A bit of comic relief -Every Sperm is Sacred :-)
- Again my friend, you treat the symptoms and not the ROOT CAUSE
I don't disagree that the welfare system is severally broken but government exists as a function to first protect it's citizenry. I think providing affordable and easily accessible birth control is one way to do this. Don't you?
First of all, the Declaration states that it is the government's first responsibility to protect the "pursuit of happiness" not the "happiness". And notice, the Federal Government did not endow these rights, it was the Creator and they are inalienable (meaning no government should be able to deny them – or in the modern day case, become the “Creator” – how arrogant, elitist, and prideful! If you uncouple the Declaration from the Constitution, as many "Progressives and New Era Socialists" do (beginning in earnest with Woodrow Wilson and FDR), then you can uncouple the Declaration’s "happiness and general welfare clause" from the enumerated powers of the Federal Government outlined in the Constitution. Once you do this destructive, regressive, and ill-defined act of "uncoupling" of the welfare clause, then where does it end? My happiness: may be that I expect the federal government to pay for my housing, my car, my health practices (even though I might be an abuser and reckless), my sexual practices, my drinking habits, etc. - because all that is for my "happiness and therefore my welfare (as defined by me of course!), is then the responsibility of the “government” and not myself. Only modern day, Marxist influenced (and I am ashamed to say mostly my "hippie" generation manufactured these axioms and teach in our universities - and being older now - having been a reckless hippie myself - I see how much the Marxist doctrines have infiltrated our colleges and universities) learners and students have this view of history. The Marxist "tainted" doctrines of "social justice" have wreaked havoc in the world and they have been some of the most destructive, inhumane and enslaving doctrines in history (and history proves this)! Government cannot, and should not, be in the business of "making me happy". They are about safeguarding the "opportunity" or "pursuit" of happiness for me. If one minority, naturalized immigrant (like the Vietnam Boat People who came here with the clothes on their backs only) and have made great strides by self-reliance, hard work and determination (the good kind and not the independent, arrogant kind), can make it, then all can. If one individual from a deprived, poor, "oppressed", class (so to speak) makes it, then the opportunity exists for all to make it - period! Then all others can "replicate" or follow their lead and make it the same way - effort, hard work, faith (if applicable), a sharing "heart", etc. This is the extent of the Declaration and the Constitution - period! To make it anything different is to fly in the face of solidly documented history, common sense, and pragmatism, and a record of a mindset that has allowed the most vibrant, successful, charitable, and noteworthy citizenry in history!
I'm not interested in getting in to a debate with you about how your hippy generation embraced marxism and how the US is now heading down a dangerous path of socialism and if the people would just lift themselves up from their boot straps like so many great immigrants.... I am interested in what you would do to curb unwanted pregnancies? I know abortion is off the table. Are you tired of paying to perpetuate the cycle of welfare? Me too, let's reduce the population that's on welfare by helping the people that can't afford to have kids, not have kids. Let's also reform the welfare system and make it one of enablement and not reliance. In short, let's treat the symptoms and the cause like any good doctor would.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed... Notice it says it is government's role to "secure" those unalienable rights by "promoting the general welfare" as the Constitution states. We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. What it does NOT state is" it is the government's responsibility to "provide" the general welfare - there is a difference between promoting and providing. In the Constitution’s case, it speaks more to securing the avenue of being able to attain individual (not collective) happiness, protecting the "opportunity" and to secure individual property rights (real, intellectual, fruits of one's labor and the like). It is about protecting the individual's right to "pursue happiness" and not the collective’s right to provide that happiness. This is the fallacy of modern day interpretations that have "bastardized" the original meaning of the phrases almost beyond their original intent (which is supported by 150 prior years of jurisprudence, educational records, inscriptions on public monuments and buildings, etc.). To say one's desire to return to original intent is to return to: no voting rights for women, a return to slavery, encourage poverty and sickness among the infirm and like statements is the most absurd, inane, demented postulate being bantered about in the press and other media forms. Nobody wants that? We have women's voting rights, abolition of slavery, and other such items because "we the people" amended the Constitution accordingly. If one wants to adhere to the "principles" in the original documents is in no way "backwards" and "Neanderthal-like" and only the most bigoted, biased, racist and self-aggrandized people with an inflated view of self-importance would say that.
