Feminist Mormon Housewives » Choice and Poverty

Choice and Poverty

By: Guest - September 11, 2008

My name is Kellie, I am a Mormon, a feminist, and a housewife.

by Kellie

Although I don’t care for the McCain/Palin ticket, it has invoked much discussion about gender, feminism, etc. I wish that the discourse could be more positive without the aim of dividing, but our society seems to be geared toward a more antagonistic discussion.

One of the things that I have found myself reflecting on during this campaign season has to do with Palin’s choice for her daughter Bristol, which correspond with the Christian Rights view on abortion. Generally speaking–but probably not in Palin’s particular case–young pregnancies lead to lives of poverty. Even if they marry the father, the earning potential is much lower and most often the marriage ends in divorce. So, mothers often look to social programs that include TANF, WIC, Medicaid, and other programs that aim to help people–particularly children–who are in poverty.

One of my main problems with the pro-life movement is that it doesn’t aim to try and reduce the number of abortions which is seen in their opposition to birth control and sex education. Sex only inside marriage as a policy goal is both unrealistic and impossible. People have sex; this is not a new thing. Yet, the conservative parts of the Republican Party insist on abstinence-only education and no government subsidies for birth control. This insistence coupled with no abortions leads to more unwanted pregnancies.

Admittedly, adoption is an option for many of these mothers, but the reality is that most people do not follow this option and regardless the child in such a situation has no choice in the matter–this in fact is one of the mantras of the pro-life movement. As I mentioned earlier, one of the leading factors determining whether a child lives in poverty is whether the family at issue is a single parent family. So, by having a social policy that results in more unwanted pregnancies, you are in fact condemning many single moms and their children to a life of poverty.

This comes to my second point, the very people that advocate for the pro-life movement generally want to get rid of the social programs that help people who are in poverty. Lack of access to birth control, abortions, and sex-ed leads to more children living in poverty. Is that fair to the child who had absolutely no control in this situation? So my question is this, how do people who support Republicans or the above two policies, deal with this contradiction?

Permanent Link

155 Comments »

I was reading an article in the New Yorker yesterday about Machiavelli (long one of my favorites) that made the point that he was the first person to write a political book based on the reality, rather than the ideal. I think a lot of the issues you talk about here - abstinence-only education, lack of social programs, etc. - are the politics of the ideal.

I just erased two huge paragraphs because they are more about abortion stats (which tend to be fairly level across industrialised nations despite the abortion laws) and that’s not really what you’re asking . . .

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
I believe that for a many social conservatives, poverty isn’t a social ill to be eradicated, but the natural consequence of (divine punishment for?) sins such as laziness, licentiousness, and multiple others–including promiscuity. from that perspective, poverty isn’t a social malady to be cured. Why, after all, circumvent the method by which God remonstrates his children? So what if single mothers are more likely to suffer financial hardship? Such are the wages of sin. If they are truly penitent and determined to pay the price for their error, then they will work themselves out of poverty. If not, then their example will serve as a warning to others to avoid the path (lust and fornication) which lead to their plight.

Of course, this is a bit simplified, and certainly not every self-described conservative believes this. But I do believe that it is part of the ideological foundation for many in the conservative movement.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Palin’s choice for her daughter Bristol,

Massive unsupported assumption there, that Bristol didn’t make this choice herself for her own reasons. I got pregnant when I was 16 and I made my choice about how to handle the pregnancy with no input from family, friend, or mentor. You are denying Bristol her agency in her own life by implying without evidence that her mother completely controls her. I think if that were true, Bristol would not have become pregnant in the first place.

So my question is this, how do people who support Republicans or the above two policies, deal with this contradiction?

I don’t support the policies, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand their reasons, and there’s no contradiction if you understand them.

To them, having a tax-paid support system to help you makes it more likely that you’ll make mistakes (like getting pregnant as a teen) because you won’t have to deal with the consequences of them on your own, and they’re all about personal responsibility. If you would be doomed to a life of misery, because no decent family would take care of a girl who got pregnant (at best they’d send her away until the baby was born and then she’d never be accepted in polite society) and you couldn’t work and take care of a child (financially as well as the other ways we parents take care of children), you might be enough afraid of that outcome that you’d decide not to have sex or engender a child you couldn’t support without government help. Or you’d have to give the baby up for adoption so it would have a better life than you could provide.

So there’s no contradiction between wanting to forbid abortion (why punish an innocent person for your mistake) and refusing to tax other people to help you with the situation you knowingly took on, being an unwed teen mother. They want to discourage a set of behaviors they don’t like (premarital sex, abortion, teen pregnancy and mothering) by withholding community help from people who choose those behaviors.

Comment by Kai Jones — September 11, 2008 @ 3:40 pm
Sex only inside marriage as a policy goal is both unrealistic and impossible.

Those dumb mormons and their stupid law of chastity…

That’s probably not what you meant, and I shouldn’t be so snarky.

As a Pro-lifer, I am all for sex education and contraception, and chastity, and I’ll teach my kids about all three. I’m politically agnostic though,so maybe I don’t count.

I’d better stop before I really go postal.

BTW- even as someone who typically sits it out on election day, I am aware that Palin is personally for contraception.

Comment by Matt W. — September 11, 2008 @ 3:42 pm
Matt W., I was sad to read you don’t vote and take it as an affront when by the grace of your genitals men have always had that right, while my female ancestors had to rot it out in a jail cell to convince men they deserved that same right.

When you say you’ll teach your children about sex ed, etc. let’s hope you do a better job at that then the example you’re teaching in civics.

Comment by Briget — September 11, 2008 @ 3:55 pm
Agree with the ideology comment, which is why I prefer pragmatist for my leaders.
To Kai: I admit in stating that Palin made a choice for Bristol, I made some assumptions–whether false or not. The assumption was based on Palin’s position on parental notification. Bristol could also made a choice based on her upbringing which included her being taught about the evils of abortion–it should be noted that I support Bristol’s choice and am glad that she had that choice.
Also, when you state, “they want to discourage a set of behaviors they don’t like (premarital sex, abortion, teen pregnancy and mothering) by withholding community help from people who choose those behaviors.” do you imply that the services are withheld to discourage pre-marital sex? If that is the case, do you think if there were no social programs people would quit having unwanted pregnancies?
Matt: I do believe in the law of chastity. But most people aren’t mormons and even people who are mormons struggle with the law, but since you do favor education about birth control–I think you are helping to reduce abortions. Unfortunately, the conservative right (albeit as you stated not Palin) don’t support birth control which leads to the problems of unwanted pregnancies and poverty.

Comment by Kellie — September 11, 2008 @ 3:57 pm
I know i shouldn’t say this but DAMN! briget, that was awesome. (the part about the right to vote)

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Bridget - Wow.

Comment by Ray — September 11, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
Can I ask… why do we have to talk politics TODAY?

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
as long as soldiers are dying in the two and a half wars we have going on in the middle east and asia, we will talk politics.

it is what it is.

p.s. the part about it being in the queue days ago…i accidentally deleted that when i edited this.(just in case you are thinking i am being wenchy)

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
I’m not one of the staunchly pro-life *and* anti-sex ed people you describe, but I have several in my family and I can say that they #3 is perfectly describing their logic. If Behavior A is a bad thing, than any attempt to reduce the consequences for doing Behavior A is a bad thing as well because it will encourage (or allow) said behavior. Conversely, increasing the consequence for doing Behavior A could very well be a good thing.

A way to look at the same argument with different behaviors is driving. If I think unnecessarily wasting natural resources is a bad thing, then I have no interested in reducing gasoline prices (removing the natural consequences) because high gas prices change behavior. As evidenced by recent events. People are buying different cars today than they were a year ago. And driving less. In fact, if I strongly oppose the use of natural resources, I might do my best to increase the consequences, i.e. increase the price. You see this in burdensome taxes placed upon “vice goods”, i.e cigarettes. I’ve told family members are much when they complain about how much it costs them to fill up a completely unessential vehicle. They made the choice… they can live with the consequences or make a change.

Its no accident that the ’sexual revolution’ of the 1960s followed the availability of more effective forms of birth control.

Comment by Lon — September 11, 2008 @ 4:18 pm
oh. ok. Glad I asked then instead of thinking unsavory thoughts.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
How do we know Bristol didn’t practice safe sex and/or some sort of birth control option?

I think we all assume that Sarah Palin knew about birth control and probably actually used it, but guess what? She had an unplanned pregnancy too.
Why is no one, and I mean NO ONE discussing the fact that married women who have sex have unplanned pregnancies. Sometimes unmarried women/teens who are sexually active have unplanned pregnancies even when they are using birth control methods.
Every conservative I know whats “abstinance also” education. The kind where they say that btw abstinance is the only 100% effective birth control. And condoms only reduce the spread of herpes and genital warts by 60%. Sex education that is just “use condoms for safe sex” doesn’t keep everyone safe.

Comment by jks — September 11, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
Bridget, I’d be interested in hearing more about your ancestors who went to jail for the right to vote.

Comment by JimD — September 11, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
jks is touching on something I’d originally said and deleted - Too often we assume that women who are getting abortions are young and unwed. Married women - often married women who already have children - also get abortions. I have a good friend whose mother aborted her fourth child when she had 3 preschoolers at home and just felt overwhelmed by it all. Another friend and his wife recently had a pregnancy scare shortly after the birth of their third child; it turns out she wasn’t pregnant, but they were talking about having an abortion if she was. In both cases the family had the economic means to take care of another child, but the parents felt it was too much, emotionally.

If Behavior A is a bad thing, than any attempt to reduce the consequences for doing Behavior A is a bad thing as well because it will encourage (or allow) said behavior

And this is where those abortion stats come in handy. In Victoria, where I live, abortion is illegal. (Here’s the caveat: It’s allowed in cases of rape/incest/health of the mother, and health of the mother includes mental health, so in fact you can get an abortion almost on-demand, you just need a doctor to sign off on it.) I believe the abortion rate in Victoria is 22 per 1000. In the US, with its mismash of laws, it is something like 18 per 1000. In New Zealand, where abortion is legal on demand any time during pregnancy, it’s 19 per 1000. Making abortion illegal doesn’t really reduce the demand or supply.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 4:41 pm
Ok, I’ll bite.

I think that you may be assuming that people that are Republican are always of the extreme variety.

I am a moderate Republican. Meaning I don’t think that abortion should be competely banned (there are some pretty good reasons to have one aka rape, incest, mother or child going to die anyways). I do however think it should be highly regulated, making it required for doctors to have certain guidelines on them for safety purposes and not allowing for women who just refuse to take birth control to have multipule abortions simply to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Sex ed is fine… to a point. I personally want the option to teach it to my children MYSELF and have the option to not have my kids go to that class or “assembly”. My personal beliefs have a huge impact on what I want my children taught in Sex ed. I want them to know Abstinence comes FIRST, but if that isn’t going to happen, here is how to be as safe as possible.

I think it’s nuts to cut out birth control for the impoverished… what the??? do we want MORE welfare babies? really?

I also think that many of the programs need to be pard down in some respects. For instance, I know of a family in our city who takes advantage of overlapping government benifits like it’s a science. Their kids get free food at school (breakfast and lunch), then they get free bags of food delivered to them, and they get food stamps etc. I believe that in many ways the government does a poor job of assessing who really NEEDS the help. If someone truely needs it fine. No problem. Good thing it’s there. But when I know of people in my own small town that make it a game of “how little can I do” and the government provides loads of things to them. That kinda ticks me off. My taxpayer dollars are going to Joe Smoe over there that can get off his fat butt and get a job at McDonalds. Granted, in some states the government penalizes for working because then the person “makes too much money” on a FREAKIN minimum wage job with 5 kids…. what the crap!? Basically, I believe they need to par down the system where it overlaps and be more sensible abou other areas, and of course not get rid of the safety nets all together.

I personally think MOST Republicans are of the moderate variety in one form or another… just like I believe that most democrates are NOT up for partial birth abortions and do not put the environment above human life.

KK that was my two cents… and a little more… sorry for the length.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
For heaven’s sake, teach your own kids the lessons of life! WE can ALL do our part to prevent abortions and teenage pregnancies- abstinance works 100% of the time, but teaching it doesn’t. If by some chance your teenager gets pregnant despite your teachings and the lessons of the world, then that is a choice he/she has made and it is of no fault of the child’s or yours. Nor we cannot fault the lessons because of a few who either didn’t learn them or made opposing choices. There will always be kids who make bad choices… that doesn’t mean the abortion is the answer!

