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

[jmcrae]

My question is still not answered.

A more probable outcome on the negative side would be that the infant would not have the intellectual capacity to complete secondary education

Why would the infant saved from abortion not have this intellectual capacity?

What differentiates his level of intelligence from that of his peers born without the threat of abortion?

If a poor mother wants her child and doesn’t think of aborting it, why is her child likely to be more intelligent, and more likely to gain the skills needed for a job, than the child whose equally poor mother thinks of aborting him, but then changes her mind before going through with it?

What is it that makes it “more probable” that the infant saved from abortion, merely by the fact of being born alive instead of dead, would be so disadvantaged?

 

[mary_bobo]

This is a futile discussion. The poster Black_Rose has some kind of actuarial equation that he/she keeps returning to. It is not reality, it is theory, and a very removed theory at that.

How can you ever decide what a human life will be worth? It is not up to us, it is up to God! Every life is worth the exact same in value, doesn’t matter whether the person is handicapped, super-intelligent, just ordinary (like most of us) or whatever. The rich have their share of problems, they also have handicapped kids, it’s just easier for them to provide for their needs.

Of all the discussions I have ever had about abortion, I think this one has been the most horrifying, because of the intellectual remove that puts human life into some category determined by another human already born.

This is the modus operendi of this poster. She talks in circles and has done so on other subjects as well. I seriously doubt that she is a Catholic and I can’t help but wonder what she is doing here.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

This is the modus operendi of this poster. She talks in circles and has done so on other subjects as well. I seriously doubt that she is a Catholic and I can’t help but wonder what she is doing here.

Annoying Catholics and wasting their time, keeping them from prayer or other religious pursuits??



thanks for the tip, I wondered what twisted perspective this was. It’s almost like talking to a computer or a robot.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Well, Billy Beane did exactly that during his tenure as the general manager of the Oakland Athletics; so do mortgage brokers as I discussed in post 74.

…and so on.

Friend, you are missing the point. LIFE is the point. A life of suffering and pain and anguish is an opportunity to unite oneself to the suffering of Christ on the cross…to participate in the bringing of grace into the world. The killing of an unborn child for any reason, no matter how well intentioned, is inherently evil and does nothing but further separate the mother and anyone else who is culpable from that very grace.

Since you insist on speaking of “value”, however: from Christ’s perspective, even the most profoundly afflicted life has worth because it is a gift of God. Period. Saving even ONE unborn baby is a victory to be celebrated, because God rejoices when one of his daughters turns her back on the evil of abortion.

Peace,
Dante

 

[spunjalebi]

I used to agree with the position of the OP regarding abortion. I haven’t read the entire thread, but a lot of responses made are ones I agree with regarding poverty.

What made me see things differently was understanding that the government cannot be solely depended upon in order to create positive outcomes. To say it more bluntly, we can’t expect government handouts. I remember reading a blog called Coffee Catholic or something where the author (a woman) expressed the fact that she did resent that a woman would make the choices to get herself pregnant and then to care for the baby, place a burden on taxpayers and her employer. The viewpoint was a little extreme as she went on to disagree with maternity leave in general unless an employer wanted to give it out (which we all know isn’t always the case).

But anyway. There are people who disagree with abortion, but want none of their dollars used toward helping the mother raise the baby. And as difficult as it is for me to swallow that, it should be okay for people to think and feel that way. After all-- if I was able to have the sense and make the choices to refrain from having sex outside of marriage, and then marry to have a child, why can’t others make similar choices? This is where personal responsibility comes in.

I support wholeheartedly efforts taken privately, such as charities which provide care and assistance to expectant mothers to avoid abortions. For the past several years, my husband collects money in a special bottle to donate to a pregnancy crisis center and has no issues with that. However, I don’t think laws and policies should be enacted by the government to help pregnant women and new mothers so abortions can be prevented.

 

[Black_Rose]

But anyway. There are people who disagree with abortion, but want none of their dollars used toward helping the mother raise the baby. And as difficult as it is for me to swallow that, it should be okay for people to think and feel that way. After all-- if I was able to have the sense and make the choices to refrain from having sex outside of marriage, and then marry to have a child, why can’t others make similar choices? This is where personal responsibility comes in.

I support wholeheartedly efforts taken privately, such as charities which provide care and assistance to expectant mothers to avoid abortions. For the past several years, my husband collects money in a special bottle to donate to a pregnancy crisis center and has no issues with that. However, I don’t think laws and policies should be enacted by the government to help pregnant women and new mothers so abortions can be prevented.