To say one's desire to return to original intent is to return to: no voting rights for women, a return to slavery, encourage poverty and sickness among the infirm and like statements is the most absurd, inane, demented postulate being bantered about in the press and other media forms. Nobody wants that? We have women's voting rights, abolition of slavery, and other such items because "we the people" amended the Constitution accordingly. If one wants to adhere to the "principles" in the original documents is in no way "backwards" and "Neanderthal-like" and only the most bigoted, biased, racist and self-aggrandized people with an inflated view of self-importance would say that.
-Who claimed this? Who on earth are you talking to? When did anything I wrote suggest this?
- How about teaching our kids that it is not "alright to just have sex with no protection and with irresponsibility"
Still my question is "why not reform welfare (we both agree it's broken) and simultaneously provide birth control? One takes care of the long term problem and the other takes care of the immediate".How about the federal government not being at odds with common sense marriage/relationship tenants that have been around for 8000 years or more?
-Can you elaborate on this one? How is the Fed govt at odds with marriage tenants? -Also "common sense" is a subjective thing.
Here's one note on the "abstinence" hypothesis: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02... And another: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1234011... While one can find any "article" that supports his or her "theory", the bottom line is that the percentage may be less with those who are encouraged to wait (needless to say it would have a more positive impact on STD's and the like). It is hard to catch an STD if you don't "pass the plate around" so to speak. Mankind is saddled with a natural "nature" that tends to allow all kinds of horrible attributes: murder, genocide, theft, lying, cruelty, abuse of power, and the like. If time and "progressive ideas" worked so well, we would all be growing more altruistic and kind. Alas, that is not the case. I have my opinions about how to "in general" turn that nature around and "disable its negative power" so to speak, but that is a different discussion. I have read some of the "atheist" hypotheses about abstinence like the one that concludes: those with traditional values have a higher birth rate than those who don't! Well duh! Those with more "religious" or "traditional" value would be more likely to carry the child full term because they tend NOT to choose abortion. That conclusion is about as useful as a two legged stool! To say it is the government's responsibility (and therefore all taxpayers regardless of their beliefs) to pay for your birth control because someone got pregnant is a stretch. Should be then do away with the law "do not commit murder" (where have I heard that before?) and its accompanying punishments because someone gets murdered? You would say no way (unless you are Mao Zedong), Pol Pot, Che Guavara or Joseph Stalin - not to mention that Adolf guy). So, to say we should not encourage "waiting" is to say the same thing. By the way, having laws against murder doesn't alleviate the problem of murder, but it does tend to discourage it - would you not agree. Point Two: There have been many cases in the courts where, even on a scientific basis with facts about STD's, premature educational dropout rates, increase in the tendency towards poverty (there is a University of Wisconsin study on these items), and increased crime rates, “abstinence” or something similar to “abstinence education” has been stricken because it supposedly violates the "separation clause" (another discussion on this misled, non-factual and precedence-less Supreme Court conclusion later) and is deemed "religious" in nature. Schools around the country have been prohibited from supporting a "traditional" sexual practices rule on the same, "lame" (and unfounded prior to 1947) rule.
- "Have you ever seen a three legged calf?"
You use the word "traditional" a lot in your response. In your previous comment you said, This article states this well Even during the early centuries AD when the books of the New Testament were being written and compiled, polygamous marriages were common. In several of his epistles, Paul specified that those in positions of leadership in the early church should be the “husband of but one wife” (see Titus 1:6, 1 Tim. 3:2). Marriage in the early church bore little resemblance to the institution we know today. It was primarily an institution of the state. Once a Christian couple had been legally married, they would attend liturgy, received the Eucharist together, and be blessed by the local bishop. The features we recognize as typical of a wedding ceremony—the use of a simple white veil and the symbolic joining of the couple’s hands—did not begin to appear until the time of Augustine (354-430)". We know there are two things that work to prevent unwanted pregnancies; 1. Abstinence 2. Contraception. We should be promoting both and if the government can lower unwanted pregnancies (especially amongst the poor) then I'm all for it. If it's a matter of needing more tax revenue, then let's tax the churches. I'd love to go on, but I have to go to work.to then say "abstinence" or traditional" values should be done away with or discouraged in our schools
-I never suggested they be "done away with", just that they don't work for everyone. If studies are showing that they are more effective then previously thought, why not have a comprehensive approach of abstinence and protection?"How about the federal government not being at odds with common sense marriage/relationship tenants that have been around for 8000 years or more?"
