Economics and Reducing Abortion?

[Brad]

fix:

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?

I agree and I would add that it is the responsibility of the people of God in the churches to help the poor, the sick, the hungry, and the naked. The Gospel is not a gospel of socialism where one is required to pool their money into a pot that may or may not help the poor and is almost guaranteed not to help them long-term as no truth will be tied to it (Give someone a fish vs. teaching them how to fish). A large part of tying truth to socially helping the poor is for government to make assessments of right and wrong, which is exactly why abortion should be illegal. The civil rights movement never would have happened if the people did not ultimately require that slavery be made illegal, against the “absolute” ruling ot the U.S. Supreme Court. Subsequent public opinion was properly swayed against segregation.

 

[Philip_P]

fix:

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?

The problem, Fix, is that people do sin and make mistakes, and I’m not sure how “not compromising the truth under the guise of social justice” addresses this. My worry with the criminalization approach to abortion is that it makes it too easy for pro-lifers to self-righteously pat themselves on the back and then walk away from the issue. If all we’re doing is making abortion illegal and not at the same time taking steps to make it easier to raise children, regardless of circumstances, marital status, etc., this seems to send the message that we as a nation have no especial interest or social obligation. Of course the woman has a personal responsibility, but what happens if she fails (or, in the case of a rape, for instance, is vicitimized)? Even knowing right from wrong is no guarantee against failure. Don’t you think we ought to take steps to help her? If it’s legitimate to use government to punish, isn’t it equally legitimate to use government to help?

 

[Philip_P]

aimee:

Hey, Philip…theres hope for you yet

Thanks, Aimiee, I just wish I wouldn’t catch so much flak around here for not supporting the death penalty or the war…

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

The problem, Fix, is that people do sin and make mistakes, and I’m not sure how “not compromising the truth under the guise of social justice” addresses this. My worry with the criminalization approach to abortion is that it makes it too easy for pro-lifers to self-righteously pat themselves on the back and then walk away from the issue. If all we’re doing is making abortion illegal and not at the same time taking steps to make it easier to raise children, regardless of circumstances, marital status, etc., this seems to send the message that we as a nation have no especial interest or social obligation. Of course the woman has a personal responsibility, but what happens if she fails (or, in the case of a rape, for instance, is vicitimized)? Even knowing right from wrong is no guarantee against failure. Don’t you think we ought to take steps to help her? If it’s legitimate to use government to punish, isn’t it equally legitimate to use government to help?

What does helping people in dire need have to do with the making abortion illegal? Of course, we should do both. Do you not agree?

 

[fix]

Philip P:

The problem, Fix, is that people do sin and make mistakes, and I’m not sure how “not compromising the truth under the guise of social justice” addresses this.

Sin is not a mistake. It is intentionally going against the moral law. Social justice has been a catch phrase to include all sorts of things that may or may not contradict the moral law. An example of compromise would be telling peole that doing good works trumps the moral law. It would be no different than our neo pagan society. It would be calling all Catholics to accept the sinner and the sin.

My worry with the criminalization approach to abortion is that it makes it too easy for pro-lifers to self-righteously pat themselves on the back and then walk away from the issue.

Abortion must be made illegal because it violates the natural law. It is no different than not making rape illegal.

If all we’re doing is making abortion illegal and not at the same time taking steps to make it easier to raise children, regardless of circumstances, marital status, etc.,

Making it “easier” to raise children is what I am talking about. One man, one woman, for life. That is the recipe this culture rejects. If we do not evangelize and start explaning why that is the only way, then we will continue to have this abortion debate. Along with that we must explain why sex and love go together and why contraception allows for the embrace of the culture of death as normal.

this seems to send the message that we as a nation have no especial interest or social obligation. Of course the woman has a personal responsibility, but what happens if she fails (or, in the case of a rape, for instance, is vicitimized)?

No one is talking about not helping a destitute person or a rape victim. Most stats I have seen place abortion among women of means, including married women.

Even knowing right from wrong is no guarantee against failure.

No one is seeking perfection, but if we start out by thinking morality is relative, well look around, see what we have today.

Don’t you think we ought to take steps to help her? If it’s legitimate to use government to punish, isn’t it equally legitimate to use government to help?

Sure, government can help. Can government help educate about the moral Law? Can governement say that unmarried persons should never have sex? Can government say contraception invites abuse of women and fatherless homes?

See, that is the issue. One side only wants social work and no truth. The otherside wants truth and no social work. For decades the left side won, the right side may be swinging to far, but it is in response to the relativistic left.