Yes, I do find the position of many pro-lifers hypocritical, since they are not willing to endure the expenses, individually or collectively, of the born child after they are born

BTW, do you think such language projects the correct self-image for the pro-life movement when they condescendingly preach to pregnant woman that they are irresponsible? Shouldn’t they have an image of compassion and empathy instead of “tough love” of “personal responsibility”? Do you want to project the stereotype that pro-lifers have little concern over the welfare of the pregnant mother and child (like that blogger you refer to)? I do not see any what victory would be achieve if a child that is born would not have any assistance.

If a pregnant mother understands that she would not garner any sympathy nor bountiful material assistance, society should respect her decision to abort the fetus in her womb, since she does not want to raise a child in an environment of material deprivation.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, I do find the position of many pro-lifers hypocritical, since they are not willing to endure the expenses, individually or collectively, of the born child after they are born

BTW, do you think such language projects the correct self-image for the pro-life movement when they condescendingly preach to pregnant woman that they are irresponsible?

Actually, it’s the birth control and abortion movement that preaches this.

I’ve never met a pro-lifer who didn’t have the utmost compassion for mothers and their children, regardless of their situation. The concern mentioned above, is that we not throw them to the “mercies” of the welfare state, and instead, allow private individuals to assist them with dignity and in privacy.

There is certainly a place for the social safety net, especially if a young woman has no friends and no Church to turn to, but the fact that assistance is available from the government shouldn’t prevent the rest of us from helping out, when we can.

 

[spunjalebi]

For the record, the language I used in my post was language that I used to specifically respond to the question. I do not wholly represent the pro-life movement.

I still stand by the fact that the government should not be expected to pay for handouts to assist single women who made the choice to have sex outside of marriage. I won’t apologize for that viewpoint, because for one it’s scriptural (sex outside of marriage is sin), and it represents the grim reality of owning up to one’s choices.

That does not mean I am against a single, unwed, pregnant woman seeking assistance at a private charity or through a pregnancy crisis center. That does not mean I have no compassion for women who find themselves in a situation that they did not intend to ever be in. There are lots of hard-working, single, unwed women out there who are focused on keeping their feet on the ground without the expectation of a handout, and many of these women are in college (and I’ve met a few too). They don’t expect a handout, but if offered a gift to assist them, of course will gladly take it. I would not doubt that many of these women went to other sources for assistance. I personally don’t know what kind of resources pregnancy crisis centers offer, but I’m sure they’re able to point the women they assist in the right direction.

My church actively donates money to a local center. We also have special groups which focus their activities on providing clothing and supplies to expectant mothers who have gone to the center. You see, these people do realize their obligation to assist these mothers because it would prevent an abortion. Through their generosity, they have contributed to the care and prevention of abortion.

The GOVERNMENT should not be forced to dole out checks simply based on the choices people have made. I am curious as to how the government took over the role of being “our brother’s/sister’s keeper”? I am also curious to know why people who share the viewpoint of the OP think that the government is going to do a better job than private charities and individuals. Did anyone know that after Hurricane Katrina, when houses were being rebuilt, what expedited much of the efforts of community rebuilding wasn’t the government-- but individual charities, volunteers, and even celebrities? If those people had purely depended on the government to do a lot of the work, they’d still be homeless. If we the people depended on the government solely, they’d still be homeless. So it’s time to stop deluding ourselves that the government is the most efficient and successful venue, or resource because it’s not. The government’s involvement or lack of involvement should not stop us as individuals from doing our part. What lacks mercy and compassion is leaving people at the mercy of the government.

 

[Black_Rose]

For the record, the language I used in my post was language that I used to specifically respond to the question. I do not wholly represent the pro-life movement.

I still stand by the fact that the government should not be expected to pay for handouts to assist single women who made the choice to have sex outside of marriage. I won’t apologize for that viewpoint, because for one it’s scriptural (sex outside of marriage is sin), and it represents the grim reality of owning up to one’s choices.

That does not mean I am against a single, unwed, pregnant woman seeking assistance at a private charity or through a pregnancy crisis center. That does not mean I have no compassion for women who find themselves in a situation that they did not intend to ever be in. There are lots of hard-working, single, unwed women out there who are focused on keeping their feet on the ground without the expectation of a handout, and many of these women are in college (and I’ve met a few too). They don’t expect a handout, but if offered a gift to assist them, of course will gladly take it. I would not doubt that many of these women went to other sources for assistance. I personally don’t know what kind of resources pregnancy crisis centers offer, but I’m sure they’re able to point the women they assist in the right direction.

