Economics and Reducing Abortion?

[fix]

Left out of this discussion is the whole contraceptive mentality. As a society we have separated love from sex. We all are free to have sex at any time without consequence. This attitude helped contribute to fatherless households.

Also, when speaking about the number of abortions. It seems to me we talk of surgical abortion. What about chemical abortion from birth control drugs? Our society does not value life. Increasing social welfare programs will not change this. We need a change in morality. We need to accept the moral law. Unfortunately, the government can’t preach the truth and we no longer want laws to penalize those who choose to violate the moral law. The result is what we have today.

 

[jlw]

chicago:

Interesting… why Illinois?

Well, like Oregon, where if it were not for the main metropolises, the state could be conservative, but Multnomah County (Portland, and a’hem, not-so-transparent politicos) runs the show. Voted 74-26 for Kerry.

Same with Chicago, correct??

 

[jlw]

Philip: This seems a question of quality rather than size

So I’ve heard…

No, seriously, THAT is THE halmark of conservative thought regarding governement funding!!! Democrats think, however, that “more funding” means “more better”. Doesn’t always work that way.

Philip: What perplexes me is that many who identify themselves as pro-life seem to take an a priori position that government inherently can’t work.

Come on, Philip. You’ve got $100 on the kitchen table. And you are given a choice: You can give it to your local religious charity, or your state government. Who will get the most bang for the buck??? Who will be the most effective?? Who will be the most efficient?? Who can give you the best feedback on the success or failure of your $100???

You have kids?? I have three and one on the way. THANK GOODNESS FOR TAX CUTS!!! THANK GOODNESS FOR INCREASED CHILD TAX CREDITS!!! We are a run-of-the-mill middle class homeowning family. I do not begrudge “the rich” for their tax % any more than I begrudge their success. Why should I?? Envy?? Jealousy?? Sorry, not for me.

Government can work. But it doesn’t work very well. FAMILIES making good, better, or best choices every day will ALWAYS transform developed society far more than government will ever be able to.

Government is dependent on us depending on them. Is that a good thing??

Philip:

I’ve found that polticians at the state level are often far more reasonable and less ideological than their national counterparts

I don’t know if that is necessarily true. And it fact, I’d say the closer the politician is to the people, the more he/she is principled about how he/she thinks government should handle things. National elections are won by masking or even abandoning some principles, unfortunately. True on both sides. But as you say, compromises are the order of government. Whether the compromise was reached because of generosity of spirit, or political CYA survival, it depends on each case, eh??

** Philip:** This seems to encourage women not to give birth to more children, but not necessarily not to conceive any more children

You are talking about the successful welfare reform, which democrats, in their wailing and knashing of teeth, thought would be disasterous…I digress…I think you might have a point there. But it would be foolish also to assume that many women didn’t change their sexual behavior because of the consequences of the reform. Maybe your are right: they contracepted more?? Dunno.

Ironically, overturning Roe V. Wade is probably the best thing that could happen to the Democrats. I’d enjoy seeing the Republicans trying to defend their economic elitism without the cover of their pro-life rhetoric.

Oh it would destablize BOTH parties! And let’s be clear: overturning R v. W (returning it to states) is differnet from outlawing all abortions everywhere. But it would be great for state republicans, who could AT LAST win through voter petitions and LEGISLATION, as opposed to the liberal democrats, who can win ONLY through the courts.

In regards to “economic elitism”, I say you are wrong. The ULTIMATE in elitism is the bureaucrat that says “I know more than you, therefore, let me spend YOUR money on what *I *think is best for you.” I think you underestimate the center-left democrats who, in private, are more libertarian than you think.

 

[jlw]

Philip: Where we differ is that many conservatives seem to believe that social welfare programs somehow CAUSE family breakdown. This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. These programs have arisen as a response, not a cause.

I will refer you to caroljm36, who said:

“…it may seem like just a societal response to you, but we didn’t have this huge problem of illegitamacy and fatherless families until welfare was expanded back in the 1960s.”

And

“…the stats show that illegitimacy exploded during and after the Great Society welfare boosts. Fathers became unnecessary, and today I notice it seems to be a point of pride among MANY young women to have kids on their own, and to HELL with the father because dudes are all jerks anyway and try to run your life.”

My thoughts exactly.

Philip: Take a look, for instance, at the number of hours individuals are expected to spend at the workplace (or looking for work) as opposed to spending time at home and the community.

I like that you point this out. It’s a truism, and it should be thoughtfully addressed. My response?? REFORM THE WAY WE ARE TAXED (this could go on another thread entirely, but I’ll be brief).

We work loooong hours so that our takehome pay is enough to pay for the bills (and yes, consumtion of trivial excess, but I’'ll tackle this in a paragraph below). Our take-home pay would be greater if we weren’t taxed so much!! If a provider wasn’t taxed as much, his take home pay could be the same (or greater?) and he could be home for the dinner hour with his wife and kids much more often than not, no??

