Economics and Reducing Abortion?

[Lisa_N]

Brad:

There used to be a name for these kind of women. As if it is some kind of accomplishment to be able to seduce multiple men without the hangup of committment? Like that’s really difficult. Give me a break. Why don’t they pickup the skill of stealing chocolate from 4-year olds when they aren’t looking? After all, the chocolate tastes awfully good and a 4-year old is too dumb to figure you out.

I know. It’s funny women think they were LIBERATED by “free love”. Honestly I think even a man who might want to play the field would not want his wife to have been the good time had by all. I just don’t see the benefit to either sex to having a series of 'hookups." There are certainly some real risks, especially in this day of STDs becoming not only more common but also harder to treat.

BTW does anyone wonder if the word “hook up” sounds a lot like one of those kinda women?

Lisa N

 

[jlw]

From :

“And Glenn directs us to Judge Posner’s explanation for the change in sexual mores --not surprisingly, the Judge credits economics. It seems inescapable, though, that the rise both skepticism in theology that discredits the idea of Hell has played a role here, as the exile of Hell significantly lowers the cost of religiously prohibited behavior. If Faustina was right, then the economic calculations the Judge credits with driving the new behaviors have to be adjusted for long term --very, very long term-- costs. And even if such an effort is rejected as “unscientific,” the economic factors cited by the judge seem to discount the idea of STDs, emotional injury from casual sexual activity, or the cost to the society as a whole of the AIDs epidemic or the ongoing treatment of HIV patients in the United States and the untreated populations of the Third World. In short, if Judge Posner’s view of economics as an explanation for sexual behavior, the rapidly rising global costs of outside-of-marriage sexual activity should be followed by a return of more traditional restraint in such matters.”

 

[Philip_P]

LisaN:

I know. It’s funny women think they were LIBERATED by “free love”.

A lot of feminists would agree with you. As I mentioned it before, what we’re seeing is the failure, not triumph, of feminism. Feminism was a protest against women being treated as less than men. Now they not only continue to serve as sex objects, they are expected to thank men for “liberating” them as well. I’m ashamed for my fellow men, and truly sad for all the women.

jlw:

Conservatives may cry foul if private schools are FORCED to take students contrary to their ALREADY IN PLACE admission standards.

But that’s exactly my point. If school vouchers are about choice, and a child qualifies on merit but is denied admission based on some other standard (even a pre-existing one), that’s hardly freedom of choice in education, is it? The potential problem with vouchers is that they not only endanger the choice of students and parents, but potentially the freedom of the schools to set admission standards as well.

Brad:

If you want to know my opinion, sex-ed doesn’t belong in the schools at

all.

Hmm, I’m not sure just ignoring the subject is the best approach.

Brad:

For instance, you could talk about how everyone is capable of doing great things with their life - that this is something that is inside each one of them - talents and skills just waiting to be discovered - and if you put your short-term immediate desires and passions ahead of being disciplined and devoted towards your goals you run a much greater risk of failure.

I thought this was the kind of talk generally ridiculed by big tough conservatives? (After all, someone told little Hillary she could be anything she wanted when she grew up, even president, and look what that’s done http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Another key component to successful schools is, of course, parental involvement, something which is largely beyond the scope of any educational reform proposal to affect. In some cases it’s simple parental neglect, and I’m not sure what you can do in those cases. In many cases, it’s a question of parental fatigue and lack of time, with varying degrees of choice. A woman working 60 hour weeks in investment banking probably isn’t going to be active in the PTA, (or even likely to have kids at all), but this was her choice. A household where both parents work 40+ hour weeks so that they can afford the two or three cars and the house in the nice neighborhood with the good school district is likely to be one where spending evening and weekends at the school is the last thing they want to do. A single mother working two or more jobs just to make ends meet and keep her children fed, clothed, and vaccinated will have to be heroic, verging on the superhuman, to be involved with the school.

