The greater evil: poverty or abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Uncle_Norbert said:
Therein lies the challenge. A child’s education is not a product of a school system alone. It is ultimately directed by the parents.

A parent’s (name removed by moderator)ut and participation is generally affected by their socio-economic level. Thus, much poverty is reproductive, figuratively and literally.
Click to expand...
Very insightful.

Which is why I draw a strong distinction between Charity and Social Justice. It is Charity (of a sort) to feed and house those sunk in poverty – but it ain’t Social Justice.

Social Justice would be to give every child – regardless of his background – a first class education.

Now to educate children of single parents who have never had a job, who are on drugs, and who were themselves raised in a similar environment isn’t easy. But that shouldn’t excuse us from turning our back on these children – which is what we’ve been doing for the last few generations.
 
Well, I wouldn’t exactly say we’ve been turning our backs…at least not recently.

“No Child Left Behind”, and similar programs (state testing programs that create school systems that teach the test instead of the 3 R’s, for example) have dragged down our current school system to one of “the least common denominator”.

Social Justice in that form doesn’t work, unfortunately.

The Catholic school in our city is legendary for the bright kids it turns out…often at a grade level above the public system.

Is it because the Catholic School is THAT great?? Not likely. The truth is, that 99% of the kids coming out of the Catholic school are coming from families who’s parents are interested, active, and involved in their children’s education.

I don’t think a “school system” is going to address that. It will more likely have to be some sort of large-scale mentoring programs for kids who’s parents aren’t involved in their kids educations…
 
Uncle_Norbert said:
Well, I wouldn’t exactly say we’ve been turning our backs…at least not recently.

“No Child Left Behind”, and similar programs (state testing programs that create school systems that teach the test instead of the 3 R’s, for example) have dragged down our current school system to one of “the least common denominator”.

Social Justice in that form doesn’t work, unfortunately.
Click to expand...
We’ve been through all that.

No Child Left Behind does not “drag down our current school system.” Quite the contrary – for the first time, it makes schools accounable. You can go to your state “report card” on the web and see how it’s working in your state and distict.
Uncle_Norbert said:
The Catholic school in our city is legendary for the bright kids it turns out…often at a grade level above the public system.

Is it because the Catholic School is THAT great?? Not likely. The truth is, that 99% of the kids coming out of the Catholic school are coming from families who’s parents are interested, active, and involved in their children’s education.

I don’t think a “school system” is going to address that. It will more likely have to be some sort of large-scale mentoring programs for kids who’s parents aren’t involved in their kids educations…
Click to expand...
In that case, why have the school system at all, if it can’t educate the children of the poor?
 
pontoon said:
I am surprised that I would find poverty listed as evil. Many priests take the vow of poverty. I would think the poor maybe closer to Jesus than anyone. I don’t consider poverty evil, perhaps some governents that keep their citizens in poverty and starving are evil and can be guilty of mass murder.
Click to expand...
I consider it evil as a utilitarianian because poverty involves suffering.
Nope - without life there can be no poverty.
Click to expand...
As a [negative utilitarian](http://www.utilitarianism.com/p(name removed by moderator)rick-argument.html), I sometime wonder if the world would be a better place if it was empty because of the current suffering in this world. I do not advocate mass genocide as an answer because that would involve extreme cruelity and suffering.
 
ribozyme said:
As a [negative utilitarian](http://www.utilitarianism.com/p(name removed by moderator)rick-argument.html), I sometime wonder if the world would be a better place if it was empty because of the current suffering in this world. I do not advocate mass genocide as an answer because that would involve extreme cruelity and suffering.
Click to expand...
And because that would get your tail caught in the crack.😃
 
ribozyme said:
I consider it evil as a utilitarianian because poverty involves suffering. And yet the poor do not commit suicide in droves. Possibly your perception of the level of the suffering or joy in their lives is not entirely shared by them.

As a [negative utilitarian](http://www.utilitarianism.com/p(name removed by moderator)rick-argument.html), I sometime wonder if the world would be a better place if it was empty because of the current suffering in this world.Better for whom? Mountain lions? Certainly not for people, virtually all of whom would prefer to live. I do not advocate mass genocide as an answer because that would involve extreme cruelity and suffering.As does abortion, of course.
Click to expand...
 
Someone here correct me if I’m wrong, but…

When Jesus was crucified, I believe the only thing he owned was his garments. Jesus was also born into poverty.

Most of us would consider ourselves poor (at least economically) if the only thing we owned was the cloths we are currently wearing. So are we saying that Mary should have considered having an abortion rather than allow Jesus to be born into poverty??? Perish the thought!!!

Yet He comitted no sin or any evil. Therefore, poverty in and of itself is not evil.

However, abortion is always sinful.

And lets not forget that (especially in this country) someone born into poverty can work their way out of it. There are options. The Lord has chosen to breathe life into this person. That means He has a reason for this person to live. Let’s at least give that person the chance to live the life the Lord want’s them to live.