Comment by GreenGirl — September 11, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
c’mon folks. the question isn’t about abortion. (and i know how easy it is to start talking about it)

let’s keep in on track or i will have to have a heavy and quick finger.

thanks,

your friendly neighborhood moderator

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 5:05 pm
The fact that single mothers are likely to end up with a more difficult life than if they didn’t get pregnant is regrettable. But for me abortion is abhorrent enough that that fact doesn’t temper my opposition to legal abortion on demand (though I do favor narrow exceptions). It’s more important to me to protect developing life than to make sure that people who make mistakes don’t have to face their natural consequences. I feel for people who have to face to consequences and I think we should help these people out. I’m in favor of government programs to help people place their children for adoption, to help single parents who need assistance, and to comprehensively educate young people and give them resources to help prevent unwanted pregnancies. But I can’t find it in me to budge on abortion.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
To me, Tom, your position puts an unborn life above a born life. I’m trying to tread quietly here because I have a way of putting people off by choosing my words wrong, but what I’m really curious to know is, is that how you feel? If not, can you explain how your position values the life of the mother (and the future life of the child) equally to the life of the unborn?

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
This post assumes that a life in poverty is somehow not worth living. Jesus said ‘blessed are the poor…’ This modern idea that life must be comfortable and free of challenges or else it is somehow terrible is not true.

Comment by Joel — September 11, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
I agree with #16. It’s not that I want to get rid of assistance for the poor, it is just that I believe assistance should be provided by sources other than the government (i.e., churches, local charities, extended family, community groups). Too often people take advantage of government aid and a sense of entitlement sets in because so little is required of those to whom aid is given. I learned from living in England that entitlement is rampant there among those of the lower income levels. Tax payers shouldn’t have to fun such abuse.

Comment by Rebecca — September 11, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Too often people take advantage of government aid and a sense of entitlement sets in because so little is required of those to whom aid is given.

unfortunately, there is no perfect system, government or private. there is no perfect solution either. the free rider (which you/we are too) will always exist.

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 5:34 pm
Quimby,
No, I’m not putting an unborn life above a born life. In an abortion the unborn life is terminated. On the other hand, if a woman has a baby her life is altered, not terminated. She still has a world of opportunities open to her. If she keeps the baby and attempts to raise it without a partner, the mother and child will likely have a rough go of it, but a happy, fulfilling life is still within their reach. If she places the baby with another family, they both have even more doors open to them.

The only way you could say that I value unborn life above born life is if I was opposed to abortion when the mother’s life is in danger, which I don’t.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
To respond to Quimby and the statistic. I think you are right. In the case of abortion/sex ed. But the logic itself is not automatically flawed and works marvelously well in certain applications. The original poster just asked how Republicans (of the extreme stripe) get to their position.

On this issue, I think Republicans are arguing the politics of idealism. The best choice is abstinence. We should encourage that. The best choice when you’re pregnant is adoption. We should encourage that. The worst choice is abortion. We should discourage that. And on this issue, Democrats are arguing the politics of pragmatism. Not all youth are going to abstain. Let’s teach them about the second best choice - birth control. Youth who don’t make the birth control choice (and even some who do) are going to get pregnant. At this point, the argument has to be that poverty for the mother and child is worse than abortion? And this is where I get lost in the logic. I understand the idea that opposing abortion means you are valuing an unborn (potential if you prefer) life over a born person’s quality of life. But I do think that taking (preventing if you prefer) a life for someone else economic betterment is a little problematic.

Comment by Lon — September 11, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
I know the Book of Mormon is all over the righteous prospering, but really, when are we going to get over the idea that poor people deserve it, and that rich people deserve it, too?

Comment by Ann — September 11, 2008 @ 5:43 pm
re: 21

And yet the Lord has consistently told us that it is our duty to try to alleviate poverty, and the most righteous societies (such as the BofM society following the visit of Christ) have apparently eradicated poverty. We obviously should not be complacent about poverty or the various ills (hunger, disease, exposure) which accompany poverty.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 5:47 pm
re: 23

I find it interesting how easy it is for people to point out the poor free riders, but few people notice how the rich get their own free ride by externalizing the costs of their prosperity onto society.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
Tom, yes, the woman with a baby out of wedlock has the opportunity to make a better life for herself and her child - but conservatives want to withhold any assistance to reach that better life, while patting themselves on the back that really, she made her own bed, and why should anybody help her? If you’re poor, it’s because you deserve it.

I was a single parent off and on for over ten years. I busted my ass. I was even able to afford a little house for us along the way. And if I had a dollar for every time I was looked askance at for working, or putting my kids in daycare, or the neighborhood my house was in, by the righteous who never made mistakes, I would have been able to afford a much nicer house in a much better neighborhood (and probably a nicer car, too.) The only thing standing between me and abject poverty was my parents, God bless ‘em, even though I busted my ass.

America: the land of opportunity. But don’t make even one little mistake, because we’ll make sure you know about it and pay for it for as long as you live. Because, after all, that’s what you deserve.

Comment by Ann — September 11, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
At this point, the argument has to be that poverty for the mother and child is worse than abortion?

i don’t think it that’s all there is to it. it’s not just poverty. one can be poor and happy and “get by” as someone said, but what about those that bring unwanted children into abusive homes(all kinds) because termination wasn’t an option?

this brings on a whole ‘nother set of complications that the state has to deal with. and who suffers? the child/children, not the parent (i use that word loosely) and nobody in the privileged side is willing to open up their tightly wound wallets to care for those children.

this is where i believe the OP is getting at. all this talk about the “family and the sanctity of life” but only while the it’s in utero. once he’s born, nobody gives a shit about how that life is lived and then those same people bitch to high heaven about having to pay taxes to feed/clothe/house/educate/medicate that life.

i dont’ know where i was going with that but do with it what you will…

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Thank you to Tom and to Lon for answering my question.

I’m going to kind of pull the gender card here and I want to state from the outset that I don’t mean this in a way to stifle discussion. For me, I never feel more pro-choice than when I’m pregnant: being pregnant makes me realise that this collection of cells is completely dependent on me. When I was pregnant with my daughter I thought I loved her. Now that she’s two and I’m pregnant again I realise that the love I felt for her, before she is born, and the love I feel for this unborn child, is nothing compared to the love I feel for my two year old. I felt protective towards her while she was inside of me; and I feel protective towards this new collection of cells that is inside of me; but it was/is more of an extension of the sense of self-preservation I feel for my own body. Put simply, an unborn child (up to a very late stage) cannot survive independently of its mother - therefore, particularly when I am pregnant, I have to put my own life first, as a matter of pragmatism.

Personally I can never envision a circumstance in which I would get an abortion, unless my own life was at risk; and then I think it would be a fairly easy decision to make: of course I’m going to put myself above my unborn child. It sounds selfish and horrible, and a part of me hates me for saying it out loud; but the truth is, an unborn child (again, up to a very late stage) can’t survive without me, anyway, so what other choice is there?

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 5:55 pm
“I do believe in the law of chastity. But most people aren’t mormons and even people who are mormons struggle with the law,”

That’s a gross generalization Kelli. It’s not only Mormons who practice or struggle with chastity. I believe it’s generally taught in most church and religious youth education programs. I know of many Roman Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc., who would take serious issue with that statement. And it displays, perhaps unintentionally, a self-righteousness LDS are often blamed for posssessing; i.e. “we are better than everyone else”.

But I agree wholeheartedly with your general premise. If we are pro-choice, we should put our money where our mouth is.

Comment by Athena II — September 11, 2008 @ 5:56 pm
I think mfranti made my point better (and much more directly) than I did: If you’re going to argue that abortion is wrong and shouldn’t be on the table, perhaps you have to take on some of the responsibility of the lives that come about because of that policy.

I think the point I was trying to make with my #31 (and it didn’t come out very well at all) is: As a person who is currently carrying what a co-worker refers lovingly to as “a little parasite”, I resent the idea that this “little parasite” - who is completely and totally dependent on me for its survival - should have the same rights that I have. It is not a fully-functional, viable human being; I am.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Ann (#29)Tom, yes, the woman with a baby out of wedlock has the opportunity to make a better life for herself and her child - but conservatives want to withhold any assistance to reach that better life, while patting themselves on the back that really, she made her own bed, and why should anybody help her? If you’re poor, it’s because you deserve it.

mfranti (#30):all this talk about the “family and the sanctity of life” but only while the it’s in utero. once he’s born, nobody gives a shit about how that life is lived and then those same people bitch to high heaven about having to pay taxes to feed/clothe/house/educate/medicate that life.

The attitudes you describe don’t reflect those of any conservatives that I know, myself included.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 6:08 pm
While I personally agree with Tom (ala #34), I unfortunately *DO* know a _few_ extreme conservatives who do feel that way. Which is sad. Because I am personally whole-heartedly in agreement with Athena II.

If we are pro-choice, we should put our money where our mouth is.

Before and after birth. After all, the child that made no decision to be conceived and therefore shouldn’t suffer for it also made no choice to be poor and shouldn’t suffer for it either.

Interesting comment Quimby, my wife feels exactly the opposite! She is never more pro-life than when she is pregnant. She is just so acutely aware that those cells inside her is alive and *not* her. Not saying you are wrong, I can totally see what you are saying. Plus, I’ve got absolutely no grounds to make a judgment on this particular situation. I’ll never know what pregnancy *feels* like.

Comment by Lon — September 11, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
I can’t seem to write a comment without getting into the abortion debate, which mfranti has asked us to not get into. So I’ll just register my dissent on the fetuses as parasites thing and leave it at that.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
You know, I can totally see where your wife is coming from too. There is definitely an element of that for me, too - there is an element of appreciation, and also an element of resentment, that my body is not my own. (Which one is stronger generally depends on whether or not I’m standing in front of a mirror at the time.)

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 6:31 pm
Tom, I really don’t mean any sort of negative connotation when I refer to a fetus as a “parasite”. Nor does my co-worker, who referred to both of her children as parasites, much to the disgust of her mother. It’s just that it fits the textbook definition - “an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.” (from dictionary.com) A fetus cannot survive without its mother.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 6:34 pm
Kellie, I’ve been on this CHOOSE LIFE/CHOOSE OBAMA kick for a few days. I know that some churches put together little gifts for kids who get pregnant and that is nice - but the baby is going to be a responsibility for a lot longer than that bag of goodies lasts. I really think this is a third way - and I know it resonnates more with pro-lifers than pro-choice people, because pro-choice people know that the choice is very often for life.

However, if people could get behind CHOOSE LIFE, it would require thinking about how to allow young mothers to get support and education and how to help these babies have the chances they should have. This responsiblity wouldn’t end at birth - and it would take communities coming together, especially for young mothers who do not have extended families.

I keep imagining how I would feel as Bristol Palin -with the entire world thinking about your private life, feeling like things might be closing in on you, just at the time when you should be starting to figure out who you are and what your role is in the world. America seems to think that publicity is a replacement for support sometimes. My prayers are with her.

However, if you’ve read this far, I have a bright spot for you to think about. Sometimes, depending on how they are raised, kids with less stuff are actually better off in our society. As an educator, I am finding that there is a general loss of creativity in our young people (their whole world makes them passive learners) - so I teach them how to imagine again and how to trust what they think of, ask brilliant questions in science, and become leaders. Sometimes, I feel sorry that I am the only adult seeing these miracles. Anyway, what I see is that it is the kids who have lived in small towns, climbing trees, caring for animals, spending time on their own, and dreaming that can break through this enforced passivity the easiest. Sometimes the boys raised by single moms are the most trusting - they really try hard to break through their own limitations. Because trust and experience are so important in this, I can usually take a poor kid and bring out their brilliance better than I can a kid who has had too much.

Comment by Carolyn — September 11, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
Yes, but it’s dehumanizing.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 6:41 pm
And a post-viability fetus can survive without its mother.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Wow, I go to cook dinner and prep for a hurricane…

After reading the comments everyone has made, here are a few thoughts. First, I understand that in posing my question, I picked the ideals of the pro-life movement and for lack of a better term the antisocial program contingent. Some of you thought that this was too extreme. If you came off with this impression, let me explain. I would hope that most people have more moderate views, but the fact remains that these two extremes play a large role in our policy debates.

