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.
Annie said:
So, I am not sure what is being proposed or why it is put forth as a necessity to reduce abortion.
Click to expand...
This article is an argument for exactly that question. If you haven’t read it, I’d highly recommend it for insight into other Catholic approaches.

This author feels so strongly in the necessity, that they will vote for Warren as a pro-life Catholic. And they make the case why others should too.
 
Last edited:
Peeps said:
This is not true.

IF you don’t wear your seatbelt, and you and I are involved in a car accident, not necessarily a fiery crash at high speeds, but just a small two-car low-speed crash, and you are killed or left disabled for life because you were were not wearing your seatbelt, and I walk away with a few scratches because I was wearing my seatbelt–

–I can guarantee that I will SUFFER tremendous guilt and sorrow for the REST OF MY LIFE!!! It is possible that I will be so traumatized by my part in killing or maiming you that I won’t be able to drive anymore, and this would make it difficult for me to carry on with my current life (job, church and family activities, hobbies, etc.). It’s possible that I will have nightmares and flashbacks in which i see your mangled body being pried out of the wreckage. And I will probably cry at inopportune times, which will affect other people around me.

Even if the accident was not my fault, even if the police rule that the accident was totally YOUR fault–I will still feel immense guilt and sadness, and I will visit over and over in my mind again how different things would be if you had been wearing your seatbelt.

It is very possible that I will lose my sanity over the accident. Psychosis runs in my family, and several of my family members spent time in various “institutions” and underwent electric shock therapy and other therapies that were supposed to help them be “normal” again.

So I may have to undergo therapy (expensive) to get to a point where I will be able to enjoy some kind of normal life again.

But life will never be “normal” for me again because I killed you, or caused you permanent disability.

If the accident WAS my fault, as ruled by the police, I will have to pay fines and possibly spend some time in jail.

In other words, your unwillingness to wear a seatbelt could destroy my life, or at least up-end it in a major way.

So everyone, PLEASE, do the simple thing–wear your seatbelt.
Click to expand...
Women who abort their babies suffer in similar ways. That is part of the point I was attempting to make.
 
13pollitos said:
Women who abort their babies suffer in similar ways. That is part of the point I was attempting to make.
Click to expand...
Definitely.

We don’t hear much about that in Glamour Magazine (actually, since Glamour Magazine has ended print publication and gone to all on-line, I don’t hear much of anything from them!).
 
How does she plan to pay for all that?

Personally, I do not find the questionnaire compelling. A young woman who wants to party, etc., is not going to give that as a reason to abort her child.

I notice too that altho we are frequently told that many women have abortions because of pressure from family or significant others, that does not show up in their statistics.

Additionally, it would be interesting to examine the age demographics of the times when there is a reduction in rate, which is simply the number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15-45. Most women having abortions are in their early 20s. If there is a higher percentage of 15-year-olds or 45-year-olds in the cohort, the overall rate will change.

The large families I see nowadays are among those immigrants who are engaged in work Americans won’t do–mostly because that work pays low wages. There are also lots of women on welfare who are raising their children.

I believe in a safety net, because we used to have commons–places where people could graze their animals and gather wood, etc, and we do not have that any longer.

But I have trouble voting for someone who advocates for legal abortion and for economic policies with which I disagree–not that I have problems with the goals. I just don’t agree with continually doing out other people’s money.

If Warren or another Democrat were to say, let’s examine why _______ costs are so high and see what we can do to reduce them, long with a few other things, I would be more interested.

Instead, they seem to want to broaden the scope of legal abortion. A high school girl can not get an acetaminophen without parental permission, but she can get an abortion? Doubling down on abortion throughout the 9 months of pregnancy?
 
13pollitos said:
And still, no one has provided any other sources. I have asked. Others have asked. You all are trying to convince us that this is what will work so you all should be able to prove it with multiple sources. Every other source I’ve ever seen has been about contraception availability and reduction of abortions. Which is accurate, or is it neither?
Click to expand...
It may be both. Economic security and contraception availability are not mutually exclusive, and might be easily correlated.

What other source do you have? You may have mentioned earlier. The post I responded to gives the impression the idea was unsourced, which it was not. If you have any sources showing that laws have an impact on abortions, that would be helpful as well.
 
Annie said:
I just don’t agree with continually doing out other people’s money.
Click to expand...
Why not? You agree with society demanding 6-9 months of activity from pregnant women, why shouldn’t the rest of society also contribute toward that same goal?

The discussion is about a counter intuitive proposal, that allowing abortion with a secure safety net will decrease the number of abortions when compared with making it illegal or difficult. Because it is counter intuitive, it is likely to raise questions about income distribution and other issues. IOW, do you prefer the current system, with a significant number of abortions, or an alternative that redistributes income and has fewer abortions? Which position is prolife?
 
