Nice job in class discussion these past two sessions. I've been sitting here for ten minutes trying to think of a post on our topics for this week -- pregnancy, childbirth, and reproductive rights -- that won't unleash a firestorm of vitriol on the blog. Okay, now make that 15 minutes trying to come up with a topic.
1. A state senator in Texas has introduced a bill to pay women $500 dollars to not have an abortion and give their baby up for adoption. Here's the link (there are various other stories on this topic you can find by doing a Google search) http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/4654720.html Discuss!
2. For those of you in class with children, what positive and/or negative experiences have you had in the work place or in educational settings as a working mother and/or working father? Why do you think you had those positive and/or negative experiences (e.g., specific to a particular boss, some larger policy issue, etc.). What role do you think government should play in helping working parents balance the demands of career and familial obligations? Should the government play a role at all? Students WITHOUT children are certainly welcome to weigh in on the latter part of this question and/or to share experiences they have seen co-workers encounter who have children.
3. The tangential topic of government promoting marriage that we spent quite a bit of time on today seemed important to many of you. Shall we discuss a bit more here? Here are some links so you can better understand what is meant by "government promoting marriage"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13964621/
http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/members/news/2005/August-News/Professor_says_government_should_promote_jobs_and_education_rather_than_marriage.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul151.html
http://www.unmarried.org/
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/funding/child_support.html
Discuss!
Saturday, January 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
The marriage debate really caught me offguard today. I mean, I understand that marriage is not for everybody (both my brother and sister are over 35 and unmarried) and that is perfectly fine. I do not think that everybody should get married or that marriage is good for everyone. However, I was truly and utterly shocked by the amount of classmates that were so vehemently opposed to marriage and opposed to the government encouraging marriage. Obviously, abusive marriages and abusive relationships should be abandoned as soon as they are abusive. But really, what is so terribly wrong with people wanting to legally or morally commit to their significant other and establish a stable family life.
Whether we want to admit it or not, the family is and always has been a very important social institution for Americans. I will attempt to paraphrase what Dr. Patton stated in class today, that married individuals are more likely to be healthy, wealthier, and live longer. The government initiative, to my understanding, gives out grants and information on promoting the benefits of marriage and how to deal with rough spots in marriage and be good parents. I personally feel that my tax dollars are being well spent if good programs are created that encourage healthy family planning and producing committed fathers. According to MSNBC, over $50 million will be allocated to create committed fathers and making males more aware of their responsibility as a father. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13964621/) I feel that some of the issues we have discussed in class, such as single parent households, sexual abuse, domestic abuse, and deadbeat dads could be slightly alleviated by creating more responsible husbands and fathers. I also believe that these programs could provide more gravity to the responsibility of marriage. If it is administered correctly, this initiative could encourage only marrying when young couples are ready, and it could help prepare them for some of the inevitable pitfalls that go along with cohabitation and marriage.
One statistic that jumped out at me was that only 6% of married couples with children live below the poverty line while 36% of female-headed households are below the poverty line. (http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/members/news/2005/August-News/Professor_says_government_should_promote_jobs_and_education_rather_than_marriage.htm). I know there are several factors that play into these numbers, but the poverty line is higher for a two-parent household than it is for a single parent household. In short, two-parent households fare better and seem to provide, at least economically, a better environment to raise children. I feel that marriage should not be forced upon someone, and I do not believe that it is the answer for everyone. I believe that couples should marry only if they are serious, in love, and committed to the other person. However, there do seem to be certain benefits to marriage and I think there is nothing wrong with our government promoting an institution that statistically provides stability and higher social returns than the alternative. Basically, no one is forcing people to get married and there is annulment and divorce available if marriage does not work. But, if the government is willing to spend money on counseling couples, teaching men to be good fathers, and providing techniques for couples to cope with the rough times then what is wrong with that? Once again, I think it is important to note that women or men should never stay in an abusive relationship; but, if a couple is committed to one another then what is so bad about marriage?
Dan Patrick, state senator of Texas, has devised a payment plan for pregnant women to instead of abort their baby, give it up for adoption for $500. A lot of people disagree with this and call this "baby selling". Other people feel the focus should be on contraceptives for women to prevent the problem to begin with. Now I feel abortion is wrong in each and every way possible. I am one of the 95 percent of Christians out there and I am from the south and I was born and raised in a place where abortion is considered murder. There is no difference in abortion and killing your next door neighbor. I think that if you get an abortion, then you should go to prison for the rest of your life, just like if you actually killed a neighbor or anyone. At least when you have a baby, you can put them up for adoption if you are not able to take care of it. You are giving the kid a chance and that is better than killing it and not knowing what could have happened. I think that if I were to get a woman pregnant, and I couldn't afford to keep it, I would rather it live and me put it up for adoption than just saying "kill it". I would be able to live with myself a lot easier knowing I gave one of God's creations a chance to live on this earth than to say, " a baby just doesn't fit in my schedule right now at this time in my life". In all I agree with Dan Patrick and I see what he is trying to do and I think that this is a great start and could lead to bigger and better things like stopping abortion all together!
I’m quite intrigued by the idea of the $500 giveaway that Senator Patrick has proposed. For some reason, the first thought in my head was of a car dealership back home around Cincinnati that promises a $3000 or so trade in on any used car regardless of condition. I don’t know why this comparison came into play, but I must admit that it does humor me in some strange way.
That aside, I think there is some good intentions with his idea, although the execution is a bit outrageous for my liking. Some of his opponents believe he should instead support programs to provide birth-control options and education to more women. I think this is fine and should be done. However, this isn’t necessarily a cure-all for the situation. As we’ve discussed in class, many pregnancies are unplanned a statistic backed by that handout we received in class today. To put it bluntly, stopping people from having sex isn’t feasible. Couple that with the fact that there is no truly infallible form of birth control besides abstinence, and it’s apparent that babies are going to be born despite any efforts made by society to curtail this. I don’t feel that a potential mother (and hopefully there’s a potential father involved in the decision making too, though unfortunately that isn’t the case in many instances) should need a financial incentive to make this decision, and should consider only the best interests of their unborn child.