 

[Philip_P]

That’s all very pious, but it’s just not very historically accurate. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was the dominant feature and institution of European society. People were well aware of the Church teaching on natural law. Yet this in no way prevented violations of it, intentional or otherwise. Humans have a long and regrettable tradition of bloodlust, and Catholic societies have unfortunately not been an exception (even if particular individuals within society have been shining lights showing us a better way).

People sin, Fix. They fail. Else there would be no need for a sacrament of reconciliation. Thundering against “relativst neo-pagan society” may make you feel all morally warm and fuzzy, but it hardly addresses the question of what to do when people do fail, as they inevitably will. Yet you would have us tie our hands behind our backs rather than using the tools at our disposal to try and make a better world?

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

That’s all very pious, but it’s just not very historically accurate. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was the dominant feature and institution of European society. People were well aware of the Church teaching on natural law. Yet this in no way prevented violations of it, intentional or otherwise. Humans have a long and regrettable tradition of bloodlust, and Catholic societies have unfortunately not been an exception (even if particular individuals within society have been shining lights showing us a better way).

People sin, Fix. They fail. Else there would be no need for a sacrament of reconciliation. Thundering against “relativst neo-pagan society” may make you feel all morally warm and fuzzy, but it hardly addresses the question of what to do when people do fail, as they inevitably will. Yet you would have us tie our hands behind our backs rather than using the tools at our disposal to try and make a better world?

What does helping people in dire need have to do with the making abortion illegal? Of course, we should do both. Do you not agree?

 

[fix]

Philip P:

That’s all very pious, but it’s just not very historically accurate. During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was the dominant feature and institution of European society. People were well aware of the Church teaching on natural law. Yet this in no way prevented violations of it, intentional or otherwise. Humans have a long and regrettable tradition of bloodlust, and Catholic societies have unfortunately not been an exception (even if particular individuals within society have been shining lights showing us a better way).

People sin, Fix. They fail. Else there would be no need for a sacrament of reconciliation. Thundering against “relativst neo-pagan society” may make you feel all morally warm and fuzzy, but it hardly addresses the question of what to do when people do fail, as they inevitably will. Yet you would have us tie our hands behind our backs rather than using the tools at our disposal to try and make a better world?

Friend, you are very confused. We are called to spread the Gospel, the whole Gospel. I was not alive during the Middle ages, but I have been alive over 40 years. Great societal changes have occurred in the past 3-4 decades. Are you arguing there has been no decline in public morality? Are there fewer out of wedlock births? Is abortion less common? Is
gay" marriage just an illusion? I could go on.

It seems you preach the worldy Gospel? Good works, but no truth. So, how will the culture change if we only give money and no moral compass? More importantly, how will souls be saved if we cheat our fellow man by being social workers and not authentic Catholics?

As an aside, polls have shown time and again that those who self identify as Catholics hold views similar to the secular world on issues of morality. This says to me that few are preaching the truth. Like so many today, you under estimate people. The truth is attractive, but it must be lived out. Passing out money to those who authentically need it is one thing, but to be only a social worker is not enough.

 

[fix]

Brad:

What does helping people in dire need have to do with the making abortion illegal? Of course, we should do both. Do you not agree?

Cognitive dissonance?

 

[Brad]

fix:

Cognitive dissonance?

I guess so. Seems like the cognitive is controlled by the political.

 

[fix]

Brad:

I guess so. Seems like the cognitive is controlled by the political.

Yes, very astute. The political left has a monoply on “compassion”. Compassion, which is often a code word for moral compromise, has really become what many think the message of Christ is. It seems to mean never admitting to sin as this may upset people. It means taking money from the productive and giving to the authentically needy and the inauthentically needy.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip what I think you need to consider is that there will be fewer people in dire straits if they both knew and practiced the truth.

In this country, with few exceptions you will not be poor if you graduate from high school, get married and stay married, do not have children out of wedlock, work full time and do not engage in substance abuse. Sure there is always the exception, the young widow with small children who has no job skills and needs to care for a baby or the severely physically handicapped person who needs expensive medical care and is unable to work.

Believe me I have come to this conclusion not only looking at statistics but also in working with a number of social service agencies that include a homeless families shelter, a drug and alcohol treatment center, a statewide literacy organization and more recently an organization that advocates for abused and neglected children.

Even the ‘bleeding heart liberals’ who run and work for these organizations admit that most people are in dire straits because they have made some very bad decisions along the way. The problem with the way our social services industrial complex is organizaed, is that it does not encourage productive and moral behavior but instead it seems that the more a person follows a hedonistic, immoral lifestyle, the more programs that are available.
How does this DISCOURAGE such behavior? How do we reward the more productive behavior? Not by continuing to create programs that address the same issues.

