How can you be Democratic and also be Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter itstymyguy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Annie said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
Then how do you explain the steadily decreasing number of abortions after peaking in 1981, despite the fact that abortion remains legal? We are actually at pre-1973 levels right now.
Click to expand...
Improved and increased availability of ABC, and lately, young people… having less sex.
Click to expand...
and all that without prohibitions. That shows that prohibitions may not be as effective as you think.
LeafByNiggle said:
which makes the point that such legislation would not be a feasible solution. On the other hand, making childbirth a guaranteed service for all is a feasible solution. Some other nations have done it.
Click to expand...
My point was that we already have this pretty widely, but people are still having abortions.
Click to expand...
That is not true. Childbirth is not universally covered. Not by a long shot. Most people pay plenty to deliver a baby.
Look at England: all free health care and they still have a high rate.
Click to expand...
There are many factors that go into the abortion rate. But we also have this:

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2010/03/19/7497/a-universal-win/
 
I am not saying anything universal (except that refraining from sex leads to a proportional reduction in pregnancy), but you seem to be trying to convince me that I am Totally Wrong and you are Totally Right.

Why not that each of us may have a point? Maybe both of us should be careful not to imply one-size-fits-all solutions?
 
JacobF said:
I can easily see a democratic administration along with democrat appointed judges making it illegal for the church to tell the truth about anything related to LGBT issues…
Click to expand...
That is why we have the 1st amendement, which is actually more under attack from the right than from the left in the way they try so hard to demonize the press that is not a loyal arm of the current administration. There has always been a tense relationship between the press and the Presidency going back to the founding of our nation. But the 1st amendment and basis respect for the press has kept the disputes civil. Not so anymore.

But as for a Democratic administration silencing free speech in churches, that is just fear-mongering.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
That is not true. Childbirth is not universally covered. Not by a long shot. Most people pay plenty to deliver a baby.
Click to expand...
Since money is not the only reason women have abortions, what would you suggest for those that can afford to deliver their baby but refuse for various personal reasons (usually career), women who are very strongly encouraged by husbands or boyfriends to have abortions, and the worst parents who have money to assist their daughters with a child but fear of their daughters career future pressure her or convince her to abort her pregnancy?
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
That is not true. Childbirth is not universally covered. Not by a long shot. Most people pay plenty to deliver a baby.
Click to expand...
Since money is not the only reason women have abortions, what would you suggest for those that can afford to deliver their baby but refuse for various personal reasons (usually career)
Click to expand...
First of all, there are very few women who have absolutely no concern about the potential costs of a complicated delivery. So let’s leave them aside for a moment. (But I will come back to them.) For the rest, guaranteed OBGYN services can make a big difference - not only for the women themselves, but for the family and friends who might have encouraged them to get an abortion. It probably won’t change everybody’s mind, but it will for some, and every abortion prevented is a win. As for the career excuse, we can address that too. What happens today when a husband has a child, on average his salary goes up 5%. He is seen as more stable, dependable, and committed. Employers like guys with a family. But when a women has a child, her salary declines on average 5%-15%. Employers see them as less committed to the job less dependable because of the expected division of her attention to managing the family affairs. If we made employment compensation more gender-blind, we could eliminate this discrepancy and remove that “career” excuse from the list of excuses for having a abortion.

Now, getting back to the super-rich women who don’t care about delivery costs, when abortion is reduced among the rest of us to the point that the public supports making it illegal, then it will be made illegal, and that will close off that avenue for the super rich. I suppose they could still fly to another country for an abortion, but when public attitudes are so firmly against abortion, even the super rich might feel shamed into not having an abortion, even if it is technically possible for them.
 
I agree we need to change attitudes but I disagree that the big issue behind abortion is cost of delivery of the baby. That is probably some but only the smallest of the reasons. If money was the case women would be marching in request for financial aid rather than marching with the slogan “my body my choice”.
Many reasons for the choices made are usually fear of loss of lifestyle, not ready to be a mother and lack of support from family and partner.
 
MagdalenaRita said:
women who are very strongly encouraged by husbands or boyfriends to have abortions, and the worst parents who have money to assist their daughters with a child but fear of their daughters career future pressure her or convince her to abort her pregnancy?
Click to expand...
See a 2005 poll of women who had abortions: Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives | Guttmacher Institute

“Fewer than 1% said their parents’ or partners’ desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason.”
 
MagdalenaRita said:
I disagree that the big issue behind abortion is cost of delivery of the baby. That is probably some but only the smallest of the reasons.
Click to expand...
Same poll: “having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%)”
 
That is the very article I read to respond earlier. There are many other reasons other than the cost of delivery of the baby.

For many women the reason they give is career or lifestyle choices at the time.

For an even more in depth look at the reasons, check out the website Rachel’s vineyard.
 
Last edited:
Moreso because our society is so selfish and fails to provide for others that one is able to contemplate these reasons as legitimate.
 
Spending money to support babies born into abject poverty would not be to “make them more comfortable” (except in the sense that starving to death is very uncomfortable), it would (or should) be to make it more likely that they will survive and grow up to be productive members of society.
 
I think that you missed how your post sounded. It may have been all sweetness and light inside your head, but it sounded very, well, the best way I can describe the sentiment I felt when I saw it is “Social Darwinism”.
 
Abject poverty is not “not wealthy”. It is “can’t buy food to eat so going to starve” and “can’t pay rent so living under a tree” and “can’t pay a doctor so this minor infection that $5.00 worth of antibiotics could cure just might kill me”. Yes, many do survive, but many others die unnecessarily and in misery. Still sounding like Social Darwinism to me.
 
JacobF said:
. I can definitely see government forcing churches to close if they don’t allow and support same sex marriages at the church. It probably won’t be an official mandate that the church has to close, more likely, they would lose their tax exempt status.
Click to expand...
That would be a slippery slope fallacy as you are sliding in the the constitutionally impossible.

Some do. Most do not. I would suggest that money spent on families, and children in particular is the most cost effective way of breaking the cycle of poverty and government dependence. This is where the exercise of prudence can make a progressive position, in reality, a fiscally conservative position. Unfortunately children do not vote, so even Democrats would rather throw money at constituents than kids.
 
Last edited:
Please let me know which post I made that advocated for killing unborn babies. Or you can apologize for slandering me.
 
Then point out the words that I wrote that were part of a defense for abortion. Hint: there aren’t any - my point was strictly limited to arguing against social Darwinism.
 
So where are the goalposts supposed to be? Modern Americans or people worldwide and throughout history in abject poverty?
 
In all charity, I’m not apologizing because I did not “slander you”. All my post meant to say was neither wealth nor poverty is a reason for abortion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top