One solution would be to stop penalizing women who take time off work to be with their children. So far as I know (and correct me if I’m wrong), the only thing available right now is FMLA. This gives a women up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for pregnancy and taking care of a new child. Boosting the minimum wage would dramatically and positively impact families at the bottom of the income scale, while increasing time-off benefits for mothers of young children would benefit all income scales. Less pressure to make ends meet means more time and energy available to become involved with your child’s education.

 

[Brad]

jlw:

I vote for the “Separatation of Sex and State”, at least in our public schools.

Absolutely. I’d add in the Whitehouse, excluding President and wife in private quarters.

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

ALso the jury is out with respect to whether abstinence programs work or not. They are relatively new, and we don’t have a lot of results. However as I understand the CDC did indicate that pregnancies and certainly STDs were reduced due to abstinence programs. We need to give this approach time and the opportunity to work.

One thing that would help these programs is to change the name to Chastity programs. Jason Everett makes a good case for this. This is not something negative - this is something very precious and good - chastity.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

A lot of feminists would agree with you. As I mentioned it before, what we’re seeing is the failure, not triumph, of feminism. Feminism was a protest against women being treated as less than men. Now they not only continue to serve as sex objects, they are expected to thank men for “liberating” them as well. I’m ashamed for my fellow men, and truly sad for all the women.

But that’s exactly my point. If school vouchers are about choice, and a child qualifies on merit but is denied admission based on some other standard (even a pre-existing one), that’s hardly freedom of choice in education, is it? The potential problem with vouchers is that they not only endanger the choice of students and parents, but potentially the freedom of the schools to set admission standards as well.

Hmm, I’m not sure just ignoring the subject is the best approach.

I thought this was the kind of talk generally ridiculed by big tough conservatives? (After all, someone told little Hillary she could be anything she wanted when she grew up, even president, and look what that’s done http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Another key component to successful schools is, of course, parental involvement, something which is largely beyond the scope of any educational reform proposal to affect. In some cases it’s simple parental neglect, and I’m not sure what you can do in those cases. In many cases, it’s a question of parental fatigue and lack of time, with varying degrees of choice. A woman working 60 hour weeks in investment banking probably isn’t going to be active in the PTA, (or even likely to have kids at all), but this was her choice. A household where both parents work 40+ hour weeks so that they can afford the two or three cars and the house in the nice neighborhood with the good school district is likely to be one where spending evening and weekends at the school is the last thing they want to do. A single mother working two or more jobs just to make ends meet and keep her children fed, clothed, and vaccinated will have to be heroic, verging on the superhuman, to be involved with the school.

One solution would be to stop penalizing women who take time off work to be with their children. So far as I know (and correct me if I’m wrong), the only thing available right now is FMLA. This gives a women up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for pregnancy and taking care of a new child. Boosting the minimum wage would dramatically and positively impact families at the bottom of the income scale, while increasing time-off benefits for mothers of young children would benefit all income scales. Less pressure to make ends meet means more time and energy available to become involved with your child’s education.

These choices are not driven solely, or primarily, by econonmics. It all goes back to morality. What “conservatives” said from the start.

That prices were driven up and that 2 incomes are seen as necessary are in large part due to the influx of women into the work force. The influx came as a result of the “liberation” nonsense started in the 1960s. We are all liberated now, liberated from the truth. The genesis of that liberation was in no small part from contraceptive techniques that were widely embraced by the “liberals”, and then the “conservatives”.

 

[Philip_P]

fix:

That prices were driven up and that 2 incomes are seen as necessary are in large part due to the influx of women into the work force. The influx came as a result of the “liberation” nonsense started in the 1960s. We are all liberated now, liberated from the truth.

The influx of women in the workforce started during WWII. Market pressures drove the change from the two incomes from luxury to necessity. Here I am proposing ways to make it less necessary for women to spend all their time at work and all you can respond with is “blame the 60s.” Are you opposed to expanding time-off benefits for mothers, or do you have some other proposal that makes it possible for mothers to spend more time with their children and less time serving the market?