Ironically abortion isn’t an issue of poverty but I think that it results from the same attitude of not taking responsibility for our actions, the same reason that most of the poor are poor.

Lisa N

 

[Philip_P]

That’s what I get for posting a hurried reply, I end up sounding all preachy and shallow. How’s this, I’ll briefly lay out my political philosophy and you can see where I’m coming from.

The world is broken. That’s original sin. Absent grace, the current “natural” state of the world is not perfection, but rather death and destruction (the wages of sin).

We live in a democracy, meaning we actually have the ability to drastically reshape our world. Some of it is done on the individual level, as we inform our conscience and daily make decisions on what action to take. Some of it is done on the community level, as we work within our parishes (or synagogues, or whichever community or faith groups are your context, though for this site parish is probably a safe bet). Some of it, and here’s the remarkable part about being in a democracy, takes place on a structural level. That’s government. We can use government to reinforce and heighten the world as it is – the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and the weak are crushed by the strong – or we can use that power to build a more just world, where having little material wealth does not mean you starve on the street, and where not having good connections and the ear of the powerful does not mean you are trampled upon by those that do.

The second approach says, essentially, that our obligations do not stop with ourselves, or even with our parish. It says that if we, as individuals, are called upon to reach out, as Christ did, to the sinner and the outcast, then we as a people and even as a nation are called to the same. The “social work” which you dismiss, in this second view, is a concrete way of building the Kingdom. It is not, of course, a task that we can accomplish fully or on our own (not until Christ’s return can we hope for the full realization), but it is a task we are called to nonetheless.

Now let me sum up the essence of my argument as it relates to abortion. The ideal would be whole families and health relationships. But we do not live in an ideal world, and even as we work toward it, there will be a huge gap between the world we live in and that which we strive for. In working toward that world, then we have an obligation to those who fall short of the ideal (which ultimately is all of us, no?) If a woman is pregnant, with no husband and no family, is it better to castigate her and shame her, or is it better to tell her “Do not be afraid,” to make sure that her child will eat, be educated, grow up well, and that she should not give up hope? To keep her link, if possible, with the child? Once we create a world in which abortion is no longer seen as necessary, we will be able to have a world in which abortion is no longer legal.

 

[Philip_P]

I posted before I saw Lisa’s post, I’ll reply later (so you don’t think I was completely ignoring your post in my last one)

 

[fix]

Philip P:

The “social work” which you dismiss, in this second view, is a concrete way of building the Kingdom. It is not, of course, a task that we can accomplish fully or on our own (not until Christ’s return can we hope for the full realization), but it is a task we are called to nonetheless.

Of course, but it is not an end unto itself. I see so many claiming that government programs equal Christ’s teaching. That is not true in most cases. These same programs that may do some limited good in some cases, also make things worse. No one is against helping others, the argument is how to do it and not just be a money bag.

If a woman is pregnant, with no husband and no family, is it better to castigate her and shame her

This is a distortion of my position. No one has said anything close to that. In fact, we have said the opposite. The authentically needy should be helped. The issue is stopping these problems before they occur or stopping them from reoccurring. Is it so bad to explain to the public that out of wedlock pregancies are a bad idea? We should reintroduce the concept of shame into our culture. Is that so bad? Does immoral behavior need to be reinforced and celebrated? Can we no longer say sin is sin?

Once we create a world in which abortion is no longer seen as necessary, we will be able to have a world in which abortion is no longer legal.

Most abortions are not about poverty. They are about folks not wanting to have that child becuase it is not convenient. This goes back to my original point about preaching the truth. Not just secular social work. Communists can do social work, pagans can do social work, but what makes us Catholic?

 

[jlw]

A) Government subsidy or B) Morality

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

My point, Philip, was to show that government subsidy (as opposed to LAWS) does not necessarily affect morality, but that morality can affect the need for government subsidy??

European has created a system in which they can more authentically live their values …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.

Values of European government cradle-to-grave socialism, secularism, 11% unemployment, criticize-the-good-guys-cuddle-and-apologise-for-the-bad-guys?? Oh those values! (Ok, ok, another thread)

WHAAAAAAAAAT??? Social stability (just the opposite of instability) doesn’t CAUSE specific behavior??? Of course it does! Care to restate that??? That is just a false statement. IF you have little worries, no motivation (whether it is fear of failing or the classic carrot-stick scenario), and you have a “entitlement” mentality from cradle-to-grave, that does not affect behavior?? Ever hear of the human condition???

