Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 119

Thread: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Right. People in general should have a healthy dose of common sense and a plan in mind.

    Any person who can not afford an expense, shouldn't create the expense.
    This is not in tune with the reality of human nature. People can even have protected sex but an accident may still lead to pregnancy. It's the same stance that people take against abortion... they shouldn't have had sex in the first place. That's not reality. They did. It's like the Church saying people in Africa shouldn't have sex, and then they wouldn't get AIDS. People are going to have sex... it's just a reality that social conservatives can't seem to get their minds around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Exactly. See, you do understand.

    If you're poor, don't create these expenses.
    That actually wasn't my point, but nice try.

    They are going to inevitably go to the hospital anyway, give birth, and accrue bills that they won't pay. That hurts the medical system more than it hurts them; and besides, once the kid is born, there will be other priorities like food, shelter, education, clothing, etc. They aren't going to care about the bill.

    Children, the ones who are the future of your country, deserve to be born with a clean slate and not a hospital bill that will weigh down their family and them for years to come.

    Again... saying they shouldn't get pregnant is irrelevant to the fact that they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Uhh, where did that come from? The child birth is the financial responsibility of the parent....as is every other expense the child has until they turn 18.
    That debt directly affects the child's upbringing no matter what way you slice it. Social conservatives that want to punish the mother for getting pregnant are also punishing the child. The average labour cost is between $11,000 and $17,000, assuming it is a standard labour with no complications and no need for c-section. Assuming the mother even tries to pay that off, it will be a debt that cuts into a meager income.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Poverty? No. A feeling of economic insecurity, sure, and we don't even know if that feeling is real or imagined when they tell the truth on those surveys.
    If they make 20k or less a year, they are below the poverty line. I'm not interested in your spin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Your average woman seeking an abortion is married middle class with at least 1 existing child, fyi.
    This thread is about pregnant women out of wedlock. Try to keep up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Anyway, abortion is an expense those on my side are telling people they shouldn't make if they can't afford it. The point is, if you can't afford the abortion, you shouldn't be creating a need for one.
    If the need exists, what they should have done is irrelevant, unless of course you've invented time travel, then you can warn them ahead of time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Wow, you have some personal issues shining through your posts here, I'll do my best to ignore them and stay on topic.
    Pointing out an innate hypocrisy of social conservativism is not a personal issue, but a simple observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The point is that if you can't afford the expense, then you shouldn't be creating the expense.
    I guess no one should live their lives then, because everything they do is a potential expense. If I walk down the street and get hit by a car and need medical care, I guess I shouldn't have left my house. If I fall down the stairs and break my leg, needing medical care that I can't afford, I guess I shouldn't have bought a house with a second floor.

    Life is full of risks, some whose consequences are accidental. I'm personally not into the blame game. Should've, could've, would've... the past is unalterable. I prefer to look at present realities and relevant solutions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Why thank you
    It wasn't a compliment.

  2. #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    I'm not particularly opposed to paying for the childbirth itself, because as you note, selection of the "cheaper" option will probably lead to increased costs due to birth-related deaths/defects. I'm just wary of justifying it on the grounds that we shouldn't be burdening children with debt via their parents.
    When it comes to all other areas of life, I don't favour bailing out the parents to save the children. If parents have bad spending habits that ruin their families, that is their problem. When it comes to birth, I'm of a different view. A woman who is pregnant and presumably does not want an abortion has no choice but to give birth under the care of professionals if she wants to mitigate risk.

    If government funding doesn't step in for that, more women will avoid the hospitals and professionals, and more women and their babies will be at risk during childbirth. This is the hypocrisy that I am trying to point out with social conservativism. They are against abortion, yet won't shoulder the social cost to bring these babies safely into the world. It is utterly hypocritical, and a reason why I am pro-choice.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Someone choosing to have children that they cannot afford on their own.
    This is kind of a separate debate, but in an ideal world, women would only choose to have kids when they are ready and when all factors line up perfectly; but as we know, human nature does not allow for this most of the time. I think it makes more sense to acknowledge this reality than to blame a woman who is already pregnant for being pregnant. It's beating a dead horse.

    Call me a realist.
    Last edited by Orion; 03-20-09 at 05:21 AM.

  3. #63
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    This is kind of a separate debate, but in an ideal world, women would only choose to have kids when they are ready and when all factors line up perfectly; but as we know, human nature does not allow for this most of the time. I think it makes more sense to acknowledge this reality than to blame a woman who is already pregnant for being pregnant. It's beating a dead horse.