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

Hmm, I’m not sure just ignoring the subject is the best approach.

It is not ignoring it. It is putting this type of education where it properly belongs - in the home. Just as it is parents that teach values, it should be parents that teach the meaning of intimacy and love. This cannot be taught to anyone’s liking in a pluralized school system and it is not supposed to be. Will some parents be neglegent? Certainly. But the school system is not a safety net for negligent parents. The Bible and the Church clearly tells us the parents are the primary educators and responsible for all of the education of their children, whereever it is obtained.
Philip P:

I thought this was the kind of talk generally ridiculed by big tough conservatives? (After all, someone told little Hillary she could be anything she wanted when she grew up, even president, and look what that’s done http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

Hardly. From Ben Franklin to Abraham Lincoln to Norman Vincent Peal to David Scwartz to George Bush, “conservatives” have expressed the notion that if you believe in yourself and you d o not quit then you can accomplish what you set out to accomplish. Someone did Hillary a big favor. Unfortunately, she has not returned in like kind what she has been given.

In any event, do you discount this “kind of talk” as part of the solution? After all, it is rare in schools which are dominated by “liberals”. What do you think?
Philip P:

Another key component to successful schools is, of course, parental involvement, something which is largely beyond the scope of any educational reform proposal to affect. In some cases it’s simple parental neglect, and I’m not sure what you can do in those cases. In many cases, it’s a question of parental fatigue and lack of time, with varying degrees of choice. A woman working 60 hour weeks in investment banking probably isn’t going to be active in the PTA, (or even likely to have kids at all), but this was her choice. A household where both parents work 40+ hour weeks so that they can afford the two or three cars and the house in the nice neighborhood with the good school district is likely to be one where spending evening and weekends at the school is the last thing they want to do. A single mother working two or more jobs just to make ends meet and keep her children fed, clothed, and vaccinated will have to be heroic, verging on the superhuman, to be involved with the school.

One solution would be to stop penalizing women who take time off work to be with their children. So far as I know (and correct me if I’m wrong), the only thing available right now is FMLA. This gives a women up to 12 weeks unpaid leave for pregnancy and taking care of a new child. Boosting the minimum wage would dramatically and positively impact families at the bottom of the income scale, while increasing time-off benefits for mothers of young children would benefit all income scales. Less pressure to make ends meet means more time and energy available to become involved with your child’s education.

I agree with all that you say here except one item. In fact, you hit on the root of the abortion problem, at least as far as teenagers go. Lack of time with parents for children from the time they are born until the time they leave the house. For MOST parents, this is a choice they make, not a necessity. For the single mother, she needs to find a good church and ask for help and she will likely find it. Humility goes a long way to success.

The part I disagree with is the notion of minimum wage increase dramatically impacting families. No matter how much minimum wage goes up, it remains the minimum. By definition, the jobs require the minimum skills and will always pay at a scale lower than non-mimimum wage jobs. Forcing the market to pay above what it can afford for particular labor generally hurts businesses and ends up costing more jobs than they can give. Again, I suggest the church help struggling one-parent families, whether to watch the kids so additional skills can be learned or to help find affordable cars and housing and meals.

 

[fix]

Philip P:

The influx of women in the workforce started during WWII. Market pressures drove the change from the two incomes from luxury to necessity. Here I am proposing ways to make it less necessary for women to spend all their time at work and all you can respond with is “blame the 60s.” Are you opposed to expanding time-off benefits for mothers, or do you have some other proposal that makes it possible for mothers to spend more time with their children and less time serving the market?

It blossomed in the 1960s. In no way can you say that after WWII we have the same number of “working” women as we did in the 1970s and 1980s. The liberation movement ushered in that trend.

What I propose is that we start teaching young kids that their are different roles and vocations. Fatherhood and motherhood are more important that vocations. Working mothers should not be the ideal.