On the other hand, if you live in a land where you have the choice to abort a fetus, shouldn’t you also have the right to sell that fetus for profit? In a true free market economy, this would certainly be an option on the table. I just wonder whether a fetus would be classified as labor or capital (I used to be an economics major in a past life, so I had to throw this scenario out there!)
Reading the article concerning Sen. Patrick’s proposal caused me to think of a question that I would like to present for comments—what is the adoption system like here in America? I know I may just be an uninformed citizen, but from my observations (please note these are only observations/assumptions) I feel that our country may not have the strongest or most available/encouraged adoption system. For example, I know of three different couples that within the past year have adopted children from other countries—one in particular tried to here in America and eventually found it more efficient/effective (not sure if that’s the right way to phrase that) to adopt overseas. More so, I also know of a lot of foster parents and several situations where kids up for adoption have been in foster care their entire lives thus far. We’ve been discussing that the government has all of these programs to promote different aspects of life, including marriage—does anyone know of one focused on encouraging adoption? Maybe there is one and I just haven’t seen the advertisements yet, etc. Thus, if Sen. Patrick’s plan was effective and more mothers gave their babies up for adoption, does the government have an effective system to support such? I have no idea.
I personally prefer adoption over abortion, but overall, I really don’t know if $500 is going to be such an incentive for those considering abortion.
Another aspect of the article that stuck out to me was when it said that a study showed that concerning abortion,“birth mothers who gave up their children found that many experienced lifelong guilt over their decision.” I’m sure there is also a study for the other side of this debate and I can only assume that birth mothers who abort their children also experience lifelong guilt or emotion towards the experience.
These are just some things to think about… things I’m personally thinking about. I don’t know a lot about this overall issue—comments?
Holy Wow!! Let's pay women to give up their children. This would totally have women popping out children every nine months. Is this man crazy? I understand that trying to stop abortion is his main goal, but in the process he is telling women it is ok to sell your child. I mean I am for a women's right to choose but if we allow a women an incentive for having babies, we would have unwanted children running around everywhere. I really have to say that this man must think of better ways to stop abortion. I just think that this is giving women the wrong idea and making them want to go out and have more unprotected sex because hey who cares if you get pregnant. You get 500 dollars for having a baby now days so why not have some fun! What kind of message would this be for our teens and youth? How about saying "Let's not kill a child, let's allow it to grow up to be someone!"
I also want to touch a little on the marriage issue. I can understand why the government is trying to stress the marriage issue. I think it is more of the happy home they are trying to sell. I understand that marriage is not for some people and many people get along fine without being married and raise beautiful healthy children. However, I believe what government is trying to say is that when two parents run the household things are less stressfull and you always have someone to fall back on. Marriage is a beautiful things but sometimes that beautiful thing isn't meant for everyone. I still don't see the problem with stressing a happy home or a happy marriage.
If you follow this link: http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0400.htm and then click on Grants to States, you will see that money for the Healthy Marriage Initiative is coming out of welfare appropriations. Does this, as a source of funding, send any particular gendered message?
In doing my own research I have found that 1.4 BILLION DOLLARS have been carved out of welfare funding for marriage promotion programs! As well as cut funds for research that could point to ways to stop the cycle of domestic violence. To me, this is ridiculous. These programs away money from people that need it, in order to merely tell people that marriage is good, when in reality over 60% of marriages end in divorce, and while being married 20% of women are abused. Yeah, marriage sounds like fun to me.
Families need to instill values and morals on to their children. It isn’t the governments job to tell me what is good for me. It’s ironic that these right wing conservatives put so much emphasis on family, when they promote war and killing of innocent civilians in a senseless war.
Let me state that I come from a small town in Eastern Kentucky where the majority of the population are conservative Christians. After graduating and coming to college I find that the majority of my friends from high school are married, and many of them are even divorced and starting on their second marriage… I am 22 years old. Research states that people aren’t even mature enough to handle marriage until late 20s early 30s! So, the government is going to program these kids into getting married when they hardly have the concept of what marriage is really like.
I was lucky enough to have a logical mother, who didn’t press me to get married. Even after I moved in with my boyfriend when I was 19 she denounced me getting married. LUCKY ME, or I would have been divorced by the time I was 21. (like my best friend who was in a similar situation, except she was pressured into marriage, now she’s divorced, getting ready for her 2nd marriage). What is wrong with people testing the waters, and not being married to live together. I can say that the 2 years I lived with my boyfriend were the most influential of my life. I learnt so many things by doing that, like what I could and couldn’t put up with. I feel doing that, actually made the likelihood of me getting divorced smaller in the future, because I now what I want out of a life partner.
In promoting marriage, it tells kids to go for the first person that comes along, not to hold out. And in the end, these programs will most likely increase the divorce rate.
I thought I would follow the trend and post on the Senator from Texas' bill.
The article comments on this bill coming dangerously close to "baby selling." How is it dangerously close? It IS “baby selling”! If this passes, which I am sure it will not, we are telling America's women that it is ok to sell your baby to another family if she gets into a sticky situation and doesn't want to keep her baby. Realistically will this work, no! In all honesty, there is far more that goes into making that decision than money. If you are opposed to abortion, you are not going to get one regardless of whether or not it will get you $500. If you are considering abortion, you are probably going to go ahead with it so you don't have to suffer nine months and run the risk of becoming attached to your child and in the end result in not wanting to give the baby up.
For the sake of the child, I refer back to Jessica's argument. Isn't the adoption mess in America bad enough? Aren't there too many children floating through foster homes as it is? If this bill passes it will only further the complications in the adopting process. I would feel terribly for those children who get stuck in the system because of this, of course I prefer that they get some chance at a life as opposed to being aborted.
