President Trump's pro-life proclamation

[HomeschoolDad]

I pray to Almighty God that He would raise up a virtuous, pro-life Democrat to challenge their party and rally the troops

Aside from support for gay marriage (and the Republican Party doesn’t oppose gay marriage anymore either, they treat it as a settled issue), what, precisely, would the Democrats have to change?

Unless we want to go all Chesterbelloc and insist that the society and economy become this mass of smallholders, guilds, tradesmen, and shopkeepers, where no one institution (besides the Church) is all that big or powerful, I don’t see how Democratic “big government” is intrinsically contrary to the Gospel. As I always say, people of goodwill can legitimately differ as to how much government should solve people’s problems in life, and what the smallest and lowest entity is, that can best accomplish any given task in the public order.

 

[Dan123]

Nor do I. But I completely disagree with people who say capital punishment is in its essence wrong.

Frankly my own objections are more practical and kind of boil down to - do I think the state can run such a system perfectly? That is do I think they’ll ever get it wrong and execute an innocent person. There’s reason to think we may have already happened. If the state executes an innocent person they do so in our name, the state is us, and so in some small way we all become guilty of that. Perhaps not legally, and we certainly don’t have knowledge of the act being wrong when we do it so perhaps not in that sense either, but an innocent person is, or I’m quite certain if not yet, will, be dead because we felt we needed this type of permanent punishment in our society.

 

[Rau]

“He makes a lot more than I do. Why shouldn’t I have some of his money?”

We say something similar to this whenever we endorse a progressive tax system. But it is not quite as self-Centred as your friend’s statement. We see merit in a less skewed distribution of wealth rather than seeing merit in “more for me”,

 

[upant]

Aside from support for gay marriage (and the Republican Party doesn’t oppose gay marriage anymore either, they treat it as a settled issue), what, precisely, would the Democrats have to change?

a vote for a democrat supports more than just abortion, don’t limit it.

by voting democrat, you support the entire LGBT agenda, euthanasia, embryonic
stem cell research, transgenderism, identity politics, the destruction of the family, contraception, socialism, liberal judges who will uphold these policies, etc

if the Dems win you can look for them to, try to break the seal of the confession, forcing abortions to be performed in Catholic hospitals, forcing the church to perform same-sex marriages, remove the tax privilege, etc.

If the state executes an innocent person they do so in our name, the state is us, and so in some small way we all become guilty of that

is it equally so with abortion, especially if you vote for the candidate expanding abortion. do we become guilty of almost 600,000 deaths a year?

 

[Dan123]

is it equally so with abortion, especially if you vote for the candidate expanding abortion. do we become guilty of almost 600,000 deaths a year?

No, because the decision isn’t being made by the state it’s being made by the pregnant woman; not in your name and not to ostensibly protect you.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

No, because the decision isn’t being made by the state it’s being made by the pregnant woman; not in your name and not to ostensibly protect you.

That means that if a particular entity that is not the state is allowed to kill criminals in its place then we would not be responsible.

 

[upant]

No, because the decision isn’t being made by the state it’s being made by the pregnant woman; not in your name and not to ostensibly protect you.

the state allows her to make that choice, we are guilty

if there was a law against it we would not be guilty

IMHO

 

[Dan123]

the state allows her to make that choice, we are guilty

if there was a law against it we would not be guilty

IMHO

Fair enough. As I said above it’s my reasoning doesn’t have to be others. I find more of a disconnect with abortion both in whose making the decision and the reason behind it. But I can understand and appreciate your position as well.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

a vote for a democrat supports more than just abortion, don’t limit it.

by voting democrat, you support the entire LGBT agenda, euthanasia, embryonic
stem cell research, transgenderism, identity politics, the destruction of the family, contraception, socialism, liberal judges who will uphold these policies, etc

I would put euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research under the umbrella of “life issues” along with abortion. As far as transgenderism, I’m not sure the Republicans oppose this — as I said, they have accepted gay marriage as settled law. Very few people, including Republicans, have any problem with contraception — the American economy largely depends upon reliable contraception being available to all women of child-bearing age. And as far as identity politics are concerned, whether we like it or not, people have every right to vote according to the interests of the affinity group with which they associate themselves. For my part, I do not vote against the interests of straight, conservative white Christian males who embrace traditional values, because I happen to be one (and my son is one as well).

if the Dems win you can look for them to, try to break the seal of the confession, forcing abortions to be performed in Catholic hospitals, forcing the church to perform same-sex marriages, remove the tax privilege, etc.