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

The influx of women in the workforce started during WWII. Market pressures drove the change from the two incomes from luxury to necessity. Here I am proposing ways to make it less necessary for women to spend all their time at work and all you can respond with is “blame the 60s.” Are you opposed to expanding time-off benefits for mothers, or do you have some other proposal that makes it possible for mothers to spend more time with their children and less time serving the market?

I find that when most mothers are given the opportunity for leave, whether 2 months or 3 years, they usually take less than what they are given because they do not want to face the “financial crunch”, as they live in their 4-bedroom home.

 

[Lisa_N]

gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/schwartz_3_15_05_fightingpoverty.htmGreat article from Grove City College with respect to welfare. The main point is that if someone gets married, finishes high school and works full time, their chances of being poor are ONE PERCENT in this country. (I realize there is a point about small families that won’t sit well with Catholics but overall the article is pretty objective). The major reasons poor people are poor is that they don’t get married and don’t finish high school.

Interestingly the article indicates that both Dems and Reps agree that welfare reform is a success. Previously our system guarantied payment for life and no accountability. Further the system was rigged against someone with a work ethic because they’d lose health benefits etc when transitioning to work. That has changed along with limiting the time on welfare. The rolls have decreased something like 60% without an equivalent increase in poverty. The reality is that there are people who will not work unless compelled to do so.

Further it suggests that if we could simply encourage getting married before kids are born and staying married, poverty would be decreased dramatically.

What we did instead was provide substantial support to unwed mothers, and no fault divorce. It’s not hard to connect the dots.

Lisa N

 

[fix]

gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/schwartz_3_15_05_fightingpoverty.htmGreat article from Grove City College with respect to welfare. The main point is that if someone gets married, finishes high school and works full time, their chances of being poor are ONE PERCENT in this country. (I realize there is a point about small families that won’t sit well with Catholics but overall the article is pretty objective). The major reasons poor people are poor is that they don’t get married and don’t finish high school.

Interestingly the article indicates that both Dems and Reps agree that welfare reform is a success. Previously our system guarantied payment for life and no accountability. Further the system was rigged against someone with a work ethic because they’d lose health benefits etc when transitioning to work. That has changed along with limiting the time on welfare. The rolls have decreased something like 60% without an equivalent increase in poverty. The reality is that there are people who will not work unless compelled to do so.

Further it suggests that if we could simply encourage getting married before kids are born and staying married, poverty would be decreased dramatically.

What we did instead was provide substantial support to unwed mothers, and no fault divorce. It’s not hard to connect the dots.

Lisa N

What I find funny is that we need studies and such to point out the obvious.

 

[Lisa_N]

fix:

What I find funny is that we need studies and such to point out the obvious.

Yes but without them idealogues could conveniently ignore the facts. If you have a study that carefully documents the reality it’s a lot harder to fight by saying it’s just a buncha hard hearted right wing wackos.

This study absolutely supports everything I’ve seen in volunteering for various social services organizations. Literally to a one, people are on our homeless shelter because they aren’t married, have kids, bio dad(s) has/have flown the coop, they didn’t bother to get an education or skills and often have issues like substance abuse. I know the homeless advocates wanted to portray this population as you and I one paycheck away but it’s simply not the reality. The sad thing is the generational poverty where the pattern is repeated. Right now in the shelter we have a mom who has kids by several different men, none of whom she bothered to marry and none of whom are involved with the kids. Her oldest daughter is pregnant, due any day. Of course the ‘sperm donor’ is also long gone. Suggestions that she allow her baby to be adopted by a stable two parent family fall on deaf ears. This baby is MINE she howls as if it were a bicycle. Now I realize the mom child bond is very very strong but unfortunately this girl cannot see that she is going to repeat her own mom’s chaotic and rather desperate life and is resigning her innocent baby to the same thing that she claims she detests. Oh well.

