Supporting The Poor Reduces Abortions.

[flip]

check this out. it's like "Preferential Option for the Poor" actually works


[url="http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/files/CACG_Final.pdf"]http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/files/CACG_Final.pdf[/url]

[princessgianna]

sounds neat!!!

[CatherineM]

If you give the poor hope of a decent life, perhaps they won't be so afraid to bring a new life into it. I have often said that I wished that those who put so much effort into ending abortion, should also put some effort into supporting those children that are born alive.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]the findings from
this study suggest that a two standard deviation difference among states in the reported level of
economic assistance to low income families is correlated with a 20% lower abortion rate. Across
the entire United States, this translates into 200,000 fewer abortions. The Welfare Reform Act of
1996 allowed states to impose a cap on the number of children eligible to receive economic assistance
in low-income families. Removing this family cap would decrease abortions by about 15% or
150,000 nationwide. The findings also suggest that, in the 1990s, states with more generous grants
to women, infants and children under the age of five as provided by the Special Supplemental Nutrition
Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program had a 37% lower abortion rate.
Finally, higher male employment in the 1990s was associated with a 29% lower abortion rate.[/quote]



even i who has a tendency to the left on econ issues, have said that i'm hesitant to extend benefit to women who cna't keep their legs shut. they're poor but they put themselves into it, and their kids would have to suffer a little or their parents' mistake, it's the natural order.

with that said, i've always considered the idea that sometimes they get into catch 22, can't get ahead cause of circumstance, and can't gt out of circumstance cause they can't get ahead. i'm not sure it's natural order for them to be in that situation. i tinker with the idea of loans, or at least child sitting services for those who educate themselves etc.

even i have to admit i never really took into consideration that my conservative ideals on this issue, could very well be leading to abortion. i don't think it's my fault or anyone who thinks like me, directly, but it's an intersting notion. if the woman can't get ahead, and she's going to live destitute with teh kid only making things worse, and we won't do anything about it, there's abortion.

i'm not sure how much i am willing to change my stance. we can't be socialistic about it. charity has its role, and would surely be willing ot help out, i'd think, if only they'd seek it.

if the gov help surely helped though significantly, i'm all f or the ends justifyig the means. libertarisn say taxing for helping others is stealing,,,, well, if it was clear, i might be willing to change my stance, and would tax othesr to help them out. i mean, i agree if X is unjustified then taxing for it is stealing. i think this situation would basically and usually be stealing if i expanded my willingness to help them.
i'm always willing to make exceptions for an exigant circumstance, which this is, without much in the of real reasoning as to the econo philosophical justifications.

that study seems pretty straightforward that it'd help reduce them though. i may have to change my position. if one tends to think taxing is stealing, i don't see how this situation is not stealing as normally thought about, but i don't see how you could simply deny reducing abortion. this is yet another example of an absurd situation when taking "the ends don't justify the means" all-the-time-no-matter-what argument to its logical ends.

it's a tough situation.

Edited September 27, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[geetarplayer]

Flip, I hear what you're saying and I like what you're saying. Helping the poor will reduce abortion among the poor.

But what about women who are not economically disadvantaged? For example, I live in a university town, and girls drive to the abortion center in their Lexus or BMW. They aren't poor, even by college kid standards.

[flip]

[quote name='geetarplayer' post='1665039' date='Sep 27 2008, 12:49 PM']Flip, I hear what you're saying and I like what you're saying. Helping the poor will reduce abortion among the poor.

But what about women who are not economically disadvantaged? For example, I live in a university town, and girls drive to the abortion center in their Lexus or BMW. They aren't poor, even by college kid standards.[/quote]


I totally understand. The main thing to reduce abortions is to convert hearts, for them to meet Christ through us. I dug up these statistics...

"Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%."
[url="http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html"]http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html[/url]

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='flip' post='1665426' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:16 AM']I totally understand. The main thing to reduce abortions is to convert hearts, for them to meet Christ through us. I dug up these statistics...