In truth, I see what Senator Patrick is doing, and I welcome his attempt. I believe someone needs to give women an inceptive or alternative to abortion. I do not think that his way is the only way or the best way, but I applaud his attempt. I agree with Tbarnett, I believe abortion is murder and it is unfair for adults to decided which of God’s creatures gets a chance at life and which do not. I never spoke up in class because I knew I was in the minority and didn’t want to deal with the argument. I recognize the differing point of view, however, I simply disagree. I am however open and I do not push my belief upon anyone else, mainly because I have never been in a situation where I considered abortion personally. I understand why there may be circumstances where abortions may be preferable, but there is no way I would ever be able to obtain one.
One interesting thought for you... I spoke with several friends of differing political beliefs from both parties. I asked them how they felt about the abortion argument. The great majority of them expressed the sentiment that they would never be able to abort one of their own children. I think it is safe to say that most women feel that way. Why then do we feel so strongly about giving women options? If most of us would never in a million years get an abortion, why do we freak out about banning it? I suppose I can recognize that we live in a supposed democracy and the choice is needed to call our government a democracy. Mainly, I think that this is a hopeless argument and I pity the courts, there is nerv going to be a solution that will please everyone and I will be curious to see how the debate furthers in the next few months and years!
I thought I would follow the trend and post on the Senator from Texas' bill.
The article comments on this bill coming dangerously close to "baby selling." How is it dangerously close? It IS “baby selling”! If this passes, which I am sure it will not, we are telling America's women that it is ok to sell your baby to another family if she gets into a sticky situation and doesn't want to keep her baby. Realistically will this work, no! In all honesty, there is far more that goes into making that decision than money. If you are opposed to abortion, you are not going to get one regardless of whether or not it will get you $500. If you are considering abortion, you are probably going to go ahead with it so you don't have to suffer nine months and run the risk of becoming attached to your child and in the end result in not wanting to give the baby up.
For the sake of the child, I refer back to Jessica's argument. Isn't the adoption mess in America bad enough? Aren't there too many children floating through foster homes as it is? If this bill passes it will only further the complications in the adopting process. I would feel terribly for those children who get stuck in the system because of this, of course I prefer that they get some chance at a life as opposed to being aborted.
In truth, I see what Senator Patrick is doing, and I welcome his attempt. I believe someone needs to give women an inceptive or alternative to abortion. I do not think that his way is the only way or the best way, but I applaud his attempt. I agree with Tbarnett, I believe abortion is murder and it is unfair for adults to decided which of God’s creatures gets a chance at life and which do not. I never spoke up in class because I knew I was in the minority and didn’t want to deal with the argument. I recognize the differing point of view, however, I simply disagree. I am however open and I do not push my belief upon anyone else, mainly because I have never been in a situation where I considered abortion personally. I understand why there may be circumstances where abortions may be preferable, but there is no way I would ever be able to obtain one.
One interesting thought for you... I spoke with several friends of differing political beliefs from both parties. I asked them how they felt about the abortion argument. The great majority of them expressed the sentiment that they would never be able to abort one of their own children. I think it is safe to say that most women feel that way. Why then do we feel so strongly about giving women options? If most of us would never in a million years get an abortion, why do we freak out about banning it? I suppose I can recognize that we live in a supposed democracy and the choice is needed to call our government a democracy. Mainly, I think that this is a hopeless argument and I pity the courts, there is nerv going to be a solution that will please everyone and I will be curious to see how the debate furthers in the next few months and years!
oops! I posted the same comment twice... sorry!
Had to repost because I don't think the article link in my post is coming across properly. Anyway, the name of it is "The Economic Costs of Marital Dissolution: Why Do Women Bear a Disproportionate Cost?" by Karen C. Holden and Pamela J. Smock. You can find it under Google Scholar.
First, the government has no business promoting marriage when they are taking the funds from social programs that are in desperate need. So, they cut funding for single mothers and then promote marriage to them as a means of economic security. Uh…does that really leave them a choice? There are numerous empirical studies on the impact of divorce on women. In fact, it often is economically devastating to women where men will actually move up a notch economically when they get a divorce. Promoting marriage and forcing people to get married because they feel they have no other option is NOT going to stop divorces from happening. It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that is true. Rather than the government providing decent education on contraceptives and informative sex education outside of abstinence so that the rate of births outside of marriage would decline, they have just decided to push women into getting married. They are not going to the source to solve the problem; they are trying to put a Band-Aid on a gaping wound. It will solve nothing; in fact it will just increase the divorce rate. I am vehemently opposed to any religious organization having funding for marital counseling. I know from personal experience, as well as others who experienced the same thing, that religious organization push women into staying in marriage regardless of the situation. This includes abuse! They preach that a woman should be submissive to her husband no matter what the circumstances. Unless the government can clearly weed out those who will counsel women in this manner no religious organization should receive funding. Marriage is not the solution to poverty. Unequal pay for women, lack of health care, lack of decent pay in general, racism, sexism, the entire social structure of the United States is the cause of poverty. Marrying off all the poor women in America will not solve the problem. What happens to these poor women when their husbands walk out on them? Empirical evidence will tell you that they are economically devastated and they end up right back where they started…on welfare. Oh, that’s right, there won’t be welfare because all of the funding will have gone to support marriage! Oops!!! I guess they will just have to find someone else to marry. Here is just one article in particular but there are several if you do a Google Scholar search: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0360-0572%281991%2917%3C51%3ATECOMD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-G&size=LARGE
The government needs to quit trying to support their own ridiculous agenda of making sure they marry up every female in the population and start supporting women regardless of whether they choose to get married or not. This really reminds me of the assault that I suffered at the hands of the father of my two year old child. I was six weeks pregnant and he decided he no longer wanted to have a baby. He beat me unconscious breaking my shoulder and my ribs and leaving a lump the size of a small grapefruit on the side of my head. When I went to trial the judge found him not guilty, told me I needed to learn to keep my mouth shut AND that I needed to get anger management so that I could learn to get along with the father “for the sake of the child”! He just assumed that I, as a pregnant woman, would continue to be around the father. What a joke! We don’t all have the luxury or option of marrying the father of our children even if it is best “for the sake of the child”. I assure you, my case is not a rarity. Women are beaten and battered at an alarming rate and if you ignore that fact then you are clearly misguided. Forcing women to get married by taking away their options (and this is what they are doing when they continue to cut welfare funding) is showing our girls and our women that they are nothing without a man even an abusive man.
