RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


hlen5 -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 2:41:14 PM)

At one point in our history, the neighbors turned to each other in a time of need.

I think people who can't work need support, people who won't work, need only enough help for the most basic needs (beans and rice), and an incentive to work (you want meat, earn it).

Someone mentioned wolves.. in the animal world weakness isn't tolerated. The needs of the pack come before individuals. If the pack leader weakens, it is driven off. Those who don't pull their weight are driven off, the pack comes first.

Humans are the most altruistic of animals. We support those who cannot help themselves, and I think we should do so.




Edwynn -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 3:07:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hertz

quote:

an individual who relies on Government support does not have the same rights and protections under the constitution because they are not a self-sustaining entity.


For this to be true, you would be assuming that the state does not in some way contribute to the inability of an individual to sustain his/herself. It wouldn't be reasonable to remove someone's rights and protections for their inability to self-sustain if the state was responsible in any way for that inability. So this raises the question:

'To what extent has the state contributed to the inability of some individuals to sustain themselves without support?'




From there I depart with the argument of state allocated investiture of inherent advantage as being the sole source of iniquity in society, at least not so directly.

It wouldn't be reasonable to remove someone's rights and protections for their inability to self-sustain if the state was responsible in any way for that inability.

This brings us to the more accurate depiction of what has transpired here these last few years. Lets try this scenario: What if the government passes legislation that allows companies to store toxic wastes out in the parking lot in open containers, for promotion of the ideal of getting government off the backs of business, and then a storm arrives and wind and floods disperse the toxins downstream and destroy many square miles of crops and 8.5 million farmers are now financially ruined and many of them have their farms foreclosed by the banks, same banks who happened to own the toxic company upstream as a subsidiary, because banks can now get into any business they want.  (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and Commodity Futures Modernization Act)

Should we do anything to help these people? Are we now expected to pay the mortgages of losers? Should we be expected to pay for unemployment assistance to these people while they seek some near appropriate new employment when, after all, they could just go to the nearest hire-a-drunk slave labor daily employment place and stand in a mile-long line with the others? Or wait in line with the others to get a job at Walmart?

What did people do before government assistance came along, when everybody was expected to be responsible for their own survival?

Well, the one item that sticks out above all is child labor.

This is the only way that many families survived back in the good old days, and it was the normal and accepted arrangement of things from the beginning of the industrial age up until the 30's when the last of the child labor laws finally were put into place. Notice the coincidence in time there for the hand-off of on one form of support for  business irresponsibility to society to another. Because at the end of the day, that's what all of it is, is way to sustain otherwise unsustainable business practices.

I cold go on, but it's quite obvious that people don't want to hear it, as evidenced by people still asking "why should we help these people?" instead of asking the much more relevant question of why the people responsible for putting 8.5 million people out  of work and yet still, as we speak, are ferociously pursuing fraudulent foreclosure proceedings, many of them against people who paid on time for years but now are laid off due to the toxic dirty bombs  planted in the financial markets by the retail and investment banks, are not in jail.


That's fine if some think that deregulation is wonderful because they have no idea what it actually entails, but just quit the sniveling and whining about the unemployment that this absurd ideology invariably causes.







TreasureKY -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/7/2010 6:08:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Louve00

Your questions made me curious, so I went to google and googled your question lol.  But, I found out this....

Why did welfare start in the U.S?
The history of welfare in the U.S. started long before the government welfare programs we know were created. In the early days of the United States, the colonies imported the British Poor Laws. These laws made a distinction between those who were unable to work due to their age or physical health and those who were able-bodied but unemployed. The former group was assisted with cash or alternative forms of help from the government. The latter group was given public service employment in workhouses.
Throughout the 1800's welfare history continued when there were attempts to reform how the government dealt with the poor. Some changes tried to help the poor move to work rather than continuing to need assistance. Social casework, consisting of caseworkers visiting the poor and training them in morals and a work ethic was advocated by reformers in the 1880s and 1890s.
Prior to the Great Depression, the United States Congress supported various programs to assist the poor. One of these, a Civil War Pension Program was passed in 1862 and provided aid to Civil War Veterans and their families.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_welfare_start_in_the_U.S#ixzz17SiOKiPU

So, apparently help for the poor has been around for a long, long time. 


