Do pro-lifers have an obligation to care for pregnant women and the lives of those after they born?

[Corki]

I think that people who declare themselves as “pro-life” are less likely to support the intervention of the state in public welfare.

Do you have any statistics to back that up? My experience is exactly the opposite. For example, in our diocese, Gabriel Project workers are trained to make sure that women facing crisis pregnancies are connected with any and all public welfare sources that can help. Pro-life activists also campaign for the expansion of benefits to include pregnant mothers and their unborn and born children.

 

[ALLGIRLS]

I think that people who declare themselves as “pro-life” are less likely to support the intervention of the state in public welfare.

So basically, you think they have to be liberal democrats? There are other ways to care for the poor. The problem is that liberals, while advocating “intervention of the state in public welfare”, tend to be radically pro-abortion, so, of course pro-lifers can’t support that. But we most certainly support helping women and families economically, through the Church and other charities as well as hooking them up with whatever public social services are available (we just can’t in good conscience usually vote for those politicians who wish to expand public services, because they refuse to acknowledge the right to life of the unborn).

In Christ,

Ellen

 

[Black_Rose]

Do you have any statistics to back that up? My experience is exactly the opposite. For example, in our diocese, Gabriel Project workers are trained to make sure that women facing crisis pregnancies are connected with any and all public welfare sources that can help. Pro-life activists also campaign for the expansion of benefits to include pregnant mothers and their unborn and born children.

I do not know what is the correlation between professed political pro-life stance and opposing measures. I checked this and there does not seem to be much correlation, although pro-life people tend to oppose the death penalty despite being political conservative.

Absolutely, embracing a pro-life ideology is focused on a deep concern for both the economically but also the legally vulnerable. Pro-life advocacy, at least in the US, advocates both individual private charity and state intervention.

There does not seem to be any correlation at all.

I will post this again:

I will indirectly address your question because it cannot be answered with a simply “yes” or “no”. I simply do not think that it is a great victory when the pro-life movement saves a few lives from the decision of a pregnant mother to terminate their pregnancy. To me, there is no triumph in that victory because after that, it would mean that the newborn has to face the prospects of life. In many cases, this would mean the newborn would be raised in material deprivation and face further adversity. In some cases, a few of these newborns would overcome that situation through luck, either through a combination of inheriting a socially valuable genotype that endows them with profound intellectual or athletic talent and other coincidences such as wining the lottery. But it is obvious that not all newborns would be that lucky, and the prospects for many is a grim and brutal life with few meliorative factors.

So where is the triumph if the pro-life movement succeeds? I am generally a pessimist, but its success will just bring more problems.

 

[jmcrae]

So where is the triumph if the pro-life movement succeeds? I am generally a pessimist, but its success will just bring more problems.

Not really. A woman who has a child receives more opportunities than a woman who has no children, out of natural sympathy for children in general, and because it “looks good” to help a mother, and doesn’t cost any more than helping a woman who has no children.

Furthermore, once the woman normalizes her life, gets married, and starts having other children, her first-born child also partakes in the same advantages as her other children who were born within the marriage. By the time the child is old enough to notice the opinions of outsiders, most outsiders have no idea that the child was born out of wedlock.

 

[Black_Rose]

Not really. A woman who has a child receives more opportunities than a woman who has no children, out of natural sympathy for children in general, and because it “looks good” to help a mother, and doesn’t cost any more than helping a woman who has no children.

Furthermore, once the woman normalizes her life, gets married, and starts having other children, her first-born child also partakes in the same advantages as her other children who were born within the marriage. By the time the child is old enough to notice the opinions of outsiders, most outsiders have no idea that the child was born out of wedlock.

I still see an enormous risk for many of the infants growing up and living poverty with its associated stigmatization and suffering. It seems that preventing abortion just brings new challenges, and in that sense, saving their lives should not be seen as any significant moral triumph or victory as it just creates new problems.

But without** the guarantee**, not merely the possibility or opportunity, of positive outcomes for the infants after they are born, the moral case for the prohibition of abortion does not seem forceful. As one could see, the struggle does not end when the fetus is carried to term, resulting in a successful pregnancy. That is what I meant when I alleged that pro-lifers are myopic.