And I have a special note for all of you who believe that pregnant women shouldn’t receive pay when they have to leave a job to have a baby. I could not speak about this in class because it is still very devastating to me and very difficult to talk about. The man that assaulted me violated his bond four times and the police offered me no protection from him. I was forced to move and leave my home, my family, my friends, and pull my 14-year old child from the friends he had been with since pre-school so that I could go into hiding which is what I am doing now. The biggest loss from the move was my very well paying job. To those of you who commented on “preparing” for having a child…I did even though the pregnancy was unexpected. I would have had 12 weeks of paid leave. However, I could not stick around and let the father of my unborn child kill us, so I had to leave. I was lucky enough to get a job, again making good money, as an Office Manager at EKU. However, I was fired from my job when my son was born because I did not qualify for FMLA. In fact, the day I was put on bed rest (two weeks before his birth) they promptly canceled my health insurance. I applied for Medicaid, but it takes thirty days to go into effect. So, I had a c-section with no health insurance (it was eventually covered). Let me tell you, the welfare office is one of the most horrendous places you can ever go. They were horrible to me and I left in tears every single time. They treat you like shit. So for all of you who think it is a picnic, you are wrong! My two year old has several different developmental, sensory, and speech issues and they believe they are caused by the trauma and the stress that I suffered throughout the pregnancy. Everyone needs to step outside of their own world and stop thinking that the opportunities and idealistic ways are there for everyone just because they are there for them. Many of you are judging on the basis of your lack of personal experience in these matters. I am here to tell you I have been through damn near all of them and I am sorry but the world does not work the way you think it does. Unfortunately, many of you, especially women, are going to find that out sooner or later. I know my experience is not like others, but I can count on one hand the amount of women I have known in my life who have not been beaten, raped, or victimized in some way. It is time the government put the money into finding out why that is, not pushing them to marry whatever man they can find.
Janice Clayton
3/31/2007 8:02 PM
I think for those women who choose or have chosen to have an abortion, $500 isn't going to really stop the majority. These women are usually wanting to avoid the whole process of carrying a baby since most abortions happen in the first 6-8 weeks. Unplanned, unwanted, could destroy their idea of life for them, lose of career, the list could go on. I don't agree placing a $ value on human life or life in general for that matter, but in a capital world it is definitely hard to ignore.
I do think that this would only encourage a minority of desperate females that need money another way to acquire it besides the
other methods out there. The bottom line is it would be baby selling, from the mother to the state that paid the money, regardless if it stopped an abortion or not. I don't think the bill will pass because I don't believe pro-life or pro-choice groups would agree with this bill. Although it would be saving a life, but at what cost? There are many children in foster care and shelters as it is in the U.S. As someone pointed out the other day in class about paying $2 a day to a country overseas where there are starving children, we know they care and for those that don't well...
We have children here in the U.S. starving, not only from malnourishment, but from love,care,and poor health. We don't donate enough to our own countries children. Here in Kentucky, there was a recent scandal involving pushing our kids into foster homes without proper background checks or ignored bad checks. A woman working in one of the departments that did background checks, "blew the whistle" on her boss. He was going to allow a child to go into a home with a man that was a convicted sex offender. The state gets more money for reaching a quota on children placed in foster care. Imagine a state getting a bonus for saving babies lives because the state was able to pay each woman $500 not to have an abortion. It would happen. The state would need the bonus to provide for the babies until they could find proper adoptive parents or foster homes (the state already pays money to foster care givers as it is). Then even if there were willing parents to adopt that were suitable, they probably would want the process to go faster and be a little less expensive. Checking for foster care givers certainly is easy enough and then it isn't always safe. Proof enough by our celebrities going over seas to save poor starving children there is easier than it is here. Then think of the children who are adopted out or grow up out of foster care, in recent years, many of them grow up trying to find their maternal parents at some point in their life. Maybe these women don't want to be found. Maybe the mothers or fathers want to know their children that they gave up because they were too young, or to poor. There is only more problems created with a bill like this, than problems solved.
We all go through life with different experiences, and some get lucky and others don't. So far I consider everyday lucky no matter what the outcome, it can always be worse, always. The system isn't fair, but we do the best we can with what we got. I am here to hopefully make it better one way or another for at least one person at a time. That is why I am taking politics classes. I don't want to go through life uneducated and clueless of the laws. I don't know if I will go on into law school, never been good at tests on paper. But I will find one way or another to do something positive besides going to college, being a mom, and whatever other statistic that needs a good boost.
I am a stepmom so I can't say I have the experience of dealing with insurance over child birth or the stress of pregnancy. I always look for jobs that have insurance available and if it isn't a good policy, I look outside. I have worked more than one job and have even worked in a daycare so that I could watch my own kid. I have worked midnight jobs so I could get my kid off to school and be home for him when he got there. I had a friend that watched my kid when my husband was out of town working, I didn't pay her in $,couldn' afford to, living in St. Louis at the time, but watched her kids in return. I sacrificed my late teens and early twenties to raise a child I didn't have and he wasn't wanted by his own mother. I became prepared. I worked odd jobs, tried not to rely on my family or my fiance' at the time. We moved away from our families to make more money. I didn't have to do this, I chose to out of love for both my son and husband. I grew up poor, second hand clothes and no family vacations(consisted of fishing at the lake), but with the love I got, I am no a victim of poverty in the sense of having a chip on my shoulder. I am doing what needs to be done to make a life for me and the people I love. I have had over 12 (most short term) jobs since I was 14 years of age. That doesn't look good to employers, but I moved with my husbands job. I have tons of experience with jobs, the good and bad. I have been through a move because my husband quit his $40000 a year job unexpectedly, we were going to have to move again for the sixth year in a row and our son was in kindergarten. It was time to stop moving around to establish some sort of stability for school and friends for our son. I was only making $16000 a year, while starting college. It took us living with my father and grandparents for 6 months to get back on our feet by finding new jobs.