"Women with family incomes less than $15,000 obtain 28.7% of all abortions; Women with family incomes between $15,000 and $29,999 obtain 19.5%; Women with family incomes between $30,000 and $59,999 obtain 38.0%; Women with family incomes over $60,000 obtain 13.8%."
[url="http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html"]http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html[/url][/quote]

That puts half the abortions in the poor people category, with most being in the middle class.

[CatherineM]

It looks like most abortions happen in that group where it takes two incomes to support a family. I wonder if these women have abortions to avoid missing work. If our society could change, if family homes cost 2 year's income instead of 20 year's income, maybe these women could be stay at home moms, and could feel like it is okay to keep their children.

[Autumn Dusk]

I think it dosn't point to a money problem, but a lifestyle one. Two kids is enough for some people. Some people believe thats all the should have. All society sais they CAN have.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1664935' date='Sep 27 2008, 11:38 AM']even i who has a tendency to the left on econ issues, have said that i'm hesitant to extend benefit to women who cna't keep their legs shut. they're poor but they put themselves into it, and their kids would have to suffer a little or their parents' mistake, it's the natural order.[/quote]

I fully agree with that. There are very many people who are where they are because they are irresponsible with their money, their bodies, and ultimately their families. These are people who choose not to delay gratification.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1665655' date='Sep 28 2008, 12:09 PM']I fully agree with that. There are very many people who are where they are because they are irresponsible with their money, their bodies, and ultimately their families. These are people who choose not to delay gratification.[/quote]

I went to a mostly black high school located in the "projects" and anecdotally I know you are simplifying this issue. In the absence of comprehensive sex ed classes many black Americans from poor parts of the city going to abhorrently underfunded schools do not understand the basics of BC. Most of the kids I went to high school with are not where they are at because of any decision they made. They were born into a poor neighborhood with intense peer pressure not to act "white" (things like studying or obsessing over grades), they often had only a mother in the house who was generally out working one of here several low income jobs with no benefits to scrape by an existence. If they had trouble with math their parents could not get them a tutor. Unlike most white kids their parent(s) could not afford to buy them a $120 calculator necessary for school work. So if they wanted to do their math homework they could either stay late (in which case they would miss the bus and have no ride home) or get to school about 7:30 am (again, with no bus and hence no way to get to school).


Your simplification of the issue as a bunch of people who couldn’t keep their legs shut is both staggeringly ignorant and simply contrary to the facts. Black girls are not intrinsically more “loose” than white girls. The differences over education and family structure make a big difference.

[XIX]

[quote name='flip' post='1664818' date='Sep 27 2008, 01:20 AM']check this out. it's like "Preferential Option for the Poor" actually works


[url="http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/files/CACG_Final.pdf"]http://www.catholicsinalliance.org/files/CACG_Final.pdf[/url][/quote]
You know, when I was frst hearing about "Fundamental Option" I got that confused with "Preferential Option" for the poor. So some guy was saying that B16 didn't like FO and I'm thinking to myself "wait, why not?"

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665691' date='Sep 28 2008, 01:40 PM']Your simplification of the issue as a bunch of people who couldn’t keep their legs shut is both staggeringly ignorant and simply contrary to the facts. Black girls are not intrinsically more “loose” than white girls. The differences over education and family structure make a big difference.[/quote]

No one said anything about one race of girls being "looser" than another. You must have read into something here.

[Hassan]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' post='1665710' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:09 PM']No one said anything about one race of girls being "looser" than another. You must have read into something here.[/quote]


[i]even i who has a tendency to the left on econ issues, have said that i'm hesitant to extend benefit to women who cna't keep their legs shut. they're poor but they put themselves into it, and their kids would have to suffer a little or their parents' mistake, it's the natural order. [/i]

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1665773' date='Sep 28 2008, 02:32 PM'][i]even i who has a tendency to the left on econ issues, have said that i'm hesitant to extend benefit to women who cna't keep their legs shut. they're poor but they put themselves into it, and their kids would have to suffer a little or their parents' mistake, it's the natural order. [/i][/quote]

Where in this does Dairy say something about race? Am I just not seeing it? Are you assuming that by poor she means race?