Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then you better get on the ball and start convincing your other Rightwing buddies to start supporting Planned Parenthood instead of pulling the rug out from under it every chance you get.
It's pretty dumb to be complaining about babies born on the public dime while supporting a party that pushes policies that help to MAKE THAT HAPPEN.
Ken
Planned Parenthood is the only means for acting responsibly? Whatever did we do before Planned Parenthood!!! According to your assertion, PP must be the brains of the poor. Is that what you're saying?
And what about all the sympathizers who see nothing wrong with funding 40% of childbirths? Can Planned Parenthood act as their brains too?
Planned Parenthood is the only means for acting responsibly? Whatever did we do before Planned Parenthood!!!
We had children irresponsibly, just like every culture since the dawn of time. The idolized golden age of personal responsiblity only exists in your head.
Why do we need a one child policy? The US is not overpopulated, we just don't properly take care of the citizens we have because conservatives think it's better for rich people to hoard than do anything truly productive with the money.
Aero, you didn't respond - are you just preaching personal responsibility as a noble goal, or do you support cutting programs?
It's not ? I guess I must be IMAGINING the traffic & lines I have to endure everywhere I go. Ohhkayy then.
You must be one of the lucky ones who can seclude yourself out in the country. I have rich relatives in California who also seem blissfully unaware of overpopulation. It seems to be only the poor who notice.
Given that each state sets the specific income limit over and above the federal poverty level for prenatal/delivery-specific Medicaid (133% to 300%--enough with the meme that it's only people on welfare), and that it is meant, at its core, to reduce infant and maternal mortality for women who either are totally uninsured or are covered under a non-comprehensive health insurance policy, shouldn't some of the RW outrage be directed at their own state guidelines?
What would happen if the income guidelines were dropped? Does anyone think the birthrate would magically drop along with it? Uninsured people have babies just like everyone else. The difference? They tend to not have sufficient prenatal care, and the hospital may not get paid. The Medicaid coverage simply ensures that a) the mother-to-be will have prenatal care and b) that there will be payment (albeit lower than standard insurance coverage) made to the facility and staff.
And, given that many of the income limits are only slightly below the median household income for some towns and cities of this country (especially in rural areas), does this mean that fertility should cease entirely for anyone under the median household income (or some other arbitrary level of 'worthiness' the RW decides upon)? The South, in particular, would be hit especially hard (think 'future Republicans' lost). Hello future ghost towns...
Exactly what income makes one 'worthy' of having a child?
And, for the last time (since my previous attempts at garnering a direct response were met with unrealistic, ambiguous bumper-sticker nonsense), how do any of you propose to force 'personal responsibility', and at what cost? Do we ban all people from procreating below a specific income level?
The RW arguments in this thread are not so much about how horrific it is that their tax dollars are going to prenatal and delivery care for the welfare of the child they otherwise rant about. The arguments have everything to do with classism, sexism, and a seething sense of self-righteousness.
The U.S. already possesses an unacceptable infant mortality rate when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. We should be working harder at reducing that rate, along with reducing the number of teenage pregnancies through education.
Are babies of the wealthy the only ones that matter to them?
Do tell.
Last edited by rayneinspain; 04-05-2012 at 12:53 PM..
Given that each state sets the specific income limit over and above the federal poverty level for prenatal/delivery-specific Medicaid (133% to 300%), and that it is meant, at its core, to reduce infant and maternal mortality for women who either are totally uninsured or are covered under a non-comprehensive health insurance policy, shouldn't some of the RW outrage be directed at their own state guidelines?
What would happen if the income guidelines were dropped? Does anyone think the birthrate would magically drop along with it? Uninsured people have babies just like everyone else. The difference? They tend to not have sufficient prenatal care. The Medicaid coverage simply ensures that a) the mother-to-be will have prenatal care and b) that there will be payment (albeit lower than standard insurance coverage) made to the facility and staff.
And, given that many of the income limits are only slightly below the median household income for some towns and cities of this country (especially in rural areas), does this mean that fertility should cease entirely for anyone under the median household income (or some other arbitrary level of 'worthiness' the RW decides upon)? Hello future ghost towns...
Exactly what income makes one 'worthy' of having a child?
And, for the last time (since my previous attempts at garnering a direct response were met with unrealistic, ambiguous bumper-sticker nonsense), how do any of you propose to force 'personal responsibility', and at what cost? Do we ban all people from procreating below a specific income level?
The RW arguments in this thread are not so much about how horrific it is that their tax dollars are going to prenatal and delivery care for the welfare of the child they otherwise rant about. The arguments have everything to do with classism, sexism, and a seething sense of self-righteousness.
The U.S. already possesses an unacceptable infant mortality rate when compared to the rest of the industrialized world. We should be working harder at reducing that rate, along with reducing the number of teenage pregnancies through education.
Or are babies of the wealthy the only ones that matter to them?
Do tell.
Quote:
Exactly what income makes one 'worthy' of having a child?
Simple. The income that allows them to insure, or pay for prenatal care, birth, food, clothes, and shelter out of their own pocket.
That's what living a responsible life means. You should embrace that sooner rather than later.
Simple. The income that allows them to insure, or pay for prenatal care, birth, food, clothes, and shelter out of their own pocket.
Ok, then is it a lapse in 'personal responsibility' to develop cancer, Parkinson's, or a femoral fracture when one's insurance is dropped or when one is out of work and uninsured?
Ok, then is it a lapse in 'personal responsibility' to develop cancer, Parkinson's, or a femoral fracture when one's insurance is dropped or when one is out of work and uninsured?
Those are things that people don't choose though. Having a baby is a choice...I think most people know where babies come from.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