“But what about lost tax revenue??!”, the liberal gasped.

One, tax cuts put more money in the pocket of consumers, investors, and employers. Do the math. With increased economic activity, this means more jobs, more sales, more profit, which means…more tax revenue. The JFK tax cuts and Reagan tax cuts worked!! And so has Bush’s. The key, of course, is* how it is spent*. JFK’s revenues were spent on Welfare and Vietnam, Reagan’s was spent on Welfare and the military build-up that economically collapsed communism, and Bush’s has been spent so far on Welfare, and a post 9/11 world and all that that entails. (And yet, a 5.2% unemployment rate, and a healthy GDP growth rate.?? Not bad, considering. But I digress…this belongs on another thread)

Two: CONSUMERISM. I say that we should have less income taxes and more consumption taxes. Quit taxing us for giving of ourselves to our fellow man in work, and producing results!! TAX is for “gettin’ stuff”!! Our society is sadly based on GETTING, rather than GIVING. We are taxing the wrong thing. The poor can and should get vouchers for basic necessities. That is just. What do you think??

Philip: …social welfare programs are not usurping the role of fathers and family, they are an attempt to supplement something which is increasingly absent. The fathers (and everyone else) have already left, and cutting social welfare is not going to bring them back.

Not true. On the eve of the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, it was estimated that 2 out of 10 black children were born out of wedlock. Now?? Nearly 7 out of 10??? The decline started with “The Great Society” welfare initiatives. Just the truth. I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention, as fix pointed out, the role of cultural morality. The role of Church Authority was also fractured in the 60’s, and that had a huge impact on sexual morals and mores. The Church lost ground, the secular government gained HUGE ground 40 years ago.

IN regards to your thoughts of the marketplace and “affordable” this, and “affordable” that: THERE ARE MANY WAYS TO MAKE THINGS MORE AFFORDABLE without governement* paying for it.* In fact, housing prices are so high in part because of governement red tape, building regulations, and land-use laws. See: San Francisco Bay area. With a tax cut, everybody gets a “raise” , regardless of merit, and prices on goods don’t jump for joe-consumer (with a wage increase, how does it get “paid” for?? Not by the employer. No, it’s the you and me, the consumer!)

 

[Philip_P]

Those anecdotes are horrific, but they remain anecdotes. I doubt most people are as callous as the woman Lisa mentions (thankfully, and she seems to have matured?). As far as the girl abusing welfare – fraud happens, but it’s not in itself argument for dismantling the system. No one says we should abolish all health insurance, for instance, despite the fraud that occurs there, or that a few poorly managed schools means all schools should be shuttered. Far from being opposed to fixing social welfare programs, I think we should be making them better – look at the programs that are working and use them as models for those that are struggling (in business speak, “best practices”).

I still think there’s confusion of cause and effect going on here. The most you could argue is that the expansion of social welfare occurred at the same time as the increase in illegitimacy and fatherlessness, not that it caused it. There were a number of other things happening at the same time period, too, which seem far more likely to be contributing factors. We never really stood down from WWII, for instance, remaining highly militarized, while at the same time we pulled a lot of resources out of our cities, leading to the collapse of formerly robust neighborhoods (cities are coming back now, but remain disturbingly childless). We also never properly integrated minorities into general society – the racial violence of the 60s and 70s speaks to this failure, and we remain very segregated in many ways today. With the ties of community cut, it’s not surprising that so many young men act out of no higher motive than self interest, even and especially in their relations with women. Let’s be clear – social welfare did not empty out our cities. Social welfare did not close our schools. Social welfare did not insist that a big house, or a large car, or a plasma TV, are the goals by which we judge the worth of a person. Yet when more and more people have found themselves unable to measure up to these standards of material wealth, working longer hours for less pay in crumbling neighborhoods, social welfare has been one of the few resources available to give them a fighting chance.

Getting serious about ending abortion means getting serious about healing our society, and it’s a two-part approach. Do I think that social welfare, on its own, can reverse the trends that have decimated our communities? Of course not. Government can’t MAKE someone good. The choice to do good and avoid evil must be made by each person. What government can do, though, is shield us from some of the more coercive demands of the physical environment, thus freeing us to make choices based on morality and values rather than need. I’m less confident in its ability to “penalize those who violate the moral law” as Jlw would have it, given the glaring failures of this approach (so how’s the War on Drugs going?)

