This is
ludricous. You can't possibly expect
people to agree to end their pregnancy
just to keep their grant. This is taking
away peoples CHOICE. If they choose to
keep the pregnancy then so be it- they
will just have to apply for a different
grant
instead.
No it isn't - it's giving them an
ultimatum. They need to decide if
finishing their education or birthing
their potential resource-sucker is more
important at that time. Anyone who applies
for any grant is given a set of guidelines
to follow in order to receive that grant,
and the idea I proposed is no different.
Quote:
That's just
insulting people who don't agree with you
and calling them stupid. Please don't call
me stupid. I'm not.
I didn't call you stupid. You just went
and made the assumption that I did.
Quote:
I think you may
have missed this.
Could you please describe/name these
grants for me? I am
curious.
http://www.raisethenation.org/
Right on the main page, it comes out and
says they "celebrate independence through
education by awarding grants and
scholarships to single parent women and their
children." So, if you aren't a
mommy, you don't mean squat to this place.
I've never heard of anyone celebrating
independence by leeching off government
funds.
There is also a grant called the Women's
Independence Scholarship program that
single mothers can apply for, but I choose
not to list it because it's also aimed at
women who are victims of abuse. There's
also aid available only to parents
according to state and school. I know for
a fact that Oregon and Arkansas offer
'single parent scholarships', for example.
WIC also offers grants for 'educational
purposes' to parents. If parents whip out
the 'I'm a mommy lookit me' card to the
right people, they can get personal
education grants. Parents can apply for
grants aimed at a wider group of people,
but they may also be more inclined to
receive that aid because of their
reproductive status.
As said, I'm not saying parents should not
be able to get financial aid...but I do
think that most everyone should be
eligible for the same grants, rather than
the government picking and choosing who
they think should get special treatment.
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-12-08 20:29pm
Raise the Nation is not a gov't funded
scholarship program. Its private so they
can do as they wish. So is WISP.
Can you find any federal funded
scholarship programs in which the
applicant has to have a dependent?
I feel your opening statement is
disengenuous: "I know people with kids
tend to get a few grants just for proving
their reproductive systems work, which are
also grants that anyone without offspring
can't lay a finger on."
People don't get grants just because they
have kids; it's because they have no money
to go to school. Having a dependent is a
stipulation, an eligibility requirement.
Cambion
wrote:
I'm not saying parents don't
deserve grants, but I think people on the
other side of the fence - non-parents -
should be eligible for special grants. It
seems a little unfair that someone who
couldn't be bothered to be responsible
about sex would get rewarded, and someone
who was smart enough to not get knocked up
would be eligible for one or two fewer
grants.
What I don't get is why anyone would want
to help fund a young parent's college
education in the first place - parents are
the most inclined to drop out, so why
would anyone agree to fund the education
of someone who is extremely apt to drop
out anyway?
You have a bit of a chip about people who
get 'knocked up' as if it takes some kind
of low intellect to do this. And you are
saying that 'parents don't deserve grants'
when you further state that they get
grants 'just because their reproductive
systems work' and that they are
irresponsible.
I'm going to ask that you provide sources
that parents are the most inclined to drop
out.
I understand that you are saying universal
eligibility is the way to go, but you have
presented it in such a way that it appears
you take issue with an underdog
demographic being offered ways to better
their lives. It's rather petty, IMHO.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-12-08 22:54pm
We're not debating the issue of private or
governmental, but may I mention several
GOVERNMENTAL programs that are
discrimanatory? Affirmative Action. The
dozens of scholarships for minorities
available at STATE funded colleges. The
government is already discriminating.
What's one more?
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 380 Location: ,
Thanks: 72
Thanked:43
Posted: 01-12-08 23:52pm
I simply think that people with financial
troubles should be eligible for help
regardless of whether they have kids.
Since there does seem to be a certain
refusal to childless people I would agree
with the first part of this line, but not
the second part:
[quote="Cambion]To be eligible for such
financial aid, one must not have any
children and must agree to not keep any
pregnancies throughout the course of their
college careers.[/quote]
The first part seems reasonable in that it
helps people gain a higher education
without focusing on offspring, but we're
talking college here, where a large chunk
of unplanned/unwanted pregnancies occur.
The second part of this sounds like an
attempt to make an abortion compulsory in
order for that woman (notice this of
course wouldn't affect male students) to
continue her education. I don't believe
in pressuring women to either abort or
carry to term.
Instead, the agreement could be set up to
ONLY provide the necessary funds to see
the education through and make the
requirements based on the student's effort
rather than reproductive status. This
would mean that none of the financial aid
would be going to child rearing and if the
student needs additional aid for any
unplanned offspring during the course of
the education, she must find it elsewhere.