Second, I guess my frustration with conservatism is that many people seem to hold to these ideologically positions without necessarily connecting the dots. I understand that we are complicated beings with beliefs that contradict each other. I don’t mean to be too offensive but this contradiction is just too great–but come on conservatives, this is bipolar. It’s not just that conservative don’t support the poor, they blame the poor for being poor–they trash welfare moms—the exact people who chose to keep their child.

Comment by Kellie — September 11, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Tom, a fetus isn’t a human. It has the potential to become human; but it isn’t. Taken to its extreme (which I don’t think is your position at all) an anti-abortion stance denies a woman’s humanity in favor of that of the unborn child. I think I should have more rights than a (non-viable) fetus, because I am already human, and it is not.

If we’re talking about post-viability abortion, that is (I think) a whole other topic. I don’t know very many people who are comfortable with post-viability abortions except in very limited and very extreme circumstances.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 6:47 pm
Whoops, I’m treading a bit too close to the abortion thing here, so I think I’d better stop. mfranti feel free to delete my last comment if it’s gone too far.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 6:49 pm
Kellie, what gets to me is that conservatives don’t seem to be looking for solutions, they seem to be looking for fights.

Comment by Carolyn — September 11, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
“I am a moderate Republican. Meaning I don’t think that abortion should be competely banned (there are some pretty good reasons to have one aka rape, incest, mother or child going to die anyways). I do however think it should be highly regulated, making it required for doctors to have certain guidelines on them for safety purposes and not allowing for women who just refuse to take birth control to have multipule abortions simply to avoid the consequences of their actions”

If they are this dumb, why would we want them to be having babies? These are those who SHOULD be having multiple abortions.

Comment by Kaylynn — September 11, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
Carolyn,

I agree they aren’t looking for solutions, but I naively like to assume that the level of discourse can rise up above petty politics and personal attacks. Because there are serious problems in our society, unwanted pregnancies and poverty are just a few of those–not to mention war, economics, the environment, but those issues can all be discussed in due time.

Comment by Kellie — September 11, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Quimby, I agree with you, but you know that most everyone’s come back is going to be the scripture about the fetus of John the Baptist “leaping for joy” when Mary entered the room. At least that’s the one I hear all the time.

My bottom line is this: Why in the world do we want people to keep babies they don’t want? That leads to wayyyyyy more problems than abortions do. And, if it were outlawed, they’d be doing it in the back alley anyhow. It’s going to happen whether we like it or not. Knowing that, how do we want to handle it? Clean in the dr’s office, or dying in the back alley?

Comment by Kaylynn — September 11, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
re: 39

Carolyn, I’m not really sure what you mean by this “third-way” resonating more with pro-lifers than pro-choicers. I’m adamantly pro-choice (I don’t think government should intrude into this intensely personal decision as much as pro-life legislation typically does). However, on my blog and in my activism, I’ve strongly advocated efforts to provide support for (stereotypically) young single mothers in an effort to help make real the current abortion cliche “legal, safe, and rare.”

BTW, I do agree that the rampant consumerism (aka, “affluenza”) in our modern society stifles creativity and initiative. I’m a strong proponent of Simple Living. However, that is really a separate issue from recognizing the tragedy of true poverty, or recognizing the irony of those who have abundance lecturing those who do not on the virtues of frugality.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
Carolyn is quickly becoming a new hero to me.

Quimby, I will let it be for Tom’s sake. (I can be nice)

Kellie, you reminded me where I was going with my last post

It’s not just that conservative don’t support the poor, they blame the poor for being poor–they trash welfare moms—the exact people who chose to keep their child.

it’s a cycle. unwanted kids are forced into a life they had no choice in living and learn to live in a way that isn’t always productive (anyone watch “The Wire”?) They in turn repeat the life cycle. This goes on for generations.

Unless we alter our system to help break the cycle. Unfortunately, that comes in the form of tax dollars. It breaks my heart that so many of my conservative friends are ok with their tax dollars being spent to support and unjust war but bok (that’s a word, right?) at the idea of spending money for programs to help people get out of that cycle. (you know,the sanctity of life?)

I told Ann this earlier, It appears that if you are poor, it’s because you weren’t born to the right family or the right color. Isn’t that a shame that people think that?

Kaylynn...I saw your comment and that was just low. please do not comment like that again. thank you.

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
When my cousin got pregnant, she wanted an abortion. We sat in the Planned Parenthood office, and held between us the piece of paper that certified she was pregnant. She was crying, saying she couldn’t do this alone. She was on birth control, unlucky her. She knew the father for 7 years, they dated for 1, he became a drug addict after his father’s death and had broken up with her a week before she found out.

What did I do? I told her “if it’s just about money, don’t worry. You can get help through medicaid, you can get on W.I.C., there are programs that can help you through this, to get you on your feet”. We talked to the nurse, she gave us all the paperwork. My cousin was relieved- she had no health insurance, no support, but she was 25, and she felt that with some help and hard work, she could make it.

She was turned down for every single program. A girl who has worked since she was 14, who worked 50 hours a week and put herself through college with no debt and still volunteered at her church. Every pro-life organization we called directed us not to get an abortion- we told them we had that part down, we needed assistance. One out of the 20+ we called actually directed us to any help such as W.I.C.

Right before Christmas she broke down and told me how she wished she’d just gotten an abortion, how she fantasized about something just “happening”. She was working 2 jobs to save up, had to put her medical care on a payment plan.

There has to be a way to help people choose life if that’s what’s important to you- my cousin didn’t make the choice to get pregnant because she thought someone else would take care of her, but when she did get pregnant she made her decision to keep the baby because she though that help was available. And talk of adoption? What about the pregnancy? Medical expenses? Do you really think that if every uninsured woman sought out someone to adopt from birth and pay every expense they’d find them?

I just chafe at the trap of the thinking of no subsidized b.c., no comp. sex ed, but then no abortions, then no gov’t programs to assist those who “choose life”. It’s just crushing. These children born to children will be trapped in poverty, receive less education, have their potential forfeited, all in the name of teaching their parents a lesson.

Comment by sophia*rising — September 11, 2008 @ 7:11 pm
re: 42

It’s not just that conservative don’t support the poor, they blame the poor for being poor–they trash welfare moms—the exact people who chose to keep their child.

Very keen observation, Kelli! True pro-life advocates should praise those mothers for their decision, and do what they can to support them in their decision–whether through public means or private–rather than making them the subject of so much derision.

I’ve said on my own blog that until the movement generally shows more concern for life outside the womb, I have a hard time taking the Pro-Life movement seriously.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
Briget, I’ll be daned if I don’t have female ancestors too. And my female ancestors could kick your female ancesotrs butt any day of the week.

Comment by Matt W. — September 11, 2008 @ 7:17 pm
Sophia,
That story details the problem much more eloquently than my words. Thank you for sharing your cousin’s story.

Comment by Kellie — September 11, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
Tom, a fetus isn’t a human. It has the potential to become human; but it isn’t.

The developing fetus is some kind of fetus. What kind of fetus? A nematode fetus? A pig fetus? No, it’s a human fetus. An abortion destroys a human fetus. Dehumanization is a good way to avoid coming to grips with that fact, which is why people talk about fetuses as “clumps” and “parasites.”

Now, recognizing that a human fetus is a human fetus doesn’t mean that we have to afford it the same legal protection as a post-birth human. I don’t think we have to conclude that fetuses are worthy of all the same rights as post-birth humans to believe that they are special and worthy of some legal protection. Preventing you from destroying a fetus doesn’t give it more rights than you have any more than preventing you from murdering an infant gives the infant more rights than you have. It just protects it from destruction.

I realize that the extreme position—that fetuses should be considered legal persons and that destroying them should be considered the same as murder—leads to some whacked out outcomes like rape victims being forced to carry her rapist’s child to term. But affording some legal protection to fetuses doesn’t inevitably lead us there and it doesn’t devalue women.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 7:21 pm
Tom. that doesn’t answer my question. Will you support these families if their right to choose is taken away from them. Or do you think that this fetus once is becomes a child no longer deserves your protection?

Comment by Kellie — September 11, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
You know, the more I think about it, the more I think those extreme 1970s “biology is sexist” feminists were right - we do need an artificial womb. Then anyone who didn’t want to carry a child to term could pop it in an artificial womb instead. Voila, no more abortion. (I’m really not being tongue in cheek here. It seems like it would satisfy everyone - I don’t think women should be forced to carry a child they don’t want; and I’m willing to accept that a fetus has some claim to the right to life; an artificial womb solves both problems.) The only sticking point - to whom, then, does the child belong? The state? A private adoption agency? And so we’re back at the original question . . .

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
mfranti, i think you mean balk.:)

Comment by Terina — September 11, 2008 @ 7:27 pm
Anyways, I’m done with the abortion thing. I won’t even respond if Quimby tries to suck me back in. Promise!

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
re: 56

And who’s paying for that womb? That would definitely be a major can of worms.

re: 57

No, M raises chickens: She’s thinking about clucking (bok-bok-bok…)

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 7:30 pm
Tom - Now you’re sounding like Michael from “The Godfather” - “Just when I think I’m through they suck me back in!”

Derek, I’m just throwing out solutions, it’s up to “other people” to make them workable! Considering we don’t even have an artificial womb yet, the question of who is going to pay is rather moot, don’t you think?

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
terina, derek, i knew it wasn’t right but didn’t want to look it up.

i’m here for comedic releif, no?

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
Kellie,
I already stated in a previous comment that I support government programs to help place babies for adoption, provide financial support for those who need it, and to comprehensively educate people and give them resources to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I don’t think that my opposition to abortion obligates me to support such programs, though. I just support them because I’m that kind of guy.

Only the most extreme conservatives, which are a small but vocal minority, want there to be no government welfare. How much welfare there should be and what form it should take is up for debate but there isn’t any serious movement to do away with it.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
The idea that we should abort babies to end the cycle of poverty is Eugenics. Abort the poor, the stupid and the disabled and soon only the beautiful and the wealthy will populate the earth.

As to helping those that have chosen to feel the consequences of their actions and not have an abortion- I have nieces that chose to have children in their teen years out of marriage, they wanted the babies, they wanted to be mommies. In turn they have been given every opportunity to improve their lives but they see welfare as a way of life. They litterally do not want an education, or a career- they want foodstamps and hand outs. Not my words- theirs.

Comment by salth2o — September 11, 2008 @ 7:37 pm
I think salth2o has a very good point in her second paragraph. I went to school with a lot of young women who had the same sort of thought - “I want someone to love me so I’ll have a baby.” How does anyone (other than Mom and Dad) go about solving that problem? Do we glamourise motherhood too much? Do we make it look too attractive sometimes?

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
re: 63

I don’t think anyone here is making the argument you’re criticizing. That’s a straw man. If anything, we’re making the opposite argument: alleviate poverty, help support the pregnant, and the demand for abortion will diminish. Sure, there are those (such as your nieces) who will abuse help. But I believe King Benjamin warned of dire consequences if we used that as an excuse not to help.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
#9 Can I ask… why do we have to talk politics TODAY?

Comment by April

Because in a democracy the personal is political and the political is personal. We are the government. We the people. We have to be politically aware every day. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Comment by Ruby — September 11, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
Kellie,
Maybe some labels would help: I don’t call myself pro-life. I call myself anti-abortion. Unnecessary abortion is repugnant enough to me that I want to prevent it even if doing so leads to some bad outcomes (not all bad outcomes are or would be acceptable, but some negative outcomes are). Kind of like how prostitution is bad enough that I would oppose its legalization even if doing so led to positive practical outcomes.

I support some government welfare on its merits. It’s a good thing for society.

Comment by Tom — September 11, 2008 @ 7:46 pm
Where’s Ray?

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 7:47 pm
#2 So what if single mothers are more likely to suffer financial hardship? Such are the wages of sin.

