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.
midori said:
Now, they’re in their declining years
Click to expand...
Oh, man. Thanks a lot! Way to start my day! 😭

My husband and I are boomers, 62 years old, and we’re not in our declining years, although my husband just had a hip replaced (due to overuse figure skating, which he started when he was 50!), and I desperately need a knee replaced, but I’d like to lose at least 26 pounds first (already lost 6 since the beginning of May–I do pilates and ride a recumbent stationery bike).

Our needs at the moment are to pay off the debts we incurred when we were young and foolish! Also a job–my husband was just let go from his, along with hundreds of others in his company (biggest personnel cuts in the company’s history, and they made the announcements on D-Day!).

So we aren’t looking to buy any expensive toys–we’re looking back to our early married days (40 year anniversary was Sunday!) and re-learning how to live the “Simple Lifestyle”. Eating a lot of beans lately!
 
Why does it need to be either / or? Prolife laws or strong social support network?

Couldn’t it be both.

Malta is a country where abortion is not permitted legally. They seem to have strong maternity provisions.

They are also a mostly Catholic country.
 
Peeps said:
Oh, man. Thanks a lot! Way to start my day! 😭

My husband and I are boomers, 62 years old, and we’re not in our declining years,
Click to expand...
Hugs! 🙂

As everyone in the audience knows, the Boomers stretch from 1946-1964, so they can be as chronologically young as 73 or as chronologically young as 55 right now. 🙂 But of course, age is only a number!

All I meant was that y’all, as a group of about 75 million, are generally less interested in the lifestyles/pursuits/priorities y’all had in the the 80’s through the 00’s, from the marketing viewpoint of people who are anxious to earn their own beans and ramen by selling you stuff! 🙂

Congratulations on your 40 years! I’m very sorry to hear about your husband’s job loss. 😦

More hugs!
 
If you got a tax cut, I assume you must have a lot of money.
Because I did not get a tax cut.
I am just an average, hard-working American.
 
YourNameHere said:
If you got a tax cut, I assume you must have a lot of money.
Because I did not get a tax cut.
I am just an average, hard-working American
Click to expand...
I am guessing I got a tax cut because my return was larger. We are most certainly not rich. Combined income well under $80,000 and 5 kids still dependents. Three out on their own now.
 
Our income isn’t not that much higher than what is listed on this chart for a family of 7. It is higher, but not a lot. We don’t feel “low income” and at times feel quite rich. Looks like we are smack dab in the middle of the middle class.

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/trio/incomelevels.html

Effective January 11, 2019 until further notice)
Size of Family Unit48 Contiguous States, D.C., and Outlying JurisdictionsAlaskaHawaii
1$18,735$23,400$21,570
2$25,365$31,695$29,190
3$31,995$39,990$36,810
4$38,625$48,285$44,430
5$45,255$56,580$52,050
6$51,885$64,875$59,670
7$58,515$73,170$67,290
8$65,145$81,465$74,910
 
13pollitos said:
I got a tax cut
Click to expand...
You can just stop the explanation right there your majesty. You got a tax cut so clearly you are rich and not hard working. It must be nice being part of the bourgeoisie.

(Before anyone flags me, hopefully the tongue in cheek nature was clear)
 
Last edited:
YourNameHere said:
If you got a tax cut, I assume you must have a lot of money
Click to expand...
There I finally found the problem. You are basing your argument on your own assumption while I am basing mine on math. I’ll let the people here decide which one is more compelling.
YourNameHere said:
Because I did not get a tax cut.
Click to expand...
This is exactly as I said earlier. I apparently make more money than YOU so I do not deserve it even though you have no idea of my educational commitment and expense, my hard work and sacrifice or the experience I have garnered.
YourNameHere said:
I am just an average, hard-working American.
Click to expand...
A passive aggressive implication that I am not because I got a tax cut. Please let go of your envy. It is not healthy mentally or spiritually.
 