My church actively donates money to a local center. We also have special groups which focus their activities on providing clothing and supplies to expectant mothers who have gone to the center. You see, these people do realize their obligation to assist these mothers because it would prevent an abortion. Through their generosity, they have contributed to the care and prevention of abortion.

The GOVERNMENT should not be forced to dole out checks simply based on the choices people have made. I am curious as to how the government took over the role of being “our brother’s/sister’s keeper”? I am also curious to know why people who share the viewpoint of the OP think that the government is going to do a better job than private charities and individuals. Did anyone know that after Hurricane Katrina, when houses were being rebuilt, what expedited much of the efforts of community rebuilding wasn’t the government-- but individual charities, volunteers, and even celebrities? If those people had purely depended on the government to do a lot of the work, they’d still be homeless. If we the people depended on the government solely, they’d still be homeless. So it’s time to stop deluding ourselves that the government is the most efficient and successful venue, or resource because it’s not. The government’s involvement or lack of involvement should not stop us as individuals from doing our part. What lacks mercy and compassion is leaving people at the mercy of the government.

If you oppose government aid to single women who do give birth to a child in extra-marital relationship, do you respect their choice to abort a fetus from such a relationship? What if she figures out that the child’s life would be filled with adversity and she decides to abort it because she figures out that it would difficult to raise a child in the circumstances of poverty and insecurity? If she decides to abort the fetus because she knows that she would not receive munificent aid or sympathy from her fellow citizens, then how can one assign a large proportion of moral culpability for her difficult decision?

If you oppose government aid to pregnant women, then it is hypocritical to oppose policy measures that would restrict their access to an abortion provider.

 

[spunjalebi]

If you oppose government aid to single women who do give birth to a child in extra-marital relationship, do you respect their choice to abort a fetus from such a relationship? What if she figures out that the child’s life would be filled with adversity and she decides to abort it because she figures out that it would difficult to raise a child in the circumstances of poverty and insecurity? If she decides to abort the fetus because she knows that she would not receive munificent aid or sympathy from her fellow citizens, then how can one assign a large proportion of moral culpability for her difficult decision?

If you oppose government aid to pregnant women, then it is hypocritical to oppose policy measures that would restrict their access to an abortion provider.

No it’s not hypocritical to oppose abortion because abortion is the deliberate action of ending a child’s life. Listen Black Rose, I used to be more pro-choice than Pelosi, so I know what I’m talking about here. I’ve heard all of the arguments, said all the arguments, recited all the rebuttals, but the fact of the matter is abortion is wrong.

You have bought into the idea that the government is the best way to resolve difficult social issues, and it’s not. I’ve brought up various examples, along with others, on how to help women who have a child in difficult circumstances. Sweeping federal government laws to dole out financial assistance is not the best way to do this. My state has a better system to help people in need, along with various charities.

A woman who is pregnant outside of marriage should not be solely dependent upon government aid. I am saying this quite clearly. If a woman does happen to present evidence that she is in need for assistance, such as the boyfriend or whomever got her pregnant refuses to be part of the child’s life, and subsequently wants nothing to do with helping her, and she can show that for some amount of time, she needs help with prenatal care, infant food, etc., then some amount of state aid should be allotted. But she should not be dependent on the state to completely care for her. And yes, everyone eventually has to own up to their choices and realize that they have to take responsibility for their actions. I had an old friend from high school who cared for her daughter without any financial assistance from her parents, without depending on her parents to do all the babysitting, and she even completed her college education a year before most people in our graduating high school class did. And no, she’s not even religious (to this day) but made the decisions to care for her child and ensure that she took responsibility. I actually respect her a lot for doing what she did, as I remember all the rumors going around about her being pregnant and also still attending high school.

The government is not our Sugar Daddy who is expected to care for our every need. There’s a reason why welfare went through reform under Clinton, becoming TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) and PRWORA (surprise, surprise-- called the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Is the system perfect? No, it’s not at all but people should not be dependent on the government for everything.

Pro-lifers fulfill their obligations to care for pregnant women in other ways than being taxed by the government.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

Don’t forget, there is always the option of ADOPTION, before abortion was legalized, that is what most women opted for when they found themselves unexpectedly pregnant.