 

[jmcrae]

I still see an enormous risk for many of the infants growing up and living poverty with its associated stigmatization and suffering. It seems that preventing abortion just brings new challenges, and in that sense, saving their lives should not be seen as any significant moral triumph or victory as it just creates new problems.

But without** the guarantee**, not merely the possibility or opportunity, of positive outcomes for the infants after they are born, the moral case for the prohibition of abortion does not seem forceful. As one could see, the struggle does not end when the fetus is carried to term, resulting in a successful pregnancy. That is what I meant when I alleged that pro-lifers are myopic.

An enormous positive outcome is that the child survives the birth process, and once born, has the choice to become either a good person, or not. Even if things are difficult for him, he still has the choice to become a good person. Many great people were born into poverty. And wealth does not always guarantee virtue - some wealthy children are very spoiled and selfish.

 

[estesbob]

I still see an enormous risk for many of the infants growing up and living poverty with its associated stigmatization and suffering. It seems that preventing abortion just brings new challenges, and in that sense, saving their lives should not be seen as any significant moral triumph or victory as it just creates new problems.

But without** the guarantee**, not merely the possibility or opportunity, of positive outcomes for the infants after they are born, the moral case for the prohibition of abortion does not seem forceful. As one could see, the struggle does not end when the fetus is carried to term, resulting in a successful pregnancy. That is what I meant when I alleged that pro-lifers are myopic.

For what other social problems do you see killing the recipients as the solution to?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

No one has brought up one very salient point.

Before legalized abortion, most babies created by sex outside of marriage were brought to term, born, and given up for adoption. These babies were welcomed by married couples who were unable to conceive. The numbers were roughly equal: babies created to families in need.

Along came birth control and then legalized abortion. Suddenly the supply of babies to be adopted declines very dramatically. Couples, with the help of scientists, now look to technology to help them create a baby, even going so far as to use someone else’s sperm and/or a surrogate who carries the created baby for the woman!

Even in the pro-life community, we don’t mention adoption but urge the woman to “keep her baby.” So of the babies that are saved from abortion, some percentage of them are born into poverty and dependence upon the State to provide for their living.

The pro-aborts have helped create the deficit in adoptable babies and now they scream at US about how we don’t care for babies that ARE born? There are many, many families that have to go to China, Russia, Ethopia to even find a baby to adopt. I’d say the babies that are born here, the few that are given up for adoption, are very wanted and very loved.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I still see an enormous risk for many of the infants growing up and living poverty with its associated stigmatization and suffering. It seems that preventing abortion just brings new challenges, and in that sense, saving their lives should not be seen as any significant moral triumph or victory as it just creates new problems.

But without** the guarantee**, not merely the possibility or opportunity, of positive outcomes for the infants after they are born, the moral case for the prohibition of abortion does not seem forceful. As one could see, the struggle does not end when the fetus is carried to term, resulting in a successful pregnancy. That is what I meant when I alleged that pro-lifers are myopic.

Wow, do you even realize what you are saying here? That if there is a CHANCE that a baby will experience poverty at some point, presumably any point, in its future life, it should be MURDERED instead? Is that the “guarantee” you are seeking? Life is not ever a guarantee and never can be. Many people have risen from difficult circumstances and become leaders of men, great inventors, doctors, lawyers, business owners, teachers, even entertainers. Many pastors did not have such a thing as a “guarantee” that they would never be poor or deprived.

This just amazes me. How did you ever think to bring such a philosophy to a Catholic forum?

 

[Black_Rose]

An enormous positive outcome is that the child survives the birth process, and once born, has the choice to become either a good person, or not. Even if things are difficult for him, he still has the choice to become a good person. Many great people were born into poverty. And wealth does not always guarantee virtue - some wealthy children are very spoiled and selfish.

Wealth does ensure a material secure life, despite enabling one to live a hedonistic, morally decadent one.

The probability distribution of outcomes of an individual life saved through pro-life activism or anti-abortion policies has large variance. For example, on the positive tail end of this distribution, it is possible that an infant saved by pro-life activism today would throw a complete game shutout in the first game of the 2035 World Series and have a multimillion dollar contract. A more probable outcome on the negative side would be that the infant would not have the intellectual capacity to complete secondary education and as a consequence that person would be unable to acquire the human capital that is valued in the job market. That person would need the perpetual assistance of benefactors, such as private charities, the state, or some combination of the two, beyond the services provide by a crisis pregnancy center in order to provide the material and financial resources to make ends meet. He/she would not seem to have any prospects for a decent life since he/she would likely be mired in poverty trapped in a world of despair and despondency while suffering the humiliating indignity of receiving private charity for subsistence.