Yep. When people have the tools to be able to afford kids, they will be more likely to have kids.
 
We know what causes pregnancy, and women have sex even tho they are not ready to have a baby.

I should enable them to have recreational sex?

I do not think the current situation is ideal, but we do actually have a safety net in place. We have welfare programs. You are writing as if we were still in the 1800s, when all safety nets were private.
Dovekin said:
Why not?
Click to expand...
I should have been clearer in that I don’t want people to have their money extorted willy-nilly. I was specific in saying that we already have programs to help the poor, and that I would vote for someone who said they were going to try to find out why certain things are so expensive (ie, health care and post-high school education), and I only implied that having discovered that, they would then do something about it, but I didn’t realize I had to spell that out.

This Democrat argument for voting D is a form of extortion. As I mentioned above in this thread, this argument has been around for the past several election cycles that I personally know of.

Abortion will be reduced by people not having sex with people they are not ready to have a child with. That is the bottom line.
 
This is a good post.
Dovekin said:
It may be both.
Click to expand...
I am willing to consider that idea if someone can offer more sources that point that direction.
Dovekin said:
What other source do you have?
Click to expand...
I only have seen sources that point to the availability of contraception and reduction in abortions. I am getting ready for an appointment but will post a few later when I have time.

Thanks for the response.
 
Annie said:
Abortion will be reduced by people not having sex with people they are not ready to have a child with. That is the bottom line.
Click to expand...
I agree and I honestly believe that the pro choice crowd knows that. With the call for sex strikes and such, they know that is what causes babies.
 
PJH_74 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m unclear; are you saying that outlawing abortion would only marginally reduce abortion?
 
13pollitos said:
And still, no one has provided any other sources. I have asked. Others have asked.
Click to expand...
I don’t see anyone else insisting on other sources. Also I’m not clear exactly what for, or why you dispute the referenced survey.

If you google “surveys on why women have abortions”, you will find a lot. The first link is from the NIH summarizing data from 14 countries and a variety of statistics. (and socioeconomic reasons are likewise given as the top reason).

Agree with you on contraception and it’s effect on pregnancies/abortions (lots of info there). This author is arguing that policies under Warren, would address the reasons why (already pregnant) women pursue abortions. And that these policy changes would bring the US in line with other western democracies policies, reducing the rate.
 
WillPhillips said:
I don’t see anyone else insisting on other sources.
Click to expand...
I expressed doubt about the Guttmacher survey and explained why above.

I think it’s totally valid to wonder about a survey like that.
 
Last edited:
So we are being told to vote for a radically pro-abortion politician because that is “pro-life.”

Maybe we should also vote for a war monger to promote peace, and for a communist to promote democracy.
 
JimG said:
So we are being told to vote for a radically pro-abortion politician because that is “pro-life.”

Maybe we should also vote for a war monger to promote peace, and for a communist to promote democracy.
Click to expand...
From the article:

“I can hear the howling now: But Warren is in favor of nearly unlimited abortion rights! Her position is directly opposed to the teaching of the Church. She would eliminate the Hyde Amendment and the Mexico City Policy! I agree with all of that, and I disagree vehemently with Warren on abortion. Therefore, my vote will be cast in spite of, not because of, her position, which I consider extreme and immoral. But I’ll still cast it, and gladly so, because I believe that whether she intends it or not lives would be saved under a Warren Administration.“
 
I believe (and have personally known) women have abortions even though they are economically secure.

Remember, in an earlier post, I cited polls showing that about half of women have abortions because of economic insecurity. But how about the other half?

Yes, of course some of them have the abortions because of health or medical reaasons (e.g., genetic testing reveals that the unborn child will have some horrific medical condition).

And some have abortions because of fear of their parents, their partner, or some other person who has power over them.

But many have abortions because “they are not ready to have a child”. I know people who had an abortion because they were in college and didn’t want to de-rail their graduation and post-graduate plans.

I know people who had an abortion because they were scheduled to take a dream vacation and didn’t want to cancel or re-schedule it.

I know people who had an abortion because they had a big work-related opportunity and didn’t want to lose it.

And I know people who had an abortion because they knew their man would leave, and even though they had the resources to have the child and either give it up for adoption or raise it themselves, they didn’t want to lose their man (frankly, I can’t see why anyone would want to keep a man like that).

And even the people who claim economic insecurity are not necessarily low-income or poor. Some just don’t want to wait to have the new addition to their house designed and built. Or they don’t want to lose a fairly big chunk of their paycheck to day care for the baby.
 
DIERM said:
Certainly not you, if you don’t feel so. If my contention was addressed to you specifically, I would have clearly stated it.
Click to expand...
That only partially answers the question. Who are is the “we” you are referring to? It appears you making assumptions and painting with a very broad brush.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top