The Hypocrisy of Pro-Life States

[Orbitus]

Because a book said so.

Even though that same book advocates abortion several times throughout it? They want to use the bible when it conveniences them, but ignore everything in it that they don't like.

[Kokolums]

The old Soviet Union saw charities as a great threat to its power, because if the people felt the public could self organize care, they wouldn't need the government. So the USSR would severely crack down on charities. It wasn't until 1987 when the first charity was allowed to return to service, it was named "Miloserdiye". The word means "charity" in Russian and it was just a group of young people that wanted to look in on some elderly members of the town.

https://www.nytimes.com/1987/12/25/w...tradition.html

There's always a strong negative reaction to charities from the extreme left.

[Kathandira]

There's always a strong negative reaction to charities from the extreme left.

For me, I am always skeptical about the big Charities. The larger ones have been under fire for having their top administration taking home very generous salaries, and not paying out to those in need as much as they should be for how much is donated to them.

If I donate, I look up who i'm giving my money to before they get a dime from me.

[Nihilist74]

The whole pro-life movement is a sham. I have never met a right-winger or republican that was not happy to see just about any group on the planet die one way or the other, but they care about an unborn undeveloped fetus. Phoney moral outrage.
I think it was Bill Maher who said, "If you want the republicans/right wingers to care about you, you better turn yourself into a fetus and crawl back in the womb.
Humans are not endangered species except by overpopulation. Abortions and birth control should be free for everyone. It is much cheaper than social programs.

[PosPosPos]

What I don't see is what the cartoon says, where these people just want the poor to suffer.

You don't see, or don't want to see?

The Republicans have been calling the poor "leechers" "takers" and "parasites" for decades. How in the world could a sane person see this amount of undisguised hate and assume the Republicans are merely acting in good faith and will sing a different tune as soon as everyone moves to a private charity system.

They would argue the creation of public support networks IS unwarranted, and if we got rid of them TODAY, charities would naturally emerge and fill the gaps. And they would not mind if we had a massive sprawling charity providing care for these people.

Its a different world view. Those in favor say we had to create the public welfare state because charities would never cover it. Those against assert that charities would fill the gap if the public option went away.

You know what's happening here? You ascribe their decision making to that of good faith, even as reality provides evidence to disprove this. You can't imagine that there are actually bad people out there who do bad things towards others for their own gain, or just to see people suffer - whether it's because you can't accept your ideal world crashing on your ears, or that you are the incurably naive frog-in-the-well who still believes "in the good of everyone".

[Hilhen7]

For me, I am always skeptical about the big Charities. The larger ones have been under fire for having their top administration taking home very generous salaries, and not paying out to those in need as much as they should be for how much is donated to them.

If I donate, I look up who i'm giving my money to before they get a dime from me.

Yep charities are crooks. 90 cents of every dollar are spent on program expenses (Administrative / fundraising)

May as well take your dollar and throw it out the window, it has a better chance of reaching someone that needs it...

[Thepersona]

It's about perspective. And religious extremism. Basically.

Some Christian sects believe in Original Sin; every life is born a sinner. Baptism at birth washes that away. Any infant born, even if it does within hours, can be baptised, and that's a clean soul in Heaven. Any child that dies in the womb? Limbo. Forever lost. No chance of reprieve.

Once you realise it isn't about babies at all, it's about souls, the whole thing becomes that much more ridiculous and asinine.

Endus, its more Asisine than that. Catholics (and a lot of Christians BTW) view that life (human life) begins at conception, because that's the moment where the soul is infused by god to the developing baby (at that point being no more than 2 cells). For them, getting an abortion, even for a 1 week pregnancy is equal to murder, because there's a Human Soul within that clump of cells.
Yeah, that's it.

[Endus]

They would argue the creation of public support networks IS unwarranted, and if we got rid of them TODAY, charities would naturally emerge and fill the gaps. And they would not mind if we had a massive sprawling charity providing care for these people.