Sperm causes pregnancy. What are we doing to “punish” males for their freely chosen even educated behavior choice? They have to pay. With their wages. Single mothers do not abandon their children. SINGLE FATHERS

Comment by Ruby — September 11, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
I’m going to suggest that at least part of the answer is to be found in this article:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html

Comment by Blain — September 11, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
I am not arguing for eugenics–my ideal for the abortion debate would be to lessen unwanted pregnancies through sex education and birth control. Many of the conservative element, object to both of these other preventative measures. I am not necessarily pro-choice, but I find the idea to terminate a pregnancy such a personal one, that I don’t think creating policies for exceptions to be the best course of action. I think in the end it is best left to the women. Thus the emphasis on decreasing unwanted pregnancies.

I do understand that the current welfare system isn’t ideal, but I echo others sentiments when I state that we tend to blame poor for taking subsisidies–I rarely hear people rail against the middle class for the tax breaks on their homes. Everyone in our country get different breaks from the gov’t–but we generally only condemn the poor for doing such. For everyone else, we don’t blame them for taking everything they can get.

Again it probably best to focus the reader on the issue I raised. May be the best way to do this is by asking some questions. How can conservatives fight so hard for “life” on one hand and then seemingly care so little for that life once it has left the womb? How can conservatives spout personal responsibility while at the same time putting so much of the punishment of decisions surrounding sex on babies and children? Finally, how conservatives oppose sex ed and birth control and at the same time advocate for personal responsibility? It just seems that the combination of these conservative ideas–both of which seemingly appealing in their own right–are causing a real mess when put together. Why can’t conservatives see that? Tom you get a pass on the questions

Maybe the answers is that they are ideals–and we generally don’t budge on ideals–but those ideals make for crap policy.

Comment by Kellie — September 11, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Sophia*rising — Amen, amen, and amen.

It’s easy to be idealistic about these topics when they have never affected you or your family. I can only hope that sharing specific and thought provoking examples might give at least a few people pause.

Comment by Nicole — September 11, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
Wow, my response is late–I am impressed people can write so quickly–i need to practice this blogging.

Comment by Kellie — September 11, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
(don’t know how my computer posted that but to continue) SINGLE FATHERS DO abandon their offspring. They think. However they end up pay all their taxpaying life. For their progeny and for those of all the men who think they can walk away from their responsibility. I’m very interested to know why men allow this? They complain about their taxes being used for irresponsible sperm dumping. They pay for men using women as sperm toilets. Why aren’t they doing anything about it? Why aren’t we all talking about this outrage?

Comment by Ruby — September 11, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
I think sophia rising’s comment brought up an interesting point. Many conservatives point to non profit organizations as the answer for people who need help. Taxes should not be used for social programs. Instead people will give enough to nonprofits they support to take care of those in need.

I really don’t think this works. This is supposing that everyone is looking beyond themselves and giving of their abundance to well run nonprofits who distribute help to all.

Comment by Miles — September 11, 2008 @ 8:09 pm
re: 69

I should clarify that the statement I made which you quoted does not represent my own opinion. I was stating the general conservative view (as I see it). I do not believe pregancy/parenthood should be used as a punishment for either sexual partner, but I do agree that the consequences should be more equitably distributed. Unfortunately, until recently the inability to absolutely determine the father enabled fathers to evade that responsibility. I would suggest that conservatives aren’t on a crusade to force that responsibility on the male transgressor because of the persistent (if oft subconscious) sexual double standard in our society, and because the costs of making paternity tests make it unfeasible for governments to pursue such an agenda. Thus conservatives are satisfied by holding the woman to account.

re: 75

I wouldn’t say that private means (nonprofits and individual giving) doesn’t work. But it is absolutely insufficient to meet the need.

I’d be willing to go along with the idea of private solutions to poverty and supporting pregnant mothers if the conservative movement gave any indication of making that an important part of their agenda. Sadly, their calls for private sector social work and welfare is quiet indeed–virtually drowned out by their call for the criminalization of abortion.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
They pay for men using women as sperm toilets. […]Why aren’t we all talking about this outrage?

Why indeed? Well no longer, Comrade Ruby, I heed your call! Sister feminists, (wo)man the battle stations, gird your (no doubt impressive) larders, we are going to war! Our rallying cry? The paean which they will come to fear?
We are not sperm toilets!

oops, hold on, it’s my sanity talking…turns out I do not now nor have I ever considered myself a “sperm toilet.” Charming though the title may be.

CWC (the Athiest)

Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 11, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
#77 Of course you don’t consider your self as such. Men do.

Comment by Ruby — September 11, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Hold on. I’ll ask my partner. Cross your fingers for me!

Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 11, 2008 @ 8:45 pm
Ok, I’ll stop being snarky and address the substance: do I believe that there are men who view women as “sperm toilets”? Yes. Yes, I do. I have a teenage son and have had to talk to him about online pornography. Without sounding too bizarre, it is not the pornography of my youth. It is much more violently hateful towards women, so yes, Ruby, I believe that those men exist.
But I believe we were speaking of public policy and the welfare of single mothers.

Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 11, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
‘moted!

Comment by mfranti — September 11, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
#68 - OK, that cracked me up.

I have been on a date with my wife and am just now catching up on the Bloggernacle. I’ll try to come out of my shell when I finish reading the comments and think of something insightful to say. If I don’t comment again tonight, assume I drew a blank.

Comment by Ray — September 11, 2008 @ 8:57 pm
This question is something I’m personally acquainted with. My mom got pregnant with me at 18. She was terrified and she decided to have an abortion. My dad (an ex-con who had done time for two felonies before dating my mom) was 20. He promised my mom that if she kept the baby (me), he’d stay with her. She was actually in the abortion clinic, with the appointment all set, ready to go, and he convinced her otherwise. She decided to keep me. However, pretty shortly after I was born, Dad took off and Mom was on her own. Mom was raised in a Mormon household and my grandmother couldn’t believe she’d raised such a “slut” and so she’d kicked Mom out when Mom told Grandma she was pregnant. After Dad left, Mom had nowhere to go.

My mom is intelligent, funny, well-spoken, and a generally wonderful person. She busted her ass to be a good mom but things were always really hard. We were on welfare for many years. Part of the problem was that when she worked full time, she could not make the money she needed to pay our rent and buy us food. When we were on welfare, the state provided her with enough money for both of those necessities. So yes, for a bit, she didn’t work on purpose because the minimum wage was too low for her to provide for us.

She often broke child “neglect” as well. She had no choice. From the time I was in first grade (about 7 years old), Mom would leave me alone to look after myself. When she did work and stopped being on welfare, she had to work two or three jobs. She left for work before I got up for school in the morning and she came home late at night, close to my bedtime. Working like this let her have enough money for our food and rent but she couldn’t afford daycare or a babysitter on a regular basis. So, Mom taught me how to microwave simple frozen dinners to make myself dinner at night, she taught me how to use an alarm clock to get myself up, she called me a lot to check on me, and she told me to never, ever tell anyone that I was by myself. According to the law I was waaay too young to be on my own. But, Mom had no choice. Mom also stole things like winter coats and clothing for me when she couldn’t afford it. No one would help her. No programs were available for her. And there I was, 4 or 5 or 6 years old, in the middle of a cold, bitter, Minnesota winter, and I had no winter clothes. So, Mom did what she had to do. For her, there wasn’t any option–her baby girl needed a winter coat. No one was there to help her and she couldn’t afford the winter coat. So, she stole things.

On more than one occasion as a child, I was so angry with my mom for having me. I was so angry for her having me when she was so young because I couldn’t have the things I wanted or needed. I was angry with her because we often had to move out of our apartments quickly because we would get evicted because there wasn’t money to pay the rent. I was angry that I would make friends only to have to leave them. I was angry with her for not having that abortion. I thought that if she had just waited to have kids, everything would have been so much different.

As an adult, I now admire the strength and courage that my mom had to do all that on her own. She’s an amazing woman. I hope to someday be half the woman she is. She’s a pillar of strength. The reality of the situation is that there simply isn’t the programs available to help women in these situations. I’ve just recently lost my health insurance (graduated law school so Mom’s insurance couldn’t cover me anymore) and I was looking to apply for state coverage while I studied for the bar exam. The income level was so low it was actually insane. As a single adult, I was ineligible if I made more than $600 a month, GROSS. That’s nuts. Who can live on that?? No one. Most people are going to be above that income level, yet they are still going to be poor. And with an income level higher than $600 a month, there was no state insurance available. The reality of the social programs is that they only take care of the absolutely destitute–the homeless, the unemployed. They don’t assist those people who are poor but not destitute–the single moms who work three jobs, for example. There simply is not enough social programs available for women who choose to keep their babies. Until we make comprehensive, complete, and useful social programs available to assist women in these situations, we cannot hope to ever end abortion.

There needs to be help for people, regardless of what people “deserve” because of their bad choices. A blogger at “A Liberal Mormon” wrote it better than I ever could, so I will reference his post. He says,

“Some of the poor who qualify for government aid do become complacent and neglect to take any responsibility for their condition. So what? Jesus didn’t tell the rich young man to give all he had to the poor who would commit to finding gainful employment within the next six months or could prove that their poverty was the result of extenuating circumstances beyond their control, or who demonstrated a realistic plan to become self-sufficient. Our Savior, whose atonement is offered to us whether or not we “deserve” it, said simply ‘give to the poor (Matt 19:21).’ And the Lord does indeed command that the poor should take responsible for their situation as best they can, to labor to the best of their ability to overcome their situation (D&C 56:17). But that is his admonition to them. He does not call on us to enforce that command. Rather, to the rest of us, the community at large, the Lord commands that we give to those in need without condition. On the other side of the coin, the Lord also warns us against condemning, disparaging, or making light of the poor in their plight, as the statements by those who stand for conservativism seem to do. In the restored Gospel, we have an even more explicit admonition against the exact sort of rationalizations we hear from conservatives regarding the poor. We are told in King Benjamin’s sermon—perhaps the greatest sermon on social justice of all time: Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God (Mosiah 4:16-18).”

You can read his full post athttp://aliberalmormon.wordpress.com/2007/08/06/social-justice-ii-the-moral-conservative-criticism-of-social-justice/

I am grateful every single day for the fact that there are welfare programs available so I was able to eat as a child. I am grateful for free lunch and breakfast at school. I am thankful for all the government assistance that Mom and I had. I honestly believe that these programs really help a huge portion of the people on them. And if a few people decide to abuse it, that’s just what we have to deal with.

Comment by mellancollyeyes — September 11, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
Thanks for the kudo, Mellancollyeyes.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
And for your own great story.

Comment by Derek — September 11, 2008 @ 9:07 pm
#38 your definition that you provided states “another species”. That embro/fetus/baby IS your species… therefore NOT a parasite.

I’m seeing a recurrent disturbing theme here….some have stated that republicans think that everyone deserves their lot in life.

As a republican I do NOT think poor people “deserve” it and rich people “deserve” that. But I do NOT think that artificially installing “fairness” via the government is the way. Heck, the government is one of the most inefficient things I know of! And when the government does control fairness (aka wealth distribution, etc) we end up with …. you guessed it…..

DUN, DUN, DUN

Helllloooooo Putin. That’s right Communism.

At what point do you stop taking money from people who work hard for it? I’ll conceed that many rich people don’t deserve their money (aka inherited or married into it). But what about those that DO? And do you realize by redistributing money to those poor kids (it isn’t their fault. But life isnt fair. and there already are laws to protect them… they just aren’t being enforced… whole nother topic.) You are taking mostly from the rich who actually work for their money? Those rich guys that don’t work for their money… it’s in investments etc.. and guess what? IT’S NOT TAXED. Yippy.. is that Fair?

Now after saying all of that, I do think those kids need help after they are born, there is the problem of those kids that are pregnant having to pay for their medical care until they can have that child adopted (BTW I do know of parents that would HAPPILY pay the medical expenses just to be able to have a child in their home. People who decide to use surragate mothers do just that.). I don’t have the solutions, but with what a mess the governement has made of everything I DEFINATELY don’t trust them to do it right.

I tend to agree with Tom on most things here.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
84 That was beautiful. What a great tribute to your mom. If you haven’t heard Loretta Lynn’s album Van Lear Rose- you should. There is an amazing track on there about her father stealing shoes for her when she was a child. It makes me cry every time.
Congratulations on Law School!

Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 11, 2008 @ 9:13 pm
April - Two things - First, this isn’t a post about libertarianism, and second, Putin isn’t a Communist.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 9:15 pm
Ruby, with the exception of rape (any forced or coerced sex, inside or outside marriage), a woman can’t be used as a “sperm toilet” unless she opens the lid. Get off your sexism soapbox on this one; the man and the woman both are to blame.

My view of abortion and social programs is too complicated to handle in one comment, but the short version . . .

1) Teach real safe-sex and sex ed: abstinence as the only surefire way to avoid pregnancy and STD’s; contraception as the next best way and absolutely important when sex occurs; the general psychological motivations behind sex for males and females; the comprehensive consequences of STD’s, pregnancy, abortion, adoption and keeping a child; etc.

2) Enforce statutory rape laws vigilantly. Passionately. Religiously. Whatever it takes.

3) Create a welfare system that cares for anyone who chooses to give birth to a child, including access to basic adoption services, and to keep that child. Lower any and all benefits dramatically for a second child born to the same unwed mother. Eliminate any additional benefits for a third child (and all others) born to the same mother - assuming all are born out of wedlock and while receiving welfare benefits.

4) Fund extensive job training programs for all single mothers (and fathers, if supporting their child[ren]) that allow the receipt of an Associate’s Degree or Technical Certificate. Tie the costs to normal student loan repayment plans, effective if a job is obtained that gives them income above an established earnings floor. Eliminate or reduce other welfare payments once employment is obtained.

There is much more, but that will suffice as the foundation for this thread.

Comment by Ray — September 11, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
87, thank you! I haven’t heard it yet but I’ll definitely check it out.

Comment by mellancollyeyes — September 11, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
#83 - Thank you. Reality trumps theory every time.

Comment by Ray — September 11, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
Personally I would like to think I would give MORE to the poor etc if the money wasn’t extracted from me forcefully by my government. And I’ve heard (I have to go find the statistics on it it) that people who are taxed less DO give MORE to those in need.

I hate to ask.. and maybe this is rude..I’m not trying to be I promise.

Mellancollyeyes, why didn’t your mother go to her bishop? In my own congregation there are people who cannot afford childcare, so those of us that are lucky enough to be stay at home moms care for them. I’m so glad you turned out well and didn’t get into much trouble as a kid… that could have been even more of a real nightmare for you and your mother. And why after your father left (and you were still an infant) did she not put you up for adoption?

I’m really trying not to be rude here, sorry if it comes acrosed that way.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
I would like to see those statistics, April. But again, not on this post.

In turn I would like to show you statistics on how countries with good social welfare programs are actually more productive, have a higher standard of living, and rate themselves higher on the “happiness” scale than the US. But again, not on this post.

It is taking just about every ounce of self-restraint I have not to open an assault on libertarianism, but out of respect for mfranti (who has asked us to stay on topic) and out of respect for Kellie, I am going to try.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
Quimby, it looks as though Putin is headed that way does it not? Either way, if you don’t agree on Putin, put the name Stalin in there…

So if I’m Republican I’m heartless and I’m Demorcat I’m an Imbicile? I hate stereotypes, which is what we seem to be dealing in.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 9:41 pm
92: Don’t worry, it didn’t come across as rude. Dad left after about six or seven months of trying to do the whole “family” thing. By the time he’d taken off, Mom was too attached to me to give me up–she said she couldn’t imagine not having me or giving me up and not seeing me again. She said after having me and raising me for 7 months, she couldn’t conceive of just letting some other woman or other family come in and take her little girl away.

She did try to go to the bishop for help, but her bishop’s only solution was that she give me up for adoption to a “nice Mormon family.” He told her that she wasn’t fit to be a mom because of her serious moral transgressions in having pre-marital sex. When my mom told him that at that point, seven months in, she couldn’t just give me away–I was her little girl and she couldn’t entertain the thought of losing me–the bishop just didn’t hear her on that. The bishop just kept insisting that that was what she needed to do and wouldn’t give her any other help or suggestions. She ended up just not going to church after awhile because every time she went, the bishop would corner her and ask her if she was willing to do the “right” thing and let a qualified family take care of the baby. She didn’t actually end up going to church again until I was about 6 and I asked my mom why we didn’t ever go to our church (I knew from my grandpa that we were Mormon and that there was a church for us, but I’d never been). After that, she started going again.

Comment by mellancollyeyes — September 11, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
AH ha ha! I believe Quimby’s head is rotating! Putin and Stalin interchangeable? No more than whigs and teamsters, Reagan and Jesse Jackson oh I could go on. Step away from your keyboard, April. Get in your car, drive to your nearest 24 hour library, go the the reference section and settle in.
I bet you mean really well and have well formed, substantiated ideas in other subjects. This isn’t one of them.

Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 11, 2008 @ 9:47 pm
Whatever… I shouldn’t have used a name. GOT IT. No Need to be RUDE. DELETE SAID NAME… Gads. Communism was the KEY term there. sheesh.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 9:53 pm
is Stalin NOT a communist?

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 9:54 pm
She disagreed that Putin was a communist. That is fine. so Insert whatever Communist you want. I wasn’t saying they were interchangable. sigh

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
I’m leaving now, going to bed, thank you very much. I don’t need to put up with the personal attackes and yes EVEN YOU are NOT TO educated in some areas…. heaven forbid. that is NO reason to make people feel like crap.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 9:57 pm
April, relax. It’s okay. You’re okay. CWC was only commenting on my (sick, twisted, disturbing) love of dictators.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
Sorry, April, I was rude. You didn’t deserve that. You should read up on this stuff, but I didn’t encourage you- I was just rude. It sounds like you enjoy politics. Could I suggect Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States? Again, I apologize.

Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 11, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
I am a slow breastfeeding typist. for the record I started typing at comment 98- I want credit for not needing 5 comments to get me to pony up…

Comment by CrazyWomanCreek — September 11, 2008 @ 10:02 pm
I don’t think I will being coming back here again.

Not if I get personally attacked for a PERCEIVED statement that someone THINKS I made… (aka interchangeable my butt. I KNOW they aren’t. Putin is MUCH better (in my opinion)) Stupid is the worst insult someone can sling. Worse that cursing in my view. Though I sometimes think people are out to lunch I would NEVER tell them to go educate themselves at the “nearest 24 hour library”.

You are both rude and mean… and now I think I really shall leave… cause my poor husband is trying to comfort me as I cry at my keyboard.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 10:05 pm
Apology accepted. I think i really should go to bed though. I’m tired and emotional.. and (gasp) possibly PMSing ROFL. have fun with your debate. Good luck with it. I will check back later… maybe tomorrow. Goodnight.

Comment by April — September 11, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
I have also struggled with trying to understand the extreme-Christian right’s paradoxical viewpoints. Those who espouse eliminating abortion tend to also oppose comprehensive sex-ed, access to birth control, and welfare programs.

Currently the Bush administration is trying to get the health department to reclassify life as beginning at conception versus implantation so as to make the pill and IUDs also considered abortions. This will allow health insurers and Medicaid to deny coverage for them. I just don’t see how this makes sense.

Ironically I had the exact opposite experience of mellancollyeyes (LOVED what you had to say), and was just telling my mom how arbitrary it seemed. I IN NO WAY deserved the opportunities I was provided by my parent’s wealth anymore then the child of a struggling mother “deserves” to not have a winter coat. I am happy to pay taxes so that children have access to medical care and food. I believe it is my Christian responsibility to care for them, regardless of how they got there.

Sorry that was so rambling.

Comment by J. Lynn — September 11, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
It’s all in how you define “better” isn’t it? As my fave-ever poly sci professor said in a lecture about the Solidarity movement in Poland: One thing that they did was, every night, at 6 PM, when the official news came on, everyone would turn off their TV and go for a walk instead. How can you force your citizenry to watch the news? He answered: “Well, Stalin would have found a way.”

This is my current bedtime reading. And on a lighter note, if you want some great tips on how to get that “dictator style” in your own humble abode, check this one out.

Comment by Quimby — September 11, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
I am so surprised by the ruthlessness of some who write in - it makes me so sad to see the lack of compassion towards other human beings on our planet. It hurts to see how quick people judge others and so easily condemn them. The thing I don’t understand is that conservatives are so highly religious, but from the looks of things, lack Christlike compassion. How is that? We should try to love others and try to put ourselves in their position rather than judging them. I don’t believe that living in poverty is God’s way of punishing sinners - that belief is profound ignorance. If anything, He loves them more and they need Him more, and it is through our love and service that God will help and bless them. Perhaps it is more of a “trial” for us, to love and give and support. That is the true test of love and compassion. Isn’t the purpose of life to learn tolerance, love and compassion? There needs to be programs for those who need help, and help and support for the decisions that they choose for themselves.

Comment by Kristina — September 11, 2008 @ 10:29 pm
#108 “If anything, He loves them more and they need Him more”
Do you believe that God loves people living in poverty more and that they need him more than those who don’t? Or were you just using hyperbole to make a point? (I think this goes back to the original post and questions posed…)

Comment by Amanda — September 11, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
That is a very interesting question. I am more pro-life leaning, but I hate to put myself in camps, so here’s my answer. If you have an abortion, you are making the decision based on the fact that this child’s life is going to be bad. In reality, it may not be. The woman’s life may not be bad. Life has a way of taking turns and twists that sometimes turns out different than we ever thought. When someone has an abortion because they feel like they will be harming the child, they are making a judgment call that could be utterly false. If they choose to keep the child, they could end up with a wonderful life. By aborting, you are taking away an opportunity for that child and that mother to make changes and life a life that could be very much unexpected.

I hope that makes sense. I guess my main point is…when you abort you are taking away that child’s life which could be good or bad, but you never know. I just don’t know that we should have that right.

As to the whole sex-ed thing, well, I would rather teach my kids than an institution, but I understand that there are many who don’t get this info at home so I don’t know that it should be outlawed or anything. I just make sure I know what my kids are being taught and reserve the right to take them out of any class I disagree with. I don’t want any government telling me that my kids have to learn something if I disagree with it. But, I have no problem telling my kids about sex, etc. While some other parents may.

Rachel Leavitt

Comment by Rachel Leavitt — September 11, 2008 @ 11:14 pm
young pregnancies lead to lives of poverty.

I’ve only skimmed comments so if I’m repeating anyone I apologize.

Haven’t studies shown this to be the opposite? Poverty leads to teen pregnancy? Not directly of course, but there appear to be studies that when socioeconomic conditions improve, teen pregnancy rates go down.

It also has to do with education. Not sex-ed mind you, just education period. Other studies show that the more education a young woman receives, the less likely she is to get pregnant.

just for example:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/04/EDFG12NIUM.DTL&feed=rss.opinion

About two-thirds of teenage mothers live at or below the poverty line at the time they give birth. The less income and opportunity that you have, the more likely you are to become a teenage parent.

So to summarize, the more we educate young woman (again not necessarily sex-education) and the more we are able to pull families out of poverty, teen pregnancy declines.

Comment by Tim J — September 11, 2008 @ 11:20 pm
Ouch, I don’t know if I dare chime in on this, but here goes.

I have been thinking a lot about an experience I had a few years ago. We took the youth downtown to the Salvation Army food kitchen for a service project. I was fully expecting a huge room full of women and children. Instead, the women and children were in a very small room, separated from the men. There weren’t very many women and children at all, and they were separated for safety reasons. That was upstairs. Downstairs was a HUGE room with a HUGE line of young men. Most all of them appeared to be between the ages of 20-30, and a lot were wearing very nice clothes (yes, entirely possible that they purchased them through Goodwill or received them from SA or something). It really blew me away because it looked like it could have been a line at a college cafeteria. They appeared to be able-bodied men.

Honestly, this is the thought that went through my head, “Where are the women and children? I know that women and children need help. I know that in our downtown there are women and children living in poverty. Where are all the women and children connected to these men? Why are we feeding so many able-bodied men? Why don’t they have jobs?”

My husband works downtown, almost right across the street. He catches the bus/train across the street and says that the grass in front of the Salvation Army is covered with men all day long just waiting for meals.