I handled getting fired once because of morals and ethical concerns, I wouldn't perform a job handaling medical equipment I wasn't trained for (removing varicose veins with a laser), I have went through bankruptcy. I lost a house and a vehicle. I had to move back in with my father. You know where they say the kids leave the roost, umm that didn't work so easy the first few tries.
I don't think that married couples begin wealthy, and therein lies the first problem to overcome of a lasting marriage, I did this out of sheer stuborness (stupidity), no just kidding out of love. We got married with a budget of $700, including my wedding dress, a cake made by my husband's exmother in- law, a judge married us on a day I lost my voice and no music to play and last but not least a lucky weekend in the Smokey Mountains.
I have even handled a slight case of almost infidelity (phone calls and a cell phone I didn't know my husband had). This was the point of fighting over money being spent and questioning oneself if this is the person you want to spend the rest of your life with and fight over money all the time kind of phase. It has been a good and bad 6 years of marriage and the last 3 have been good.
However, I am one of a very small minority who do see life different. I was raised to be prepared for anything, educated well enough to know that getting pregnant ill prepared is not easy, not that it is easy even if you are prepared, but there are things to do to make it easier throughout. Of course no one can prepare for ill effects or unknown events, but we do what we can and must.
This is probably because at 5, my sister at 3 and I went through my parents divorce as the prize. As it should be, we are the only thing good out of the marriage. My mother decided she wanted more out of life than kust my father. She wanted us though and took her crappy lawyers' advice, off record and kidnapped us. She took us to California to establish residency there and file full custody uf us. She would have succeeded, if not for her mother. She saw that we were being abused by our new stepfather, a convicted felon. He would beat us for getting in his way or wasting out food. My grandmother called my father and that was the end of that(2 and half months). I still speak to my mother (twice a year), but she has always treated my sister and I as less than her daughters, but more as a friends.
Two years later my father remarries a woman with two children of her own, think Cinderella and her evil stepmother and stepsisters, but at the age of 7 and 5. We cleaned up messes we didn't make and got spankings for things that we didn't do or ridiculed because we didn't listen like her children did. That marriage lasted about 6 months.
I could go on, my life is a tragedy in it's own right and it is amazing I have come this far without major harm to perceptions in life. I won't go into it all, people wouldn't believe me, or at least wouldn't want to anyway, but considering all I remember and endured of my childhood I turned out fairly decent. I just raise my son the best that I can. It may not be the right way, but it can't be too wrong, yet.
Marriage is a religious and financially binding contract. Family shouldn't mean by marriage. My family is more than blood of marriage. It is those around me that love me and care for me as I do for them. The people that are there when I need them and even when I don't. A stable life has nothing to do with marriage, marriages can be very unstable for families.
As far as the comment on tax dollars well spent, not here in Kentucky. My son's biological mother is $16500 behind in child support. All she had to pay by court ordered papers was $100 a month and carry medical insurance, split the cost of daycare. She has only paid $500 to keep her self out of jail. Currently she isn't paying and funding has been cut in Kentucky. She hasn't paid for the last 9 months and yet we get the run around. How many women have been placed in jail in Kentucky for not paying. I don't want the money and could care less, but my son wants it. It is his right to have it. He wants to save it and buy him a car when he graduates high school. I would take her to court and pay for a lawyer, but everytime she quit paying I would have to take her to court. I don't have that kind of money. So instead I have done my best to find out what the state needs to know, her whereabouts, jobs and anything else on my own. I provide the info and wait. Where is the responsibility she should carry?
If some women do become pregnant for the illustrious $500, they are in for a rude awakening. A monetary incentive simply cannot be a logical reasoning for not aborting a child. Medical bills for ultrasounds, tests, and birth would FAR outway $500 dollars. As far as I know, the comments I've read are right. Adoption is nearly impossible within America. So many couples go outside the country due to the massive amount of red tape associated with adoption in the US. I also believe other comments are correct in that the foster system would not be able to handle an influx of children who were given up. Regardless of your personal beliefs, abortion is legal. Unless or until abortion is illegal it is simply a bribe to promote personal moral values.
On the issue of promoting marriage... why should we use government funds (tax payers money) to support something a section of our population doesn't even have the option of participating in? Gay people are not allowed to get married in the United States. If we are truly a democracy that protects everyone we should not favor one sexuality over the other. There should not be ANY benefits to participating in something that it is illegal for a section of the population to do. Two people of the opposite sex who do not love each other can get married and have wonderful health benefits and the new programs if put into effect. Yet, Homosexual people who are deeply in love cannot do any of that. There is a simple monetary discrimination against a section of our population! Not to mention the otherization that comes with it.
Outside of the sexuality argument, marriage is just not that great. I do want to get married someday and I hope with all my heart that I beat the statistics. Because the odds really are against marriage. Several have mentioned the divorce rate as well as abusive relationships. All of which I completely stand behind. In addition, one commented that it would be good to create more responsible and "ready" men. This is very true. However, how exactly do you accomplish that? Can it be put into a science? I really don't think so. I was reading my boyfriend's book for his human sexuality class. There's a big discussion about extramarital affairs (behavior that would be considered irresponsible). There's so many possible reasons. Insecurities, revenge, boredom, absense of sex, TRYING TO PUT AN END TO THE MARRIAGE!!! Divorce will not end either. Even if there are benefits to being married, a 60% divorce rate is not going to disappear because of a few benefits. If the predictions of other comments are correct we are in for more problems. If this does in fact cause people to get married younger, there's scientific reasoning that the divorce rate would go up. Returning to the sexuality textbook, the younger someone gets married the more likely they are to get divorced. Additionally the less education someone has (also related to the age) the more likley they are to get divorced. All of these problems cannot be fixed by a few counseling sessions.
