Converting 'pro choice' people to the 'pro choices' position

  • Thread starter Thread starter DanielJohn2300
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

DanielJohn2300

Guest
Please read this thread with prayerful consideration, because it explains something which was arrived at through a great deal of prayer (over the course of 3 or 4 years). I have also shared it with my bishop; and I think it would be helpful to him if he can see what others, who are praying about it, think. It just so happens that, outside of God sending back His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, there is not one but two ways that God can end abortion. Since 1973, we have thought that the only way is to return us to the pre-1973 ‘pro-life’ law. But there is another way that no nation has ever tried before; and it is to replace the current ‘pro-choice’ law with the ‘pro-choices’ law (MRA: Maternal Rights Act), and then once the culture is ready for it, pass an addendum (FRA: Fetal Rights Addendum) which would make the ‘pro-choices’ law the ‘pro-lives’ law. Table 1 summarizes the four laws based on who takes full responsibility for causing/terminating an unwanted pregnancy.
Code: 
				male?	female?
Pre-1973 'pro-life' law		No	Yes
Post-1973 'pro-choice' law	No	No
'Pro-choices' law (MRA)		Yes	No
'Pro-lives' law (MRA + FRA)	Yes	Yes
Table 1 - Who takes responsibility for causing/terminating an unwanted pregnancy?
Under the ‘pro-choice’ law, the unwed pregnant woman chooses for both her and the man. Her choice is this:
Code: 
EITHER she gets an abortion and he does not pay child support
OR she bears the child and he pays child support.
One of the problems with this is that it exposes the woman to the potential danger of either being threatened to get an abortion or killed for not getting one (ie. Ashley Harlan of Olathe, Jennifer Nalley of Driggs, etc; may such women and their children, through the mercy of God, rest in peace). The ‘pro-choices’ law is made by separating the unwed woman’s choice into two independent choices, hers and his. The two choices are these:
Code: 
SHE chooses between
	EITHER getting an abortion OR bearing a child; and
HE chooses between
	EITHER not paying child support OR paying child support.
But that is only the first of three steps to separate the choice into two independent choices. Next, we need to use the welfare system to make her choice independent of his. Then, the two choices are these:
Code: 
SHE chooses between
	EITHER getting an abortion and not receiving welfare
	OR bearing a child and receiving welfare; and
HE chooses between
	EITHER not paying child support
	OR paying child support into the welfare system.
(continued…)
 
Last edited:
(2 of 3) Her welfare check stubs would show the amount paid by the taxpayers and the amount paid by the child’s father. But now we have an unsustainable welfare system; because there is nothing to stop a man from repeating, over and over again, the twofold act of causing an unwanted pregnancy (ie. impregnating a woman that he is not married to) and choosing to not pay child support. Such a man needs another way that he can take responsibility for what he has done. Therefore, to make the welfare system sustainable, the two choices become these:
Code: 
SHE chooses between
	EITHER getting an abortion and not receiving welfare
	OR bearing a child and receiving welfare; and
HE chooses between
	EITHER giving taxpayers near 100% assurance that he will not cause
		another unwanted pregnancy
	OR paying child support into the welfare system.
I need to mention one thing in the ‘pro-choices’ law that catholics will be “personally opposed” to. You’re probably familiar with the words, first spoken by Mario Cuomo at Notre Dame in 1984: “I am personally opposed to abortion but…” These are the words which are used by Christians who are in favor of keeping abortion legal. Some would say that they are not Christians at all; but whatever the case, they are ‘pro-choice’ people, along with those who are personally in favor of abortion.

It turns out that every Christian would also be “personally opposed” to something in the ‘pro-choices’ law; and that is the man’s choice to give taxpayers near 100% assurance that he will not cause another unwanted pregnancy (ie. that he will not impregnate another woman who he is not married to). It is 99.85% assurance to be exact, and the way he gives that degree of assurance is by getting a vasectomy, banking sperm first if he wants. Today, men can choose to have this done, without having to pass through a line of protesters as they head into the clinic.