His/her educational benefits would be
strictly for education and agreed to
provided she/he didn't enter it with any
children or expecting children.
I get annoyed that people are more likely
to get the financial aid they need if
they've reproduced too, but things happen
and forcing a woman between having an
unwanted abortion or losing her education
(and therefore better chances of
supporting herself and unplanned
offspring) is too much.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-13-08 00:22am
She's not losing her education, just the
money to fund it. What? All I hear about
is how many programs are available to teen
mothers... Surely, if the girl looses her
Nulliparous Scholarship it will be easy
enough to find one of those?
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-13-08 11:27am
I just don't think there are federal
programs available only to teen mothers
specifically because they have dependents.
It is important to distinguish between
private and gov't funded grants. If it's
gov't you ought to get a say because you
are paying for it. If it's private, well,
it's not your money.
You can start a scholarship fund if you
like for only hermophrodites with red hair
if you want.
Affirmative Action was started to offset
the already lower tier that certain
demographics come from, to promote
diversity and give the disadvantaged a
kickstand, and to break the cycle of
poverty for these groups. Since there are
already plenty of scholarships for the
majority who may have better schools to
attend, more support from home, etc. I see
nothing wrong with affirm action
scholarships.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-13-08 11:47am
I have a problem with affirmative action
because in many cases, a person of a
minority race gets into college with lower
grades that a "white" person, and so they
get in and push out the smarter person
just because they're black. We don't need
Affirmative Action any more. Getting in to
college should be based off of brains, not
race.
|
meblonde01
Supporter
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 2123 Location: ,
Thanks: 6
Thanked:2
Posted: 01-13-08 12:07pm
Eiri
wrote:
I have a problem with
affirmative action because in many cases,
a person of a minority race gets into
college with lower grades that a "white"
person, and so they get in and push out
the smarter person just because they're
black. We don't need Affirmative Action
any more. Getting in to college should be
based off of brains, not
race.
I agree!!! Work hard and you get
rewarded.. Not just be a certain race..
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-13-08 12:17pm
I understand what you are saying, and I
used to feel that way, too, until I
examined why minority classes need the
extra help.
For example, in the large city I live in,
the minorities live in impoverished
communities. The schools are poorly
funded, parents are not available to
provide supports for their students,
resources are severely lacking, and
opportunities are not available. I taught
in an inner city school and these kids
didn't even have books! In this
environment, student's intellect is unable
to flourish. Giving minority kids from
this background a boost upwards helps to
break this cycle, & balances out what
this country fails to for for minorities.
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-13-08 13:11pm
Quote:
You have a bit of
a chip about people who get 'knocked up'
as if it takes some kind of low intellect
to do this.
Well it certainly doesn't require a high
intellect to get pregnant...since every
female mammal on the planet is capable of
doing it. Perhaps financial aid should be
offered for all human biological functions
- why just the one?
Quote:
And you are
saying that 'parents don't deserve grants'
when you further state that they get
grants 'just because their reproductive
systems work' and that they are
irresponsible.
Try reading my posts, m'kay? I never said
parents don't deserve grants...what I
actually said was they should not be
entitled to extra-special aid just because
they've spawned. Does that mean I think
they should never ever get grants? No -
what it means is that I think everyone
should have an equal opportunity to apply
for the same grants. I think the only time
special financial accomodations should be
made is if the recipient is disabled (and
no, pregnancy is not a disability,
contrary to popular belief) or if the
recipient brings in a low income. Parents
can easily fall into either or both of
those categories, so why do they need aid
just because they had sex and kept the
aftermath?
And as far as I'm concerned, any teen that
keeps a pregnancy is irresponsible because
she can't possibly provide for the
waif...hell, there's even some adults who
have great income who can't be proper
parents.
Quote:
I'm going to ask
that you provide sources that parents are
the most inclined to drop out.
And for a change, I'm going to ask you to
provide sources refuting my claims.
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-13-08 14:12pm
Cambion
wrote:
Try reading my posts, m'kay? I never said
parents don't deserve grants...what I
actually said was they should not be
entitled to extra-special aid just because
they've spawned. Does that mean I think
they should never ever get grants? No -
what it means is that I think everyone
should have an equal opportunity to apply
for the same grants. I think the only time
special financial accomodations should be
made is if the recipient is disabled (and
no, pregnancy is not a disability,
contrary to popular belief) or if the
recipient brings in a low income. Parents
can easily fall into either or both of
those categories, so why do they need aid
just because they had sex and kept the
aftermath?
Well, I guess if I didnt read your posts I
wouldn't have said, 1. "I understand that
you are saying universal eligibility is
the way to go, but you have presented it
in such a way that it appears you take
issue with an underdog demographic being
offered ways to better their lives"
and...