Also to be considered is where the funds are coming from. We're going to take money away from an already distressed system to support a system that already has financial benefits. What's really only a piece of paper already gives insurance and tax benefits. Now its going to take away from economically disadvantaged people. Welfare is in some cases the only way mothers can provide adequate FOOD AND SHELTER for their children. And we're going to take away children's food to support counseling sessions?? How does that even make sense?!
For the most part I have nothing but positive experiences as a working father. There are only a couple of things within the company that I worked for that could be deemed negative. The hours that I generally worked week to week would be around 65 hours. These hours were not mandated, but everyone knew the unwritten recipe for rapid success. So from the day that I started I worked as many hours as it took to be promoted as quickly as possible. This was not an issue whenever I was single, or even whenever I got married. My wife worked for the same company so she worked as many hours as I did. Then we had our son, and everything changed. Raising a child with two parents working 60 hours a week is like juggling chaos. I began to realize that my wife had to bear a greater proportion of the load in raising our son. I also started to realize that my son did not really know who I was. Whenever I would get home from work he would not ever act that interested in me. My boss, who also had a child around the same time as my wife and I, worked as many hours as I did. His daughter began calling him by his first name instead of daddy. Also, whenever we had our son I had to use vacation time to be with my newborn child and my wife who had a cesarean. From the time my son was born to the time I was back sitting in my office, I was only gone for five days. So for the next two years I got all of the men who had children to list on the Employee Opinion Surveys that some sort of paternity leave should be instituted. Obviously this did not rank very high on the company’s to do list, it still has not happened to this day. On the subject of the government stepping in to help in work life balance, the only topic that I believe that should be necessary in paid maternity leave for all expecting working women under FMLA. We as a working society work absorbent amounts of hours, feel guilty about taking vacations, and always wear our electronic leash (otherwise known as a Blackberry or some type of cell phone). The least that any companies should do is to penalize employees for having the audacity to start a family!
Let me start by commenting on one other post that...well...I mean come on, now. Women aren't going to have babies to get a check for $500.00...that just seems a little unrealistic, after watching my own wife suffer through for 8 months now it hardly seems worth the money if all we were getting was a measly 500 bucks. She's missed enough work because of morning sickness and doctors appointments to make twice that. In other words offering $500.00 to mothers who don't have an abortion and put there baby up for adoption is NOT going to cause people to run out and have babies, at least not more than once (humor intended).
Before I comment on marriage let me tell you where I am coming from personally. I married straight out of high school at age 18. We have now been married almost 4 years, our son is almost 5. In other words I married a single mother, well sort of single. She was in a rather unhealthy relationship.
So here I am, a raging conservative who believes that the government has every right to give tax credits/breaks, money, whatever to married couples. You know I don't see what the deal is here, is anyone going to actually argue that marriage is not better for children? Maybe I should qualify it, oh wait I will, Is anyone going to argue that A HEALTHY marriage is not better for children? Let's forget about the whole "not allowing any consenting adult to enter into marriage with whom ever they please" argument". Let's just say for now that they are wrong on that one, does it necessarily follow that they are wrong in supporting marriage at all? No it doesn't.
I've yet to receive the flier from the United States government that says, "get married or go hungry", as far as I know food stamps, medical cards, k-chip, TANF, WIC, EIC, are all available regardless of whether you are married or not (the EIC may not be, but if it is it makes my argument stronger). And if your out there raising children alone, my heart goes out for you, but the fact is this still doesn't mean that the government should go to hell for promoting an easier alternative.
What if we switched it around a little, what if the government didn't help married couples, what if they really didn't give a shit whether we had healthy environments for children to live in, would that make it any easier on unmarried women trying to raise there children and make ends meet?
Some have argued that money going to promote marriage has been robbed from the pool of money meant to help single mothers, if this is so (and it very well may be), then it only stands to reason that if more people get married there will be fewer single mothers, what's wrong with that?
By all means, I don't, nor do I think the government wants women remaining in abusive (mentally or physically) relationships. I helped one young single mother out of one myself, she was never abused physically, but you can really hurt people and never lay a finger on them.
To promote the ideal, to promote what should be, even if it doesn't always pan out, doesn't make our government a little Lucifer clone. it just means that "hey, we've thought about it, this seems like something good for the people, and we are going to put our stamp on it".
-Cameron Griffith
1. I find what this senator in Texas is doing ludicrous. I mean I understand if he wants to promote adoptions as opposed to women having abortions, but selling babies? oh yi. And I disagree with some who have said he is doing this with good intentions. In my opinion, he is doing this for purely political reasons. As a politician, when he campaigns, he can now say "look I am saving babies!" We need to put more money into our sex education, and promote responsible use of birth control, and get rid of this abstinence only education nonsense (which OBVIOUSLY is not working...I mean have pregnancies among teenagers decreased?). That money he is offering can be used for so many better things, education being one. He could help the welfare system, help young mothers. Like I said, it is all a publicity stunt. This whole thing just really bothers me.
