an explosion of people on welfare and food stamps.

 

[Matt Black]

I know what the answer should be. But it rarely is. The Church failed, pure and simple: a cursory glance at the pages of Charles Dickens' novels tells us that.

[reply to Zaac; Targus - fine and dandy and three cheers for the suggestion, but it doesn't work in a downturn when the jobs simply aren't there for the recipients to do - 'welfare to work' only works where there is the 'work'.]

 

[Andy T.]

Same question to you, then: what is your solution to the couple in the OP?

Seek help from family, church, community. If none of those can help, then put the child up for adoption - plenty of childless couples in the U.S. who would oblige.

Your OP is faulty and shallow. As is your thinking on this matter. I encourage you to escape from your false assumptions that the gov't is the answer to every question.

 

[Ed B]

I disagree with the underlying premise in the OP that government solutions to poverty are the only viable solutions - i.e., that if the gov't spends less on "fighting" poverty, that the poor will do worse under that scenario. Thus, since the initial premise is false, debating Matt on this is a non-starter.

Is this because you think the Church will provide an efficient safety net for the poor, widows, and orphans? And if so, won't that consume resources needed to build a new family life center with polished wood floors and a regulation basketball court? Surely you wouldn't suggest letting widows, orphans and the children of the poor fall through the cracks and starve and beg for bread on the streets.

The church does some work in this area but by and large we have abandoned that calling other than token efforts here and there. Can local congregations pay for the health care needs of widows, orphans and the children of the poor? No, not if it goes beyond simple things and involved hospitalization.

It is true that the Government should never have had to get into this business to start with. It is one of the callings of the Church. But we dropped the ball and show no real interest in picking it back up on a large enough scale to make government assistance for widows, orphans and the children of the poor unnecessary.