-Let's be honest here, marriage has changed a LOT over the past 8000 years."Christian marriage has not always been between “one man and one woman.” For most of recorded biblical history, polygamy was seen as normative. For example, the patriarch Jacob had at least three wives (Genesis 30), King David had at least eight, and his son Solomon had 700 (1 Kings 11:1-3)—not to mention 300 concubines!
1. Redesign the welfare system to encourage more "workfare". We have that now in states (thanks to the Welfare Reform Act of 1996 signed by Clinton and proposed by Republican legislatures), however, I would: a. Limit welfare benefits to a maximum of five years under normal circumstances, and extend to 7 years if the recipient was enrolled in a school program or job training program. However, we should discourage "generational" welfare or welfare as a "lifestyle" as it has become in historical perspective.
b. We would have to provide assistance for child care during this period of education for the recipient. However, after a decade or two, we may not need this assistance because the family structure would be "restored" or repaired.
c. We should "stair step" the benefits as the recipient earns more money. Once able to achieve "self-sufficiency", they will be able to provide for themselves. I believe most welfare recipients DO want to do this.
d. We should begin to teach "generic morals" in primary schools and encourage waiting until marriage to have sex. Is this going to "cure" sexual promiscuity? No, but it could have a positive effect in reducing the number of unwed pregnancies. I do believe we can also teach the positive effects of using birth control has. The parents can also be invited to become involved or provide "mentors" from both secular and religious organizations to help educate the kids and parents. The "abstinence" education and other "sex education" together; they are NOT mutually exclusive.
e. We should allow marriage while on welfare, and then encourage both to become self-sufficient. Again keeping the overall benefit timeframe is good. To cut off all or most benefits because a guy marries his "knocked up" girlfriend is not in the long term interest of the nation. 2. Redesign the Department of Education by reducing its size and influence. We can achieve this by attrition and redefining the responsibility and scope of the department. The department encourages more "elitist" theories than old fashioned "three R's". They should be more of a "clearing house" of ideas that bubble up from local and state initiatives that are proven to be successful and quit "dictating" the educational platform for local and state boards. In fact, I believe we should combine the departments of HHR, HUD, and the Department of Education into one department - the Department of Internal Affairs and reduce the entire staff by a third of one half of their current size. We have become more a nation of the "rule of oligarchy" than a constitutional republic. We are ruled by bureaucratic "elites" instead of ruled by congressional legislative processes. The OWS folks should be demonstrating about this as well as the "1%". Political elites are as dangerous as the "wealthy few"!
On the first point, I would argue that teaching about waiting to have sex until marriage is far from a generic moral; it is a religious ideal, and it has no place in most modern people's lives. To call it generic moral is so far from reality, as to be pure fantasy. To me, generic morals are essentially that which infringes on the freedom of others; i.e. don't murder, steal, etc. Anything to do with sex is a personal choice, and personal morality. Its not for any school to be teaching religious norms.
Also, to say that the modern Western "rule of law" has no basis in religious "ten commandments" or, universally, the "big eight” which are shared by all world religions, is historically incorrect, un-factual, and is not grounded in "correct history" (only in revisionist history of the "progressives" post 1947) which is mostly what is taught in our "institutions of higher learning". Starting with Lord Blackstone, and the Magna Carta, most of the concepts of "freedom" are based in the Judeo/Christian ethic and rule of law! If you say that, for instance, stealing is wrong, but it is not based on the “ten commandment” mandates is to fly in the face of reason.