3. Government promoting marriage. Well first of all, yes, they may have intentions dealing with the health and well being of the population. I would think it is a moral issue. That the government sees marriage as a moral binding, never mind the fact that there is still adultery and divorce. I agree with those who have said marriage is good for people, but I would tend to believe that a large part of the population wants to get married ANYWAY, so why waste government spending on an issue that is already prevalent in society? I also agree that promoting marriage when not EVERYONE who wants to get married (gays/lesbians) can is unfair. I just think that it is wasteful spending. I would like to get married someday, when I meet the right person, and I do not need the government to tell me that I should. It is a perfectly feasible option for me, and I will do so when I am good and ready. It just seems a bit of a trivial issue for the government to spend money on, is all. And by trivial I do not mean unimportant, I just mean that other issues (welfare and many others already mentioned here) should take priority. And also, for those who have said that things would be easier for single mothers if they got married- don't you think they might do that anyway if they had the option? I mean certainly no one wants them to run off with the first guy they meet. It's funny that so many people call marriage a sacred institution, but are quick to say "run off, get married, right now!" Give it time, it will happen. People should get married for the right reasons, not because the government tells them to. And for those who got married young, congratulations on finding true love so soon, but the rest of us may need time. I am actually kind of upset that my tax dollars are being spent on stupid stuff like this. Do you think I would get into trouble if I opted only to pay taxes for things I find reasonable to spend my money on? Yeah, I think so too.
~Ashley Farmer
I decided to talk about marriage, since it’s an important issue to me that I’ve had weighing in the back of my mind for quite some time. Unfortunately, I wasn’t in class the day that we discussed it, because of car trouble, but I now really wish I had been able to come!
After reading the articles that Dr. Patton posted, I have to say that the idea of the marriage promotion programs would be a double-edged sword. For one thing, the initiatives would support things like marriage counseling and help teach men to become better fathers. I believe moves like this are a positive thing, and should be encouraged. However, it seems that there are other aims for the program that sit badly with me.
The fact that it’s been encouraging couples to marry for the sake of the children is obviously a move for promoting far-right ‘family-values’ agendas. The fact that the money is pulled from welfare-appropriations; which should be sent to families who could use food, shelter, or other necessary things to live.
I worry that I’m thinking too black and white; because the statistics are there that more households with a single parent are below the poverty line. However, thinking logically, why wouldn’t a single person struggle more to make ends meet? The fact that the government is encouraging marriage as a solution just doesn’t sit right with me.
Encouraging people to get married when they may neither be ready nor with the right person to marry. I don’t know the right solution, but I don’t feel like this is the right method to help poverty. Also, why are women the ones that are beneath the poverty line? What is the amount of men that have children and live below the poverty line? Why is it to encourage women? Why is it that the program doesn’t move to encourage women to be better mothers? There are women who don’t raise their children in a positive environment; but instead its always men that are the child-beaters and ones that provide a negative influence to kids.
Yes, I want my tax dollars to go to women so they won’t kill their baby. Ok not really, but I mean this Sen. Patrick did he really just propose this crazy idea? Bribing women to have their babies? That’s just going to make women get pregnant every 9 to 10 months just so they can get money from the government. It bothers me that Sen. Patrick feels like this is the only way to help save aborted children. I don’t think it’s a good idea to try to change some women's choice about her body and her baby. I mean bad things happen everyday to every kind of person, and everyday people are dying. I'm NOT saying that killing innocent unborn babies is okay. How about focusing on showing people that if you do plan on having sex, make it safe. Start educating people on the importance of safe sex, using condoms and other forms of birth control. It’s usually that women that haven’t had much education and living in lower socio-economic areas are usually the ones that don’t know about safer sex and how to get the things that they need. The government should focus on lower socio-economic areas and let them know what they can do in order to have safer sex and the options that they have in regarding abortion and adoption. Stop this major focus of abortion and educate before abortion and adoption is the only answer.
I bothers and makes me feel that Sen. Patrick is trying to make women do what he thinks is right. I mean it sounds like a good idea at first thought, but after letting it sit in my head for awhile it just creeps me out, it is like selling your baby and that’s even worse. It doesn’t sit right with me. Just the thought of trying to take away someone’s choice, other people shouldn’t make the choice for someone else. It may be okay for some things, but this subject is just a little too touchy for that.
1. I think that the idea of a law which provides a $500 incentive to mothers who decide not to abort their pregnancies and give the baby up for adoption does border a little too close to "baby selling." While I personally am pro-life and believe that life begins at conception (in my opinion life begets life), I don't think is the way to discourage abortions. I understand that it is a very hard thing to ask a woman to carry a child for nine months that she does not want but, paying her off in my mind is not an acceptable way to attempt to persuade her to do so. Someone mentioned in class that having an abortion is a very big decision for anyone and a lot of thought does go into it. Maybe a bill that requires a person to go into counseling for so long before obtaining an abortion would be a more appropriate way for the senator to support the pro-life stance. Perhaps counseling would be in the best interest of women who consider abortion anyways because it encourages responsible decision making. This is a life changing decision and careful thought and consideration should go into making it. I think that women who have had abortions sometimes regret their decisions because they didn't think through what they were they were doing. Others who have had abortions may not regret the decision but, either way a woman should fully contemplate the consequences before making such a weighty decision. Another option for the senator may be to introduce a bill that gives women the necessary health benefits throughout their pregnancy if they decide not to abort the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption once it is born. In this way you aren't really paying someone off not to have an abortion but are saying that after weighing the consequences and determining the best option for you is not to abort the pregnancy and place the baby up for adoption then the government is going to help you out by covering your medical expenses while you are pregnant. Some might argue that such a bill would leave room for abuse of the system, for instance someone lying about wanting to have an abortion and then making a decision to keep the baby and put it up for adoption just to get medical expenses covered. However, I don't really see anything wrong the government pitching a few health benefits toward pregnant women anyways...after all they are insuring the furtherance of the human race an our society by procreating.