The only reason adoption is no longer talked about is if you discuss adoption with an abortion-minded woman, she will calmly tell you that she “can’t think about giving her baby away,” but then she can consider an abortion which tears the baby apart! Because she can’t see that baby but once her baby has lived inside her for 9 months she will have bonded with it, given birth to it, and then have to let it go. If women had to be shown an ultrasound of their babies, they’d be more likely to bond with the baby on the spot.

Yes adoption is hard. It hurts. But at least the baby is alive and in a family that can provide it with a happy home.

Great post! I keep stating the same things over and over to people who think “the government” which is really just a collection of people like you and me (although many of them seem to think they are much better than us), should provide them with at least the basics if not the luxuries of life, all at someone else’s expense. From my father’s generation, who would almost rather DIE than take charity and be thought of as not being able to provide for oneself and one’s family - to this entitlement and jealous coveting of other people’s wealth, in only 3 generations. Astounding.

They seem to think that these people who are elected to serve us are worthy of deciding who gets to keep their money and who has to give it up for the greater good. And yet, who has asked Al Gore to give up his millions? Nancy Pelosi is very wealthy - is she going to be giving up her fortunes to subsidize welfare? not likely! These people don’t usually even give much to charities or their churches. Yet they can tell me that I can’t keep my hard-earned dollars but must “share the wealth” with people who don’t work as hard!

Who is qualified to make those kinds of decisions? Who are you trusting with your freedom and your lives? Is it God? Or is it government?

 

[gamewell45]

The GOVERNMENT should not be forced to dole out checks simply based on the choices people have made.

What about the newborn child who had no say in the matter? Is it the child’s fault that the mother had pre-marital sex?

If society encourages its peoples to avoid abortion and/or if down the road Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then I think the government has an obligation to assist with the care of children until and if the parent can assume total responsibility for the child. To do otherwise would be IMHO totally unfair and immoral.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

What about the newborn child who had no say in the matter? Is it the child’s fault that the mother had pre-marital sex?

If society encourages its peoples to avoid abortion and if down the road Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then I think the government has an obligation to assist with the care of children until and if the parent can assume total responsibility for the child. To do otherwise would be IMHO totally unfair and immoral.

yes, that’s right, now I remember, Jesus did say to have the government care for widows and orphans. What verse was that?

 

[spunjalebi]

What about the newborn child who had no say in the matter? Is it the child’s fault that the mother had pre-marital sex?

If society encourages its peoples to avoid abortion and if down the road Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then I think the government has an obligation to assist with the care of children until and if the parent can assume total responsibility for the child. To do otherwise would be IMHO totally unfair and immoral.

You do realize that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it wouldn’t make abortion banned, it would just remove constitutional backing for abortion? It would become a states issue where individual states could determine how strict their laws concerning abortion are. And for the record, even though abortion is federally legal, there are states which have restricted abortion.

The government’s obligation is this: you can feed a man a fish and he’s full for a day, if you teach a man to fish he’s full for life. The government isn’t obligated to care for every single need of its’ citizens, but it’s supposed to provide the links to the services that citizens need. This is not to be seen as the same taking full responsibility of caring for needs.

And furthermore, if a parent can’t take the bulk of the responsibility to care for a child that they chose to bring into the world–and you’re right, the baby didn’t ask for it-- then maybe that parent should consider relinquishing their rights and considering adoption, so a couple can become parents who are able to care for the child adequately.

We, as a Christian community, are supposed to be the ones to ensure the safety, well-being, and health of people who are marginalized, such as infants born to poor, unwed mothers. This responsibility falls to us, not the federal government, to care for their needs.

And why do taxes all of a sudden mean that people are being taken cared for? Taxes are one method of gathering money to use for assistance. It should not be the only one. Not to mention, many of the governing systems in charge of managing that tax money are often disorganized, wasteful, and leave many deserving people to the wayside. I would know; having worked with people in the human and social services field, I see this all the time.

 

[gamewell45]

yes, that’s right, now I remember, Jesus did say to have the government care for widows and orphans. What verse was that?

I don’t know any quote in the Bible about this directly; however this isn’t about the Bible or Jesus, this is about the welfare of a child who had no control over being brought into the world.

This might be one reason why people abort babies; they can’t care for them and society likewise is hesitant to help care for them.