**edited to italicize what I didn't say.  [:)]



My understanding is that throughout history there has pretty much always been some type of assistance available to the poor.  I was, however, under the impression that here it was a bit more privately managed in the beginning, but I hadn't really considered the time we were a British colony and the influence that would have had.

We Americans do have a propensity to consider our history as starting with the American Revolution.  [;)]

Your find did prompt me to do a bit more research this evening, as well.  I'll share some of what I found here as it was interesting.

The following is a relatively short (22 page) seminar paper on "The English Poor Laws 1795 and 1834: Imperatives and Disciplination of Property and Poverty".  From it I gleaned the following paragraph that helped give me an idea of how things worked from the time of colonization until emancipation from British rule.
Ever since, poor relief has been intimately linked with moral responsibility of the church and religious houses distributed alms and reliefs to paupers. A statute of 1536 made the perishes responsible for the care of the poor, which assigned a crucial task for the next centuries. In 1572 the office of the Overseer of the poor was created: They were chosen annually, unpaid and responsible for the conduct of the Justices of the Peace. Parishioners were supposed to contribute voluntarily to poor relief, but funds were quickly insufficient. In 1597/8 therefore, an Act enabled overseers to levy a poor rate on parish households. Together with some minor amendments, these provisions remained in force until 1834.
That's kind of an interesting twist... government giving church the authority to levy taxes. 

After the formation of the United States of America, I found very little that specifically substantiates how much of this British influence was retained. 

In 1798 there was the Act for the Relief of Sick and Disabled Seamen.  The details can be found at the link, but essentially every seaman contributed to a fund that was used "to provide for the temporary relief and maintenance of sick or disabled seamen, in the hospitals or other proper institutions now established in the several ports of the United States..."  Surplus monies, along with private donations could also be used for the establishment of new hospitals.

This Act laid the foundation for the Marine Hospital Service founded in 1837.

While there were a few other seeds planted during that time (such as the Federal Government opening a one-room laboratory on Staten Island that would eventually grow to become the National Institutes of Health in 1930), it appears that the majority of the shift towards Federal government provided assistance began after 1913.

There was, of course, the Civil War Pension Program.  I will point out that the program came into being at the same time as the establishment of a Federal income tax to support the war in 1861.

But before we had any income tax, I don't believe there was any extensive Federal Government assistance available.  Even between 1861 and 1913 when the 16th Amendment was ratified, income taxes were an iffy proposition.

That is not to say that the Federal Government had no funding prior to the income tax.  There were obviously other sources as the Department of the Treasury was established in 1789.  However, I still believe that charity was considered more of a private concern than a government responsibility.  The following excerpt is from "Charity, Philanthropy, and Civility in America" by Lawrence J. Friedman and Mark D. McGarvie.

During the period 1607-1861, American society rejected a communitarian social ideal and implemented a legal system respecting individual rights.  Governmental authority was significantly diminished during this period, and private actions expressed the social ideals of Americans more than did governmental initiatives.  Government was understood as a negative force, proscribing wrongs rather than creating rights.  Its authority was consistent with Adam Smith's idea that government can place blame for injury but cannot extort benevolence.  The first challenge to this system would not occur until the Civil War.
You can view a brief history of the obstacles that were maneuvered with regard to income taxes between the Civil War and the establishment of a permanent income tax on Americans by going to Wikipedia.  The IRS does have a very brief history on its website, but it doesn't cover as much detail on this particular time period.

At times in the history of the US, there were other Federally legislated methods of assistance.  There was the Bankruptcy Acts of 1800 and 1841, both of which were repealed within a few years, but there was eventually and more permanently legislation passed in 1898.  You can view a time line of Bankruptcy Law in the United States online.

As has been mentioned, from the earliest colonial times local villages and towns provided aid to the needy in the form of almshouses and poorhouses.  In the early 1900s many states began adopting "Mothers' Pension Laws" which helped single mothers keep their children with them.

