Is it a curse that some fight against abortion, but care nothing for the children's health after birth?
Why do the antiabortion politicians in the congress of the USA fight against universal health care for children? Is it a curse or just their kind of politics? These are the same people who fought the bill that removed the title "bastard" from Birth Certificates. There is a Pagan folktale of a midwife who was arrested because she would not write "bastard" on birth papers. Just so it's in writing. We adopted a child from China because we could not afford to adopt a baby here in the USA, and as well, I was 56+ at the time we began asking to adopt and I was "too old" to adopt a baby here in the States.
Mythology & Folklore - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I do not believe in illegitimate children, just illegitimate parents. Good question though and I wish I had an answer. Abortions would cost the country thousands of dollars if the tax payer had to pay for them and universal health care would be costly also. Its all about money.
2 :
I'm pro-choice. I am not great with politics and do not really see a connection between abortions and our economy. Abortions should be up to the people who need it to purchase such a service. Why would the goverment have to pay for that? I doubt they would evene if they were for abortions. If im not mistaken they cost only four hundred dollars which is still a whole in the pocket but that's what happens when you were too much in a hurry to spen seventy-five cents. But I agree with you, Terry. So many people come to my door preaching about abortions and the consequences as if they even knew the consequences of BOTH sides. Truth is that so many people fight for the life of an unborn child yet after they are born they forget about them. These mothers are forced to get food stamps and medical care paid by tax payers (or government) and then these same people who stopped the woman from getting the abortion look down on her for using such services! It's absolutely ridiculous that no matter what the woman does (keep it or aborts it) she will be looked down upon. There is no escaping this and there is no satifiying anyone. There are plenty of children out in the world who need parents and our orphanages keep filling up because people are too scared to get an abortion (for many reasons). When these people come preaching to me I ask them when was the last time they adopted a child that was saved from being aborted. The answer is always "Never". When they even donated money to make life better for all of these children and so few actually can say that they have. Narrow minded thinking is a thing of the past. It is time we look at ALL the consequences of ONE choice. I understand it might be hard for many because it is against their moral beliefs, their religious beliefs but if they have such a responsibility towards saving humanity then why not actually complete the job and make sure the child has all they need after they have rescued it from an abortion. So to those politicians who cry about their money, well they should shut up and appreciate the life of the child. These are supposed to be wise people who help run our country and if they can't see how everything is connected then perhaps they should step down and let someone else of more intelligence take their place. This is a huge issue and we can talk about how the parents should of been responsible and this and that but the question was about politicians in congress of the USA. Shadow Storm
3 :
It is not only a curse, it is a crime, and the summit of hypocrisy. The "pro-life" people are nothing of the sort; if anything, they are pro-BIRTH. Once that fetus they've "saved" is born, they turn their backs and walk away, especially if that child isn't a white Protestant born to Republican parents. Then they call Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity or Laura Ingraham and complain about "liberals giving my tax money to unwed welfare mothers." Or, in the words of St. Ronald Reagan, "welfare queens." Why those idiots can't make the connection between effective contraception and lowered rates of abortion is a mystery. But there they are, railing against science-based sex education, preferring to rely on faith-based "abstinence-only" programs, which are invariably filled with lies, half-truths and misinformation. Abstinence-only programs have contributed to higher teen pregnancy rates and furthered the spread of STDs. It makes no sense. They don't care one bit about life. What they care about is controlling strangers' sex lives.
4 :
I'm pro-life and I feel that you are making a sweeping generalization. What I personally see is that the issue is with the politicians. The anti-abortion stance is considered to be a conservative stance in our very black and whited colored realm of politics. Support for the current broken institution of HMOs is also a conservative stance. When you add these two facts together, you get conservative politicians who mathematically find out how they can get all the values voters bid, and these two stances are ran together in the same campaign. I personally believe that child health care is an absolute necessity and that morally we need to do everything we reasonably can do to make it affordable for everyone. A child should never die because her mother was not rich enough for treatment. Also, for every 1 person I know who is pro-life and pro-HMO, I know 5 people who are pro-life and want affordable health care for children. This is just my personal experience, and I don't have any statistics to back that up, but I would like it to be known that all pro-lifers out there aren't necessarily against universal health care for children. However, that said, for those who do fall under your category of being pro-life and anti-universal health care for children, I feel your point is valid
5 :
I think that for the politicians it's about politics that will lead to their pay packets getting a little heavier. I'm pro-choice and the only reason for this is the difficulties a family can face if they have a fetus that is clearly ill and would live an unfulfilled life. It also affects more than the child, it affects everyone in the child's family unit and further. I've seen this happen before and it's a horrible thing to be witness too as it can lead to a lot of hurt in all parties included. Although if the politicians actually cared about childrens health then these families would be able to access more to help their child in the first place and maybe in quite a few cases another child would be born into this world with the assurance of an improved life.