 

[gamewell45]

You do realize that if Roe v. Wade was overturned, it wouldn’t make abortion banned, it would just remove constitutional backing for abortion? It would become a states issue where individual states could determine how strict their laws concerning abortion are. And for the record, even though abortion is federally legal, there are states which have restricted abortion.

The government’s obligation is this: you can feed a man a fish and he’s full for a day, if you teach a man to fish he’s full for life. The government isn’t obligated to care for every single need of its’ citizens, but it’s supposed to provide the links to the services that citizens need. This is not to be seen as the same taking full responsibility of caring for needs.

And furthermore, if a parent can’t take the bulk of the responsibility to care for a child that they chose to bring into the world–and you’re right, the baby didn’t ask for it-- then maybe that parent should consider relinquishing their rights and considering adoption, so a couple can become parents who are able to care for the child adequately.

We, as a Christian community, are supposed to be the ones to ensure the safety, well-being, and health of people who are marginalized, such as infants born to poor, unwed mothers. This responsibility falls to us, not the federal government, to care for their needs.

What your saying makes sense in a uptopian world; but unfortunately we do not live in one and as such have to deal with the reality of the situation.

I’d have no problem if religious organizations (irrespective of the religion) were to accept total financial reponsibility for the welfare of the children from birth on. Adoption is not as easy as many would think; sometimes finding the right parents for a child can be an insurmountable challenge.

 

[spunjalebi]

Even if people’s taxes increased to help women who were in need with pregnancies outside of wedlock and also due to financial hardship, that is no guarantee that it would decrease abortions.

And no one said that adoption is “easy” or even implied that. Adoption is the other option to caring for the child yourself. And there are many agencies which have made the process easier for the birth parent to chose the couple they’d like to give the child to, what faith background they should be, etc. It’s not like a “give your baby away” sort of thing that we’re just expecting women to make as if they’re deciding on what pop brand to buy. And saying that, you think abortion is any easier?

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I don’t know any quote in the Bible about this directly; however this isn’t about the Bible or Jesus, this is about the welfare of a child who had no control over being brought into the world.

This might be one reason why people abort babies; they can’t care for them and society likewise is hesitant to help care for them.

I am going to try my best not to scream and yell in this post. I am SO TIRED of hearing that women abort babies because the rest of us don’t want to PAY FOR THEIR MISTAKES!

The reason women abort babies is because we have removed the stigma from getting pregnant in the first place. And because we are selfish, and because we have been told all along that babies don’t really become human until they are born. We were lied to, and told that if abortion was made legal, it would be RARE! well 53 MILLION BABIES makes it NOT SO RARE!!! Besides, welfare increases with every single baby, plus you get food stamps and medical care. Where is this deserted mom?

Women are also FORCED and COERCED and LIED TO by racist organizations like Planned Parenthood which was founded by a racist woman who wanted to wipe out black Americans and whose mission seems to be succeeding since almost half of all babies conceived are now ABORTED!!! Yes it was intentional and no, Planned Parenthood has never changed their focus or mission.

We are EVIL for accepting this, we are EVIL for allowing it to continue! The clinics could be shut down TOMORROW if more people would get up off their ASSES and get to the clinic to pray and entreat women not to abort! If we had Catholics standing up and talking about their own abortions and confessing in huge numbers, and asking their priests to talk about it from the pulpit. If we could get more donors for portable ultrasound vehicles to catch women going in to an abortion clinic to show them that a 9-week old baby has little tiny hands and feet.

But no. People sit here on this forum going back and forth and forth and back about which candidate is LESS pro-abortion and why can’t I vote for a Democrat because that’s the party that always gives me more money and a pay-off and makes other people pay more in taxes so I can have more of their money. It’s not really about each and every woman going into that clinic, it’s really just about our selfish desires to argue and not DO ANYTHING!!!

 

[jmcrae]

What about the newborn child who had no say in the matter? Is it the child’s fault that the mother had pre-marital sex?

Not at all - which is why he shouldn’t receive a peculiarly barbaric death penalty for it. (I don’t think we’ve used dismemberment as a means of the death penalty for actual criminals in a very long time; it is a very common form of abortion, however.)

 

[gamewell45]

Not at all - which is why he shouldn’t receive a peculiarly barbaric death penalty for it. (I don’t think we’ve used dismemberment as a means of the death penalty for actual criminals in a very long time; it is a very common form of abortion, however.)

So what is the resolution then? If any?