Also, my husband came home livid today. He was getting on the bus after work. An elderly woman and a woman with two children were waiting. There were tons of people, and they rushed the bus. The elderly woman and mother had to wait because they needed the step lowered. It was standing room only. The mother asked him to lower it, and he said, “Sorry, there’s no room for a stroller or walker”. WHAT?!?! There are seats on the front row that can be lifted to accomodate strollers, walkers, wheel chairs. The bus driver should have asked people sitting in the handicapped section to stand up and give up their seat to those who needed it. But, he didn’t. He just said no and shut the door and left them. My husband says he sees this happen all the time.

What is the connection between the stories? The people who need the help aren’t getting it. That is what I see going on.

The Book of Mormon specifically says many times about caring for the “widows and fatherless”. I have always read that to include me as a child - my dad walked out on us. We were fatherless and poor and hungry.

Conservatives don’t want income redistribution. We don’t want to reward those who can work but don’t (like all the men in the food kitchen. Sure, some of them need the help, but there is no way I will believe that that many men can’t get a job to buy food). Liberals want to care for the “poor”. I think both of us agree that the “widows and fatherless” fit into this category, and we need to take care of them. We need to figure out a way to fine-tune the system to get the help to where it needs to be so that the people who are truly poor get the help, and so we don’t waste on those who don’t need it. I don’t buy either extreme argument. I don’t buy that it is worth the waste to get the help out there, so let’s just keep paying more taxes. And I also don’t buy that so many people abuse the system that we shouldn’t have it at all. We are smarter than both of those. Let’s work together to get it right.

That’s my soapbox for tonight. Not even sure if it is on-topic.

Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 12:37 am
Ah, Stephanie. Sounds reasonable to me-we just haven’t figured out how to do it. Welcome back.

Comment by Kimberly — September 12, 2008 @ 5:55 am
I am with you 100% Stephanie- and in my imaginary world, there isn’t the admin and paperwork associated with the fair distribution to those in need. I think a lot of the programs- based on what I dealt with years ago as a part-time summer job for Medical– are so buried that legal immigrants, those who struggle to read and those who need help NOW get bogged down in so much paperwork to “prove” their need that they give up before they are “awarded” help. I know the paperwork/proof of need is necessary- like I said, in my imaginary world. *sigh*

Comment by spunky — September 12, 2008 @ 6:04 am
I meant to add to my first post also, that I would also like to see education be more of a key factor for these moms in these situations. I really would rather spend my money on education so that the mom could get a better job. There could also be education for parenting and talking care of children. I think this would do more could and help mothers overcome the difficulties of single-parenthood more than anything else. Rachel

Comment by Rachel Leavitt — September 12, 2008 @ 6:45 am
My brother works with Connecticut Health and Human Services and can speak to Stephanie’s comments. Many people cheat the system, like most systems, and end up simply living off the state when there is no reason they can’t work. I’m not sure how one would fix that though.

My father became bishop a few years back. He replaced a wonderful bishop but he was one who was very willing to give Church welfare without many questions asked, without much counseling.

We were pretty poor growing up and my father often worked two jobs and my mother worked as well to support us ten kids. Suffice to say, my father didn’t have a whole lot of sympathy for people who refused to support themselves. It took a while but my father was able to get many people where they needed to be.

Comment by Tim J. — September 12, 2008 @ 7:02 am
I know how easy it is to go off about the ills of abortion or those damn poor free riders that abuse the system. I know how easy it is to go off on the bleeping government for taking you hard earned tax dollars…i do…i really do…

but the OP asks a brilliant question, and I’d like to see you conservatives answer it honestly and not use examples of slackerasssery to prove your point. I’d like for each one of you to think hard about how would answer this question:

So my question is this, how do people who support Republicans or the above two policies, deal with this contradiction?

Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 7:40 am
The Green Party here in Germany had a great idea for helping all mothers be productive parts of our society: Mandatory all day out of the home childcare for all children starting at one year of age.

So, if you want to see your child, get out there and get a job at the daycare your child attends.

Comment by emily dawn — September 12, 2008 @ 8:41 am
mfranti, to answer the question, I would have to agree with the premise of the post, and I don’t. The big assumption made in the post is:

This comes to my second point, the very people that advocate for the pro-life movement generally want to get rid of the social programs that help people who are in poverty.

I don’t agree. We don’t want to get rid of these programs. We just don’t want to make them so big or inclusive that it gives able-bodied people a disincentive to work. I think the big problem in our society is that men don’t have enough responsibility for what happens with regard to sex and children. I appreciate what feminists have done for women. I appreciate that I can vote and get a good education. But, I do think that an unintended consequence of all of our liberation from men is that men are getting more free passes. I see this in my sister. She and I both have the same desire for independence. We both watched my mom get screwed over and didn’t want it to happen to us. I addressed it by getting a good education and setting myself up so that I can make it on my own if I need to. She addressed it by living with losers and supporting them so that she was the one supporting the household. Our society just gives too many free passes to men. There aren’t enough consequences for a young man who gets a young woman pregnant. She has to take all of the responsibility. That just isn’t right.

So, I don’t think the solution here is to pass out condoms so that young men have an easier time “fulfilling” themselves. I think the solution is traditional values that teach and place responsibility on young men. If our society rejects traditional values and moral underpinnings (in addition to all the practical reasons) for abstinence and fatherhood, I just don’t think that increasing social programs is going to do much to help children in poverty.

As I mentioned earlier, one of the leading factors determining whether a child lives in poverty is whether the family at issue is a single parent family.

I agree, and I think we should do whatever we can to prevent this from happening, which, to me, is teaching children about sex and its consequences, and in the event of a pregnancy, encouraging and aiding adoption. I don’t agree with the argument that these programs actually lead to more children in poverty just because “it doesn’t happen”. It appears to work in the church. In Utah, because of the LDS influence, Based on a large variety of factors, Utah was ranked as the #1 best state in which to raise children in the 1996 rankings by the Children’s Right’s Council . . . According to the 2002 Kids Count data book released by the Maryland-based Annie E. Casey Foundation, Utah ranked 3rd nationwide as the best place for children:

It gave Utah high marks for low levels of infant mortality, a low percentage of single-parent families and low numbers of children living in low-income families. The report compares states with one another and with the nation as a whole in 10 categories including death rates, poverty and education. Minnesota and New Hampshire finished first and second, respectively… The number of single-parent families in Utah increased by 6 percent during the 1990s, less than half of the national increase of 13 percent. Despite the drop, Utah remained No. 1 in the nation for fewest one-parent families . . . The latest federal health figures (1997) rank Utah as having the fewest births to unwed mothers. 16% of all births in Utah were to unmarried mothers. The national average was over 30%. The next lowest state after Utah was Idaho, with 20%. (Idaho is the second most Latter-day Saint state, with approx. 1/3 of the population belonging to the Church.)

Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 9:18 am
I started a post yesterday at work, I was going to be #2. Well, I had to actually start working and didn’t get back to this until now. I consider myself a conservative, but admit that many of my views are conflicting. I’ve tried to sort them into separate topics, but some overlap. Also, I don’t have ideas how to solve some of the problems, and some ideas I do have, conflict with agency.

My thoughts on abortion are colored by my own experience wanting a large family, being infertile, and adopting the children I do have. That said, I believe abortion should be available for incest, rape, health reasons, and trauma. I don’t believe that it should be used as a form of birth control and I don’t want to have to pay for its use as such. I do not even pretend to know what a woman is experiencing and don’t presume to make the choice for her.

That said, I believe that birth control should be subsidized and made available to all. Education is key. Reproductive and sex education can be done precisely, factually, and accurately without any morals being brought into the discussion. Science is science. Sex involves risk (married or not) and some behaviors are far more risky than others. Just teach the behaviors and resulting risks without passing moral judgment. Here in our public district in AK, parents can opt to teach the sex ed including contraceptive use etc… at home, however, the students must still pass the district test.

Regarding poverty. I will most likely offend someone, please do not think that I am callous or lacking compassion. My grandparents’ generation of coal miners, gamblers and railroad workers did not graduate high school. Some of my parents generation have HS diplomas. We lived in a one room apartment for a while while my dad was in the National Guard and working a night job. I have a BS degree and put myself through school working in the oilfields doing hard physical labor. I’m mid 30’s so I’m not that old. For many many people life is just plain hard. Circumstances can change in an instant, and some start out life hard. I believe in hard work, but hard work isn’t always enough as clearly shown in the stories above. I don’t have any problem paying taxes that will help those that are willing to help themselves and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. I just don’t want to pay for people to sit on their butts as some in my own family do.

In my idealistic world here’s how I would like assistance to work: Why can’t there be an exchange for assistance? I’m sure that there are many things people can do. (I excuse the mentally and physically disabled. They do not apply to this argument. Society has a duty to care for them.) My family works hard for the bread on our table, the roof over our head and the clothes on our backs. Why can’t people on assistance do the same? Educational and training programs would be mandatory. Women with children under school age could be given courses in child care and provide the service to those who do have jobs outside the home that are insufficient for daycare. When the children are in school, additional training in basic skills and work training would be done. Those who have been child care providers could also be trainers. I am highly offended by able bodied men who do not make the effort to work. Life happens and lack of jobs can put people in temporary situations where they need help. However, there are people who just don’t want to work, or don’t want to do what’s available. I know that my grandpa hated working in the mines. It supported his family though. My dad often worked two jobs, some of which were highly unpleasant. Men can take courses half a day and do building maintenance, neighborhood policing, park care, etc… for a few hours. No, I do not consider this abuse or taking advantage of the poor. It’s honest work for the benefits. Here is the idea that will be offensive and I struggle with it myself as it has to do with agency. Women on assistance would be required to use birth control until the have reached a point where they can support the children they do have, period. It would be provided free, even the costly implants that work for months at a time or IUD’s, I don’t care. Whatever works best for the woman, some can’t take pills etc… Yes, there will be accidental pregnancies, but there will be far fewer and with no new children, the chances of completing more education are far greater. I don’t put any more blame on women than men, if I could figure out how to temporarily sterilize men, I would do it in a heartbeat. I just don’t know how. Maybe someone out there does.

Health Care is a biggie in relation to poverty. I believe that costs are the problem, not insurance coverage. I believe that clinics and basic care should be subsidized for low / no income. No, I don’t know what the cutoffs should be. All I know is that it would cost me a whole lot less for someone to see a doctor for preventative care and go to a clinic for a sniffle and a cough than to the ER that costs $1000.00 to walk in the door in my area and the cost gets passed on to me in one form or another. We have to be realistic here though. Not everyone can get top notch care. I can’t afford top notch care and my husband has relatively decent insurance. Not everyone is going to get the new and best cancer drugs, open heart surgery, and transplants. It isn’t feasible and I don’t have any ideas on how to make it so.

As for the rich doing more for private charities, when the economy dives and charities need the most help, the first things that get cut from personal budgets are usually donations. We are not rich but have always tried to give at least 15% of our gross income in donations. When times are really hard though, it’s back down to the minimal 10% for tithing. It’s life. I’ll be honest though, I hate to pay all the taxes I do for people that abuse the system.

Yes, this was long, probably not too helpful, and likely offensive to many. Last of all, if you don’t speak inside the ballot box, you shouldn’t be complaining outside the box.

Comment by LC — September 12, 2008 @ 10:51 am
To address the original issue, I am pro-life but do NOT believe that welfare programs should not be done away with. I have been on them. My husband and I married and had 2 children while he was working part-time and going to school full-time. (Like MANY Mormons.) We were on food stamps and our kids were on Medicaid. My husband and I went without insurance for a LONG time because we simply could not afford it. And we now cannot afford $420/month for our family of 4 to be on the same health insurance plan. Our children are on CHIP, while my husband and I have a plan through his job.

I believe that an unborn child has a right to life.

While abstinence is obviously the best, “ideal” choice, it is not going to happen for every teenager. It’s just not. Whether they have less than ideal role models at home or choose to not follow the example set for them, teenagers are going to have sex. I think that methods of birth control should be taught in school. I don’t think teachers should hand out condoms. But they’re pretty cheap. Tell the kids how cheap it is. If they’re going to do it anyways, use some protection.