I forgot to ask. Do you have dependent children? If so you DID get a tax cut and that is not debatable as it is a tax credit and not based on income. Also the standard deduction was doubled when you file your taxes.
 
Elf01 said:
Is there any law that has not been broken by someone was the point I was making? People will do it anyway is not a valid reason not to outlaw something.
Click to expand...
Different social ills responds to laws differently. Like Prohibition, prostitution, low grade drug use, etc. Time has show these things do not have enough social buy in to successfully enforce. Outlawing them makes things worse and are best reduced by regulation. This not true because things like murder and theft are universally considered bad and laws against them overwhelmingly supported. Sorry but a good percentage of the population does not see abortion as outright murder like the self selective group that posts here.
 
Where is your evidence that an increasing social safety net reduces abortions.
That is the crux of your argument, right?

And where is it in policy that trump is cutting off welfare to single mothers?
 
Yeah, it’ll cost taxes but would it really be so bad especially if you tilt the burden on the upper middle class and wealthy, plus perhaps there’s plenty of people even poor and working class people who’d be willing to pay their share if it means people are helped.
 
If I recall correctly, I believe most Western European nations also have far more restrictions on abortions than might be legal, or politically viable to the democratic party.

I for one don’t mind a wholistic approach to saving the unborn.
  • We can get more aid to those who otherwise feel they need to abort. You can validly argue whether or not that aid has to be government aid.
  • We absolutely must continue to try to educate people that the unborn are human beings, and should be protected as such.
  • We should continue to do things like try to get abortion clinics zoned out of existence as much as possible.
Would a Warren presidency cut down on abortions? I think that’s highly debatable. Maybe. But you have to assume that

A) Her policies would result in increased or similar prosperity
B) That her policies would spread that prosperity around, and
C) That her ardent pro choice influence wouldn’t offset any lives saved.

I’m not sure this is the case.

One thing that does bother me is that the argument is a bit to pragmatic for me. Abortion is wrong because it’s the ending of an innocent human life. It’s violence at the most basic level striking at the most helpless members of our society.

Warren is very much a person who has a hand in the dehumanization of the unborn with her platform. So even if everything works out as the author says… it might mean far, far more abortions in the future, or a future further watering down of human rights.
 
Jimbo said:
One thing that does bother me is that the argument is a bit to pragmatic for me.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the pragmatism here since it seems both sides hardly attempt to empathize with the other (ie both see the other as obviously causing harm). This at least attempts to address a common goal - to reduce the number of abortions…by addressing the (mainly economic) reasons given by women (majority who are poor) for pursuing them.
 
I suppose where it goes off the rails for me is that while pragmatic, it still doesn’t address the basic moral evil.

Suppose in the Civil war the North decided ‘Wow, we can end this a lot faster if we just continue offensive operations but pursue a diplomatic end to the war, and tell the South we will allow slavery in all the new territories and allow it to continue in the South as well…’ Pragmatic. You could make an argument it would end the war alot faster by giving the South what they wanted all along. Still not the right thing to do. It might save lives in the short term, but by continuing a grave moral evil will cost you more in the long run.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
WillPhillips
Code: 
    June 18
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) Jimbo:
One thing that does bother me is that the argument is a bit to pragmatic for me.
Click to expand...
I appreciate the pragmatism here since it seems both sides hardly attempt to empathize with the other (ie both see the other as obviously causing harm). This at least attempts to address a common goal - to reduce the number of abortions…by addressing the (mainly economic) reasons given by women (majority who are poor) for pursuing them.
 
Yes – cooperation with abortion is considered a mortal sin, right? Have I read that voting for a pro-abort candidate is a mortal sin? I’m sure there are folks on here who will say it is fine…😂
 
Loud-living-dogma said:
Have I read that voting for a pro-abort candidate is a mortal sin?
Click to expand...
That’s only if you vote because of that stance. A proportionate reason would make it permittable, but it doesn’t say if it would be mortal or venial if it was for one that wasn’t proportionate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top