The second part is precisely the sort of pro-life, pro-family, pro-human dignity message at the core of Catholic social teaching. With the resources of the government being used to stabilize communities and anchor individuals, this leaves the opening in which non-governmental groups (including, yes, Catholic churches and Catholic schools, which are arguably themselves a sort of social-welfare program) can operate, even thrive.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

I still think there’s confusion of cause and effect going on here. The most you could argue is that the expansion of social welfare occurred at the same time as the increase in illegitimacy and fatherlessness, not that it caused it. There were a number of other things happening at the same time period, too, which seem far more likely to be contributing factors. We never really stood down from WWII, for instance, remaining highly militarized, while at the same time we pulled a lot of resources out of our cities, leading to the collapse of formerly robust neighborhoods (cities are coming back now, but remain disturbingly childless). We also never properly integrated minorities into general society – the racial violence of the 60s and 70s speaks to this failure, and we remain very segregated in many ways today. With the ties of community cut, it’s not surprising that so many young men act out of no higher motive than self interest, even and especially in their relations with women. Let’s be clear – social welfare did not empty out our cities. Social welfare did not close our schools. Social welfare did not insist that a big house, or a large car, or a plasma TV, are the goals by which we judge the worth of a person. Yet when more and more people have found themselves unable to measure up to these standards of material wealth, working longer hours for less pay in crumbling neighborhoods, social welfare has been one of the few resources available to give them a fighting chance.
.

Philip I am trying very hard to connect the dots here. The explosion in out of wedlock births and welfare occured decades after WWII. I am not sure your age but I’m guessing under 40, maybe under 30. I am not ancient but I certainly remember growing up at a time when no one got DIVORCED much less produced children out of wedlock. The real changes seemed to coincide with the watershed of the 60s with the changes in immigration laws, sexual revolution, civil rights, and Vietnam

I think there were a lot of elements into the destruction of families and communities. Changes in mores and the sexual revolution, fueled to a great extent by contraception as I think Fix mentioned, disconnected sex from procreation or love or building a family. We’ve never reconnected. No fault divorce was another major tipping point. We’ve convinced ourselves that it’s better for the children to divorce or not to marry. Unfortunately the decades since no fault divorce became commonplace we have seen the devastation on children and families.

I also totally disagree about racism. It is a thing of the past for the most part. What we DO have is classism. People tend to live in areas where those of approximately the same income and educational achievement. For example I live in a suburb of Portland that is very infitrated by high tech companies. As a result we have people of all races and nationalities but what they have in common is the high tech industry. Realistically there are more brown and black people in lower income areas but again, it’s more a matter of class than skin color.

At any rate I think that society has to change its collective attitude toward families, children, and personal responsibility before there will be any change in either abortion or child poverty.

Lisa N

 

[jlw]

I think we should be making them better – look at the programs that are working and use them as models for those that are struggling (in business speak, “best practices”).

You sound so…republican.

The most you could argue is that the expansion of social welfare occurred at the same time as the increase in illegitimacy and fatherlessness, not that it caused it.

And the most you can do is say it’s just a wierd coincendence…??

We never really stood down from WWII, for instance, remaining highly militarized, while at the same time we pulled a lot of resources out of our cities, leading to the collapse of formerly robust neighborhoods

Sorry. Gobilygook. Yeah, that National Security thing is so unnecessary, eh?? And “pulling resources out of cities”?? Huh?You mean people wanted to move away from traffic, crime, and noise?? How dare they!

(cities are coming back now, but remain disturbingly childless).

Rich, political (and thusly moral) liberals live in cities. They contracept (again, not for economic “can’t afford it” reasons, as Lisa N points out rightly) more than conservatives do?? Or less open to children, and less open to marriage?? Stats would indicate this is true.

Conservatives live less often in condos stacked on top of each other, and more often in houses with yards for CHILDREN to play in and be safe (in the suburbs or exurbs).

We also never properly integrated minorities into general society – the racial violence of the 60s and 70s speaks to this failure, and we remain very segregated in many ways today.

A worthy comment on it’s face, but it has LITTLE to do with abortion. But, to reply, the black family unit was relatively intact and the black middle class was GROWING at a decent clip in the early sixties DESPITE racism. When do the growth of the black middle class begin to sputter??? You guessed it!! Not only The Great Society, but also affirmative action, believe it or not.

…it’s not surprising that so many young men act out of no higher motive than self interest, even and especially in their relations with women.

Because they have been growing up with cr-ppy male role models!!! If a boy grows up seeing men disrespecting women, or women objectifying themselves with multiple male partners, his idea of manhood and womanhood would be quite twisted, eh??

Let’s be clear – social welfare did not empty out our cities. Social welfare did not close our schools. Social welfare did not insist that a big house, or a large car, or a plasma TV, are the goals by which we judge the worth of a person.

Certainly excess materialism plays apart. But I see NOTHING wrong with wanting more space (for a family), more security, cleaner and quieter air, and OWNING a house and land.