6 :
In the last year alone, the media had reported over 5 children that were born live birth, found in trash cans (one in McDonalds), dumpsters, left in the woods to die, and one the mother left in a toilet to drown to death. I understand you stance Terry and I am with you and even DITTO Storm's response. What needs to take effect is a cap on doctors income, the price of prescriptions should also hit a cap, products used in hospitals should be itemized per cost of one piece rather than the whole box or whole perscription. Itemization should be accounted for and mandatory. If I hadn't gone through the bill of my nieces stay in the hospital while giving birth, she would have been billed near $9,800 rather than the itemization based on average timed nurse checks, pain relief by dosage and per IV drips. Granted she had a cesearean but still was $2030 more than she would have normally. The doctors and those in the medical feilds, the hospitals, private practices, specialists, even their accounting or accounting firm they use should all be held accountable. Now, since I stood on my soapbox, lol, the point of pro-life and universal healthcare. It has nothing to do with giving free healthcare to children and infants, we pretty much have that for children now at local health departments for low income families. It is the cost of it and the prices they charge. Healthcare recipients costs per day, per item, per type of service is discounted versus personal healthcare and HMO's. The cost the states pay versus our cost is a big jump and the insurance companies and doctors do not like it. Abortions will never be free through insurance but the cost from possible complications afterward IS the case and they do not want false claims and "welfare" babies be the case in the system as well. I understand the stupidity you see. I see it too. It doesn't make sense that they would want to "save" the life of the child if that child is going to be born with illness and eventually die or never have a quality of life, drug addicted or disease inflicted *aids*, severe poverty with homeless by choice parents living on the streets, or have the children "dumped" as so many are. If they are not dumped then the children could be living a terrible life with abuse, not enough food, clothing, shelter, drugs, any number of things. They want to save a life to live THAT kind of life? I saw a prolife line at a local abortion clinic and a woman asked me to stand with them to help save children. I asked her why would I want to do that? She started to proselityze the reasons. I then said ok. I will help you save a life IF you promise to take care of that child. You must adopt it or pay for all it's medical care, make sure it has food and clothing, make sure it lives a happy and fullfilling life, feed it, clean up after it, take it to school, virtually raise the child as if it was your own. She looked surprised and didn't say anything except that that was not the point. I said But THAT IS the point my friend. If you save it then it is your responsibility as well as everyone elses, because by your bible and the laws of Jesus, you ARE your sister and brothers keeper. We will be taxed to help take care of these children unless you take it in. WE will be responsible for it if it is put up for adoption and never adopted and lives in an orphanage or state institution. We are responsible for it's actions as an adult if we did not do what was needed to raise the child right and teach them humanity and good judgement, but later we will probably condemn that child to a life without love or hope. It may end up having a terrible life. May commit suicide or murder. Then we will want to persecute him and kill him for his crimes and blame the parents for his life, not knowing he was the life you tried to save today and will turn your back on him tomorrow. Then I walked away. I didn't see her chant much after that. A couple of days later the lines seemed to deminish and then by the following week there were no more protestors. This was back in the late 80's but still, why would you want to save something to later condemn it for being born? Makes no sense to me. Blessings Terry Edit: See, that is what is wrong with the adoption process here in the States. What they want for an adoptive parent is 1 in about 5000. Professional (making over $75,000 ayr), 1 to 2 children already or none at all, young (age range 26 to 40), a home - not rent, and proof of benefits such as personal healthcare insurance. But yet, when they do find those that meet the criteria, there are those that have been abused physically or mentally and even returned! But the ones that would take care of a child as their own biological child and give it a very nice home with love and care, they aren't good enough. Go figure. But for those that are "if'y" but meet most of the criteria, they are allowed to adopt or foster for life a child with dissabilities?! Many will foster for life just because the state will pay for all medical care and home expenses. The "troubled" kids can be fostered by almost anyone that can barely meet the criteria and take the classes. Even families that are already on govt assistance. It is so messed up. I am glad you were able to adopt your child and I know you will be the most awesomest dad! (I know, no such word but just reflecting on what the kids say). :)
7 :
I am not a politician but I am pro-life. The argument can be made that a government which mandates abortion and provides socialized health care is intrusive and excessively controls the lives of its citizens, and this, to me is a good political reason to oppose government management of childbirth and pediatric medicine. The best solution to the abortion issue is greater opportunities for babies and children to be adopted into loving homes that can care for them and provide for their medical needs. There are many ways to approach medical care for all citizens, but one of the best would be to find ways to lower the costs of quality health care. Those in Congress who are opposed to universal health care for children see this as a less efficient way to care for children. Based on the experience we have had with Medicare, I believe it is not the best way to approach the problem. The problem is mainly a middle class problem, since wealthy families can afford good health care and poor families qualify for free government health care. Again, reducing the cost is the best approach. When government takes over an institution the costs usually go up. I don't see any relationship between children's health care and annotations on a birth certificate. Frankly, this is the first I have heard of the birth certificate issue. I have known several bastards and not all of them were illegitimate.
Read more discussions :