    Call me a realist.
    I completely agree that it's not a primary consideration for the vast majority of people that we're talking about here, which is why I don't favor using the law in a punitive fashion. I simply think that we should do what we can to disincentivize it in a humane fashion.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Here it is:
    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    Again... saying they shouldn't get pregnant is irrelevant to the fact that they are.
    Only once? Ever?

    No more women other than those who are pregnant at this single moment will ever become pregnant?

    Both of those need to be true for your argument to have any merit.
    Last edited by Jerry; 03-20-09 at 06:01 AM.

  5. #65
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    12-26-10 @ 06:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,083

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Only once? Ever?

    No more women other than those who are pregnant at this single moment will ever become pregnant?
    It's not my fault that you lack the imagination to envision a situation where a woman might accidentally get pregnant. It's also not my job to explain it to you. Furthermore, even if a woman chooses to get pregnant, I support the state funding her child's birth in order to mitigate risk to the mother and child. Children are the future of America and mothers who cannot afford the large hospital bill of bringing into the world should be helped. "Should" means a normative statement, and those are my ethics. Take it or leave it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Both of those need to be true for your argument to have any merit.
    In the world of Jerry logic, I'm sure that's how it works.


  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Fine N Dandy, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. The man's day of work is worth what he was paid for it, and as proof, I will quote you a market rate for his days labor that looks a lot like a paycheck.
    I've posted a study that utilizes the stochastic frontier technique to determine the existence of underpayment in the capitalist economy. Do you have any empirical evidence to support your own claim?

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    The worker is not peddling "information", he is peddling his day's work, so your attempted doublespeak about "information" is summarily rejected as off-topic. It is poppycock, new age, redefinitionist, mumbo jumbo, crap, and I'm not fooled for a second.
    The fact that you do not understand the nature of asymmetric information necessarily means that you will lack an understanding of related agency costs, adverse selection and moral hazard problems, and various forms of imperfect contracting and exchange. Hence, you will lack an understanding of capitalist economic structure. I don't know why you would commit yourself to deliberate ignorance of such issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    You mean like the worker privately owns his "labor factory" ?
    No. The means of production are subject to collective management as manifested through direct democracy in an anarchist economy.

    If this silly little contention is in ANY way accurate, perhaps you can explain how the "employer" found this "unfindable" alternative ?[/QUOTE]

    Are you really going to ask so ignorant a question as that? Through a state protection of an inheritance, which was itself augmented through the extraction of surplus value of an earlier generation, and so on and so forth. Considering the role of the state in the creation of classes, you'll want to devote somewhat more study to this topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Voidwar View Post
    Simply false. Surplus value does not exist. It is a bogeyman created by Marx.
    The underpayment caused by information asymmetries in a capitalist economy certainly provides such evidence to the contrary, as it is a powerful indication that surplus value is being extracted during the production process.

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    You sound like a Marxist:
    More and more...That is the value of free speech.

    People identify their true selves.
    The reason you inaccurately identify me as a Marxist is because you have little grasp of political economy. If you were able to comprehend the fact that I oppose hierarchical social and economic organization, and therefore a "workers' state" or a "dictatorship of the proletariat," you would understand this, but your level of comprehension evidently does not permit you to differentiate between different forms of socialism. That's not surprising, considering your likely inaccurate understanding of the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Of course, in Obama's case... they attack those that get the Oaf to say what he really means.
    Obama is neither a Marxist nor a socialist of any variety inasmuch as he does not advocate the public ownership of the means of production.

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    No.
    There is no "right" to have food.
    That is a responsibility by parents.

    When they cannot fulfill this simple responsibility, others usually step in.
    It's compassion that triggers these responses.
    The problem is that extolling the virtues of hard work and self-responsibility does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that the meager wages of the working class are often lower than their respective welfare payments. This is sufficient reason for raising the minimum wage, but unfortunately, capitalist misinformation regarding an alleged increase in unemployment brought about by such a step dominates there.

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    This is a pretty big concession for an Anarchist.
    Concession? No. Merely an acknowledgment that the state can provide relatively benign functions to prevent greater coercion than would otherwise be the case, which is perfectly consistent given the nature of anarchist opposition to all forms of unwarranted hierarchy, not merely the state form. Indeed, many have concluded that capitalism is a greater offender than the state, although the two cannot be separated from one another.

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Health care is not a right either.
    It's a service. You can try to make it a "right" through coercion.
    By forcing individuals, Doctors to provide care.
    Considering the greater coercion involved in capitalist disenfranchisement of working classes, the diminishing rate of marginal utility permits us to understand the relatively benign nature of "coercion" of a doctor compared to the deleterious consequences of an alternate course.