And that's what makes them willfully ignorant morons.

Because we have literally tried that, and the amount of charitable donations didn't even come close. It was the complete failure of charity to handle the problem that warranted the creation of these support programs, in the first place. This isn't a hypothetical, it's known history. You have to willfully ignore that history to make that argument.

Its a different world view. Those in favor say we had to create the public welfare state because charities would never cover it. Those against assert that charities would fill the gap if the public option went away.

It's a "different world view" in the same sense that Young-Earth Creationism is. Demonstrably, objectively wrong. It isn't a worldview that anyone should hold, because it does not make any reasonable sense, and that they believe it really hard does not change reality.

What I don't see is what the cartoon says, where these people just want the poor to suffer.

Like I've pointed out; they are either sadists, or morons. Really, you can take your pick.

There is no earthly way that charity can cover the welfare of those in need. It flat-out doesn't work, and we know it doesn't work.

- - - Updated - - -

Yep charities are crooks. 90 cents of every dollar are spent on program expenses (Administrative / fundraising)

May as well take your dollar and throw it out the window, it has a better chance of reaching someone that needs it...

While I'm shitting on the idea that charity can replace domestic support programs, most charities don't run at this kind of ratio. I worked, briefly, for a shady telemarketing company that did this stuff, back when I was in college. At least half their charities were legitimate; the company took a cut, anywhere from 15-30% of phone donations. But the parent company also created charities, and because it ran those charities, it could agree to ridiculous ratios, and we definitely had programs that would take in a $20 donation and pay out $1 to the charity. The charity itself still did good work, with what money they got, but the system was skewed.

If someone asks you to donate, find the charity's home page yourself and donate directly. And check the charity out beforehand to be sure it's reputable.

[PosPosPos]

And that's what makes them willfully ignorant morons.

Because we have literally tried that, and the amount of charitable donations didn't even come close. It was the complete failure of charity to handle the problem that warranted the creation of these support programs, in the first place. This isn't a hypothetical, it's known history. You have to willfully ignore that history to make that argument.



It's a "different world view" in the same sense that Young-Earth Creationism is. Demonstrably, objectively wrong. It isn't a worldview that anyone should hold, because it does not make any reasonable sense, and that they believe it really hard does not change reality.

It's basically just a modified form of the "I'm entitled to my opinion" fallacy, just on behalf of another party.

There is no earthly way that charity can cover the welfare of those in need. It flat-out doesn't work, and we know it doesn't work.

But I am sure they mean well, and that matters the most, so don't be a meanie. Don't forget your P's and Q's too.

~Sunshine, Rainbows and Sparkles~

[Clone]

Remember, it's not pro-life, it's pro-death after birth.

For all their preening over the sanctity of human life, that seems to end as soon as the baby is born.

Yeah, they don't give a fuck about brown skinned refugees either.

[PosPosPos]

Yeah, they don't give a fuck about brown skinned refugees either.

It's much more than just "don't give a fuck", which is the problem.

For us, it's "if we can't help, at least do not harm". For them, it's "if we can harm, we should, wherever possible".

[Witchblade77]

Aren't these two things the same, just from different sources?

Publicly funded support systems are already in place such as Welfare, Medicare, Social Security. Donating to churches, in hopes for that money to go to caring for people in need is only different from the listed programs because it is managed by the church organization. This is actually the lesser of the two choices since the Church organization may reject people who are not a member of their faith, or for any religious reason they deem fit to reject your request for assistance.

Seems odd to me.

they are not. do you know why? because you HAVE to pay into public systems, while with charity you CHOOSE to. and herein lays the real reason why they want it to be a charity. becasue they do not wish to pay. they want to occasionally throw a bone in a direction of those in need, that would be a fraction of what they would actualy pay in required taxes... and be praised for it for how great of a samaritan they are, how charitable, how caring. even though their "help" is a fraction of what they would have paid in taxes and wouldn't support nearly as many people in need.