Schools close because the tax base (married parents?) leaves for the suburbs and exurbs to be sure. BUT the problems with inner city schools have to do with uninvolved parents (single abandoned moms gotta work!?), wasted funds, and less-than-adequate curriculums!! This is for another thread.

Yet when more and more people have found themselves unable to measure up to these standards of material wealth, working longer hours for less pay in crumbling neighborhoods, social welfare has been one of the few resources available to give them a fighting chance.

Fighting chance to “measure up to these standards of material wealth”??? You give yourself a fighting chance by making good choices! Whether it is about sex, education, or money.

Plenty of “poor” people I know personally, who have a satellite dish, wear the newest trendy clothes, have TWO television sets, cell phones, and are SMART, yet don’t utilize their obvious talents because of the stigma it may bring from their fellow “hood” mates…

You might rightly say "jlw, my friend, that’s anecdotal." Fair enough. But the fact remains that we can’t blame some standard of materialism! No, we should blame materialism itself. We should blame bad personal choices, and point to the good, better, or best personal choices as first solutions, not governmental collectivism as the first solution. A part of a just society, yes, but not a prerequisite to a moral one. Nope.

Continued…

 

[jlw]

Continued…

What government can do, though, is shield us from some of the more coercive demands of the physical environment, thus freeing us to make choices based on morality and values rather than need.

Answer this very basic question:

Which is more true? Surivival of humanity (that is, our WELFARE)is dependent more on:

A) Government subsidy or B) Morality

For the sake of argument, DO NOT SAY “BOTH”. pick one.

Look at Europe. It’s governments are 1st class in governmental “compassion”, aren’t they?? Safety-net city!! Shouldn’t it be, by your logic, that it would create “the sort of pro-life, pro-family, pro-human dignity” society?? YET…

 

[Philip_P]

Another long post, but a lot of material to respond to. I’ll break it up again.
LisaN:

I also totally disagree about racism. It is a thing of the past for the most part. What we DO have is classism.

I used to think that was true as well, until I moved to the east coast and saw for myself that we are still a very segregated nation. I do agree with you that class is a major issue, though (often, however, it’s still tied up with race). It’s something we seldom talk about because we like to pretend we live in a classless society.
LisaN:

The real changes seemed to coincide with the watershed of the 60s with the changes in immigration laws, sexual revolution, civil rights, and Vietnam

I think you have something here. I’ll come back to this below; first I’d like to respond to a few lines in JLW’s response.

jlw:

Answer this very basic question:
Which is more true? Surivival of humanity (that is, our WELFARE)is dependent more on:
A) Government subsidy or B) Morality

For the sake of argument, DO NOT SAY “BOTH”. pick one.

JLW, that’s ridiculous. I pay my taxes. I still go to church. That they are inherently mutually opposed is precisely the premise I reject.

jlw:

Look at Europe. It’s governments are 1st class in governmental “compassion”, aren’t they?? Safety-net city!! Shouldn’t it be, by your logic, that it would create “the sort of pro-life, pro-family, pro-human dignity” society?? YET… Yesterday 06:37 PM jlw

As in my previous post, I’ve never claimed that government can MAKE people good, only provide a receptive environment. European has created a system in which they can more authentically live their values – some of which I disagree with (such as the low birth rates), some of which I think are quite admirable (such as their reluctance to go to war, completely understandable given that, unlike Americans, they know what war is). Social stability does not CAUSE a specific behavior, but it does allow people a more authentic CHOICE in behavior. Currently we have the worst of both worlds – increasing social and economic insecurity and high levels of abortion and other violence.

jlw:

You sound so…republican.

I’ve always believed it important to learn a foreign language http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

jlw:

And the most you can do is say it’s just a wierd coincendence…??

Quite the opposite, I said that social welfare came as a response.

jlw:

Rich, political (and thusly moral) liberals live in cities. They contracept (again, not for economic “can’t afford it” reasons, as Lisa N points out rightly) more than conservatives do??

Since you bring up the city/suburban divide, I assume this is shorthand for Bush vs. Kerry voters. Use of contraceptives is widespread, regardless of voting habits.

jlw:

Certainly excess materialism plays apart. But I see NOTHING wrong with wanting more space (for a family), more security, cleaner and quieter air, and OWNING a house and land.

There are programs that make it affordable for families to buy homes in urban areas. I would favor greatly expanding these, and realistically they are a much better solution than subsidies for rent. Sadly, not likely to happen in the current political climate.
Also, while don’t want to suggest that cities are BETTER than suburbs, what is disturbing is the belief that we can escape problems by moving to the suburbs. Many of the issues that sparked the flight from the city are now cropping up in the suburbs, and eventually they’ll be in the exurbs, too. Have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce? His vision of hell is a nondescript town spreading forever outward as people move to put increasing distance between them and their neighbors…

continued…

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

You give yourself a fighting chance by making good choices! Whether it is about sex, education, or money.

