Lower abortions with more gov't programs?

[drea916]

I’m in a discussion with a friend. She claims that she is going to vote for the more abortion candidate because he offers more government programs. Abortions will be lowered if the mother feels like there is enough support. Therefore, she is actually voting the more prolife option.

I know this is wrong, but how do I articulate it to her? It is in a facebook post, so it has to be concise. Any ideas?

Thanks.

 

[JRKH]

My approach would simply be this…

This view makes no sense either morally or economically.
Economically the Government is already seriously in debt and what is needed is fewer and better managed programs…not more programs that will simply bankrupt the country more quickly.
Morally - such a position does nothing to promote greater responsibility among young people for the children they bring into the world.

Peace
James

 

[Crowbar]

A pro-choice politian is more likely to appoint a pro-choice judge. This has affects that last longer than a 4-year political term.

By voting for a politician for a 4 year term, it could affect the laws on abortion for a decade or two.

 

[Myqyl]

WARNING : The link below is to a Christian website that states the abortion statistics since 1973… While it is not “offensive” in the traditional sense, it could very easily make you cry… Don’t go there if it will ruin your day.

Interesting that you “know” she is wrong. I’ve often wondered about that very thing. I’ve noted that abortion statistics don’t seem to follow the “logical path” during the years of so called “pro-life” and “pro-choice” administrations.

According to christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042 (which I hope we can all agree is not a pro-abortion or left wing website) abortions went down durning the Clinton administration and again are lower during the Obama administration then under President GW Bush.

Now as a Catholic, I’m highly suspisious that many of the programs were contraception based and resulted in abortions not classified as abortions since they were abortive contraceptions. I struggle with it.

However it seems clear to me that voting for the candidate that says “I’m pro-life” does not actually result in less deaths… In fact statistics seem to indicate the opposite.

Something to consider.

 

[SonCatcher]

WARNING : The link below is to a Christian website that states the abortion statistics since 1973… While it is not “offensive” in the traditional sense, it could very easily make you cry… Don’t go there if it will ruin your day.

Interesting that you “know” she is wrong. I’ve often wondered about that very thing. I’ve noted that abortion statistics don’t seem to follow the “logical path” during the years of so called “pro-life” and “pro-choice” administrations.

According to christianliferesources.com/article/u-s-abortion-statistics-by-year-1973-current-1042 (which I hope we can all agree is not a pro-abortion or left wing website) abortions went down durning the Clinton administration and again are lower during the Obama administration then under President GW Bush.

Now as a Catholic, I’m highly suspisious that many of the programs were contraception based and resulted in abortions not classified as abortions since they were abortive contraceptions. I struggle with it.

However it seems clear to me that voting for the candidate that says “I’m pro-life” does not actually result in less deaths… In fact statistics seem to indicate the opposite.

Something to consider.

That site does show a decreasing trend (with a handful of aberrations that, while tragic, may be statistically irrelevant) under the younger Bush, doesn’t really have any information about Obama’s at all and does show a long-term decreasing trend that started under the elder Bush. If anything happened in the Administive Branch that caused the downward trend, it happened under either Bush, Sr. or Reagan.

 

[pnewton]

So abortions peaked once during the Reagan administration and once again in the Bush administration.

 

[SonCatcher]

So abortions peaked once during the Reagan administration and once again in the Bush administration.

There was also a huge spike during the younger Bush administration that may not be related to policy (it quickly reduced within the same term).

 

[yellow8yellowM]

…However it seems clear to me that voting for the candidate that says “I’m pro-life” does not actually result in less deaths… In fact statistics seem to indicate the opposite.

This is no different than saying that in order to decrease slavery you should legalize slavery.

Even if the statistic is accurate, it does not imply which policies had which effect. In reality, this can never be known. Which is why it is always best to argue on principle alone. It is the strongest argument.

The Church teaches that one cannot commit an evil act in order to do good. Therefore, one cannot legalize abortions in order to reduce abortions, even if legalizing abortions did in fact reduce abortions.

 

[drea916]

I’m looking for flaws in the line of reasoning. People can argue statistics all day. I’m sure there is a dead theologian, such as Aquinas, that can articulate what I’m trying to say. Once people set aside the fact that there is a higher power and reject that we are made in the image and likeness of God, then we can do anything to each other. John Martinoni has a cd about- if there is no God, then Hitler was right.

Margaret Sanger (and the gang) believed that we were being cruel by helping the poor, that we were prepetuating the suffering. By helping the poor, it’s like feeding cats in your back yard, more and more of them are going to show up.

So, today we might have programs to help people choose life, but at some point we’re going to get tired of that. Some people are a waste of resources and need to be put to sleep.

 

[drea916]

Ultimately, my friend isn’t addressing my point. It’s very frustrating because her faith and formation is summed up in: God is love! and that’s about it.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Ultimately, my friend isn’t addressing my point. It’s very frustrating because her faith and formation is summed up in: God is love! and that’s about it.

But evidently, God doesn’t love unborn babies enough…

Because they don’t get a choice.

