Catholic author argues a vote for Warren will save unborn lives. Thoughts?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WillPhillips
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WillPhillips

Guest
“Based on all available information, I’m convinced that a Warren presidency would have a greater positive effect on the abortion rate than any other candidate, especially Donald Trump, whose commitment to shredding the social safety net seems unlimited. A nation that reflected Warren’s platform would be one in which the matrix of “a social order that welcomes children and an economic order that supports families” would be more fully realized and that matrix would provide women with greater incentives to reject abortion and bring their pregnancies to term. In concrete terms, this could mean tens of thousands of unborn children surviving pregnancy. Those are real human beings – not symbols in the culture war – who might live rather than die.”

 
This is another way of looking at the abortion issue based on a more secure social safety net, especially for single women who have children. The thinking is that there is an intersection between economic issues and social issues including abortion. Perhaps it might have the practical effect of reducing the need for abortions despite the Democratic platform which enables abortion according to a woman’s right to choose. A less economically prosperous society might conversely have the effect of increasing illegal abortions even though they might be banned on the state level or even the federal level as a result of overturning Roe v. Wade. This argument hinges mainly on which candidate is more likely to ensure sustained economic prosperity. As always, how the economy is faring around election time will play a major role in influencing for whom voters will cast their vote, and, I suppose that according to the gist of this article, those voters who are particularly concerned with the candidates’ stand on abortion should also pay some heed to their social policy involving families as well as their economic policy.
 
Honestly, this is an “ends justify the means” argument. It’s also faulty logic.

When something is legal, people tend to believe it is moral. The average person tends to blur the lines between legality and morality.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
This argument hinges mainly on which candidate is more likely to ensure sustained economic prosperity.
Click to expand...
It reads to me more like an argument around social safety nets (ie why liberal European democracies have such low abortion rates).
 
True, but I assume that social safety nets are based on the equitable distribution of economic resources. And we know that Elizabeth Warren, like Bernie Sanders, is particularly concerned about the monopolistic power of the big banks and wants to break them up.
 
Last edited:
meltzerboy2 said:
I assume that social safety nets are based on the equitable distribution of economic resources.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately not (ref. the severe wealth disparity in the richest country in the world…the US). Social safety nets are based upon specific policy.
 
Wealth disparity is precisely what candidates such as Warren and Sanders are fighting against, and that is why I believe Warren argues that social safety nets are necessary so long as economic redistribution of wealth remains thwarted. That is what I meant although perhaps not expressed clearly enough. It is also the case, however, that social policies such as Medicare for all, college for all and so forth require economic resources. The question for many is where is the money coming from: (over)taxing the wealthy and middle class and/or sustained economic growth?
 
Oh my…an abortion thread starting off with the basic premise I try to get across. If we are to call a person a person at the moment of conception, the we need to treat them that way. It means social spending to support the birth for women who can’t afford to do so or even raise the child properly. There are so many other social issues to address that also contribute to abortions. You can try a full or virtual complete ban on abortion, but all you’ll be doing is mowing off the top of the weed. You have to pull out the social roots that cause it to make real headway.
 
I would love to do both, but it’s hard to tell who will do what and if it will have the intended effects.
 
meltzerboy2 said:
…that is why I believe Warren argues that social safety nets are necessary so long as economic redistribution of wealth remains thwarted.
Click to expand...
Warren would argue that social safety nets are always needed. The funding needed can be lessened by economic equality but they are a necessity in a just, equitable democracy.
 
VanitasVanitatum said:
I would love to do both, but it’s hard to tell who will do what and if it will have the intended effects
Click to expand...
At times you just have to have faith in the decisions people will make. If the results are not as hoped or intended, you reevaluate the program. It is impossible to legislate morality by itself, there must be buy in from the people being governed.
 
The era when Democrats said abortion must be “safe, legal and rare” is sadly over and now all of them see it as something to be celebrated, to be legalized up to birth and fully funded by the US taxpayers. This specifically includes Warren.

For all his (many) faults, Trump has in fact fulfilled his campaign promises in respect of being pro-life, appointing many judges who are less friendly to Roe v Wade, reducing funding for Planned Parenthood and actually reducing the number of abortions.
 
A quick google search seems to indicate that a little over half the abortions performed in the U.S. are performed on women who live below the poverty line.

But that means that a little less than half of the abortions are performed on women who have some degree of economic security.

So the choice to have an abortion is not always made because of lack of means.

No, the answer is not to legalize evil. And the answer is not to re-arrange the economy to take money away from the rich and working people and give that money to the poor and non-working people.

The answer is for people of faith to step up and obey God’s commands to, out of Christian love and charity, not obligation, help the poor and those who are unable, for many reasons, to work at a viable job, so that they can rise up out of poverty and live joyful, fulfilling lives.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps the question to ask is what abortion rates are in countries - such as those in Scandinavia - where such “safety nets” as well as socialized “free” medical care exist.
 
Previously-- (date?)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Currently?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(2012)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Date?)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Date?) (Global abortion rates)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
I am a Pro-Life person, but I cannot vote Republican, because of their stand on other issues, including affordable health care.
If not for the late John McCain, the Republicans would have done away with the Affordable Care Act without any viable alternative.
Though there are some problems with the ACA, it beats nothing.
The big Republican tax cut really galls me, because it helped only the really rich in this country. Those of us working class Americans are the ones who need tax relief.
 
Peeps said:
No, the answer is not to legalize evil. And the answer is not to re-arrange the economy to take money away from the rich and working people and give that money to the poor and non-working people.
Click to expand...
And what of the tax collectors of Jesus’ day? The ones for whom the economic structure of the day favored greatly. My friend there is something called privilege. We both already have a huge amount by being born in prosperous or stable nations, something a vast majority of people don’t have. Then you have people born to families not barely scraping by. If that is you, and especially if you are not a minority, you have even more privilege. People certainly form part of their own destinies, but zip code is also a huge part of that determination. Be honest, this is why people move to prosperous areas with good schools.

If you have a mortgage, the ability to write off your interest is one of the largest welfare programs in the nation and it doesn’t favor the poor. How about writing off investment losses? Think about this when you talk about how wealth and tax benefits are handed out. You did nothing talent wise to deserve credit for spending money.

The American tendency to judge people by how they “pull themselves up” has always been a bit of a myth. Today’s economy makes this much more difficult than in recent generations.
 
Last edited:
Please!!! Elizabeth Warren will save unborn babies??? Absolutely hillarious! I’ll say this. The day I cast a vote for a socialist is the day hell freezes over.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top