I think the big change should come in what is taught in sex-ed. The kids DO NOT need a how-to. What they need is education on the consequences. I remember gross pictures of the effects of STDs. Good idea. But I think it should go much further than that. Give stats on how many women regret losing their virginity so young. Talk about what happens in an abortion. Give the stats on how many women regret it, or have it haunt them years after the fact. Give stats on the poverty levels of single moms, or young married couples with no education. Show the probability of divorce. Personal stories of women who’ve raised their children alone from the time they were 17. Tell them that once you have certain STDs, you’re going to have to share it with EVERY person you have sex with. Taking precautions for the rest of your life, etc. Give stats on how many people are on adoption waiting lists. The kind of lives those children have. The lives their moms go on to lead.

So there is it. I personally am pro-life. I realize that not everyone is, and some teenagers are going to have sex. It just seems to be that everyone wants choice without consequences. So educate them on the consequences, and let them make more informed choices. And keep the social programs that help the people who need it. It’d be nice if there was a way to change them so that people couldn’t live off them and not work. Don’t know if that’s entirely possible, but that’s the “ideal.”

Comment by alyssa — September 12, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Here in our public district in AK, parents can opt to teach the sex ed including contraceptive use etc… at home, however, the students must still pass the district test.

That is very reasonable. I wonder if it is like that here in Texas. I hope so. I’ll have to look into it.

LC, I have to agree that free access to birth control is a good idea. People shouldn’t be having kids because they are too poor to afford birth control (yes, I have a friend who did just that - turns out kids are even more expensive). I just don’t think it should be pushed on teenagers.

Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 11:19 am
BTW I’m not libertarian. They are extreme in some areas to me. but because I’m arguing a stance opposite to some it may seam that way.

As far as the OP goes. I don’t reconcile to two opposing extreme view points of some Republicans. I pick the party that best fits my views, and right now that happens to be the Republican party. It doesn’t mean I agree with everything in the party platform. I don’t think birth control is a bad thing… in fact I don’t personally know any Republican that thinks that birth control should be banned. It’s preventative and only makes sense. I don’t see huge debates on birth control in congress etc… so I don’t think this is a high priority comparitive to other issues. I also don’t believe children should be abandoned by their community… be that poor or rich children. Crap happens to both.

Comment by April — September 12, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
re: 116

Rachel, I do agree that education is a vital part of helping the poor. However, as I mentioned on my own blog about the working poor, education is no guarantee of a living wage. And single mothers are in a catch 22: If they don’t work, they’re lazy welfare queens. If they work, than they are often neglecting their most important responsibility: children. Not to mention the fact that, as Mellancollyeyes pointed out, most jobs available for the average single mother doesn’t pay enough to offset the cost of childcare. Education isn’t sufficient. We need a well-rounded attack on the causes and results of poverty: education, housing initiatives, health-care initiatives, minimum/living wage initiatives, initiatives strengthening the power of labor, labor-friendly industry regulation, and yes, income assistance. The conservative movement generally, which tries thwart the government involvement in all those areas, are only exacerbating the problem.

Comment by Derek — September 12, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
Derek, what about adding support of traditional family values to that well-rounded attack? Programs that encourage fathers to stick around and provide support?

Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 12:59 pm
I loathe the phrase “traditional family values” because it has become such a politically-loaded euphemism for the conservative agenda. And Not Ophelia did a great job of exploding the myth of a “traditional marriage” a few weeks (months? Time flies!) back.

But for the sake of argument, I’ll bite. How does the government go about supporting “Traditional Family Values” (whatever they are)? What initiatives would you use to encourage fathers to stick around? How does the government encourage traditional families while simultaneously prevent trapping women in less-than equal–even abusive–marriages, as they so often were during the romanticized period of supposedly Traditional Marriage?

Comment by Derek — September 12, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
mfranti,

I know it’s impossible to read emotion through the cyberworld, but I am truly sorry for posting something you thought was low. To be honest, I had to go back and re-read my comments and figure out which one you were referring to. I’m guessing it was “if they are that dumb…” comment. I know you don’t know me from Adam, but I do want to make sure and apologize for a foolish way of writing something.

I should have said something more intellectual like, it often feels as though the pro-life debate is debating those who don’t want babies, or are having unprotected sex and getting pregnant multiple times. These are those who I believe don’t want to have kids, so why are we trying to make them bear them?

I hope that makes more sense.

Comment by Kaylynn — September 12, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Stephanie-keep in mind that many of those men sitting outside waiting for meals might actually be waiting for work. Where I come from anyway (SoCal), workers will hang out by the soup kitchens as sort of an unnofficial pick up location for odd jobs.

Also, able bodied yes. But able minded? Maybe not. A large percentage of the homeless are not mentally sound and need help.

Comment by Roxanna — September 12, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
I guess my overall point is that, I don’t think it is our place to make assumptions about why those men aren’t working. We don’t know them or their situation.

Comment by Roxanna — September 12, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
Kaylynn, apology accepted!

I assumed by the tone of your second comment that you probably didn’t mean it the way it came out.(but we’ve had problems with trolls lately so…)

All is well and I do appreciate your follow up.

M

Comment by mfranti — September 12, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
First of all, many thanks to #84, MellanCollyEyes’ story.

Secondly, based on the comments here and what I hear practically every time I leave the house, I really don’t get the impression that very many people understand the welfare system very well. Perhaps you’d have to actually be ON welfare to have some conception of how hard it is to 1) get it, and 2) keep it. There are many dozens of circumstances that have to be just right in line to obtain assistance, and then they are on your back every minute making sure that you are not abusing the system. All of this so-called anecdotal evidence of people “sitting on their fat butts” abusing the system MUST be missing some information. Such a thing is simply impossible for the VAST MAJORITY of people using assistance programs.

I can only relate my experience here in Utah. My husband lost his job in July. He had no warning. The school he was working for shut down within the space of a week. He did not qualify for unemployment because he was working for a nonprofit organization. We had no savings. I’m still in school, for which we pay a monthly payment - our only luxury - and I work from home for a pittance while staying with our children. (Don’t you dare tell me I shouldn’t have had children without having stable finances. Would you have rather I aborted them? [Also, we DID have stable finances at the time. Shit happens.]) We were already behind on all of our bills. My husband’s last paycheck, received the day he was let go, paid rent. Then we were officially completely broke. We applied for temp work and began sending out resumes immediately.

We applied for food stamps and did receive them. We receive roughly $150 less a month than is generally required for a family of four. Ironically, at this point we are struggling with the necessity of sending me to work. I want to work. I NEED to work. But if I go to work, we’ll lose our food stamps, and I simply will not make enough money to make up for the lack. You want me to go get a job at McDonald’s? Because any fat dumbass can do that, right? Sounds great, except we won’t be able to feed our family. Maybe I can steal whatever food isn’t eaten at my place of business at the end of the day?

We also applied for cash assistance, because we were about to lose our water and electricity. We were told that we could have cash assistance if we kept our income below a certain level and if we exchanged the money for work they gave us. In other words, work is required to receive welfare. This is something that most people do not realize, apparently. Ironically, if we take work from them, we will lose our food benefit because we’ll make too much money. (Snort.) Of course, we won’t make enough money to buy food working for the agency. If we go get other work to buy food, we’ll lose cash benefits to pay our other bills. And so for families like ours, educated, married (to the opposite sex), white families doing the best they can for whom, sometimes, shit happens before you have a safety net in place, we have to weigh the importance of having a place to live vs. being able to buy food vs. keeping our utilities on - because we can’t have all three.

So please, stop with the comments about how it’s too easy to get welfare and there are not enough incentives to get off of it. I can’t wait to get off of it, and they can’t wait to get us off. You know why? BECAUSE NOBODY CAN SURVIVE ON WELFARE. Furthermore, it is not DESIGNED to help anybody to survive long-term. They do not give you enough money. Their cash assistance program is a joke. Even though we could have qualified, we opted out. Having enough food is more important than having utilities, and as I said, we can’t have both. They do not give you enough food, and they do not give you medical care, as an adult, unless you are pregnant. They have done whatever they can to make it difficult to get on it and ultimately impossible to stay on it. So please, just stop. Just stop with the vast and wide assumptions about welfare kings and queens. I absolutely cannot see how one would defraud the system for any length of time. A friend of mine worked the system for a while by not claiming her unmarried partner. The agency discovered this fact and now this family owes the system thousands of dollars. So even if people do find a way to defraud the system, I doubt it lasts. It’s simply ridiculous to assume that this is a regular, sustainable practice. When people use welfare, it’s because they really need it, and they don’t get it for very long. But many more people really need it and don’t receive it. And it’s nobody’s business outside of individual caseworkers whether a family “deserves” to be helped.

If you want women to give birth to babies they didn’t plan, stop placing blame, encouraging ostracism and restricting information and access. Provide a little community and personal support. In the meantime, don’t cut off the only option a desperate woman has in a time when welfare has been utterly gutted. If you REALLY care about families, it shouldn’t be acceptable to you that a woman works several jobs to maintain minimal welfare benefits while her children sit in state-funded daycare centers.

I am sick to death of all this crap about people living on welfare. They don’t give enough for ANYBODY to live on, even if you have no income, no assets and dependent children. The POINT of welfare is that you cannot live on it. They give you a bit to survive on while getting over the hump, which is why, as soon as I find a job (hopefully next week! addiction recovery with VoA, cross your fingers!), we’ll be off of it, even though we most likely will lose our gas and not be able to buy enough food. But we deserve it, right?

Comment by Chandelle — September 12, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
Also, I think it’s weird that there’s all this talk about how abstinence should be taught first, followed by “BUT if you have sex…” Isn’t that how it is? Maybe I’m the only one here young enough to remember sex ed assemblies? I grew up in AZ and in the public schools I attended, that was EXACTLY the message I received, that abstinence is the best and only 100% effective option for pregnancy and disease prevention, followed up by basic BC information.

Comment by Chandelle — September 12, 2008 @ 3:07 pm
Stephanie-keep in mind that many of those men sitting outside waiting for meals might actually be waiting for work. Where I come from anyway (SoCal), workers will hang out by the soup kitchens as sort of an unnofficial pick up location for odd jobs.

Yep, in fact I’m sure that’s what those men were waiting for. Possibly a hot meal, but definitely work. I can attest to this phenomenon after growing up in the heavy immigrant area of AZ.

Also, able bodied yes. But able minded? Maybe not. A large percentage of the homeless are not mentally sound and need help.

Yep, and an awful lot of that mental unsoundness arises from the wars from which these men have returned. (1 in 3 homeless are veterans: about 200,000 homeless veterans.)

Comment by Chandelle — September 12, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
Kellie,

So my question is this, how do people who support Republicans or the above two policies, deal with this contradiction?

They:
1) Distrust the effectiveness of bureaucratic governmental social programs (with good reason)
2) They suffer from a strange mental illness called “accountability”
3) They value the right to life more than the right to have
4) They value private social programs more than public (for good reason)
5) They value their freedom to earn a living compensatory to the effort they exert and would rather not be forced to support others.

The argument is that Abortion and welfare alleviate poverty?

I think your points are misguided. Being a single parent does not cause poverty, and getting an abortion will not alleviate poverty. Poverty begets single parents, which begets poverty.

I served in Russia and every, EVERY single mother we interviewed for baptism had multiple abortions in their lifetime. They were all poor, as well. Almost all were on welfare and had been for years. (An aside- the one thing that brought these women out of poverty was tithing)

One very obvious argument against your conclusions is that abortion has been legal for decades and the welfare system is at the breaking point. Poverty has not gone away, nor will it. It is facilitated by the very social programs meant to eradicate it, if that’s what they’re actually meant for.

Conservatives and pro-life are not the cause of this paradox any more than Liberals are communists and appeasers.

Comment by Nasamomdele — September 12, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
Chandelle,

I grew up in SoCal in the 90’s and it was “WHEN you have sex…”

Comment by Nasamomdele — September 12, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
completey off point….

I have a child serving in Russia right now… and this hasn’t come up in our emails. thanks for sharing about this.

fyi - tithing and aiming for debt free brought my family outta poverty (maybe sobriety had something to do with that too)

whew… amen for the weekend!

Comment by Mary Magdalene — September 12, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
#132 Chandelle - I hope things work out for you guys. I hope you get a wonderful job that you love and pays well.

My prayers are with your family

Comment by Katreena — September 12, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
Well, it was probably “when” for me, too, but presumably almost everyone has sex eventually. They’re not telling you WHEN, though, eh?