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Not quite the anarchists mode... perhaps the Amarxists.
    You have an extraordinarily poor understanding of political economy, as evidenced thus far. Anarchists do not merely oppose the state; they oppose all variants of unwarranted hierarchy, which obviously includes a capitalist economic framework. Perhaps you need some help? A.1 What is anarchism?

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Like this is a common occurrence.
    This is the typical Marxist ploy; take a freak and use THAT as the baseline.
    Make the remainder of society pay for the rare occurrence.
    If you really don't know that Noam Chomsky is an anarchist and not a Marxist, there's little hope for you.


    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    You know, there are a lot of charities that help such people.

    Of course ObaMarx wants to cut deductions for individuals supporting such organizations.
    Wonder why?

    Saved?
    No.
    Helped... yes, and private organizations are there if family is not.
    Please make an attempt to abandon a utopian faith in "private charity" in favor of a greater dose of healthy pragmatism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    The argument that health care or food or a roof over one's head are 'human rights' certainly has a compassionate ring to it. But you're correct, it fails the simple common sense test.

    If I have a 'right' to health care, then by definition some other individual must be coerced to provide it. The same with food or shelter.

    On the other hand, I can exercise my 'right to free speech' by disgorging voluminous posts on message boards from sunup to sundown... and no one else need lift a finger.

    And yet, your "negative rights" themselves require a state or public apparatus to forcibly prevent their violation if such attempts at violation are themselves forcible, and thus require that a state official or other individual be "coerced" to provide it. A shame that that infernal positive right of public police protection is necessary to ensure the survival of negative rights!

    Quote Originally Posted by Orius View Post
    I don't know why this has spun into a debate about socialism...
    This has spun into a debate about socialism because of the rightist misrepresentation of a capitalist welfare state constituting a form of "socialism," to say nothing of their grotesque misunderstanding of political economy and empirical evidence regarding the reality of welfare recipients, as opposed to crude, recycled myths.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    lol

    Yea, I'm sure most 16 year olds getting knocked up by their baby daddy are doing it in order to avoid later disruptions in their career progression.
    They may not be consciously aware of the value of early childbearing in preventing labor interruption, just as the lower class may be unaware of specific data and statistical evidence regarding poverty, but that commentary does nothing whatsoever to address Hotz et al.

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Or maybe it's because you're posting cartoons from Bertell Ollman's "What is Marxism?"

    What is Marxism? A Bird's-Eye View < DIALECTICAL MARXISM: The Writings of Bertell Ollman
    An ignorance of political economy is revealed from yet another poster. The cartoon is not "from" Ollman's essay, which should be rather apparent to you inasmuch as the dollar amounts described in each cartoon are different. Rather, Ollman's critique of capitalism is merely similar to my own, and we thus incorporate similar doctrines within the context of criticizing capitalism. Regardless, Marxist and anarchist theories on socialist organization have been profoundly split ever since their most apparent divergence at the Hague Congress of the First International, when Marx and his supporters engineered the expulsion of Bakunin and his supporters. Perhaps if you possessed a greater degree of familiarity with the historical record you wouldn't make such inappropriate replies.

    Indeed, anarchists were among the first commentators to condemn the authoritarian elements of Marxism, from Bakunin's ideological criticisms of the late nineteenth century to Kropotkin's harsh criticisms of the Bolshevik dictatorship after the Russian Revolution. With that in mind, it is nothing short of grotesque and obscene that the anarchist brand of socialism has been branded "authoritarian" because of the failure of Soviet state capitalism, first predicted by anarchists.

  7. #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Incidentally, I'm curious as to how rightists reconcile their opposition to abortion rights with their opposition to a welfare state. Ananat et al.'s Abortion and Selection indicates this:

    Abortion legalization in the early 1970s led to dramatic changes in fertility. Some research has suggested that it altered cohort outcomes, but this literature has been limited and controversial. In this paper, we provide a framework for understanding selection mechanisms and use that framework to both address inconsistent past methodological approaches and provide evidence on the long-run impact on cohort characteristics. Our results indicate that lower-cost abortion brought about by legalization altered young adult outcomes through selection. In particular, it increased likelihood of college graduation, lower rates of welfare use, and lower odds of being a single parent.
    Could it be that they utilize that dreaded *gasp* utilitarianism?!

  8. #68
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Is it now? I bet the religious right would love such laws.

    How about forcing abortion on any woman that cant support a child... how you think that would go down?
    I thought you were the religious right?

    I'm neither for nor against abortion, so I really don't know.