Lisa N

 

[fix]

Lisa N:

Yes but without them idealogues could conveniently ignore the facts. If you have a study that carefully documents the reality it’s a lot harder to fight by saying it’s just a buncha hard hearted right wing wackos.

This study absolutely supports everything I’ve seen in volunteering for various social services organizations. Literally to a one, people are on our homeless shelter because they aren’t married, have kids, bio dad(s) has/have flown the coop, they didn’t bother to get an education or skills and often have issues like substance abuse. I know the homeless advocates wanted to portray this population as you and I one paycheck away but it’s simply not the reality. The sad thing is the generational poverty where the pattern is repeated. Right now in the shelter we have a mom who has kids by several different men, none of whom she bothered to marry and none of whom are involved with the kids. Her oldest daughter is pregnant, due any day. Of course the ‘sperm donor’ is also long gone. Suggestions that she allow her baby to be adopted by a stable two parent family fall on deaf ears. This baby is MINE she howls as if it were a bicycle. Now I realize the mom child bond is very very strong but unfortunately this girl cannot see that she is going to repeat her own mom’s chaotic and rather desperate life and is resigning her innocent baby to the same thing that she claims she detests. Oh well.

Lisa N

I agree Lisa. I guess my point is that these issues that the more liberally minded folks always see as economic dogma are more common in this culture than ever before. We will always have the poor to care for and those in dire circumstances. My point is that so many are in “trouble” today that an entire sub culture has developed. This sub culture with the greater culture is not being addressed properly. That does not mean I think they should suffer or be starved, it does mean we need wide raging shifts in morality and not rely so much on social work programs devoid of any moral guidance.

 

[Lisa_N]

fix:

It blossomed in the 1960s. In no way can you say that after WWII we have the same number of “working” women as we did in the 1970s and 1980s. The liberation movement ushered in that trend…

Certainly the 50s which came after WWII were known as a very traditional time with women in the home. Even in the 1960s while the rumblings were heard, still most mothers were at home, at least until the children were of school age. There was very little of this stay home for a month and put the baby in daycare until the past couple of decades. FWIW my mom worked from the day she was released from the hospital. She was a PhD in days when few women went beyond high school and she was much more interested in work than kids. However we were a rarity at the time. I graduated from high school in the early 1970s and even then a majority of married women were homemakers. Of course single women have always had to leave the home to support their kids. Certainly it’s an oddity that as women became ‘liberated’ men also were liberated from responsibility. Remember the shame of not supporting your family? Men were considered men by being breadwinners and protectors of their family. But between the ‘free love’ generation and the nanny state philosophy, they’ve walked away from responsibility. Not that women didnt’ give them a push. Remember the phrase, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle!” Once we told men they were no longer necessary, they took us at our word.

fix:

What I propose is that we start teaching young kids that their are different roles and vocations. Fatherhood and motherhood are more important that vocations. Working mothers should not be the ideal.

I was taught the opposite and women who stayed home were belittled and demeaned. Of all people it was Dr Laura who made me understand how damaging a working mom was to kids, particularly at a young age. I know that I have zero bonding with either of my parents (dad died but mom still alive). It’s not hard to understand why. The good news is that I do see more women making an effort to at least be home until the kids are school age.

Lisa N

 

[fix]

Lisa N:

Certainly the 50s which came after WWII were known as a very traditional time with women in the home. Even in the 1960s while the rumblings were heard, still most mothers were at home, at least until the children were of school age. There was very little of this stay home for a month and put the baby in daycare until the past couple of decades. FWIW my mom worked from the day she was released from the hospital. She was a PhD in days when few women went beyond high school and she was much more interested in work than kids. However we were a rarity at the time. I graduated from high school in the early 1970s and even then a majority of married women were homemakers. Of course single women have always had to leave the home to support their kids. Certainly it’s an oddity that as women became ‘liberated’ men also were liberated from responsibility. Remember the shame of not supporting your family? Men were considered men by being breadwinners and protectors of their family. But between the ‘free love’ generation and the nanny state philosophy, they’ve walked away from responsibility. Not that women didnt’ give them a push. Remember the phrase, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle!” Once we told men they were no longer necessary, they took us at our word.

Spot on. Today I am reading that more women, even with degrees from “elite” schools are opting to stay at home with the kids rather than pursuit the career as an end unto itself. It is still counter cultural, but if this trend continues I think we will see more and more women accepting the most important role in society. The BVM should be the model, not Maude friom the early 1970s tv show.

I was taught the opposite and women who stayed home were belittled and demeaned. Of all people it was Dr Laura who made me understand how damaging a working mom was to kids, particularly at a young age. I know that I have zero bonding with either of my parents (dad died but mom still alive). It’s not hard to understand why. The good news is that I do see more women making an effort to at least be home until the kids are school age.

Lisa N

Your story is played out time and again. I do think more men and women are starting to change.

 

[Philip_P]

fix:

In no way can you say that after WWII we have the same number of “working” women as we did in the 1970s and 1980s.

I didn’t say that. I said that it began in WWII and has been increasing since, which would imply that it was greater in the 60s than the 50s, and greater in the 70s than the 60s (I’m also not claiming it was a straight-line increase. That would be pretty naïve social analysis. I’m sure it varied, but the trend has been undeniably upward). The business interests (which social conservatives bizarrely align themselves with) effectively co-opted feminism so that two-income households are less a luxury and closer to a necessity to maintain the same standard of living.
Lisa N:

What we did instead was provide substantial support to unwed mothers

I’d rather have unwed mothers than unwed women having abortions. Each child of an unwed mother is a child that was not aborted.
Lisa N:

http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/edi...ng poverty.htmGreat article from

Grove CityCollege with respect to welfare. The main point is that if someone gets married, finishes high school and works full time, their chances of being poor are ONE PERCENT in this country. (I realize there is a point about small families that won’t sit well with Catholics but overall the article is pretty objective). The major reasons poor people are poor is that they don’t get married and don’t finish high school. Thank you for forwarding that article. I’d like to draw attention to one passage:
Joel Schwartz:

One way that we fight poverty today is by making work more rewarding for the poor. To encourage the poor to work, the wages of the poor—and their health care, child care, and transportation to and from work—are often and appropriately subsidized by government programs.

Lest we spend time attacking strawmen, let me say this is pretty close to the premise I’ve been trying to argue from. Not once have I said we should just throw money at people. I’ve been saying we should invest in creating an environment more conducive to childrearing and families. Pushing for a “living wage” seems a pretty straightforward way of rewarding work. As a spur to increased wages overall, it also would seem to take off some of the financial crunch that currently strongly favors dual income households over single-income (translation - if one parent can “earn the bread,” the other can stay home with the kids).
Lisa N:

The good news is that I do see more women making an effort to at least be home until the kids are school age.

And we should be supporting those who wish to make this choice. The opposition to greater time-off benefits for parents and to greater wages that allow single-earner households completely baffles me, coming as it often does from those favoring traditional families.

A living wage and greater time-off benefits for parents really ought to be something those concerned with families on both sides of the political spectrum can agree on. With the liberally inclined, point out how it’s a far more authentic choice if a woman can truly choose to stay home or work. With the conservatively inclined, the fact that women are not penalized for staying home with their children would seem to be argument enough. What am I missing here?

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

I
The business interests (which social conservatives bizarrely align themselves with) effectively co-opted feminism so that two-income households are less a luxury and closer to a necessity to maintain the same standard of living.

Not at all. It is an vastly INCREASED standard of living vis a vis that of the 50s, 60s and even 70s. I don’t know how old you are but I suspect 30 or under. When I grew up (60s) most people lived in houses with one bathroom. They had one TV set in the one living room. They may have had one car. Vacations consisted of camping or visiting relatives. Eating out was a luxury. We played outside in our yards or in local parks or schoolyards. Young marrieds expected to live frugally while saving up to buy a home. That was the same for my parents’ generation and their parents as well.

Now look at what is considered ‘middle class;’ HUGE homes, we call them Mc Mansions in this city. Family rooms, game rooms, bonus rooms, HUGE kitchens, nooks, formal dining rooms, bedrooms for each child and an office. Two or three cars, two or three TVs, computers, luxury vacations, meals out several times a week, organized play or organized sports, etc etc etc.

A one wage earner family can have a decent and by world standards great lifestyle if they don’t demand all of today’s consumer goods.
Philip P:

I’d rather have unwed mothers than unwed women having abortions. Each child of an unwed mother is a child that was not aborted.

But the point is that if we encouraged people to be MARRIED before having sexual relations there wouldn’t be either the horror of abortion or the problems of single women trying to support kids. Also if we enforced support orders (and I will say it’s getting better) the men who sired these kids would have to help. In addition if men had to show responsibility, they would be less likely to be running around impregnating women. You honestly seem to have the “bigotry of low expectations” of people. The reason we have so many abortions and so many unsupported children is that we have ALLOWED people to abdicate responsibility for their actions. Whether this is approached from a religious basis or a secular, economic basis, is up for discussion. But the reality is that people will be irresponsible if we LET THEM.
Philip P:

Thank you for forwarding that article. I’d like to draw attention to one passage:… Pushing for a “living wage” seems a pretty straightforward way of rewarding work. As a spur to increased wages overall, it also would seem to take off some of the financial crunch that currently strongly favors dual income households over single-income (translation - if one parent can “earn the bread,” the other can stay home with the kids).

THe ‘living wage’ IMO is indefensible. Anytime an economy has tried to force wages and prices to specified levels the economy stagnates abysmally. I would throw it off the table frankly because it will never happen.

Again MOST of the problems are a result of people not marrying before childbearing. I think you are sadly mistaken in believing that women MUST work to maintain basic necessities of life. We just have an ever increasing expectation and thus what were luxuries in the past have morphed into necessities. An artificial wage would simply enforce the artificial expectations that we’ve created.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

continued…
Philip P:

And we should be supporting those who wish to make this choice. The opposition to greater time-off benefits for parents and to greater wages that allow single-earner households completely baffles me, coming as it often does from those favoring traditional families.

I have no problem with higher wages if that is what the market will bear. I have a real problem with artificially propped up wages because that does not solve the problem. It simply transfers money from one pocket to another.
Philip P:

A living wage and greater time-off benefits for parents really ought to be something those concerned with families on both sides of the political spectrum can agree on. With the liberally inclined, point out how it’s a far more authentic choice if a woman can truly choose to stay home or work. With the conservatively inclined, the fact that women are not penalized for staying home with their children would seem to be argument enough. What am I missing here?

You’re missing having some expectation of responsibility. If we focus on encouraging stable married couples having children instead of paying single women to get pregnant and paying for the irresponsible sperm donors we will be much better off. You seem to believe that we should not expect anything of anyone and that the productive stable people should have to bear the burden for the flakes. You will find that position pretty unpopular.

Lisa N

 

[jlw]

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlw
*Conservatives may cry foul if private schools are FORCED to take students contrary to their ALREADY IN PLACE admission standards. *

Philip: But that’s exactly my point. If school vouchers are about choice, and a child qualifies on merit but is denied admission based on some other standard (even a pre-existing one), that’s hardly freedom of choice in education, is it? The potential problem with vouchers is that they not only endanger the choice of students and parents, but potentially the freedom of the schools to set admission standards as well.

The point was the AFFORDABILITY. That DOES give a poor family more freedom of choice!!! The way you sound even rich people (who therefore can afford a private school) would be
“denied freedom” if a private school turned down their kid because they don’t accept…kids with juvenille records???