I believe it is 1 in 8 (not that that is much better). A study was done in 2007 that showed 1 in 8 lived at or below poverty level. Now, I am with you on the fallacy of that. The poverty level here is not true poverty in my opinion because I have seen true poverty up close. That does not make it 'ok' though.

However, I think one of the greatest strengths of this country is the fact that we are never satisfied with the way things are. A friend of mine from another country is always chiding me for complaining about how things are. She claims that I am never satisfied and I don't know how great this country is. I tell her that yes, I do. However, it is because we do not settle for simply 'ok' and always want and expect things to improve that allows this country to remain a great country. Otherwise, change would never happen.


>The explicit argument was that 1 in 5 are poor in America. The implicit argument is that this is a bad statistic. Compared to what? Seems a reasonable assumption that the comparison is to other countries in the world.
>
>>Well, there's our out -- compare ourselves with somebody worse off rather than with our better potentials. While not explicit, 'Americans' were assumed in the previous. But I hate responsibility anyway. Somebody drowning in shallow water should feel good about it compared those drowning where it's much deeper. There's not only worse to select from out there somewhere, but also out there sometime: back in cave times there was worse too. So things are best the just way they are. Great, nothing left to do. Think I'll create a new diet book based on the premise you needn't do anything but find somebody fatter than yourself by comparison. I'm sure Oprah would 'eat' it up. I'll become a rich man from it and then tell the kids without school books to lighten up already since there are kids without school buildings somewhere if they'd accept the challenge to look. I'll have to keep the challenge dumbed down since they may never have learned what a relative statistic is.
>>
>>>I'd challenge that 1 in 5 idea. That's a relative statistic based on the prosperity that Americans enjoy and is not a fair comparison to the rest of the world. Those living below the poverty line in America would be considered wealthy in most of the world.
>>>
>>>>Yes, well some things are simple. Opinion arguing types may go stand around as principled as they may afford -- you know, a money & mouth match-up. Otherwise you are 'simply' proffering an unfunded mandate on to other peoples business. I support womb survival thru 12th grade. 1 outta 5 in that range in poverty is nothing for U.S. to be proud of. Let the Dept. of Ed. receive billions more than it asked for after already having it all, then let the military have a bake sale. Or conversely, 'privatize' the military -- not to worry because they will magically receive all they deserve from the market's invisible hand job or whatever. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>>Yes, well some things are simple. Go stand around as principled as you can afford -- you know, a money & mouth match-up. Otherwise you are 'simply' proffering an unfunded mandate on to other peoples business.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Steven, there is nothing simple about this issue. My point in responding the way I did was to make a point that when you take a principled stance on an issue the alternatives are few, if any, if you really believe in your stance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I think the abortion issue is oversimplified by all sides. Everyone makes it seem that there are only two stances - pro-choice or pro-life. I disagree. I am personally very, very pro-life as you probably figured from my response. OTOH, who makes me the judge of other peoples moral decisions? I don't believe in laws regarding abortion pro or con since it's an individuals private choice of what they can live with.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>OTOH, my gut is that a baby who can survive the womb deserves a chance at a life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tamar,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>1) What if the child has no chance at a normal life, or even surviving much past birth? Here, I'm thinking of really severe impairments, like ancephaly.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>2) What if the child will survive birth, but not beyond early childhood? Something like Tay-Sachs, where victims die by age 5.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>3) What if the mother will survive pregnancy, but only at great damage to her health. For example, a mother with a disease that needs to be treated, but can't be treated while she's pregnant.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>4) What if carrying the pregnancy to term means the mother will lose the ability to bear future children?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The mother takes her chances because she became pregnant through personal choice or surfeit of birth control.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You mentioned rape, so let's go down that path:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>5) What if the mother is a child impregnated by her father, so you have not only the issue of rape and child abuse, but increased genetic risks?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>6) What if the mother is child, 10 or 11 or 12?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The baby is allowed to be born and made comfortable as possible. It's a human being. The child is put up for adoption.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>That's enough to start.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The choices are simple when you believe in the sanctity of human life.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ok 'sanctity'-breath, so they just send you the bill, right? I *sure* you're responsible for your belief, aren't you? Wow, it is simple. ;-)