Andy
 
I consider it evil as a utilitarianian because poverty involves suffering. And yet the poor do not commit suicide in droves. Possibly your perception of the level of the suffering or joy in their lives is not entirely shared by them.
Click to expand...
As a negative utilitarian, I sometime wonder if the world would be a better place if it was empty because of the current suffering in this world**.Better for whom? Mountain lions? Certainly not for people, virtually all of whom would prefer to live.** I do not advocate mass genocide as an answer because that would involve extreme cruelity and suffering.As does abortion, of course.
Click to expand...
When I say empty, I meant no life. I could easily image physical constants that would not be amiable for the existence of life.
 
Deacon_Ed_B said:
To Herbert
How is it wrong for Catholics to take a stand against something that is inherently wrong. If we believe it is morally wrong, we should not do it. Another example would be for one to believe that murder is ok and expecting us to say thats ok because thats what you believe. Sin, by any other name is still sin. Because some Catholics use contraception, which is wrong, does not make the argument that those who practice their faith fully, should condone it. This is totally erronious logic. it does not become OK
Deacon Ed B
Click to expand...
Hi Ed,

I agree. My argument was against hypocrisy in terms of how we treat the poor, not against people who practise it fully advocating for what is right.

I take great joy in being involved in a Catholic group that fights for justice for and against exploitation of the poor. We also teach NFP to the poor, as providing contraception would not be acceptable - however we do this in the context of loving addressing of other material, spiritual, relational, and emotional needs too.

What I’m saying is that such advocacy against isn’t really fair if it’s grounded in hypocritical action on the part of the advocates, while the only detrimental impact is on the poor. When we’re working to give them a fair chance in life, and working against people exploiting them, well, it really dignifies the advocacy work even more.

Hope that’s clearer. 🙂

Cheers,
Herbert
 
Thanks, I now see where you were coming from. Yes hyprocracy is rampant. We should all teach by example.
Deacon Ed B
 
Herbert said:
The point (stand) I made was that Catholics in their stand against contraception and abortion cannot afford to be hypocritical. It cannot be a case of “do what we say, not what we do”.

It is unfair for Catholics to be working against contraception being accessible to the poor IF THEY THEMSELVES are using it. We’re almost pactising a form of patronising eugenics if we do that.

Yes, love is the answer. When we work for justice and against the exploitation of the poor we give extra dignity to our public advocacy work. We demonstrate that love is really the driver behind our actions, and that we are not content to simlpy campaign against contraception while large numbers of our group use it all the same, but consider the poor worthy of our love enough that we work to give them real options in life, and the ability to provide for their children.

Hence,no , I don’t believe handing out condoms is a good answer to poverty. You work to make enough food for all, not reduce the places at the table…Hope that’s all clear this time.🤷

Actually, high fertility rate is characteristic among the impoverished of the world.

When relationships are broken down so much by poverty, it’s poor to poor, and riich to poor. Both.
Click to expand...
High fertility rate? A low fertility rate suggests contraceptive practice.
 
Here are some interesting statistics.

From: Poverty in America

heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:
Click to expand...
  • Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Click to expand...
  • Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Click to expand...
  • Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
Click to expand...
  • The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Click to expand...
  • Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Click to expand...
  • Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Click to expand...
  • Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Click to expand...
  • Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Click to expand...
As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.
Click to expand...
 
Poverty is not an evil. It is a blessing. How else do we have the opportunity to perform the mitzvah of almsgiving?

Matthew
 
Can someone define poverty. I am not sure if we have defined it here. I think we have defined stravation and certainly we are all against that. But is poverty in the United States being on welfare, having a home, tv, food, clothes, and free medical care. I don’t think that is poverty.

Are the Bush people in poverty or is it their way of life. Who is better off people living in the bush or us? Who is poor then?
It certainly is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Are making profits evil? So what is poverty? I think many rich people are poor in spirit and many poor people are rich. So are we saying poverty is evil or are we saying being rich is evil? But we all know what murder is and of that there is no debate.
 
pontoon said:
Can someone define poverty. I am not sure if we have defined it here. I think we have defined stravation and certainly we are all against that. But is poverty in the United States being on welfare, having a home, tv, food, clothes, and free medical care. I don’t think that is poverty.

Are the Bush people in poverty or is it their way of life. Who is better off people living in the bush or us? Who is poor then?
It certainly is harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Are making profits evil? So what is poverty? I think many rich people are poor in spirit and many poor people are rich. So are we saying poverty is evil or are we saying being rich is evil? But we all know what murder is and of that there is no debate.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that many people who are rich are poor in spirit, but no higher a percentage that poor people who are poor in spirit.

I think people like Anna Nicole Smith and Brittany Spears are both rich and poor in spirit. And I think the drug addict stealing to support his habit may be officially classed as poor, but is also poor in spirit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top