Aside from some mess that Beto O’Rourke was talking about religious tax exemptions — and he is yesterday’s news, contrary to his own bragging, he was not “born to be in it” — what Democrats do we hear endorsing these sorts of things?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

by voting democrat, you support the entire LGBT agenda, euthanasia, embryonic
stem cell research, transgenderism, identity politics, the destruction of the family, contraception, socialism, liberal judges who will uphold these policies, etc

Some of these things are the same thing under a different name.

 

[JSRG]

JSRG:

This proves they have the ability to give more to charity if taxes are lowered. But do they donate every dollar of that thousand dollars to charity? That is the important question, and one you did not answer. You need to provide proof that in such cases, people would take all of that money–or at least a substantial amount of it–and give it to charity. Without that proof, the argument of “tax people less and they’ll give the money to charity” is null.

The ABILITY is what I was talking about. What is the point in talking about choices when we’ve already stripped away the ABILITY to make those choices in the first place.

The argument, as I understood it, was that if the government taxed people less, then people could give that money to charity which (supposedly) was more efficient than the government. But the argument falls apart if it cannot be demonstrated that a substantial portion of the money not taxed will in fact go to charity.

Maybe you were making a different argument–but you didn’t really express it that well, then.

Here’s what YOU need to prove: Prove to me why you or anyone has the right to FORCE other people to give to charity. Prove to me why you or the government or anyone has the right to say, “Hm…so and so won’t give to charity unless I force them to, and therefore, I have the right to use the power of government to FORCE them to help other people.”

That argument works for ANYTHING the government pays for. One might as well say:

“Prove to me why you or the government or anyone has the right to say, “Hm… so and so won’t fund the military unless I force them to, and therefore, I have the right to use the power of government to FORCE them to support the military.””

or

“Prove to me why you or the government or anyone has the right to say, “Hm… so and so won’t pay salaries for government officials unless I force them to, and therefore, I have the right to use the power of government to FORCE them to pay those salaries.””

Unless you’re willing to go all the way to adopting the “taxation is theft” idea, which has its own flaws, your argument here is untenable and inconsistent.

 

[Poet]

Okay, well good news that isn’t what people are generally talking about, so his thoughts don’t represent the actual issue. Not sure why you mentioned your outlier friend as if he represents the norm.

If we’re talking about ‘distribution’ of wealth and ‘re-distributing’ the wealth, this is exactly what it means. Somebody who makes more needs to be divested of some of their money and it needs to be re-distributed to those who have less.

Most people just aren’t so blatantly crass as my friend in the way they word it.

 

[Poet]

Sorry, no, paying for necessary services that people can’t provide for themselves is a far cry from being told ‘You WILL support the government ‘charity’ programs because we don’t trust you to give to charity on your own.’

 

[upant]

what Democrats do we hear endorsing these sorts of things?

Salt Lake City, Utah, Jan 16, 2020 / 03:01 pm (CNA).- A Utah legislator’s proposal to remove protections for priests and other clergy who hear confessions of the sexual abuse of minors has drawn significant criticism from Catholics and other commentators.

Philadelphia can require its foster care agencies to adhere to its nondiscrimination polices, a federal judge said Friday in a decision that could have national repercussions.

U.S. District Court Judge Petrese B. Tucker found that the city did not violate the religious liberties of Catholic Social Services (CSS) when it suspended its contract with the agency for foster-care services after discovering that the agency would not work with same-sex couples. (phila inquirer)

under obama (bold mine)

the Department of Health and Human Services has taken Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act, which prohibits “sex” discrimination in the provision of health care, to mean that hospitals, insurance companies and other health care entities that receive federal funding must cover or perform abortions and sex-reassignment surgeries, even if doing so would violate their religious beliefs.

In 2014, two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex “weddings” or face a 180-day jail sentence and a $1,000 a day fine. The ministers sued and won, this time. (LSN)

Aside from some mess that Beto O’Rourke was talking about religious tax exemptions — and he is yesterday’s news,

don’t be so sure he won’t be in a position of influence

According to the Houston Chronicle, “With Texas Democrats nine seats away from retaking the majority of seats in the Texas House, O’Rourke is trying to convince his donor base to send money to an organization called Flip The Texas House, which has targeted 17 House Districts in which Republican candidates won by fewer than 10 percentage points last year. More than half are districts in which O’Rourke won the majority of votes as he ran for U.S. Senate.”