PEOPLE HAVE CHOICE BECAUSE GOD GAVE IT TO THEM waaaay before government-de-jour does. Sure, the state can affirm these basic rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This is where liberals and conservatives seem to miss each other: CHOICE matters BEFORE sex, and BEFORE government intervention. Liberals think that CHOICE after sex is more important, and that government SUBSIDIES have more value than GOD’s commandments regarding sex, marriage, work, and play. (not to imply the liberals don’t believe in God, it’s just that of the secular humanists, more can be found on the left side of the isle)

Again, government aid to the poor is moral and just. I see the very good intentions behind the Great Society. The “war on poverty” has turned out much like the “war on drugs” you chuckled about many posts back. Billions and billions have been spent on reducing poverty, and the percentages haven’t changed much. Why?? MORALITY.

Was the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964 not enough?? Was a little government intervention necessary?? Probably so. It was set up as a RESPONSE to poverty because of racism (not necessarily broken homes, though. Remember, the nuclear family was still relatively intact at that point) But as with most government interventions, it is NEVER temporary, and it is ALWAYS set up to get bigger and bigger and therefore less effective and less efficient. The big deal here is did to work??? The numbers don’t lie. the answer is NO. Like most all liberal initiatives, what was started out of good intentions usually CONTRIBUTES to the problem, rather than solving it!!

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.

True, contraception is practiced by all voters. But of those voters that are married, with kids, more are republican. When 7 out of 10 black kids are currently born out of wedlock, and the black populace (largely inner-city??) vote for democrats 9 to 1, there’s the self-fufilling prophecy if you ask me. Government is Daddy or Nanny, because the choice BEFORE sex is undervalued to the exalted “choice” heralded at Planned Parenthood. Governmemt is PART of the problem!! Usurping the family, and usurping God, whenever possible.

There are programs that make it affordable for families to buy homes in urban areas.

I know. I’m in the finance business. People can get into homes with no down payment, no closing costs and Interest Only payments. Happens all the time without government getting involved (though the governemnt DOES have some good programs available).

CS Lewis was not talking about modern urban sprawl. He was talking about human disconnect as much as anything else. Great book by the way.

Quite frankly, I though living rurally is very Catholic! Self-suffiency, ownership, less modernism and commercialism, space and security for large families. As long as it is centered around the Church, the classic parish, where the neighbors share the common bond of faith and family. Less is bought, more is shared.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

Now let me sum up the essence of my argument as it relates to abortion. The ideal would be whole families and health relationships. But we do not live in an ideal world, and even as we work toward it, there will be a huge gap between the world we live in and that which we strive for. In working toward that world, then we have an obligation to those who fall short of the ideal (which ultimately is all of us, no?) If a woman is pregnant, with no husband and no family, is it better to castigate her and shame her, or is it better to tell her “Do not be afraid,” to make sure that her child will eat, be educated, grow up well, and that she should not give up hope? To keep her link, if possible, with the child? Once we create a world in which abortion is no longer seen as necessary, we will be able to have a world in which abortion is no longer legal.

Philip I think we will never come to terms unless we can find some common ground on the reason for 4000 abortions a day. You characterize the potential abortion client is a “woman with no husband and no family” who is desperate. The statistics say otherwise. Certainly my own experience with friends and acquaintences says otherwise. I realize that anecdotes do not mean much but when they support the documentary evidence, I think there is some significance.

As Fix and several others have said, what we have is a culture where inconvenience is sufficient reason to end a life. Women are not having abortions because they don’t think there will be food or medical care for their children. They have abortions because they don’t want the interference in their lives, the sacrifices, the physical limitations, or to please a man who wants a free bed partner but does not want to take responsibility for the child they create together.

Our culture clearly does not value its citizens and abortion is simply a cultural statement of that reality. If we DID value our citizens we’d do something to encourage more of them to be born as they do in some ‘backward’ countries economically that have a greater love for life.

First you have to demonstrate that there will NOT be food or care for the child before you can claim that this is essential to the decision process. As I’ve said and as I’ve seen, there is NO group that gets more aid, funding and programs than either pregnant women or women and children. People are not starving in the streets in this country. I could understand your argument as being legitimate in an impoverished, third world country where people ARE desperate. Here they are not. Further, there is a huge demand for adoptive babies so if a woman felt she could not care for a child, adoption is always available. Again, it’s the inconvenience and temporary but still very real sacrifice that has women heading for the abortion clinic instead of the OB doc.