Comment by Chandelle — September 12, 2008 @ 3:35 pm
re: 135

Oy, where to start.

I won’t go off entirely on my free market idolatry rant, but I’ll pose a couple of questions:

on #3: If conservatives don’t value the right to have over the right to life, why is it every time people talk about government using funds to keep people alive, conservatives raise a fuss about private property?

on #5: are you seriously going to suggest that the CEOs, venture capitalists, major league athletes, or entertainment stars, and others put forth more effort than the factory workers, nurses, teachers, miners, etc?

Compensation in a capitalist economy has absolutely nothing to do with effort. A common misconception of free market advocates, one used to prop up the moral conservative argument against Social Justice (an argument used in varying ways many times in this thread). You can make a rational argument that compensation rates are often legitimately based on supply and demand. But effort? No way in hell those making millions of dollars a year work harder than the laborers and care-sector workers making a pittance.

Comment by Derek — September 12, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
How does the government go about supporting “Traditional Family Values” (whatever they are)?

Derek, on the surface, I like Obama’s “Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007″. I like the talk of “As fathers, we need to teach our boys what makes you a man is not just having a child, it’s having the courage to raise a child,” Obama said. “Congress can make it easier for those who make that responsible choice—and make it harder for those who avoid it. This legislation will provide support for fathers who are trying to do the right thing in making child-support payments by providing them with job training and job opportunities and expanding the Earned Income Tax Credit. It stops penalizing marriage in the tax code and makes sure that children and families, not the government, receive every penny of child support. It would also crack down on those who avoid their responsibility by increasing child-support enforcement, a measure that will collect nearly $13 billion in payments that can help raise, nurture, and educate children.”

My problem is with the Earned Income Credit for non-custodial parents. He is proposing that the government give money to the non-custodial parent so that the non-custodial parent can pay child support. How exactly does that “teach” responsibility? That is really just the government redistributing income again. Granted, there are two forces at play here I agree with: 1. Getting fathers to be responsible for their children and 2. Getting children the support they need. But, I don’t think this really accomplishes either.

I agree with Bayh when he says, “Conceiving a child doesn’t make you a man, but raising one responsibly does,” Bayh said. “Fatherlessness is an issue many politicians would prefer to avoid, but elected officials have a moral obligation not to sit idly by while communities crumble because of the epidemic of absentee fathers. I am not naïve enough to believe that government alone can solve this problem, but together we can play a constructive role in crafting policies that attack the root causes of this epidemic. Fatherless children are more likely to do poorly in school and have emotional and behavioral problems. They are more likely to commit crimes, smoke cigarettes, and abuse drugs and alcohol. Many of our most pressing societal ills can be addressed by tackling the fatherhood crisis effectively”.

I agree that many of our most pressing societal ills are caused by fatherlessness, but I also agree that government cannot solve this problem. As Russell M. Nelson said in this last conference, If families fail, many of our political, economic, and social systems will also fail. I believe that. And I believe the Family Proclamation when it says, Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. I believe poverty is a big calamity brought on by the disintegration of the family.

Does that mean that I think children should starve because of irresponsible parents? No, of course not. We have a responsibility as a society to provide equal opportunity for children. To me, that means improving our educational system, continuing programs like school lunches, and ensuring every child is enrolled in a health care program like CHIP. Beyond that, I feel that government should have a limited role. The area I really think Republicans have blown it is regulation. Free markets don’t mean deregulation of everything. Free markets mean smart regulation to ensure that either markets truly are free or industries with natural monopolies (electricity, for example) are kept in check. The problem we are in is a cost problem. Improper regulation has led to increased costs of everything: mortgages, gas, food, health care, etc.

Anyways, my point is this: I don’t think the government will ever overcome poverty or inequality because inequality is caused by sin and transgression (Alma 28:13) - not necessarily a single mom who did everything “right” and still got screwed, but selfishness of parents who abandon or neglect their children, dishonest people running corporations, greedy people who choose not to share their surplus. But, with regard to children, a lot of children are in the situations they are in because of sin and transgression on the part of some adult. A good education, food, and proper healthcare would give them the opportunity to rise above their circumstances, but short of taking children away from their parents (which still wouldn’t solve all the problems because foster care is not ideal either, and I don’t believe that government is a better parent than parents anyways), I don’t believe government can or should create equality - just serve as a safety net. Anything short of strengthening morals so that people form families and have children in families and stay in those families won’t do it. And since government really can’t enter the “moral” realm, I just don’t see how it could do much to help.

Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 4:42 pm
Roxanna, I grew up in Southern California and know exactly what you are talking about. I also helped out at a local soup kitchen a lot as a youth (why I wanted to take our youth to one here). Downtown here is nothing like that. This is not a spot where people wait for work. My husband has worked on that street for 8 years now, and taken the bus for 3. We are fairly familiar with the area and programs.

Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
BTW some states are very easy to get assistance in (Washington) while some are very hard (Utah).

My Sister (who lives in washington) is currently going to college, and so is her husband (the state is paying for his reeducation due to injury on his previous job) They live off of the state right now… them and their two children. And while I love my sister this kinda torques me. Right now she is has pleanty of job experience from previous jobs (high in the coperate ladder) to get a wellpaying job to support her family, and she is very smart, but instead she insists on getting her education at the same time as her husband and letting the state pay for her rent, food, utilities etc.

We are talking in generalities when we talk about abuse of the system. This is one of those many areas that need to be fixed. And quite frankly, I want the mess that system is to be straightened up at least a little before they pour more of my taxpayer money into them. I think the programs are needed but I want more bang for my buck (same goes for public education but that is another rant).

Comment by April — September 12, 2008 @ 5:19 pm
Actually, the big difference between the area I grew up in and the downtown here (Dallas) is that Dallas has a 32-56% high school dropout rate, depending on who is calculating it and how it is done (it is generally accepted that high schoolers in Dallas have a 50-50 chance of making it to graduation). And most of the dropouts are male. DISD’s dropout rates are the 7th worst in the nation. That is why I think we see so many young men at the soup kitchen. Not because they are veterans or have mental disorders but because they dropped out of high school and don’t know what to do with their lives. DISD needs major educational reform.

Comment by Stephanie — September 12, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
poverty is supposed to be due to fast growing population, its quite obvious that if population increases poverty will increase automatically, so it is right that if poverty is to be controlled, the fast growing population should be controlled.
Arden Kaisman

Comment by Arden Kaisman — September 13, 2008 @ 5:19 am
#145 - except that in the Book of Mormon, when the people were righteous and prospered, they both multiplied all over the land AND became wealthy

Comment by Stephanie — September 13, 2008 @ 8:50 am
If anybody here really believes that the wealthy are in any way more righteous, or harder working, or somehow more deserving of their affluence…..please consider yourself invited on a tour of the West Hollywood/Beverly Hills area courtesy of MikeInWeHo.

Don’t know how to square what I see all around me with the scriptural theme that righteousness = prosperity, but there you have it.

Comment by MikeInWeHo — September 13, 2008 @ 6:00 pm
re: 146

And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift (4 Nephi 1:3; emphasis added).

Kind of shatters the idea that righteous leads to wealth, doesn’t it?

Yes, righteous Nephite societies are described as having prospered in the land. Perhaps it shows a flaw in our perception if we equate prospering to wealth. Perhaps we should see prosperity as meaning something other than large houses, multiple cars, and lots of toys. Prosperity perhaps means being free from the fear of hunger, homelessness, or disease which won’t be treated, all because people take care of each other rather than worrying about what is their own and what other people deserve.

Comment by Derek — September 13, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Derek and MikeInWeHo, way to skew what I was saying. I was debunking Arden’s claim that a fast growing population increases poverty. No, in the Book of Mormon, you have several examples of fast growing populations that actually increase in wealth on an individual level and on a community level. This occurred when the majority of the population was

righteous

.

Derek, no I don’t think that scripture you quoted shatters anything I said (perhaps your skewed interpretations, but nothing I said). In fact, look at the context of that particular scripture. The scripture before it (4 Nephi 1:2) says the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the save of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. ALL of the population was righteous. Then we have the verse you quoted that they had all things in common and there were no rich or poor. Then a bunch of verses that outline the ways in which they were righteous (no contention, no murders, no robbers, no -ites, etc.)

Then we have Alma 1:23 And now, I Mormon, would that ye should know that the people had multiplied, insomuch that they were spread upon all the face of the land, and that they had become exceedingly rich, because of their prosperity in Christ

Then some of them got prideful And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more in common among them (verse 24).

Classic pride cycle in the Book of Mormon.

Comment by Stephanie — September 13, 2008 @ 7:03 pm
Hmm. wierd formatting in that last comment.

Comment by Stephanie — September 13, 2008 @ 7:04 pm
And weird spelling of the word weird. Sorry.

Comment by Stephanie — September 13, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
You’re right, the context indicates that because the society was righteous, there was no rich and no poor. Sounds that when a society is truly righteous, people won’t be rich, but everyone will have what they need. Hardly what happens in free market idolatry. Hardly where the focus on private property leads.

Because the society to which Alma refers says that their prosperity is in Christ, I doubt it means a highly materialistic society. It nowhere says (while they are righteous) that they have a large increase in possessions, trinkets, houses, etc. That material abundance is only referenced when the society begins to become corrupt (the pride cycle to which you refer). In other words, it seems that they only begin to focus on their material wealth (free market idolatry’s “self interest,”) when they are heading downhill.

I agree, a growing population doesn’t guarantee poverty–if that population is wise in the use of their resources and use it in the service of the community. That isn’t what we’re doing in the U.S, and I don’t see any evidence that the U.S. standard of living is sustainable on a global scale. That sort of materialism all but guarantees that a great deal of the population will be left out.

Comment by Derek — September 13, 2008 @ 9:10 pm
I agree, Derek, but the US. is nowhere near as righteous as the Nephites/Lamanites were (when they were righteous and prospering). In fact, in my current reading of the BofM, I noticed that in one of the cycles, they were all righteous until there were “warm contentions that led to blows”. Can you imagine a society so righteous that the worst thing that happens is people smiting each other on the cheek occassionally? Kind of puts our wickedness into perspective.

Comment by Stephanie — September 13, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
I am neither Mormon nor a housewife, but I like to read this blog because there are so many thoughtful, intelligent women commenting!
I, too, do not understand the conservative position of denying birth control and abortion, but also not offering assistance and support once these children are born.

I’m a Presbyterian and this is my two cents - that forcing people to pay for their sins and youthful poor judgement with a lifetime of hardship is not in the true spirit of Jesus. Even if one did believe that the mother should be penalized in this way for her sins, isn’t the child, who certainly did nothing to cause the situation, also being harshly punished?

And quite frankly, it takes two people to cause an unplanned pregnancy, but it’s usually the woman who suffers most of the consequences. I’m wondering, what’s the conservative view on how men who help cause these pregnancies should be punished and shamed for the rest of their lives?!

Comment by Kate — September 14, 2008 @ 11:50 am
@Kellie #6:

when you state, “they want to discourage a set of behaviors they don’t like (premarital sex, abortion, teen pregnancy and mothering) by withholding community help from people who choose those behaviors.” do you imply that the services are withheld to discourage pre-marital sex? If that is the case, do you think if there were no social programs people would quit having unwanted pregnancies?

I believe they want to withhold those social services in part to discourage pre-marital sex, along with a few other behaviors, all of which are connected to using fear of consequences to keep people from making life decisions they disagree with.

However, since I stated I don’t agree with the positions, I don’t believe removing social programs would result in zero unwanted pregnancies. Desultorily examining history, there have always been unwanted pregnancies regardless of the benefits withheld and costs imposed; the behavior that seems to vary by social program expansion is what happens after the pregnancy results. Strong social shunning of unwed mothers coupled with minimal to no welfare system results in a lot more teen marriage and young women being sent away to give their babies up for adoption; the reverse, unsurprisingly, seems to lead to a small increase in abortion, a large increase in single-parenting by adolescents as well as adults, and a large decrease in both teen marriage and giving babies up for adoption.

I think it’s evil to impose the consequences of the parents’ choices on children, which is why I support social welfare programs.

Comment by Kai Jones — September 15, 2008 @ 2:17 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI

Choice and Poverty

155 Comments »

Leave a comment