2. I see you saying that people
"shouldn't get grants just because their
reproductive systems work". Also known
as, they don't deserve grants because that
would be "rewarding them for being
irresponsible". Your words, not mine.
Above, you say that everyone should have
equal opportunity for the same grants.
Not what you said earlier: [quote="you'] I
think people on the other side of the
fence - non-parents - should be eligible
for special grants.[/quote]
So which is it?
Cambion
wrote:
And for a change, I'm going
to ask you to provide sources refuting my
claims.
I'm refuting your claims? I just want to
hear about it. I figured you were on the
up and up for this and something handy in
mind. Don't read into my posts. If I
was going to refute your claims I would
have done so already.
All this is just distractive hogwash,
anyways. You original point of contention
has not been shown to be true. People get
grants because they are poor, and having
dependents may be an eligibility
stipulation for receiving these private
monies.
Cambion
wrote:
I didn't call you stupid. You just went
and made the assumption that I
did.
Cambion
wrote:
Thank you, Eiri. I'm glad there's someone
reading this who clearly has more than two
brain cells..
Oh, yeah, I can see how that is clearly
not calling the people here "stupid"!
|
Cambion
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Nov 2005 Posts: 747
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-13-08 22:01pm
Okay, let me try to clear things up...
Quote:
2. I see you
saying that people "shouldn't get grants
just because their reproductive systems
work". Also known as, they don't deserve
grants because that would be "rewarding
them for being irresponsible". Your words,
not mine.
I still stand by this. These people should
not be rewarded just for their lifestyle
choices. I never said they should not be
rewarded at all.
Quote:
Above, you say
that everyone should have equal
opportunity for the same grants. Not what
you said earlier:
Quote:
I think people
on the other side of the fence -
non-parents - should be eligible for
special
grants.
I also stand by that. I mean that, if one
group of people should be able to receive
special aid for making the choice (usually
an irresponsible one in the case of teen
mothers) of having kids, then people who
make the choice of not having children
should also get rewarded. Once again, you
fail to read what I've written...no big
surprise.
Quote:
You original
point of contention has not been shown to
be true.
I beg to differ - my original point was a
proposal for special financial aid for a
particular group of people in order to
eliminate discrimination between
non-parents and parents. Single parents do
have quite a few grants they are eligible
for by state and by school (and I'm not
going to sit and search through each state
to find out what sorts of grants they
offer). I just don't think that having
kids should warrant special attention.
Unlike low income and disabilities, kids
are a choice, so why should some people be
given extra money for a choice they made
that didn't need to be made? Kids may
lower their income, and that would make
them eligible for tons of grants alone.
And people don't always get grants because
they're poor - people who come from homes
of decent income can receive grants and
scholarships based on things like grades,
community service, and involvement in
extra-curricular activities.
Sorry Birch, but I'm going to refrain from
reading and responding to your replies
until you can be bothered to actually read
mine.
|
Georgia59
Moderator
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5542 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 89
Thanked:31
Posted: 01-14-08 11:52am
I do know at my school that parents get
more financial aid.... there are grants
through the school specifically for
parents.
I go to a women's school. Many of the
students are parents, just because they're
all women. My school is officially
catholic, so in a way, the support for
parents is an incentive not to abort,
perhaps.
And if you have children, you will get
more federal funding than a woman in the
same financial position that doesn't have
children. (as per the FAFSA)
I still agree though that parenting is so
expensive as it is, any grants for them
are still going to leave them at a
disadvantage, for reasons I said above.
And lastly and the most strongly, we WANT
young parents to go to college and be
prepared for a well-paying job so their
children aren't on welfare for their whole
life.
|
Birch
Moderator
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 3963 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 129
Thanked:12
Posted: 01-14-08 13:52pm
Cambion
wrote:
Okay, let me try to clear
things up......Sorry Birch, but I'm going
to refrain from reading and responding to
your replies until you can be bothered to
actually read
mine.
Okay, but you're still fantastically
inconsistant. *shrugs*
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-14-08 14:43pm
Yes, we want young parents to go to
college... don't we want young SINGLE
people to go to school too? I just find it
incredibly hypocritical that there is no
fund in place SPECIFICALLY for a childless
student. In a nation that is supposed to
be promoting teens not to have
promiscuous, unprotected sex, I would
think this scholarship would be a step in
the right direction, unlike abstinence
education.
|
Georgia59
Moderator
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5542 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
Thanks: 89
Thanked:31
Posted: 01-14-08 17:19pm
i see what you're saying, I'm not
convinced. Some people just need more of a
leg up.
But I'm still gonna stick with- College
shouldn't be so expensive that we need all
this in the first place!
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 01-14-08 17:21pm
Well of course I agree with point #2.
|
Georgia59
Moderator
Joined: 11 Apr 2007 Posts: 5542 Location: Along the Mississippi, USA