    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And why is that? Is it not in the nations interest to have as many births as possible? Is it also not in the nations interest not having a high child death rate because the women cant afford the required treatment? Is it also not morally and humanly societies job to help any child in need?
    Not if they can support all the births.

    The child death rate won't go up necessarily.

    Maybe we can employ the Humane Society to help them?

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    You might be pissed that you as a the tax payer is paying for these women (I know I am in my own country), but what is the alternative? Do you think that not having these "supposed incentives" will change the fact that women will have children? Do you really think that all these 40%, hell even a majority, are abusing the system to get more money? Could it not just be that they are in a situation where birth control is out of reach because of economic issues, lack of education or religious issues? Or could it be they are in a relationship and just dont want to get married?
    First of all lets get this thought of restricted birth control out of your head.

    It is just an absolute lie that people can't get birth control.

    Come to the U.S. and go to any Walmart and you will find the aisle with all the birth control one would need, they also carry any kind of lube you want to from KY to Astroglide.

    It would reduce incentive for sure. Since it has been proven that medicaid is an incentive.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Well it is a problem, because they cant and they still have children. Are you saying you want to deny them the right to have children based on economic standing? How can you at all solve this problem without tackling the issue of birth control teaching from an early age instead of this brain dead abstinence only teaching that quite a few want instead?
    They can have all the kids they want provided that they can pay for them.
    Schools teach more than abstinence, stop reading Fox news you religious right conservative!

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    And what after 3 years? The child is only slightly less vulnerable than it was a birth. Dump mother and child on the street? Take the kid away from her and put it in an ophrange and tie the mothers tubes (force ably of course)? What is your solution other than cutting off funds a few years after birth, and making a bad situation into a tragic one?
    No, the mother has freaking 3 years to prepare. If you can't get your **** together in 3 years provided that all the other government assistance is still available then you have seriously ****ed up.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    Like it or not, government is in one hell of a pickle here. They can say, no will not pay you extra depending on the amount of children you have.. fine, but that will only lead to malnourished children and dead children, because it sure in hell wont stop people from having kids.
    And those crap parents can suffer the consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteEU View Post
    I am? And are you sure about that everyone knows what the hell birth control is in the US? The teen pregnancy rate kinda disproves that.

    And "a government school".. well, what about in the states that promote abstinence programs over birth control programs (if they at all have it)? What about private schools, especially the religious variant that brainwashes children?

    You can not deny that the US has issues when it comes to sex and birth control...
    The teen pregnancy rate proves that teens are ****ing.
    They teach everyone about sex in school, unless your parents pull you out.

    You have a real skewed view of the U.S. , you should visit it some time before making all these false assumptions.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Between Hollywood and Compton.
    Last Seen
    11-25-09 @ 12:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    5,497

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    So is anyone planning on commenting on Hotz et al.?

  10. #70
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Last Seen
    12-10-11 @ 02:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    5,122

    Re: US births break record; 40 pct out-of-wedlock

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    I've posted a study that utilizes the stochastic frontier technique to determine the existence of underpayment in the capitalist economy. Do you have any empirical evidence to support your own claim?
    I don't need any. Simple logic will suffice. The fact that you wished you got more than you did, does not mean that you were in fact underpaid. Previously posted, doublespeak, claptrap does nothing to change that I see right thru the envy inherent in your false assertion. What your "study" attempts to do, is falsely fabricate the real proof of this question. If you want to claim you were underpaid, the ONLY acceptable proof is proving it to me by getting hired doing the same job, at a higher wage. When no one will hire you for what you wish you could get, your logical bubble pops from lack of actual proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    The fact that you do not understand
    The fact that I reject something as poppycock does not in any way mean that I don't understand it. Your problem here, is that I understand it all too well. I have a thorough knowledge of its complete falseness.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    No. The means of production are subject to collective management
    Quite simply false. The worker's means of producing labor are NOT subject to collective management, unless your collective is enslaving the individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Are you really going to ask so ignorant a question as that? Through a state protection of an inheritance,
    Its not ignorant, it just makes your fantasy world take a brief look at the real world. Property rights are enforced ? GOOD ! I can work and earn and leave my kids a head start ? GOOD !

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    which was itself augmented through the extraction of surplus value of
    OOOOPS, no such thing as "surplus value", or the Abominable Snowman for that matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    Considering the role of the state in the creation of classes, you'll want to devote somewhat more study to this topic.
    Here's a topic you can study . . .

    from : U.S. Constitution, Article I Section 9

    No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
    So, as you can see, our "state" explicitly banned classes.
    Too bad we didn't include classists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnapostate View Post
    The underpayment
    Does not exist, and neither does Bigfoot.

Page 7 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •