Mississippi's 'Personhood' Law Could Outlaw Birth Control

[dawbs]

Trololol.

People who aren't paid care more, by virtue of their working for free, than RNs and doctors and licensed counselors who spent years of their lives paying for degrees that allow them to do this for a living?

You know why I find this funny? Because I bet - I am willing to lay down money - that you also pay to support a pastor for his weekly service to your congregation.

I know this is a 'minor' part of this argument, but WHY do people think that volunteer = better worker?

Maybe it's because I work with volunteers a lot (a LOT) in a field where lots of people volunteer to do my job for free...there's a REASON I get paid to do my job instead of taking the people who offer to do it for free up on their offers.

It's because, sometimes in life, you get what you pay for.

I love the volunteers I work with--some of them do amazing work and some of them just make my world a better place and many of my workplace's programs couldn't exist without them.

But, at the end of the day, the volunteers go home and the responsibility for the program/the big picture/etc lies with those of us who do this for a living.

Sure, I volunteer and donate here too, but this isn't a 'side job' I do. This isn't a hobby. This is something I"m invested in and that I both want and need to make sure succeeds.

If volunteers were truly 'better' at things than paid staff, by virtue of being volunteers, there would be more good volunteer-staffed organizations in the world.

[formergothardite]

1. Private schools

2. Agriculture

3. Child Care

4. Social Programs

Here are a couple good articles I found online on the topic.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/feature ... reaucracy/

http://zealfortruth.org/2009/04/why-gov ... dont-work/

Well those were totally biased sites. I guess I wasn't clear in my question, please provide with a specific period in the history of America when the poor had to depend of the kindness of strangers where things worked as well as they do today.

Edited for riffles and to add: If you had to transport a poor single mom back to some period in American history which one is it going to be since you feel that it has been proven that private programs work better than government. So I am assuming there is a specific period of time you have in mind where the private programs just took care of the majority of the poor and needy better than they are being cared for now with government programs. Not to say the government is perfect, just I can't think of another time period I would want to live in if I was poor and needed help.

[meda]

I love the fact that one of Jericho's "sources" is a christian libertarian blog ring, and the other links to the Foundation for Economic Freedom, a libertarian group founded in 1946 by the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Donaldson Brown of General Motors Corporation, David Goodrich of B. F. Goodrich, and a couple of fringe college professors to oppose New Deal legislation. Yeah, let's cite an organization that's been pissing on poor people since WW2. Totally an unbiased source of fact.

[Austin]

I know this is a 'minor' part of this argument, but WHY do people think that volunteer = better worker?

Maybe it's because I work with volunteers a lot (a LOT) in a field where lots of people volunteer to do my job for free...there's a REASON I get paid to do my job instead of taking the people who offer to do it for free up on their offers.

It's because, sometimes in life, you get what you pay for.

I love the volunteers I work with--some of them do amazing work and some of them just make my world a better place and many of my workplace's programs couldn't exist without them.

But, at the end of the day, the volunteers go home and the responsibility for the program/the big picture/etc lies with those of us who do this for a living.

Sure, I volunteer and donate here too, but this isn't a 'side job' I do. This isn't a hobby. This is something I"m invested in and that I both want and need to make sure succeeds.

If volunteers were truly 'better' at things than paid staff, by virtue of being volunteers, there would be more good volunteer-staffed organizations in the world.

For the same reason people believe that teachers who will work for close to nothing are better and more dedicated than teachers who demand a living wage. Thus, the popularity of charter schools, which in many areas, perform far worse than public schools. These teachers are paid peanuts. My husband, a retired teacher, began teaching in one last year and if we were a young couple both making that kind of money, we probably couldn't afford to buy a house or have children, which I think are pretty reasonable expectations. We do get decent health care through the school, but if we didn't have his retirement income, there's no way he could do it. So on the whole, what quality of teacher works there? The kind who can't get a job anywhere else. But somehow the public feels they're so much more noble. lol

[wtfrenchtoast]

Jericho, I'm assuming by your posts that you are Christian. I also assume that you hold some belief in hell. Do you think Christianity should be mandated? After all, that involves not just lives at stake, but souls.

If you aren't Christian or don't believe in hell, I apologize for assuming. But do you see how similar the two cases would be? And do you see where legislating your beliefs is wrong?

[meda]

For the same reason people believe that teachers who will work for close to nothing are better and more dedicated than teachers who demand a living wage. Thus, the popularity of charter schools, which in many areas, perform far worse than public schools. These teachers are paid peanuts. My husband, a retired teacher, began teaching in one last year and if we were a young couple both making that kind of money, we probably couldn't afford to buy a house or have children, which I think are pretty reasonable expectations. We do get decent health care through the school, but if we didn't have his retirement income, there's no way he could do it. So on the whole, what quality of teacher works there? The kind who can't get a job anywhere else. But somehow the public feels they're so much more noble. lol

OK, OT but how great is it about Prop 2? Ohio rocks :dance:

[oscar]

For the same reason people believe that teachers who will work for close to nothing are better and more dedicated than teachers who demand a living wage. Thus, the popularity of charter schools, which in many areas, perform far worse than public schools. These teachers are paid peanuts. My husband, a retired teacher, began teaching in one last year and if we were a young couple both making that kind of money, we probably couldn't afford to buy a house or have children, which I think are pretty reasonable expectations. We do get decent health care through the school, but if we didn't have his retirement income, there's no way he could do it. So on the whole, what quality of teacher works there? The kind who can't get a job anywhere else. But somehow the public feels they're so much more noble. lol

My husband just got fucked over by this mindset - some administrators figured, he's so dedicated and loves his work so much, we can offer him a shit job with shit salary and he'll put in all this extra effort for free.

Nope, he's on to better things, and now they're stuck with someone incompetent who can't get a job anywhere else.

THIS IS A GREAT SYSTEM PLEASE GIVE US MORE OF THE SAME

[Austin]

My husband just got fucked over by this mindset - some administrators figured, he's so dedicated and loves his work so much, we can offer him a shit job with shit salary and he'll put in all this extra effort for free.

Nope, he's on to better things, and now they're stuck with someone incompetent who can't get a job anywhere else.

THIS IS A GREAT SYSTEM PLEASE GIVE US MORE OF THE SAME

It's sad, but that's the thanks a hard-working competent teacher often gets. There has to be a balance. It's wonderful to be dedicated and highly qualified and hardworking, but it can be taken too far. When my husband starts talking school and what all needs to be done, a lot of times I just have to interject my favorite line to him: "Billy, don't be a hero!" (yes, I'm showing my age :D ) And look what happened to Billy :o

[Austin]

OK, OT but how great is it about Prop 2? Ohio rocks :dance:

Yeah, baby! Hallelujah, maybe my son can have a future in education - lol.

Our youngest sons voted for the first time ever yesterday. I took photos. I know, we're weird. :lol:

[formergothardite]

I have volunteered in the past in these oh so wonderful private Christian programs to help those in need. Trust me, most of the people volunteering didn't really give a crap about the people they were helping. There was this one lady who went out and tried to get donations and she would literally tell people to donate the cheapest food, clothes, toys, baby supplies that they could because the quality didn't matter when it went to the poor. They should be grateful they got anything. And when people would send in nice things she would always bitch about what a waste it was to give such nice things to the dirty poor people. And nobody besides me seemed to have any issue with that attitude.

[jericho]

Well those were totally biased sites. I guess I wasn't clear in my question, please provide with a specific period in the history of America when the poor had to depend of the kindness of strangers where things worked as well as they do today.

Edited for riffles and to add: If you had to transport a poor single mom back to some period in American history which one is it going to be since you feel that it has been proven that private programs work better than government. So I am assuming there is a specific period of time you have in mind where the private programs just took care of the majority of the poor and needy better than they are being cared for now with government programs. Not to say the government is perfect, just I can't think of another time period I would want to live in if I was poor and needed help.

How about the early 1900's? The problem is that the more the government gets involved in Welfare, the less private organizations get help. Also, people become more reliant on Welfare the bigger it grows. Why is it that since the 60's when Welfare was established in the United States, the country has only managed to create more poverty?

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=28

According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993.

[Austin]

According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993.

Uh, yeah, did you happen to make note that the financial system fell nearly completely apart in September of 2008 which caused our economy to crash and enter into a depression, the worst we've had since the Great Depression? So not exactly shocked that our poverty rate has risen a bit.

[browngrl]

voters reject life at conception amendment!

here's the link from BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-15642138

Glad to see that the majority have some sense.

edited to fix a glaring (all non glaring errors remain) grammatical error

[jericho]

Jericho, I'm assuming by your posts that you are Christian. I also assume that you hold some belief in hell. Do you think Christianity should be mandated? After all, that involves not just lives at stake, but souls.

If you aren't Christian or don't believe in hell, I apologize for assuming. But do you see how similar the two cases would be? And do you see where legislating your beliefs is wrong?

You can't legislate or force someone to be a Christian. It's a matter of the heart.

[BravaAmica]

You can't legislate or force someone to be a Christian. It's a matter of the heart.

But you sure can try to legislate behavior! And justify those laws as "biblically based."

[wtfrenchtoast]

You can't legislate or force someone to be a Christian. It's a matter of the heart.

But you can legislate or force someone to follow Christian beliefs. Cool.

[jericho]

But you can legislate or force someone to follow Christian beliefs. Cool.

Only ones that pertain to incivility. i.e murder, theft, battery etc.

[formergothardite]

How about the early 1900's? The problem is that the more the government gets involved in Welfare, the less private organizations get help. Also, people become more reliant on Welfare the bigger it grows. Why is it that since the 60's when Welfare was established in the United States, the country has only managed to create more poverty?

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=28

According to the U.S. Census Bureau data released Tuesday September 13th, 2011, the nation's poverty rate rose to 15.1% in 2010, up from 14.3% (approximately 43.6 million) in 2009 and to its highest level since 1993.

Early 1900's. I would try again. Here are some photos of what happened to children in poverty at that time.

http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/childlabor/

[debrand]

Only ones that pertain to incivility. i.e murder, theft, battery etc.

So, among nonChristians murder, theft and battery are allowed? Japan must be a really violent, lawless country. :think:

[emmiedahl]

1. Private schools

2. Agriculture

3. Child Care

4. Social Programs

1. When private schools were the only form of education, the majority of the population was illiterate. Is that your idea of success?

2. How is agriculture a social program?

3. Child care is not offered as a free social program on any reasonable scale by anyone that I that I know of. The government helps in some cases because the only alternative is for the parents to not work or for the children to be left alone. Is that a private program success story?

4. Back when social programs were handled by churches, poor people routinely went without food, clothing and shelter. Is that a success story?

[jericho]

So, among nonChristians murder, theft and battery are allowed? Japan must be a really violent, lawless country. :think:

Is that what I said?

[Austin]

I'm listening to NPR right now and a historian is talking about the history of contraception and abortion in the US. Studies have shown that during the 19-teens, one in three poor women had abortions. So much for criminalizing abortion being much of a barrier. :roll:

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/09/142097521 ... oliticized

[emmiedahl]

If you had to transport a poor single mom back to some period in American history which one is it going to be since you feel that it has been proven that private programs work better than government. So I am assuming there is a specific period of time you have in mind where the private programs just took care of the majority of the poor and needy better than they are being cared for now with government programs. Not to say the government is perfect, just I can't think of another time period I would want to live in if I was poor and needed help.

To be more specific, tell *me* in which time period my life as a poor person would be better.

As background, I am a married woman with five children. My husband lost his job and has to retrain for a new one because he is now obsolete in his field. I am working to support the family and also go to school. We eat because of food stamps. We belong to a small Jewish congregation that would be bankrupted by providing our most minimal needs.

About private aid: I sometimes need to use food banks, most of which will give me a bag of groceries every two months. Are you suggesting that the bag of groceries every two months would be sufficient?

About CPCs: My husband found out he was laid off the same week I found out I was pregnant with my youngest. I was told that our local CPC would not help me (by giving me hand-me-down maternity clothes and baby gear, I was not asking for blood or anything) because I already planned to keep the baby.

[Burris]

Glad I'm not holding my breath waiting for some real answers, here.

[formergothardite]

He/She seems to think the early 1900's would be grand. You and your kids could go work long hours in horrible unsafe conditions. It would be so wonderful. Way better than food stamps and public school.