And you are more likely to make good choices when you have others there to support and reinforce you. The deck is stacked; government can be a powerful tool to help level the odds.

jlw:

Plenty of “poor” people I know personally, who have a satellite dish, wear the newest trendy clothes, have TWO television sets, cell phones…

And how much credit card debt do they have? We used to have a term for current credit practices – it was called usury, and it was a sin.
Furthermore, what are you suggesting here, that people aren’t poor enough? If only people had a low enough standard of living they’d be more moral? Are you opposed to helping people join the middle class?

jlw:

we should blame materialism itself.

Agree, but we don’t fight materialism by giving someone the means to buy televisions while making it impossible for them to afford housing, education, or other basic necessities for a stable family life.

jlw:

We should blame bad personal choices, and point to the good, better, or best personal choices as first solutions, not governmental collectivism as the first solution.

But the question here is precisely what our responsibility as Christians in a democracy is to our fellow citizens. I submit it is a moral duty to support people in making positive choices, and one powerful way of doing that is creating the sort of environment conducive to raising children.

Now back to the 60’s…

I admittedly don’t know nearly enough about the history of the 60s and 70s to respond properly to this yet. Still, to claim that social welfare caused social decay seems rather like arguing that the Marshall Plan caused the Cold War. I can just see the line of reasoning…had Europe not been dependent on US aid, they would have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps and, with a stiff upper lip, kicked out the Russians. Of course, this ignores some pretty important factors, such as the threat of nuclear annihilation, not to mention that Europe had been pretty much destroyed by six years of war.

Likewise, there are some huge factors going on in America after WWII that don’t get nearly enough attention. I think we seriously underestimate, for instance, the impact of both WWII and Vietnam. America has long had a violent streak, but after WWII we really began to feed the monster.

We have a culture of violence in this country. Violence is consistently upheld not only as a legitimate, but as preferred, even heroic, option. Abortion, capital punishment, war, euthanasia… what connects them all is a disturbing ability to rationalize violence. This isn’t just liberal talking points, either, JPII consistently spoke out against this and in favor of a consistent ethic of life (proving that JPII was not liberal or conservative at all, but Catholic, which takes us back to the original roots of this thread). I’ve met a few people who have suggested that it doesn’t really matter if the fetus is human, the woman has a right to defend herself from invasion. Horrible? Yes, and disturbingly in line with the logic of our current culture.

Again, therefore, I say that unless and until we stop seeing abortion as an isolated issue, and work to solve abortion by healing our culture, we will fail. The answer to healing our culture is not throwing people in jail or bombing foreign nations, it’s rebuilding our communities. This is not a task an individual can accomplish alone, it requires the cooperation of all peoples of good faith. Charity may begin at home, but this is beyond charity, this is justice.

 

[chicago]

jlw:

Well, like Oregon, where if it were not for the main metropolises, the state could be conservative, but Multnomah County (Portland, and a’hem, not-so-transparent politicos) runs the show. Voted 74-26 for Kerry.

Same with Chicago, correct??

Not really. Illinois is traditionally a moderate state. It tends to elect moderate Republicans and independent thinking members of both parties to the Senate.

Chicago is obviously Democratic territory. But realize that many of these voters are old skool Dems who are more conservative. If it weren’t for MareDaley, a good number would probably even be Republicans (and probably do vote that way to a certain degree now). The black population will come out in force for any candidate who appeals to them. The Cook County suburbs used to be Republican voting, but that has changed in the last couple of decades due to certain population and election changes.

In Illinois, statewide election campaigns are essentially constituded in three parts: Cook County, the “collar counties” (Chicago metropolitan area around Cook), and “Downstate” (everything other than Chicago/Cook and the Collar Counties). The colllar counties will generally go Republican and largely have the potential of balancing off Cook. Downstate could go either way. There are traditional Democratic centers (Rockford/St. Louis Metro Area/certain communities that are truly downstate) and others which are more Republican leaning. A lot depends upon the candidate, where he’s from, what he stands for and the communities’ concerns. It just becomes a raw numbers game, then, of turnout and who the people in downstate go for combined with how the changing metro area turns out (the collar counties are becoming more Democratic voting as young liberal minded families move out into previously undeveloped areas).

There is a growing conservative movement in Illinois. Though the state did go for it’s native son, we missed the boat here during the larger byproduct of the Reagan revolution. Illinois’s Republican Party is more of a moderate east coast country club organization of the old skool. It partially survived on patronage. So there wasn’t a need for a great takeover by conservatives as the party was already in power (until 2 years ago, we had Republican Governors since the 70s - the last one, George Ryan, only narrowly defeated a conservative Democrat [more conservative in many ways than the republican victor] only because the most liberal elements abandoned the Democrat for the Republican while the conservative Republican voters refused to see that their guy was running left and stuck with him instead of giving in to see a democrat elected). Lake County’s “North Shore” is essentially a richy rich elitist left minded, but economically for Republicans, historically WASP area. Akin to what you see out of Eastern Seaboard Republicanism in their own gold coast between Princeton and Harvard. DuPage county is a bastion of conservativism as are some of the downstate communities.