 

[Rau]

the American economy largely depends upon reliable contraception being available to all women of child-bearing age.

How did the economy cope in previous times?

 

[Dan123]

Women were socially ostracized or outright banned from the workplace making them dependent on male breadwinners.

 

[Rau]

Sorry, no, paying for necessary services that people can’t provide for themselves is a far cry from being told ‘You WILL support the government ‘charity’ programs because we don’t trust you to give to charity on your own.’

This is the democratic process of representative government is it not? The majority elects. The majority makes the laws within the constraints of the Constitution. When the majority opposes progressive taxation or the governments involvement in welfare programs, or overseas aid, etc, those things could be expected to change.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

the American economy largely depends upon reliable contraception being available to all women of child-bearing age.

The economy was not nearly as robust as it is nowadays. Women have entered the workplace en masse, usually in careers and lines of work that are not compatible with having many children to care for, or to arrange for their care. Reliable birth control has made all of this possible. It has morphed into a situation of both parents normally having to work, and there is no full-time homemaker to run the domestic scene. For most people nowadays, having only one breadwinner would mean scaling back the family’s lifestyle to a level of simplicity and frugality, if not genteel poverty, that modern Americans find distasteful. Add to this, that in many homes, there is a mother and children, but no father — he’s gone or was never there in the first place — and that mother has to work. Children stay in daycare or after-school programs, and very often get home at nightfall. Then there’s homework — my son’s former school assigned tons of it, so much that we wondered just what they did (or didn’t do) all day, that meant all of the work had to be sent home to do at night.

What a mess. Set into motion, in large part, by one little pill. I wouldn’t even have to be Catholic to see that there is something wrong with this picture.

 

[pnewton]

Whoever wrote this did an amazing job. Donald Trump presented it in a dignified and presidential manner. However, abortion law will follow the will of the people. This is a powerful step toward showing the best face of what it means to be anti-abortion. The next step is to follow up the proclamation with a consistent life ethic and leave behind the gap between being pro-life and pro-birth. Leading Americans from their ignorance into an appreciation of the dignity of human life at all stages and in all people will do more to end abortion than any law, mandate, or appointment.

 

[Peeps]

Sometimes jobs don’t provide enough money.

And sometimes, people don’t make enough money because they don’t show up for their job. They quit, often without notifying their employer.

My brother’s company is constantly hiring laborers. The pay is decent for someone just starting out. But the work is very hard physically, and many new hires quit after less than two weeks.

Meanwhile older ones like my brother shake their heads and wonder whatever happened to intestinal fortitude. All of them started out the same way–hard, dirty physical labor. And they stuck it out and now they are paid very very well–they’ve earned it through the years by demonstrating their work ethic.

I also think it’s worth noting that many people have difficulty with transportation to and from work, especially women who have small children who have to be dropped off at a childcare center or child-caregiver. Many of these folks have unreliable cars if they even have a car, and in small cities like mine, the public transportation system is totally inadequate. It’s really hard to get up at 3 in the morning to get sleepy grumpy children ready to go out into the cold, drop them off at at daycare center (which probably isn’t even open until at least 6:00 a.m.), drive to a job, then pick the kids up (in the dark in the wintertime) and spend an evening trying to be a decent parent when all you want to do is collapse into an easy chair and rest after a hard day’s work! It’s even harder when there is no spouse or live-in partner to help with the child care, housework, shopping, cooking, etc. And then try having that job during the 2nd or 3rd shift hours and finding transportation! I think most of our bus lines shut down after 10 p.m., and the few that run all night only do a few routes–it’s just not practical to rely on public transportation at night–and not safe either in many of our neighborhoods

IMO, it would be better to spend tax money on better public transportation rather than handing it to people who use it as a means to not finish more education/vocational training and not look for gainful employment.

And I also think that the government ought to get over its terror of emphasizing marriage, and do a lot of education on the advantages of marriage as opposed to trying to make a go of things as a single parent. When you look at the statistics, a very large number of public aid recipients who are unemployed or underemployed are single women with children–where’s DADDY!?