Mav: >My sister is bi-polar and can't hold a job, she has >not held a job for 15 years. She lives 100% off the >government and the government pays 100% for her >medical care and her doctor visits for her pregnancy. First, best wishes for your sister and thanks for sharing that personal note. One of my good attorney friends works as a child advocate here in CA and has advised members of my family. Being thus fairly knowledgable on the SSI/AFDC/etc front I expected to find a situation something like you described. That situation is NOT typical of the AFCD situation here in California (or any other state I would guess). Unlike your sister, most recipients of AFDC would not be eligible for the sort of government medical care and direct financial aid that your sister receives child or not. Your sister's child is fortunate that he/she can piggyback on the SSI and other aid that is offered because of your sisters condition (and meaning no insult whatsoever, your sister's child is also unfortunate in oh so many sad ways) >In fact Turok, anyone in the US can apply for SSI >benefits. That is a truthful and oh so misleading statement. Yes, "anyone can apply", but applying does NOT make you eligible. You will not get it unless you meet the eligiblility requirements and unless fraud is involved a perfectly healthy 17 year old pregnant girl with perfectly healthy parents will not get it. PERIOD!!! (go read who is eligible Mav). No offense, but it is in fact misleading to your case to use your sister as an example of the government caring for the unborn and the young (our subject here) since her SSI eligiblity is *not* created by her pregnancy, but rather by her disability. >If you can prove that you can't take care >of yourself financially, then uncle sam will >jump in and do it for you. Well, that is only partially true but it is off the subject and also an area that I suspect we would agree on so where's the fun there. JB
>Sure I maybe projecting me beliefs on >others but aren't you projecting your >beliefs on me? LOL. Once again, read what I wrote Mav... I did not suggest you were projecting "beliefs" I suggested you were projecting "feelings". You said: >They will never rid themselves of the guilt. They >will take it to the grave with them. You are projecting a feeling of guilt on many woman who simply don't share your feelings. Many take no such thing to the grave. >Maybe Turok if we as a society understood how >precious life is and everything that goes into creating >life, we would not be so hasty to throw it away quite >so easily. Well Mav, I fully understand how precious human life is and I don't want it thrown away at all. AND YET... JB
Turok, I can tell you from experience that SSI is faaaaaar to lenient. Trust me. All my sister's friends are on SSI. Don't ask, long story. I have met these people and I don't want to even get started about how much I hate this SSI program. Seriously dude, it's a joke. It's not that hard at all to get on it. Yeah, you probably do have to be 18 years which makes sense. If you are under 18 where are your parents? If they throw the girl out on the streets there are many shelters a young girl can go to, paid for by the government btw, that will take care of her and her baby. I know this too from experience unfortunately. Basically Turok 90% of the people on SSI should not even be on it. I can't imagine what kind of situation you would need to have to not get SSI. I'm telling you man, the system is a joke. The bottom line, there are many avenues for a young girl to turn to if she is pregnant and the government does pay the bill. Some directly, some indirectly. You want to hear a funny story about CA? I had a buddy out there that worked for a prop shop, won't say which one. Anyway, he wasn't making any money daytrading. So he applied for section 8 housing. And guess what? He got it. He actually got to live in a posh pad in Santa Monica paying only 50% of the normal rent. In fact the funny thing was, his buddies from the prop shop were all living in this complex and paying full rent and he paid only half of what they were paying because he was an unprofitable daytrader. Ugggg, I hate government subsidies. Thank God, I'm not paying the sky high state income taxes out there to pay for that. Sheesh.
i agree with this. the western countries with the lowest per capita abortion rates - much lower than the US rate - are also the liberalest western countries. through extensive reproductive education and ready availability of conctraceptives they have reduced unintended pregnancy rates to a fraction of what they are in the US. the netherlands in particular - a cradle to grave social democracy peopled by nihilistic atheists with access to legal marijuana - gotta love the dutch - have an abortion rate 75% lower than that of the US. the single biggest contributing factor to unnecessary abortions in the US are fundies working at local district levels to prevent decent education of kids. the only way to significantly reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies - and that requires education.
My sister and brother in law own a bazillion apartments and low income housing here in CA and deal with all that Section 8 housing crap. They tell stories of section 8 tenents driving Porsches and such. As to the misuse of SSI, Sec 8, etc, you and I will likely agree almost without exception. It's amazing we are the Country that we are with all the whiners dragging us down. As Henley and Frey say "Get Over It" JB
Unfortunately this would require politicians to display concern for facts and common sense, rather than pandering to special interest voter groups. So it is about as likely to happen as a snowstorm in the Sahara.
Surely the way to decide when a foetus is a living individual is to define which qualities are necessary and sufficient for something to be classed a living organism, then see to what extent the foetus has them at various stages of its development. This appears to be largely an issue for biologists and the medical profession. I certainly fail to see how politics, morality, religion, or even people's feelings have anything to do with it. A woman's right to choose does not extend to the right to choose to kill another individual. There may be rare exceptions, such as a rape victim who has been denied access to an abortion until late in the pregnancy. A fertilised egg in a woman's body has very little in common with a living human being, so I don't see how it can be classed as an individual life. A foetus 1 minute before birth has a huge amount in common with an infant 1 minute after birth, so I don't see how it can be classed as anything other than an individual life. Somewhere in between there will be a grey area where the foetus goes from obviously not being a separate living individual, to becoming one. Abortion then becomes murder of a living individual at least at the far end of that grey area. Inside the grey area it may or may not be murder - so no one could be convicted of murder beyond a reasonable doubt if they commited an abortion during that period. However, society may wish to err on the side of caution and make abortion inside the grey area a criminal offence. The arguments about enforcement are irrelevant. Making murder illegal does not stop murder, rather it drives it underground and results in "backstreet" murders, hit men and so on. That does not in any way imply that we should relax the laws on murder, or the enforcement of those laws. The same line of reasoning applies to abortion. If something is a living human being, then it has rights, and ought to be protected by law. If not, then it shouldn't.