 

[JRKH]

Ultimately, my friend isn’t addressing my point. It’s very frustrating because her faith and formation is summed up in: God is love! and that’s about it.

But evidently, God doesn’t love unborn babies enough…

Because they don’t get a choice.

Amen Juliane…

While your friends’ basic premise of “God is Love” is fine one cannot stop there. One must work out from there.

“More government programs” is too broad an idea to be of much use…What types of programs and to what end???
And if “more government programs”, poorly aimed and administered, ultimately drive the whole nation into bankruptcy - what then?

I like the analogy of “feeding cats”. Because programs that simply reward poor behavior are not loving programs. They are quite the opposite.

Peace
James

 

[Myqyl]

This is no different than saying that in order to decrease slavery you should legalize slavery.

Actually I disgree. I think the analogy is flawed on many levels, but to use this analogy it’s like saying that slavery will be decreased by doing things that have decreased slavery in the past instead of voting for people that claim they are anti-slavery in order to get elected.

But I’m not fond of the analogy at all… It doesn’t translate well…

What is our actual goal where abortion is concerned? To end abortion or to overturn Roe v Wade? Will overturning Roe v Wade impact the number of abortions performed? Does it have any chance of actually “ending” abortion? All it would do is curtail legal abortions in a handful of states in the USA. I doubt it would have a profound impact on actual numbers.

So where does that leave us? How do we “end” abortion? I believe the only way is through scientific and medical advancements, coupled with social programs to support women that feel they have no other “choice” but to kill the unborn. You can make abortion illegal but that won’t stop the 15 year old rape victim of a brutal “father” from ending the child’s life. Perhaps nothing can. But to have social nets in place where that child could turn to someone for help “might” save the life of the unborn or prevent the next attack. Perhaps advancements in science and medicine will lead to a day when a woman that can not cope with a pregnacy can “end the pregnancy” without “ending the life” of her child. Perhaps we will see a day of “survivable abortions” where the fetus is transfered to an artifical womb and allowed to live. On that day, I pray that we all step up to give these innocent children homes.

None of this will happen with “cut taxes and programs to the bone” policies. Throw the poor under the bus and they will see little choice but to “terminate pregnancies”.

Pipe dream? Possibly… But assuming that if you elect one political party over the other is going to have any impact on abortion is just as big a pipe dream. Since Roe v Wade, we have had more Republican administrations then Democratic and nothing has changed. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is not the sign of a healthy mind.

God bless

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Actually I disgree. I think the analogy is flawed on many levels, but to use this analogy it’s like saying that slavery will be decreased by doing things that have decreased slavery in the past instead of voting for people that claim they are anti-slavery in order to get elected.

But I’m not fond of the analogy at all… It doesn’t translate well…

What is our actual goal where abortion is concerned? To end abortion or to overturn Roe v Wade? Will overturning Roe v Wade impact the number of abortions performed? Does it have any chance of actually “ending” abortion? All it would do is curtail legal abortions in a handful of states in the USA. I doubt it would have a profound impact on actual numbers.

So where does that leave us? How do we “end” abortion? I believe the only way is through scientific and medical advancements, coupled with social programs to support women that feel they have no other “choice” but to kill the unborn. You can make abortion illegal but that won’t stop the 15 year old rape victim of a brutal “father” from ending the child’s life. Perhaps nothing can. But to have social nets in place where that child could turn to someone for help “might” save the life of the unborn or prevent the next attack. Perhaps advancements in science and medicine will lead to a day when a woman that can not cope with a pregnacy can “end the pregnancy” without “ending the life” of her child. Perhaps we will see a day of “survivable abortions” where the fetus is transfered to an artifical womb and allowed to live. On that day, I pray that we all step up to give these innocent children homes.

None of this will happen with “cut taxes and programs to the bone” policies. Throw the poor under the bus and they will see little choice but to “terminate pregnancies”.

Pipe dream? Possibly… But assuming that if you elect one political party over the other is going to have any impact on abortion is just as big a pipe dream. Since Roe v Wade, we have had more Republican administrations then Democratic and nothing has changed. Doing the same thing and expecting different results is not the sign of a healthy mind.

God bless

Abortion is a side effect of contraception. Talking about any programs, politics, etc. has to be seen in the context of the societal failure of divorcing sex from creation. What we are combating goes much deeper than trying to stop women from going into PP to have an abortion. It’s going to take time, and a lot more effort than most Catholics or other pro-lifers are currently putting in. Over time, I believe that the contraception mentality will be reversed, but not in my lifetime. Maybe in my kids’ lifetimes.

We have a long battle ahead of us, and all the parts need to work together. If it is Roe v. Wade than can be overturned, great. If we can work to shut down the clinics and get doctors to stop doing abortions, even better. I don’t care for your idea of transplanting babies into some kind of artificial wombs, though. All I know, is I have to do what I can do. Until I am taken from this life, or until Jesus comes again (please!).