 

[fix]

I think the answer is for us all to start living the faith. That means love and truth. We have seen in recent decades the folly of claiming “social work” as a god. No amount of social work will change our culture unless those deeds are supported with the truth.

Our Churches are all about “social justice”. The left political groups are all about “social justice”. The right groups are all about taxes.

Neither approach will work until we accept that we must obey all of the moral law and try to help our neighbors. This topic is too one sided. IMO, the American bishops and the left wing groups have taken social work and made that an end unto itself. There is almost no talk of responsibility, accepting blame for doing wrong, or admonishment of so many of us who knowingly choose sin, then claim the governemnt just needs to provide money.

If we are serious about ending abortion, unjust discrimination, crushing poverty, then we better start talking about that there is an objective right and wrong and what will happen if we continually choose wrong.

 

[Lisa_N]

fix:

I think the answer is for us all to start living the faith. That means love and truth. We have seen in recent decades the folly of claiming “social work” as a god. No amount of social work will change our culture unless those deeds are supported with the truth.

Our Churches are all about “social justice”. The left political groups are all about “social justice”. The right groups are all about taxes.

Neither approach will work until we accept that we must obey all of the moral law and try to help our neighbors. This topic is too one sided. IMO, the American bishops and the left wing groups have taken social work and made that an end unto itself. There is almost no talk of responsibility, accepting blame for doing wrong, or admonishment of so many of us who knowingly choose sin, then claim the governemnt just needs to provide money.

If we are serious about ending abortion, unjust discrimination, crushing poverty, then we better start talking about that there is an objective right and wrong and what will happen if we continually choose wrong.

Unfortunately that goes against the politically correct, touchy feely liberals who don’t think anyone should be accountable for their actions. There are no rights and wrongs. Everything is relative.

I get a laugh out of people on this board (usually very young) who seize upon any statement they consider ‘judgemental.’ They have latched on to any kind of judgement as to rightness or wrongness as being among the worst of sins. I hear “That’s why I hate Christians they are so judgemental.” There is no truth and dat’s da truth! Without being judgmental, there is no concept of any truth or right or wrong. Whatever works for you!

I think a very good example is no fault divorce. The theory being that we don’t want blame and recrimination. Hard on the children don’t you know to admit daddy is having an affair or momy drinks too much or daddy beats mommy or mommy neglects the kids to their detriment. Once there was no reason needed for divorce it exploded and it turns out that it IS harder on kids to go through a divorce than even a rather tumultuous family experience. That parents might have difficulties, ups and downs in the relationship is no longer to be tolerated. On to the next boyfriend or girlfriend. Who cares about the kids?

Lisa N

 

[Philip_P]

Lisa N:

Unfortunately that goes against the politically correct, touchy feely liberals who don’t think anyone should be accountable for their actions. There are no rights and wrongs. Everything is relative.

I hear that a lot, but I don’t think liberals actually believe that, regardless of what they say. After all, their opposition to the doctrine of pre-emptive war has been pretty absolutist (I don’t hear them saying, for instance, that pre-emptive war is wrong for the US but ok for some countries). This is, to my mind, the greatest weakness of the Left - they are very ignorant of their moral and philosophical bases. They devote all this time and energy to all these causes, without quite knowing why, exactly. It’s not really relatvisim so much as intellectual laziness and ignorance (ironic, given how much time so many lefties spend in school).

Personally, I find my roots in Catholicism, which are deep roots indeed, more than up to the task of giving meaning and cohesive direction to my life. With its consistent ethic of life, its concern for the poor and vulnerable, it really is quite “liberal.” If my political views tend to skew more left than right, it’s because of my Catholicism, not in spite of it. My politics are vey much an expression of my faith, even a type of evangelization. The conservative dream of going backward to some golden past doesn’t appeal to me because I don’t believe there ever was a golden past (not since Eden, at least). Speaking as a younger Catholic, I want the future to be better than the past. I don’t want another Vietnam, or to return to racial injustice, or have another arms race… I want a better world than my parents’ generation left me.