Now, before you reject the ‘pro-choices’ law over this one choice, which all of us catholics are personally opposed to men choosing, please remember that this law was not made for us but for whoremongers. St. Paul said, “the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient” (1Tim 1:9). In a perfect world, there would be no vasectomies and no abortions. But because of lawlessness, our law has to allow one or the other in order to have a sustainable welfare system. If the unwed father chooses to not pay child support, then he will not have any visitation rights unless and until he chooses to start paying whatever amount of child support he can afford into the welfare system (the amount he pays will show up on her welfare check stubs). That way, he would have a positive incentive to start paying at least some of the child support whenever he is ready to. (continued…)
 
Last edited:
(3 of 3) Remember that the ‘pro-choices’ law gives the unwed pregnant woman a positive incentive to bear the child (otherwise, she forfeits the welfare benefit), and it protects her from the danger of either being threatened to get an abortion or killed for not getting one. Also, as women see men doing their part to end abortion, they will likely want to do their part; and they would do their part by proposing the addendum which makes the ‘pro-choices’ law the ‘pro-lives’ law (‘lives’ because it does what is best for both her and the child). For now, men propose the Maternal Rights Act (what’s best for the mother), and women will support it. Later, women are likely to propose the Fetal Rights Addendum (what’s best for the child), and men will support that.

Unless a reader of this thread is able to change my mind, I firmly believe that the way God will end abortion is by working through us to convert ‘pro-choice’ people to the ‘pro-choices’ position. It begins by mailing a letter to our ‘pro-choice’ legislators. Such a letter can be printed off of the ProChoices.us website (there is no need to write ‘pro-life’ legislators because they will support the MRA once their political opponents do). After we write letters, we simply let ‘pro-choice’ people know about the ‘pro-choices’ position, having faith in God to give them the ears to hear so that they will want to do what we do. It is good for us to vote against ‘pro-choice’ candidates for civil office, and we need to continue doing so. But it is even better for us to also be trying to convert ‘pro-choice’ candidates and their supporters to the ‘pro-choices’ position, especially since we have spent 46 years trying to convert them to the ‘pro-life’ position, only to fail. I hope you see that it is good to try this approach; because “to him who knows to do good, and does it not, to him it is sin” (James 4:17).

Thank you for reading this thread with prayerful consideration. May God bless you for doing that.
 
Without sourcing the claims you have in your tables, the argument is just an opinion without facts. Do you have credible, documented sources, or are these just your assumptions?
 
How much experience do you have in working with those in need? I ask first because you keep referring to a “welfare check”. There are various federal and state program which assist people at different points with different needs. That term and idea goes back to thinking 30+ years ago. There was a program called “AFDC” which had the colloquial term “welfare check”. That program has not existed for decades.

Do you honestly think that women have abortions so they can receive a “welfare check”?
DanielJohn2300 said:
and the way he gives that degree of assurance is by getting a vasectomy, banking sperm first if he wants.
Click to expand...
Next, you believe that men should be sterilized by the State? This is part of an even older idea “eugenics” and is contrary to the Moral Teaching of the Church.

You realize that no one can force anyone to pay child support. People will simply choose to work for cash only jobs to avoid any garnishment of wages.
DanielJohn2300 said:
that is the man’s choice to give taxpayers near 100% assurance that he will not cause another unwanted pregnancy (ie. that he will not impregnate another woman who he is not married to).
Click to expand...
You realize that married women get abortions too, right?
 
There is only one table, and by “take responsibility” I mean “take full responsibility.” I know that the man, under the current law, already takes some responsibility by paying whatever amount of child support he is able to pay. But he does not take full responsibility, because taxpayers pay the amount of child support which he is unable to pay (through welfare). Also, if the woman gets an abortion, then he takes no responsibility. As far as I know, that was also the case in the pre-1973 abortion law.
 
Yeah…the OP is probably has good intentions, but its all over the place.
 
DanielJohn2300 said:
because taxpayers pay the amount of child support which he is unable to pay (through welfare).
Click to expand...
First, please list for me by the official titles what state and/or federal programs constitutes “welfare”

Also, you realize that there are people who never pay child support, and the average child support payment is around $80 per week.

 
I’m a nobody, just an obscure practicing catholic who spent a few years asking God for the law that would end abortion, and now I’m letting my brothers and sisters know what was given to me.

“Welfare check” refers to the money that she would receive from the welfare system if she bears the child. Part of the money would have come from taxpayers and part from the child’s father (who pays into the welfare system, not to her). The financial security would be a positive incentive for her to bear the child.

I see that you’re having a hard time accepting the man’s choice. I did too, but 1Tim 1:9 enabled me to accept it. You have to think of causing an unwanted pregnancy like the felony of not paying taxes. Not paying taxes is a felony because you burden the taxpayers. Similarly, fathering a child that taxpayers have to support is burdening the taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
Yet, you have still not listed where said “welfare check” comes from. Is this a state or federal program? Can you point me to the qualifications and how to apply for said check?
 
(Oops. Second try at a reply.) Good afternoon. First, I want to thank you for replying (I should have done that yesterday). The idea behind the MRA is to use the welfare system we have in place now. The difference is that the welfare system would be collecting money from an additional source (men who have caused an unwanted pregnancy). Also, it would report men who are delinquent on their child support payments. The child support payments would be obligatory if he has not gotten a vasectomy, and voluntary if he has.