Pro-life activists typically emphasize the positive outcomes of the potential of the lives that would be saved as a consequence of their pro-life activism while ignoring the negative outcomes. Besides limited support for mothers after their baby is born, they do not seem to have any concern for mitigating any negative outcomes that would inevitably occur throughout the lives of the infants as they mature.

 

[estesbob]

Pro-life activists typically emphasize the positive outcomes of the potential of the lives that would be saved as a consequence of their pro-life activism while ignoring the negative outcomes. Besides limited support for mothers after their baby is born, they do not seem to have any concern for mitigating any negative outcomes that would inevitably occur throughout the lives of the infants as they mature.

The usual pro-abortion strawman about people who support life not caring about the child once it is born is duly noted. Of course even if it were true it would not justify allowing women to kill their children nor supporting those who empower them to do so.

 

[stephe1987]

People who are pregnant and not married should be encouraged to place their children for adoption, definitely not to abort their babies, and probably not raise them on their own (or with random live-in boyfriends) either. I think the kids will be better off that way. But people don’t think of their kids, they think of themselves.

 

[Black_Rose]

Wow, do you even realize what you are saying here? That if there is a CHANCE that a baby will experience poverty at some point, presumably any point, in its future life, it should be MURDERED instead? Is that the “guarantee” you are seeking? Life is not ever a guarantee and never can be. Many people have risen from difficult circumstances and become leaders of men, great inventors, doctors, lawyers, business owners, teachers, even entertainers. Many pastors did not have such a thing as a “guarantee” that they would never be poor or deprived.

This just amazes me. How did you ever think to bring such a philosophy to a Catholic forum?

I never made a moral prescription require that a fetus should be aborted; I merely said that in some circumstances, saving the life of a fetus should not be considered a triumphant moral victory. Saving the life of a fetus, to me, does not seem to be an indicator of progress, since there would be potential difficulties in the future of the child as it matures.

Regarding people who have risen from difficult circumstances, no one can credibly deny that, but what is the probability of that happening for people born under disadvantageous conditions? Certainly, the probability isn’t 1, and I doubt it would be much more than .2. But what about the inevitability that people who would not rise from their circumstances?

The best society can do is to consciously promote social conditions and institutions that would remove some of the negative variance from the possibility of outcomes. I do not see a proactive effort from pro-lifers to do this.

 

[jmcrae]

Wealth does ensure a material secure life, despite enabling one to live a hedonistic, morally decadent one.

Yes …

Very few people get to be born into wealthy families, though - including wanted children. Most people live on a budget, and have to save up for the things they want to buy. This instills self-discipline and the desire to work.

The probability distribution of outcomes of an individual life saved through pro-life activism or anti-abortion policies has large variance. For example, on the positive tail end of this distribution, it is possible that an infant saved by pro-life activism today would throw a complete game shutout in the first game of the 2035 World Series and have a multimillion dollar contract.

Fortunately, multi-million dollar contracts aren’t a requirement for happiness, or for virtue.

A more probable outcome on the negative side would be that the infant would not have the intellectual capacity to complete secondary education and as a consequence that person would be unable to acquire the human capital that is valued in the job market. That person would need the perpetual assistance of benefactors, such as private charities, the state, or some combination of the two, beyond the services provide by a crisis pregnancy center in order to provide the material and financial resources to make ends meet. He/she would not seem to have any prospects for a decent life since he/she would likely be mired in poverty trapped in a world of despair and despondency while suffering the humiliating indignity of receiving private charity for subsistence.

“More probable” in the sense that fewer than a quarter percent of people are millionaires, and 2% of people are born with some kind of brain damage or mental illness. 98% of children are perfectly normal, and grow up to be useful, happy working adults - including the children of single mothers.

 

[jmcrae]

I never made a moral prescription require that a fetus should be aborted; I merely said that in some circumstances, saving the life of a fetus should not be considered a triumphant moral victory. Saving the life of a fetus, to me, does not seem to be an indicator of progress, since there would be potential difficulties in the future of the child as it matures.