2. I think that the government should pass a law that requires employers to give time off to both parents after the birth of a child. The way the system works in Great Britain is that when the child is first born the mother is given an allotted amount of time off work for maternity leave. When the mother comes back to work the father is then given an allotted amount of time off the work to also establish his bond with the child. In Great Britain and other European countries parents are given up to a year off work as part of maternity or paternity leave to help ensure the child gets the best possible start he or she can in life. I don't think that a year is necessarily a viable option for our country but I do think that parents should be given an amount of time off work after a child is born. I don't think that an employer should necessarily be required to provide full pay to an employee during this time but 75% paid leave would be an acceptable amount in my view. Some may argue that having a child is a choice that someone makes and that it's not fair to give new parents time off, pay, and job security for when they return to the workplace when there are other people who don't have children and come to work everyday and work for their pay. To this argument I would have to say that promoting
the development of the family contributes to the greater good of society. Children who have a more established bond with their parents and who are part of a cohesive family that creates a warm, caring and nurturing environment are more likely to be successful people. I know in class we also talked about how socio-economic class has more to do with crime rate than the make up of a family (the bond between parent and child and whether or not the family is a single parent house hold) but, I still think that a child with a close bond to their parents is likely to act out in society because they have that support system at home.
3. From personal experience, being raised by my grandmother, I can understand how people believe that marriage is a healthy institution. There were many instances where I'm sure my grandmother would have loved to have had someone else around to help care for me and my sister. Two parent homes, on the surface anyways seem to promote stability for children. I realize that two people can "cohabitate" as the one website called it, without being married and provide a stable environment for their children. Never the less, a marriage liscince gives partners the ability to decide things like medical treatment in life or death situations where one partner is incapable of deciding for him or herself. According to http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/funding/child_support.html Kentucky does not recognize common law marriages. That being said, a marriage certificate is the only way to ensure your spouse every privilege he or she would be allotted if married to him.
Seriously, I'm strapped for cash right now... I'd get pregnant for $500 ;-)
Ok, really just kidding. But I think this is an interesting idea. Personally, if I were a woman, I would probably take him up on his offer and put the baby up for adoption. That is of course assuming that I have health insurance... For women without health insurance and who are poor, one of their main reasons for having an abortion in the first place is not being able to afford a baby. And as far as I can tell, it costs more than $500 to go through with the pregnancy and have the baby in a hospital.
It also seems a little odd to me that they would pay mothers $500 to put their children up for adoption when there are already so many children waiting for parents. Often times, children are NOT adopted because it is RIDICULOUSLY expensive. So why don't we have a sale and drop the price on adoption before PAYING women to put more children up for adoption... Stop me if that seems illogical.
Honestly, I still hold to my assertion in class that it seems totally hypocritical to preach about "saving babies" when we let millions die each day from things as simple as dehydration and diarrhea. What exactly are we giving these children a chance at? Miserable lives? Besides the fact that women have been giving THEMSELVES abortions for millennia by natural means, but once it enters mainstream medical land, all of a sudden it is an issue, a supreme moral dilemma.
Although I personally could never have an abortion (especially not when they'd pay me $500 not to!) I really don't see how anyone can dictate laws over the reproductive organs of another. I never really thought that was the purpose of law and government.
Sorry for my lateness with this blog entry. I thought I had already posted this week.
Hmm... let me see. 500 dollars to not have an abortion. This is a very interesting ploy for the pro-lifers in the world, and I'm not sure it is a good tactical move. This really puts pro-lifers, in my opinion, over the line. In a land where capitalism rules, what would keep people from actually starting baby farms. I know that idea sounds absolutely absurd but think about it. A couple of men gather women, promise them a cut of the profit, and then eventually spread to other areas of the nation. This, in a very odd reality could become something more serious than I think this Texas legislator realizes. In my opinion this is just a bad idea. The thought of someone offering 500 dollars for a human life is almost disgusting. Honestly I can't imagine that this would even be considered, however; it is Texas, and anything... I mean anything is possible.
let me start by giving a great big hug to marketta:
"It’s ironic that these right wing conservatives put so much emphasis on family, when they promote war and killing of innocent civilians in a senseless war."
kudos, girl. I couldn't agree more.
To tbarnett: Alright, so you're a conservative Christian from the south. Want a cookie? If you're gonna impose morality legislation based on the fact that you're a good 'ol boy from the south who goes to church every Sunday and abortion makes your god queasy, then you're running a theocracy there, fella. The state has to have a reasonable explanation for curtailing people's rights, and until they're willing to pass legislation that says a ball of cells that lacks memories and any significant cognitive functioning is a person, then that ball of cells is exempt from "rights."
Which would NOT, presumably, make an abortion the same as walking next door to your neighbor, who has led a life and has memories and made human connections and bonds and led a lifetime of feeling and collected consciousness, and lopping off his head because his garage door opening at 6 am "just doesn't fit in my schedule right now at this time in my life."
If you don't subscribe to the Christian ideology that life is some sort of religious birthright, beginning at conception and entitling you to divinely ordained rights because you have a soul, then "life" must be defined as something else. Something that does not originate from one particular religious doctrine, but nor does it stem from the simple definition of "cellular activity." Surely "cellular activity" is not enough--we kill plants all the time. We kill animals all the time. But what is it about human life that we safe guard?
It is our capacity for feeling, and our human bonds. A human being that has formed attachments to others, that has led a cognizant life full of thoughts and feelings and hopes and dreams and plans or whatever is different than a ball of cells that is not capable of forming thought or having memories or forming intimate human bonds. Specualate all you want, but I don't know of any evidence that suggests otherwise.
We "murder" people who are brain dead, who are essentially vegetables who have no more brain function. Their bodies are alive, yes, and their cells continue to grow and age. But they are not ALIVE. Not really. The same can be said for a fetus. So yes, there is a distiction between a fetus and your neighbor.
Leslie:
I do not think that polling a few college girls from EKU is representative of the sentiments of the entire female population in the US. While I am sure that you and several of your friends would never dream of having an abortion in any circumstance, there are obviously many women who DO resort to having them. Your agument that women simply would not want to have one is fundamentally flawed: women DO have abortions, every day.
That's like saying "I've talked to a couple of my gal pals at school from all different political backgrounds, and all of them agree that we think voting is pointless. So why should we even give women the option to vote? It is so obviously clear that women are simply not interested in voting, so why is there all this fuss about giving them the choice to?"
Post a Comment