[Dontrike]

If you were to ask a staunch fiscal conservative if they believe in food stamps or public care for single moms, they might say no. HOWEVER, if you ask them if they believe a church or charity should take care of them, they would say yes. Its not a question of if they care, its a question of funding. These conservatives believe the nation should establish a stronger charity system to take care of them instead of relying on public funding. These types believe massive, sprawling domestic spending damages the nation.

That cartoon misrepresents what they believe. I don't know of anyone that actually believes what that group in that cartoon believes.

So instead of public funding what they want is a charity system strong enough to take care of them, and since churches don't get money from the government it's funded by the public. So you want the same thing, but instead have it latched to religion, which is stupid, and then make it far worse.

Good job making it worse though.

[Kathandira]

they are not. do you know why? because you HAVE to pay into public systems, while with charity you CHOOSE to. and herein lays the real reason why they want it to be a charity. becasue they do not wish to pay. they want to occasionally throw a bone in a direction of those in need, that would be a fraction of what they would actualy pay in required taxes... and be praised for it for how great of a samaritan they are, how charitable, how caring. even though their "help" is a fraction of what they would have paid in taxes and wouldn't support nearly as many people in need.

That's a good point. =)

[Hilhen7]

So instead of public funding what they want is a charity system strong enough to take care of them, and since churches don't get money from the government it's funded by the public. So you want the same thing, but instead have it latched to religion, which is stupid.

Plus the church determines who they want to help. So they could avoid helping non whites if they wanted to...

[Kathandira]

Plus the church determines who they want to help. So they could avoid helping non whites if they wanted to...

Agreed, letting Ideologues make the decisions is a bad idea, every single time.

[Rasulis]

You could attempt to understand the arguments of the other side before simply deriding them as ill-willed. As I have stated in other threads, I think the deprivation argument against abortion first put forward by Don Marquis is difficult to refute without taking a very cynical view of life. I haven't heard a counterargument to that paper which I have found convincing, not even Thomson's arguments defending it.

I grew up Catholics and my wife is the granddaughter of a Wesleyan minister. We have seen all the arguments for and against abortion. Ultimately, all those religious and academic arguments fall short in real world practice. No matter the circumstance, there will always be women that want to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. I would rather they do it with due consideration of all the available options, under safe conditions, and not have the patients and providers branded as criminals.

In 2011, The Texas State Legislature restructured funding for family planning, ultimately reducing the state’s family planning budget by 67 percent, from $111 million over two year to just $37.9 million for the next two years. There have been numerous studies performed on the impact of that decision. I’ll link several here.

A paper from Journal of Health Economics (https://www.academia.edu/19435560/Fa...n_Childbearing) indicates that the funding cut lead to increase teen births and abortions.

NCBI paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25790404) by Analisa Packham of Miami University - When the funding cuts first took effect on September 1, 2011, 14 family planning clinics lost funds immediately. By the end of 2012, a quarter of family planning clinics in Texas had shut down, while 18 percent had reduced service hours, and 50 percent had fired staff. The study furhter found that the 67 percent decrease in funding has resulted in an increase in the teen birth rate by 3.4 percent, or nearly 2,200 more teens giving birth.

Population Association of America (http://paa2014.princeton.edu/abstracts/142735) found that Texas' women's health program managed to serve fewer than half the number of women it had before it ousted Planned Parenthood.

Texas legislature own research (http://www.texasobserver.org/wp-cont...lyPlanning.pdf) predicted that more than 20,000 resulting unplanned births would cost taxpayers more than a quarter of a billion dollars in federal and state Medicaid support.

I could go on listing other studies from JAMA, CDC, Texas A&M, New England Journal of Medicine. However, the consensus is that Texas legislature did a bad thing.

Well, the Christian Post disagreed. To quote them “A medical study fails to show significant harm from Texas's defunding of Planned Parenthood.”

An article from the Texas Observer - Without Planned Parenthood, Almost Half the Providers in Texas’ Women’s Health Program Saw No Patients.

Part of the problem is that many of the Healthy Texas Women contractors, which were tasked with helping to build the network and do outreach, fell far short of their goals. Most notable was the Heidi Group, led by an anti-abortion activist, which claimed it would serve more women in its first year in the program than Planned Parenthood had, and received multi-million dollar contracts to do so. HHSC acknowledged the Heidi Group’s failure when it announced on Friday that it would cancel its contracts, two weeks after the Observer reported that the group served less than 5 percent of the women it pledged to in 2017.

Healthy Texas Women has been a frustratingly opaque program. HHSC has been reluctant to share data, despite persistent requests from lawmakers and journalists. For example, it’s impossible to determine with certainty if more, or fewer, women are being served under Healthy Texas Women than before devastating budget cuts in 2011 and Planned Parenthood’s ouster in 2013. HHSC has reorganized the programs and changed how patients are counted by the state. Based on available information, experts say that fewer women are served now than in 2010, even after a documented 30 percent increase last year.

Bottom line, Texas is the fifth highest state for teen pregnancy rate. No surprise there. Studies have shown that states with “Abstinence Only” sex education have the highest rate of teen pregnancy. However, you would think after getting pregnant once they would have learned their lessons. Not in Texas which has the highest rate of repeat teen pregnancy in the nation (both 2x and 3x). This one you can lay the blame directly on the lack of readily available female contraceptives in most Texas counties. There's one statistic you won't hear anyone bragging about.

[Deletedaccount1]

I grew up Catholics and my wife is the granddaughter of a Wesleyan minister. We have seen all the arguments for and against abortion. Ultimately, all those religious and academic arguments fall short in real world practice. No matter the circumstance, there will always be women that want to get rid of unwanted pregnancies. I would rather they do it with due consideration of all the available options, under safe conditions, and not have the patients and providers branded as criminals.

That is seriously the worst argument for abortion that I've seen. There's always going to be people who will want to drink and drive, assault other people, etc (insert any bad action). That doesn't make it acceptable nor is that an argument for making it legal.

You wrote that entire long ass post but you completely dodged the moral arguments in the abortion debate. If you don't think there are good (and bad) moral arguments for both sides then you either don't know or understand the argument or you simply don't want to have a reasonable discussion.

[Rasulis]

That is seriously the worst argument for abortion that I've seen. There's always going to be people who will want to drink and drive, assault other people, etc (insert any bad action). That doesn't make it acceptable nor is that an argument for making it legal.

You wrote that entire long ass post but you completely dodged the moral arguments in the abortion debate. If you don't think there are good (and bad) moral arguments for both sides then you either don't know or understand the argument or you simply don't want to have a reasonable discussion.

You are the one talking about morality. I have no interest debating you on morality. I am just pointing out that despite all the lofty intentions of the anti-abortion movement, the implementation of their ideal have been devastating to women’s and infant’s well being in the pro-life states.

There is no excuse for the Great State of Texas to have maternal mortality rate of more than 8 times of CA, or infant mortality rate twice that of CA. What excuse is there for Texas to have the highest repeat teen pregnancy rate in the nation? What moral debate do you want to use to justify all those statistics?

[Sky High]

You are the one talking about morality. I have no interest debating you on morality. I am just pointing out that despite all the lofty intentions of the anti-abortion movement, the implementation of their ideal have been devastating to women’s and infant’s well being in the pro-life states.

There is no excuse for the Great State of Texas to have maternal mortality rate of more than 8 times of CA, or infant mortality rate twice that of CA. What excuse is there for Texas to have the highest repeat teen pregnancy rate in the nation? What moral debate do you want to use to justify all those statistics?

why the tired and true christian tactic of having your cake and eating it. they live under this delusional idea that if you tell someone not to have sex then that casts a spell that keeps kids from having it despite all the evidence to the contrary existing. and when/if they do then they sinned, you spat in the face of god or whatever so your punishment is to take care of the child. no further thought needed.