Cart before the Horse?

[jlw]

A quick look at the battle of worldviews:

One is for the dignity of all workers before the dignity of all life.

The other puts protection of life before protection of the worker.

Those (democrats) that are “advocates” of the “worker” have put the cart before the horse.

Democrats, liberals, etc would do well to switch their focus. By putting life and traditional family FIRST, the treatment of the labor force will follow, given the shift in the marketplace that would take place.

Agree, disagree?? Something to add or subtract??

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Simple, one is focused on the “here and now”, the other is foucsed on the future. Protecting the sanctity of life protects the future of our society. WHy do you think that since society put the emphasis on individual rights, our moral fabric began to unravel. Any society the focuses more on the rights of individuals than on their responsibilities, will suffer from moral decay. it has been this way throughout history. Rome, Persia, Greece, Babylon, Europe, and now America are not being destroyed from without, they are being destroy or have been destroyed from within. They have or are imploding as a result of a severely weakened moral structure. Think of morals as the bones that support a society. If you weaken the bones, you weaken the society. Weaken them enough, and they will never recover.

jlw:

A quick look at the battle of worldviews:

One is for the dignity of all workers before the dignity of all life.

The other puts protection of life before protection of the worker.

Those (democrats) that are “advocates” of the “worker” have put the cart before the horse.

Democrats, liberals, etc would do well to switch their focus. By putting life and traditional family FIRST, the treatment of the labor force will follow, given the shift in the marketplace that would take place.

Agree, disagree?? Something to add or subtract??

 

[rwoehmke]

This arguement reminds me of the question, “Which is the greater sin, fornication or contraception?” It would be so easy if this were an “either or” world, but frequently it is not. It is not a question of which comes first right to life or living wage and job. It is both and. In the short run you can work on one or the other, but in the long run you can’t have one without the other. A pox on both parties!

 

[jlw]

rwoehmke:

This arguement reminds me of the question, “Which is the greater sin, fornication or contraception?” It would be so easy if this were an “either or” world, but frequently it is not. It is not a question of which comes first right to life or living wage and job. It is both and. In the short run you can work on one or the other, but in the long run you can’t have one without the other. A pox on both parties!

Fair enough, but choose one for the sake of argument!!

Don’t get mushy-middle-of-the road on me now!

How do life-issues choices affect labor issues in the marketplace??

I say, on the whole, a lot.

 

[jlw]

jlw:

A quick look at the battle of worldviews:

One is for the dignity of all workers before the dignity of all life.

The other puts protection of life before protection of the worker.

Those (democrats) that are “advocates” of the “worker” have put the cart before the horse.

Democrats, liberals, etc would do well to switch their focus. By putting life and traditional family FIRST, the treatment of the labor force will follow, given the shift in the marketplace that would take place.

Agree, disagree?? Something to add or subtract??

My shameless attempt to put this thread at the top to generate some activity.

This could be a sub-thread to the Corporate Ends thread maybe.

I just don’t think most liberals “get” the importance of protecting life and how it can affect their economic agendas positively.

 

[rwoehmke]

jlw:

Fair enough, but choose one for the sake of argument!! Don’t get mushy-middle-of-the road on me now!
How do life-issues choices affect labor issues in the marketplace?? I say, on the whole, a lot.

While it is true that life issues affect the market place. It is equally true that the lack of or excess of economic well being feeds into the decision to abort and/or contracept. You see my friend, its like the old song, Love and Marriage, You can’t have one without the other. It is like trying to find the end of a circle. As many European countries are learning to their chagrin, that circle is vichous.

 

[Brad]

rwoehmke:

This arguement reminds me of the question, “Which is the greater sin, fornication or contraception?” It would be so easy if this were an “either or” world, but frequently it is not. It is not a question of which comes first right to life or living wage and job. It is both and. In the short run you can work on one or the other, but in the long run you can’t have one without the other. A pox on both parties!

How does it remind you of that question? Social justice is important but don’t confuse it with sin. Abortion is a sin. Someone not receiving what one considers a “living wage” is not a sin. Jesus died to save us from sin.

 

[Brad]

rwoehmke:

While it is true that life issues affect the market place. It is equally true that the lack of or excess of economic well being feeds into the decision to abort and/or contracept. You see my friend, its like the old song, Love and Marriage, You can’t have one without the other. It is like trying to find the end of a circle. As many European countries are learning to their chagrin, that circle is vichous.

Nope - it is always a sin to abort no matter what the circumstance. Just as robbing a bank is a sin no matter if you have 1 dollar or 5 million dollars.

 

[jlw]

rwoehmke:

While it is true that life issues affect the market place. It is equally true that the lack of or excess of economic well being feeds into the decision to abort and/or contracept. You see my friend, its like the old song, Love and Marriage, You can’t have one without the other. It is like trying to find the end of a circle. As many European countries are learning to their chagrin, that circle is vichous.

Fair assessment, but void of any analysis. You say it is true that life issues affect the marketplace. True. But HOW??? Oh, you say that materialism (cart) is often put in front of life (horse). You just restated my thesis.

True that these two forces are intertwined. Love and Marriage etc. But It is NOT circular. This is NOT the seamless garment!! One comes before the other, but are closly related.

I say putting wages above life is like putting the cart before the horse. Europe, sadly, while beating it’s chest and singing the prasies of it’s wonderful cradle-to-grave socialism and “quality of life” is going to pay dearly for a massive cart because they keep leaving the horses at the stable!

 

[jlw]

Pro-life:

Pro abstinence, pro-marriage, pro-family. Which means…

Less pre-marital sex, less “unwanted” pregnancies, less divorce, less one-parent homes, less poverty, less crime, less welfare. Which means…

Better environment for kids, better education for kids, more ownership, more community/business investment. Which means…

More jobs, more prosperity.

Now, one aspect of a pro-life society MAY BE (argue the point if you wish) that traditional family structures will return–ie one parent will stay home with the kids, one will provide financially. Yes, no??

IF I am correct, will corporations have to change their wage and benefits packages?? More and more, they wil employ sole-providers, and thus the marketplace will shift, and employers will have to compete for these. No??

.