Returning to abortion, I’d like to shift directions. I’ve been defending my belief that to seriousy address abortion means using the tools of the state to create an environment in which its easier to raise children. Let’s turn it around. For those who see making abortion illegal as the primary goal of the pro-life movement, what makes you think that this would really do the job, or even that this is even an achievable goal? One obstacle I see are that making something illegal usually doesn’t actually stop an activity unless society has already decided it is unacceptable (think, for instance, prohibition. Didn’t work because society didn’t really believe drinking alcohol to be unacceptable). Making abortion illegal doesn’t seem to incorporate any plan for making it socially unacceptable. Secondy, how would we make it illegal anyway? I think it’s entirely possible that Roe v. Wade will eventually be overturned, but this hardly makes abortion illegal, it just sends it back to the states. Is focusing so much time and energy on the legal status of abortion really the best use of our resources?

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

I

Returning to abortion, I’d like to shift directions. I’ve been defending my belief that to seriousy address abortion means using the tools of the state to create an environment in which its easier to raise children. Let’s turn it around. For those who see making abortion illegal as the primary goal of the pro-life movement, what makes you think that this would really do the job, or even that this is even an achievable goal? One obstacle I see are that making something illegal usually doesn’t actually stop an activity unless society has already decided it is unacceptable (think, for instance, prohibition. Didn’t work because society didn’t really believe drinking alcohol to be unacceptable). Making abortion illegal doesn’t seem to incorporate any plan for making it socially unacceptable. Secondy, how would we make it illegal anyway? I think it’s entirely possible that Roe v. Wade will eventually be overturned, but this hardly makes abortion illegal, it just sends it back to the states. Is focusing so much time and energy on the legal status of abortion really the best use of our resources?

Now we’re getting somewhere. I agree, what will eventually make abortion seem as reprehensible as slavery, is a shift in public opinion. I can point to a huge change in public opinion in two areas, smoking and drunk driving. When I was a kid, everyone smoked and drunk driving was given a ‘wink and a nod.’ It’s not that we didn’t understand smoking was harmful. We did. It’s not that drunk driving wasn’t illegal. It was.

But it took a paradigm shift to change public opinion. Smoking is not only greatly restricted, in many situations it’s considered totally socially unacceptable. Drunk drivers are loathed and persectued (as they should be). I think the reason abortion is so common is that PP and its ilk has carefully constructed a web of deception about this procedure. They have dehumanized the unborn (sound a bit like black slaves?) and thus killing them is not killing a human being. I support organizations that focus on education about the realities of abortion as well as those that offer alternatives for pregnant women. One of the left’s arguments for abortion is that the conservatives don’t want to do anything beyond saving the life of the baby. After that they’ve washed their hands. That this impression is TOTALLY inaccurate doesn’t matter. I saw a very similar statement in Christian Century, a magazine for well educated albeit liberal Christians. They repeat the mantra that the “nutty prolifers” just want to get their hands on a woman’s body so that the baby is born and then refuse to help beyond that. Total horse hockey as Col Potter used to say.

Right now I’m working with our respect life committee to get inserts into local college newspapers. These inserts are tasteful, informative, appealing and they offer the TRUTH. I think we need to keep plugging away in different ways and use different approaches. But I believe we MUST change hearts and minds as well as laws.

Lisa N

 

[Brad]

fix:

I think the answer is for us all to start living the faith. That means love and truth. We have seen in recent decades the folly of claiming “social work” as a god. No amount of social work will change our culture unless those deeds are supported with the truth.

Our Churches are all about “social justice”. The left political groups are all about “social justice”. The right groups are all about taxes.

Neither approach will work until we accept that we must obey all of the moral law and try to help our neighbors. This topic is too one sided. IMO, the American bishops and the left wing groups have taken social work and made that an end unto itself. There is almost no talk of responsibility, accepting blame for doing wrong, or admonishment of so many of us who knowingly choose sin, then claim the governemnt just needs to provide money.

If we are serious about ending abortion, unjust discrimination, crushing poverty, then we better start talking about that there is an objective right and wrong and what will happen if we continually choose wrong.

There can be no solutions outside of truth. This requires recognition of sin and repentence and penance for that sin. There is no amount of social work in the world that will solve an issue of an obstinant heart that will not conform to the will of God.

 

[Philip_P]

Lisa N:

Now we’re getting somewhere. I agree, what will eventually make abortion seem as reprehensible as slavery, is a shift in public opinion…But it took a paradigm shift to change public opinion.

That’s true, so the question becomes how to achieve that shift. On my list of books to read are books on the anti-slavery movement and the Civil Rights movement, two examples of genuing moral revolutions in our country. I think there’s also a warning in the history of the anti-slavery movement, though - abolishing legal slavery wasn’t the end of the story, hence the need for a Civil Rights movement a century later (and I suspect there’ll be more work to be done in the future, as well). Pro-lifers need to work to make sure the moral revolution on abortion, when it comes, is complete.
Lisa N:

I think the reason abortion is so common is that PP and its ilk has carefully constructed a web of deception about this procedure. They have dehumanized the unborn (sound a bit like black slaves?) and thus killing them is not killing a human being. I support organizations that focus on education about the realities of abortion as well as those that offer alternatives for pregnant women. One of the left’s arguments for abortion is that the conservatives don’t want to do anything beyond saving the life of the baby. After that they’ve washed their hands. That this impression is TOTALLY inaccurate doesn’t matter.