All in all, it appears that before the new deal, most social insurance type programs were State or local-level programs supplemented heavily by private charity.

Of course, since the Federal Government pretty much just sends the money it collects right back to the States, those programs are still State managed.  What seems to have all but disappeared is the government sponsored local-level programs... but private charity is still a strong force in the US.

There's been some very interesting arguments brought up here that I'd like to address, but as I've pretty much frittered away a good part of the day now already, I have some paying work I need to finish so I can help Firm keep us out of the poorhouse.  [;)]

*sighs*  It'll just have to keep until tomorrow.




tweakabelle -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 3:05:54 AM)

There's an interesting separation between 'success' and 'failure' in this discussion. Are they really opposites? Or are they mutually dependent? Can you have one without the other?




SexyBossyBBW -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 4:21:51 AM)

quote:

The Government shouldn't force a taxpaying citizen to continue to support a parasitic being.
Wow!   You really are comparing the right of a woman to choose her destiny, regarding growing a human being inside her, with people who are too poor to go to work (non-existent), and simultaneously support their family with food, and health care.

I will grant that there are people who abuse the system, but by and large, self sustenance, is something most humans aim for, and seriously hurt, when that isn't possible.   Humanity is under attack, so I don't know how being pro life is helpful to those being born, already with no way to self sustain.    Most of the times, I imagine abortion is done, because one does not want to circumvent her life and progress, by becoming dependent on the state....   I could be wrong, of course, not knowing why anyone would choose such a heart wrenching position, as abortion.     M




NorthernGent -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 1:45:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TreasureKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Treasure....

Is there anyone out there who isn't hypocritcal from time to time.....what's that about reduced government intrusion in people's lives while advocating a strong and expensive defence?

I take your point..

But there's a fairly simple (suggested) answer...we all have things we care about....and we'll fight for that cause...and sometimes appeal to government to promote that cause....no matter the political persuasion....

It boils down to where you feel government's responsibility lies.....I'm sure you're happy to pay your tax on defence.....and have other people pay those taxes too.....while arguing for the government stepping back into the shadows.....it's a matter of personal taste....


I agree that we are all subject to a bit of hypocrisy from time to time, as well as being a bit blind where our own prejudices are concerned.

We're all going to have our opinion on what issues should take priority... and you are right, it is a matter of personal taste.  Unfortunately, where it seems humankind was once a bit closer in ideals and more amenable to compromise, I see a much greater divide now.  There could be any number of sociological reasons for this change... or it could be just my imagination.  [;)]



Possibly....or something else....

In my country there isn't a significant left nor a significant right.....the majority inhabit the centre....

In the US....I'd say your recent governments aren't too far off centre ground.....perhaps the majority of people agree give or take a few points here and there....but just want something to argue about to make life that bit more interesting?




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 1:49:48 PM)

Would it matter how they got to the point of needing government assistance? Do we abort the portion of the government that may have had a direct action causing them to now need government assistance?




allthatjaz -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 2:33:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Do we abort the portion of the government that may have had a direct action causing them to now need government assistance?


Well I'm glad somebody said this!
I really wish more people would start at the top and work backwards.

and for all those people who would like to opt out of aiding people on government benefits, I think that's cool, providing they sign away any rights to claim future benefits if they ever hit hard times.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 2:34:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

There's an interesting separation between 'success' and 'failure' in this discussion. Are they really opposites? Or are they mutually dependent? Can you have one without the other?


Of course.




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 2:36:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Do we abort the portion of the government that may have had a direct action causing them to now need government assistance?


Well I'm glad somebody said this!
I really wish more people would start at the top and work backwards.

and for all those people who would like to opt out of aiding people on government benefits, I think that's cool, providing they sign away any rights to claim future benefits if they ever hit hard times.



You can even add that they can only opt out if they were eligible for but did not apply for government assitance. Im in! (I mean "Im out").




allthatjaz -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 3:19:50 PM)

This thread unnerves me. It unnerves me because the sort of people that have such strong views against the unemployed/parasites, are the same sort of people that would of supported Hitlers attempt to rid Germany of all those he considered parasites.
Whilst there are still moderate thinkers, this will never happen.