Speaking though of economics and abortion, there wouldn’t BE such free access to abortion if it were not such a lucrative business. Unlike many medical procedures that have seen a sharp decline in reimbursements, since many abortions are considered elective (like plastic surgery) people somehow find the money to pay for them. Abortion is what fuels the PP machine.

Lisa N

 

[chicago]

Philip P:

Now let me sum up the essence of my argument as it relates to abortion. The ideal would be whole families and health relationships. But we do not live in an ideal world, and even as we work toward it, there will be a huge gap between the world we live in and that which we strive for. In working toward that world, then we have an obligation to those who fall short of the ideal (which ultimately is all of us, no?) If a woman is pregnant, with no husband and no family, is it better to castigate her and shame her, or is it better to tell her “Do not be afraid,” to make sure that her child will eat, be educated, grow up well, and that she should not give up hope? To keep her link, if possible, with the child? Once we create a world in which abortion is no longer seen as necessary, we will be able to have a world in which abortion is no longer legal.

I’ve been an advocate of helping people to get involved in a more hands on way that will enable them to see how women in crisis pregnancies need our support; as well as how abortion is a method of abandoning them to their own, and ultimately society’s (thus all of our) detriment. I encourge people to get involved with things like the parish based Gabriel Project:

gabrielproject.com/

As it is, abortion on demand continues largely due to societal apathy and an attitude that, perhaps, abortion somehow helps women. It is that mentality which first needs to be addressed in order to build a society which no longer sees abortion as either a necessary or good thing. As people have more interaction with helping those in need, they should come to recognize that this isn’t just some problem “out there” that they don’t want to have to deal with. Rather, it becomes a very concrete matter of concern to them personally. And, with that, should natually follow a desire to have the line drawn such that women can not legally be abandoned unto abortion. For, this too, then becomes a method of helping and supporting those in need who one is concerned about.

It will take this larger structure of support system for society at large to better recognize and value the idea that there is no need for abortion and that it is a bad thing. Only in that context will anti-abortion laws be possible and effective, ultimately.

Does government have a role in that? Yes, I think so. Afterall, even now the best crisis pregnancy centers who are working to accomplish this and serving as models of effectiveness will help women in need to get whatever government assistance they require in order to assist them in raising their child and supporting themselves. Obviously, these aren’t the only problems which such mothers face (and other difficulties are dealt with as well), but such resources are there when that is what is called for. However, in order for the cultural/political winds to shift, I also think that much more is needed in the way of personal attentiveness to these concerns by people in our society.

In either case, a change in rhetoric to one which focuses more on the opportunities which we want to provide for women in need would be most helpful to the cause.

 

[jlw]

Still, to claim that social welfare caused social decay seems rather like arguing that the Marshall Plan caused the Cold War.

Huh??? Uh…No.

But I would analogize the USSR to Planned Parenthood!!

Seriously, though, that is peposterous.

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

I agree. AND…Abortion and euthanasia are NEVER just. War can be just, and capital punishment can be too. The Pope’s stand on non-violent means to solve problems IS consistent and worthy of praise. YET, he is not in charge of national security, and his job is to teach, dialogue and pray. A head-of-state must protect economic and national security, public safety interests in a very real world that has very real good guys and bad guys in it. If terrorists heeded the Holy Father’s words, and didn’t blow themselves up at wedding parties, there would be less need for really big guns, don’t you think?? Successful dialogue takes WILLING partners. (Ok, ok, another thread)

 

[Brad]

Philip P:

Now let me sum up the essence of my argument as it relates to abortion. The ideal would be whole families and health relationships. But we do not live in an ideal world, and even as we work toward it, there will be a huge gap between the world we live in and that which we strive for. In working toward that world, then we have an obligation to those who fall short of the ideal (which ultimately is all of us, no?) If a woman is pregnant, with no husband and no family, is it better to castigate her and shame her, or is it better to tell her “Do not be afraid,” to make sure that her child will eat, be educated, grow up well, and that she should not give up hope? To keep her link, if possible, with the child? Once we create a world in which abortion is no longer seen as necessary, we will be able to have a world in which abortion is no longer legal.

Perhaps we should make stealing legal until it no longer seems necessary?

There are many groups that are ready, willing, and able to help a girl or woman in distress that is pregnant.

Why can’t we say “do not be afraid, I’ll help” and make abortion illegal at the same time? This is consistent and logical.

Seems to me you that, although you may be well intentioned, you are overcomplicating the issue. Most on the political left refuse to give up “free sex”. Last I checked, it was sex that made babies, not castigation and shame.