There is a widespread perception out there that pro-lifers don’t care women or about life after birth. On the one hand that’s patently inaccurate, but on the other hand it’s almost understandable - generally it’s only on abortion and euthanasia that you hear people identify as pro-life. Raising our profile when we work on other issues would really help counter this. The best personal example I can think of is JPII. He was a strong advocate for the poor, a critic of the West’s materialism and the excesses of capitalism, and a vocal critic of unjust wars. None of this detracted in the least from his being one of the strongest advocates for the unborn, and in fact only strengthened this. In addition to credibilty, JPII’s consistent ethic of life has also allowed Catholics to make common cause with non-Catholics on pro-life issues (witness Bush’s use of the phrase "culture of life’), an important factor in America, where Catholics are not a majority.

 

[aimee]

Philip P:

That’s true, so the question becomes how to achieve that shift. On my list of books to read are books on the anti-slavery movement and the Civil Rights movement, two examples of genuing moral revolutions in our country. I think there’s also a warning in the history of the anti-slavery movement, though - abolishing legal slavery wasn’t the end of the story, hence the need for a Civil Rights movement a century later (and I suspect there’ll be more work to be done in the future, as well). Pro-lifers need to work to make sure the moral revolution on abortion, when it comes, is complete.

There is a widespread perception out there that pro-lifers don’t care women or about life after birth. On the one hand that’s patently inaccurate, but on the other hand it’s almost understandable - generally it’s only on abortion and euthanasia that you hear people identify as pro-life. Raising our profile when we work on other issues would really help counter this. The best personal example I can think of is JPII. He was a strong advocate for the poor, a critic of the West’s materialism and the excesses of capitalism, and a vocal critic of unjust wars. None of this detracted in the least from his being one of the strongest advocates for the unborn, and in fact only strengthened this. In addition to credibilty, JPII’s consistent ethic of life has also allowed Catholics to make common cause with non-Catholics on pro-life issues (witness Bush’s use of the phrase "culture of life’), an important factor in America, where Catholics are not a majority.

Hey, Philip…theres hope for you yet

 

[fix]

Lisa N:

Unfortunately that goes against the politically correct, touchy feely liberals who don’t think anyone should be accountable for their actions. There are no rights and wrongs. Everything is relative.

I get a laugh out of people on this board (usually very young) who seize upon any statement they consider ‘judgemental.’ They have latched on to any kind of judgement as to rightness or wrongness as being among the worst of sins. I hear “That’s why I hate Christians they are so judgemental.” There is no truth and dat’s da truth! Without being judgmental, there is no concept of any truth or right or wrong. Whatever works for you!

I think a very good example is no fault divorce. The theory being that we don’t want blame and recrimination. Hard on the children don’t you know to admit daddy is having an affair or momy drinks too much or daddy beats mommy or mommy neglects the kids to their detriment. Once there was no reason needed for divorce it exploded and it turns out that it IS harder on kids to go through a divorce than even a rather tumultuous family experience. That parents might have difficulties, ups and downs in the relationship is no longer to be tolerated. On to the next boyfriend or girlfriend. Who cares about the kids?

Lisa N

As Capitalism can be crushing without an infusion of morality, so many government programs can be devasting. I am not against helping folks, using many different means, but I am against throwing money at people without helping them to understand that we must try to make moral choices. That is seldom done in this culture.

A good example is when we argue about abortion in this country. Most of the time I hear the solution of greater use and education in contraceptive techniques. Good grief! That is the problem. Fornication is seen as holy. Contraception is like taking an antibiotic to many. No consequense is understood. No judgement is allowed to be made.

I am not speaking of berating folks, but can we at least spell out why such things ought never to be tolerated? Can we say that authentic love is helping our fellow man to know God and to love God? Can we start by not compromising the truth under the guise of social justice?

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

That’s true, so the question becomes how to achieve that shift. On my list of books to read are books on the anti-slavery movement and the Civil Rights movement, two examples of genuing moral revolutions in our country. I think there’s also a warning in the history of the anti-slavery movement, though - abolishing legal slavery wasn’t the end of the story, hence the need for a Civil Rights movement a century later (and I suspect there’ll be more work to be done in the future, as well). Pro-lifers need to work to make sure the moral revolution on abortion, when it comes, is complete.

I agree. We should all try to follow in the footsteps of JP II as much as possible. Of course, he was following in the footsteps of Jesus Christ. Life is precious for all. Every single human life is the image and likeness of God Himself. Everyone matters. All of us should be called to care about the material less and about God more. God is the only love we can carry into eternity.