If men, who make voluntary payments, need an additional incentive, besides visitation rights, to make payments, then perhaps a percentage of what he pays could be added to the amount, which the mother and child receive. That way, the mother would know the father is paying child support by the amount of the check, and not just by the check stub.

Blessings in Christ,
Daniel
 
DanielJohn2300 said:
The difference is that the welfare system would be collecting money from an additional source (men who have caused an unwanted pregnancy). Also, it would report men who are delinquent on their child support payments. The child support payments would be obligatory if he has not gotten a vasectomy, and voluntary if he has.
Click to expand...
All men who fall delinquent on their child support have this happen already if the mothers are receiving welfare. And women who apply for welfare have to lost the names of the fathers so that the state can make them pay a share. So this part of your plan is already in place.
 
From Merriam-Webster:
welfare - noun
1: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity
2a: aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need
b: an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
 
All related to the United States of America.

My question is, can you point me to the website or give me an address where I can apply for my “welfare check”? I am currently working with single mothers and they very much need to receive these funds.

Are you certain that such a check exists? (hint: a program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children used to be commonly called a “welfare check”. That program was ended decades ago.)

Are you speaking of SNAP? Of T.E.A? You realize that both of these programs have restrictions and time limits, right? You understand there are State programs which vary depending on whether you live in Arkansas or Florida or New Mexico?

I am trying to advise you to research and know your topic well before you go preaching. I’m a nice person, if you go out online and in real life, not knowing your topic well will cause the opponent to shut down fast. Learn about the programs, speak about them with proper names.
 
I agree with you , TheLittleLady!

And I think that the OP doesn’t realize that a lot of unplanned pregnancies happen with women who don’t WANT help from a man. Do you find this to be the case in the work that you do with poor women?

I’m amazed at how many women announce," I don’t NEED a man! I prefer to make it on my own without a man."

I’ve heard talks about this on various conservative and liberal radio programs–it’s really sad, because the poorest people in the United States are single women with children and their children. A man is just what many women and their children need, but women have been brainwashed into believing that they should reject men.
 
Unless there was abuse, I’ve yet to meet a mother who does not want the father involved in the life of her children. Not a one.
 
Really? Wow.

Here’s a link to just one article that I found that explains the thinking, “I don’t want to depend on a man.”


Heavens, even my MOTHER told me, in 1979, to never become “dependent” on my husband!

And I have lots of co-workers (hospital) who come right out and say that their husbands are basically worthless when it comes to taking care of children. One of the smartest women in our department can’t leave her two boys (ages 1 and 3) with their daddy (her husband) on the weekends she works because she says “He has no clue. He’ll just keep working at his desk and forget all about them.” So her boys stay with her mother on the weekends.

Among African American women in our city, there seems to be a trend towards sharing parenting with other women, and only going out with men for fun. I don’t know if this is one reason why the standardized test scores are so low in our community, especially among African American children and teens.

Interesting. I live in Northern Illinois, BTW.
 
I don’t see this plan cutting down on abortion at all, as single pregnant women and single mothers that aren’t well off already qualify for a bunch of help. And the forced sterilization of men that won’t or can’t pay child support sounds like a nightmare. If the man won’t get a job and can’t pay, yet doesn’t want a vasectomy, what happens then? Are they hunted down and restrained and forced, screaming, into the medical procedure? I realize you have good intentions here but I’m kind of cringing that you shared this with your bishop. There’s zero chance that he’s going to see it as a good idea.

A much better idea would be to offer a paid maternity leave of a reasonable amount, along with reasonable child care. Also all pregnant women should automatically qualify for Medicaid, regardless of income. And I don’t know the exact way to accomplish this, but we need to incentivize (financially and emotionally) the 2 parent, married family somehow. The progressives would never stand for it, but from a very young age children need to be taught in school that this is the ideal. I am actually a political conservative, but we really need to put our money where our mouth is in regard to creating a pro-life society.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for correcting me and for the advice. I had always assumed that part of my taxes go towards the welfare system (state and federal), which, in my opinion, is one of the most important things. If that is not the case, then it is a shame and it is something else to write our legislators about.

Under the MRA, there would have to be a welfare system, which the unwed mother would apply for by reporting the unwanted pregnancy. Then, she would EITHER bear the child and receive monthly payments OR get an abortion and forego receiving the monthly payment. This would be a positive incentive for her to bear the child. The right to life of every person demands that we have a good welfare system to support children who are not supported by their father. I will try to reword things better from now on. Since this is a brand new idea, it is in need of being polished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top