Every human being on earth, without exception, encounters difficulties from time to time. The fact that a person might encounter difficulties at some point in the future is not a reason to kill him.

Regarding people who have risen from difficult circumstances, no one can credibly deny that, but what is the probability of that happening for people born under disadvantageous conditions?

Pretty good, actually. If you have pioneer ancestors, you know that your life is better than theirs was, and that each generation of your family has more and better opportunities available to them than the previous generation.

But what about the inevitability that people who would not rise from their circumstances?

That would be that person’s choice to make. How is it a reason to kill him?

The best society can do is to consciously promote social conditions and institutions that would remove some of the negative variance from the possibility of outcomes. I do not see a proactive effort from pro-lifers to do this.

The Catholic Church goes out of its way to provide opportunities for people to become educated and to succeed. The whole burden of helping isn’t loaded onto only one sector of the Church. Once the child is born, there are all kinds of Catholic agencies available to help the child and his family.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I never made a moral prescription require that a fetus should be aborted; I merely said that in some circumstances, saving the life of a fetus should not be considered a triumphant moral victory. Saving the life of a fetus, to me, does not seem to be an indicator of progress, since there would be potential difficulties in the future of the child as it matures.

Regarding people who have risen from difficult circumstances, no one can credibly deny that, but what is the probability of that happening for people born under disadvantageous conditions? Certainly, the probability isn’t 1, and I doubt it would be much more than .2. But what about the inevitability that people who would not rise from their circumstances?

The best society can do is to consciously promote social conditions and institutions that would remove some of the negative variance from the possibility of outcomes. I do not see a proactive effort from pro-lifers to do this.

A FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING. One abortion stopped is ONE PERSON saved, and that IS A TRIUMPH. If I were standing next to you I’d be yelling at you right now. Your intellectualized statements are merely meant to stir up the kind Catholics on this forum. Please take your racist statements and beliefs and go away. I know precisely what you are inferring, that the population that has the most abortions will produce the stupidest individuals. Eugenics proponent exposed!

 

[Elizabeth502]

No one has brought up one very salient point.

Couples, with the help of scientists, now look to technology to help them create a baby, even going so far as to use someone else’s sperm and/or a surrogate who carries the created baby for the woman!

Even in the pro-life community, we don’t mention adoption but urge the woman to “keep her baby.” So of the babies that are saved from abortion, some percentage of them are born into poverty and dependence upon the State to provide for their living.

Plenty of people have brought up (on a trillion other abortion threads) the point in the first paragraph, but I agree not enough have brought up the point in the second paragraph.

I have thought for a very long time that the responsible way to redress one’s own irresponsibility is to provide a responsible home (by others) for the product of one’s irresponsibility.

I know that’s wordy. You get my drift.

 

[hosemonkey]

A FETUS IS A HUMAN BEING. One abortion stopped is ONE PERSON saved, and that IS A TRIUMPH. If I were standing next to you I’d be yelling at you right now. Your intellectualized statements are merely meant to stir up the kind Catholics on this forum. Please take your racist statements and beliefs and go away. I know precisely what you are inferring, that the population that has the most abortions will produce the stupidest individuals. Eugenics proponent exposed!

Well said! A human life has value. All of of us are born with only potential value, the opportunity for success. Granted, some have better potential than others, some squander their potential, some have very limited potential. Butl we are at least born, with the opportunity to enter the race and to fail or succeed. Abortion denies even an entry into the race. and a denial of even the opportunity to compete. There are millions of success stories, of those who overcome fantastic odds to survive and succeed. Everyone must at least be given the opportunity, to prejudge someone’s odds or right to enter the race,is the worst kind of arrogance, truly worthy of Margaret Sanger or Adolf Hitler.

 

[jmcrae]

Well said! A human life has value. All of of us are born with only potential value, the opportunity for success.

Actually, all of us are created with eternal value, in the image and likeness of God, and beloved by God. Material success doesn’t really enter into it - a homeless person has the same intrinsic value to God as a millionaire. Everyone is precious.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

98% of children are perfectly normal, and grow up to be useful, happy working adults - including the children of single mothers.

And those in the 2% category can bring an enormous blessing to their families and to the world, and they have every right to live as well. Even if they don’t live that long, it is God’s choice to create them and our choice to welcome them with open arms. No conditions.