 

[Myqyl]

We have a long battle ahead of us, and all the parts need to work together. If it is Roe v. Wade than can be overturned, great. If we can work to shut down the clinics and get doctors to stop doing abortions, even better. I don’t care for your idea of transplanting babies into some kind of artificial wombs, though. All I know, is I have to do what I can do. Until I am taken from this life, or until Jesus comes again (please!).

I agree, but would add that if there are programs that help women and girls in crisis to give them real choices, great. If pre-natal care becomes accessable to everyone, fantastic. If adoption laws are rethought to make giving up a living child a viable alternative to killing them, even better. I’m not wild about the transplanting babies idea either honestly, but i see it as a viable alternative and MUCH more preferable than abortion.

Incidentally, I don’t consider myself “pro-life”. I cheered when Osama Bin Laden was sent to meet our Lord… I shed no tears over Jeffery Damier either… I am anti-abortion and reject the pro-life label… If we say we are “pro-life” we take the word “abortion” out of the debate. I am anti-abortion and I refer to opponets in arguements as pro-abortion. When they complain (which they always do) I ask why they object to the word if they don’t object to the act.

 

[DarkLight]

So, today we might have programs to help people choose life, but at some point we’re going to get tired of that. Some people are a waste of resources and need to be put to sleep.

Really?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m in a discussion with a friend. She claims that she is going to vote for the more abortion candidate because he offers more government programs. Abortions will be lowered if the mother feels like there is enough support. Therefore, she is actually voting the more prolife option.

I know this is wrong, but how do I articulate it to her? It is in a facebook post, so it has to be concise. Any ideas?

Thanks.

Government screws up everything it touches. We’ve heard the “rare, safe legal” argument over and over from candidates like Al Gore.

The democrat party has just put into its party platform that abortion is fine. That means they have an almost automatic preference for pro-choice candidates except perhaps in conservative districts.

Want to get rid of abortion? Repeal Roe v Wade. All it did was make it illegal for states to make abortion illegal.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

I agree, but would add that if there are programs that help women and girls in crisis to give them real choices, great. If pre-natal care becomes accessable to everyone, fantastic. If adoption laws are rethought to make giving up a living child a viable alternative to killing them, even better. I’m not wild about the transplanting babies idea either honestly, but i see it as a viable alternative and MUCH more preferable than abortion.

Incidentally, I don’t consider myself “pro-life”. I cheered when Osama Bin Laden was sent to meet our Lord… I shed no tears over Jeffery Damier either… I am anti-abortion and reject the pro-life label… If we say we are “pro-life” we take the word “abortion” out of the debate. I am anti-abortion and I refer to opponets in arguements as pro-abortion. When they complain (which they always do) I ask why they object to the word if they don’t object to the act.

Programs and help are already available through the Church. The government hasn’t helped yet, it just increases dependency and reduces people to children under the care of a Big Daddy.

The adoption laws are just fine, there’s just a dearth of babies because you can’t talk a girl out of abortion by saying, “have the baby and then give it up.” It just doesn’t work that way any more, thanks to abortion, which seems like a “clean” solution. There’s no shame in having out of wedlock children either, and help abounds, so almost no unwed mother homes any more.

Catholics are more than anti-abortion. We are pro-life because we believe in LIFE from conception to natural death. Some rare exceptions can be made for the death penalty but we are not to seek vengeance when God told us “Vengeance is Mine.”

 

[yellow8yellowM]

What is our actual goal where abortion is concerned? To end abortion or to overturn Roe v Wade?

Our goal must start with principles. What does it say about a society where abortion is legal? What does it say about a voter who votes for somebody who wants abortion to be legal?

The real question should be, what would we do if we knew that legalizing abortion would result in zero abortions?

I would still say to keep them illegal. It is better to live in a world where you have a right to life, even if it is at risk, then to live in a world which strips this right from you.

 

[ChemicalBean]

The adoption laws are just fine, there’s just a dearth of babies because you can’t talk a girl out of abortion by saying, “have the baby and then give it up.” It just doesn’t work that way any more, thanks to abortion, which seems like a “clean” solution. There’s no shame in having out of wedlock children either, and help abounds, so almost no unwed mother homes any more.

Adoption is not a “solution” to abortion any more than is greater contraception access.

Adoption should be considered when a child has no living natural parents, or is perceivably unavailable to parent and self-relinquishes that right (cases of war/refugees, extreme natural disaster, unusual and permanent health change, capital crime conviction, etc.). Poverty and level of maturity are not good reasons to force an adoption. Those conditions can and do change, and just as they are not reasons to condemn a child to death, they are not reasons to condemn a child and mother (or father) to the loss of unnatural estrangement.

Your post smacks of a judgmental sentiment. Nobody has claim over another’s child just because they think they could give it a “better life, if only that woman could be shamed into giving it away.”

The anti-abortion movement cannot expect to convince an pregnant mother not to abort by showing her ultrasounds of this precious human life that is dependent on her and so intimately bound to her, praise her for her courageous choice to carry the child to term and give birth, and then try to convince her that after successfully caring for 9 mos. of its most rapid development, she should just “give it away”. How ridiculous! Especially after all the worry, enduring nosy impolite stares, morning sickness, and forced self-sacrifice.