Goes to get on with that dirty business of earning money [8|]




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 3:46:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz

the sort of people that have such strong views against the unemployed/parasites, are the same sort of people that would of supported Hitlers attempt to rid Germany of all those he considered parasites.




Ooohhh the Nazi card. If you have to be vacuous, at least try to be original.




DomKen -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 4:42:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Do we abort the portion of the government that may have had a direct action causing them to now need government assistance?


Well I'm glad somebody said this!
I really wish more people would start at the top and work backwards.

and for all those people who would like to opt out of aiding people on government benefits, I think that's cool, providing they sign away any rights to claim future benefits if they ever hit hard times.



You can even add that they can only opt out if they were eligible for but did not apply for government assitance. Im in! (I mean "Im out").

You never went to public school? You never got a government supplied grant while in college? You really have sent in the letter permanently and irrevocably opting out of Merdicare?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 4:56:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: allthatjaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Do we abort the portion of the government that may have had a direct action causing them to now need government assistance?


Well I'm glad somebody said this!
I really wish more people would start at the top and work backwards.

and for all those people who would like to opt out of aiding people on government benefits, I think that's cool, providing they sign away any rights to claim future benefits if they ever hit hard times.



You can even add that they can only opt out if they were eligible for but did not apply for government assitance. Im in! (I mean "Im out").

You never went to public school? You never got a government supplied grant while in college? You really have sent in the letter permanently and irrevocably opting out of Merdicare?



Public school is not welfare/assistance, its available to everyone regardless of income/employment. No, I worked to pay for college and didnt get a penny. I would gladly permanently opt out of Medicare in exchange for the portions of my tax dollars wasted on welfare/unemployment. I might actually be "rich" if that were the case.




DomKen -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 5:00:12 PM)

You are of course welcome to opt out of Medicare, although you can't get Social Security benefits either if you do. For some reason that couldn't possibly be blatant hypocrisy virtually no right wingers who hate the programs ever actually do so.

And public school is certainly something you received before you could have paid taxes.




Arpig -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 6:42:28 PM)

quote:

And here we pass from political ideology into the realm of moral obligation...
Not exactly. In a country like the US, founded on the premise that the individual is paramount, your arguement is actually valid, not morally, but due to political ideology...never mind, I just realised that was pretty much what you were saying...we agree




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 8:18:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You are of course welcome to opt out of Medicare, although you can't get Social Security benefits either if you do. For some reason that couldn't possibly be blatant hypocrisy virtually no right wingers who hate the programs ever actually do so.

And public school is certainly something you received before you could have paid taxes.


Again, give me my just my money wasted on welfare and other public assistance and Ill opt out of Medicare and Social Security. Keep my payroll taxes. I'll be way ahead.

And again, public school is NOT public assistance but available to everyone, and though that makes it irrelevant to your argument, my family sure as hell paid taxes for it.




tazzygirl -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 8:31:04 PM)

Didnt get any financial help for college... meaning your family made too much. Born with a silver spoon? Or at least a silver plated one?




willbeurdaddy -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 8:38:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Didnt get any financial help for college... meaning your family made too much. Born with a silver spoon? Or at least a silver plated one?


Wrong. When I went to college means testing was a minor consideration for free aid, financial aid decisions were almost entirely academic. Means was a larger consideration in procuring jobs and loans, which is what I got. My family didnt pay a dime for my college education.
Jobs, loans and occasional illicit activities paid for every penny.




tweakabelle -> RE: Adult Abortion... The Right to Choose (12/8/2010 8:45:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

There's an interesting separation between 'success' and 'failure' in this discussion. Are they really opposites? Or are they mutually dependent? Can you have one without the other?


Of course.


Visionary stuff! You can think of/imagine a modern society that has only successes and no failures? Or vice versa? I'd love to hear the details of this.

It's easy to think in terms of individual success or failure. At the level of society/State it's a tad different.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.09375