Too many right-wingers in this forum?

[SoCalRC]

And are now at their lowest level in two or three decades.

Ah, spin, a favorite… The rate of decline is actually down, and even has reversed direction in some states (abortion rates have actually gone up in some states). So, single party rule combined with more secular laws appears to have not had a positive net effect.

Further the report you are citing is from the Guttmacher Institute. They also finished a report showing that, world wide, legal status has only a negligible effect on actual abortion rates. Should we assume that you are only insterested in their findings that support what you want to believe?

And how does this prove laws to restrict or eliminate abortion will not work, or be counter-productive?

You answered your own question - provided you actually read what you cite.

 

[SoCalRC]

Who puts their own money where their mouth is? Looks like it is not liberals. I think anyone who wants to cast general broad-based aspersions on Catholic conservatives (by definition religious in the study) should at least consider the facts and read this book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” which was written by an liberal academic as well as the Catechism on “Offenses against the Truth.”

abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

Actually, there are several good studies on this. Non religious liberals give more than non religious conservatives (about 6% more). But self identified ‘religious’ folks from both groups give more, and about the same.

 

[SoCalRC]

Hmm, taking notes here on new salvation strategies. It seems to be: “find a good hearted Christian who believes in the power of prayer and provoke them into praying me into heaven and do all the heavy lifting”. “Salvation by extortion” . It seemed to work well for Saul when he persecuted St. Stephen since he later became St. Paul. I like it!

Be careful, I have no particular reason to believe that my appeals carry much weight. Since the provocation in this case is bearing false witness, it might be a net-loss…

That said, it is funny you mentioned St. Paul. I heard an Iraqi Catholic nun give an interview yesterday and she made a similiar reference to intercession and redemption.

And, I really do try to repay anger with prayer.

Peace

 

[rpp]

Boy, talk about a thread that was been derailed. I thought this thread was about based on too many right-wingers on the Catholic Answers forum, not about anti-Catholic assertions that abortion should not be illegal.

And the charity level is quite low.

Between the hijacking and the insults, I am surprised anyone is hanging around.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ah, spin, a favorite… The rate of decline is actually down, and even has reversed direction in some states (abortion rates have actually gone up in some states). So, single party rule combined with more secular laws appears to have not had a positive net effect.

Ah, spin, a favorite… The numbers are actually down.

 

[ribozyme]

Who puts their own money where their mouth is? Looks like it is not liberals. I think anyone who wants to cast general broad-based aspersions on Catholic conservatives (by definition religious in the study) should at least consider the facts and read this book “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism” which was written by an liberal academic as well as the Catechism on “Offenses against the Truth.”

abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730

beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html

But while the rich do give more in overall dollars, according to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, people at the lower end of the income scale give almost 30 percent more of their income.

Many researchers told us lower income people give more because they think they are more likely to need charity or know someone who needs charity.

Why aren’t the rich munificent? Must we “steal” from them? Guess we didn’t read Carnegies’ Gospel of Wealth. I guess charity is a regressive tax… too bad that the wealthy do their best to evade that “tax” too by paying less of their income. Thanks for showing the unreliability of charity.

It also stands to ask what do the wealthy (conservative) people give to… they are unlikely to need charity. Oh wait, they do… corporate welfare.

The wealthy conservative families that have been the early bread and butter of the movement and continue their support are relatively well known at this point, including Scaife from Pittsburgh, Lynde and Harry Bradley from Milwaukee, Joseph Coors from Colorado; and Smith Richardson from North Carolina. Important networking goes on at the Philanthropy Roundtable, where groups are showcased.

But the key today to keeping the message machine fed is what Stein calls the “investment banking matrix,” which includes key conservatives like Grover Norquist, Paul Weyerich, and Irving Kristol, who raise, direct, and motivate. Stein estimates there are about 200 key people who invest an average of $250,000 a year and about 135 of them also serve on the boards of the Big 80 groups

alternet.org/mediaculture/21192/?page=2

Now do you have any evidence that the tax cuts that they received now go to private charities? Want to find a study on it for me.

I guess conservative charity is far more effective; the progressive cause is heavily outgunned:

For example

15.4 million for CBPP
+
5.5 million for Economic Policy Institute

vs.


33.6 million for the American Enterprise Institute (and that is only one of the policy institutes that they have)

And yes, we do believe that the government should intervene… However, I do think it is better for one to donate to charities such as MSF as they help people who do not have a government to rely on.

 

[cynic]

If there is insufficient resources in such charities, it is the consequence of what is lacking in our hearts (yours, mine and those around us). And if they are not, in my prudential judgment the problem is not morally solved by using the power of the state to take from the wealthy to solve this problem. If I am not willing to provide to the same percentage, I believe for me to demand greater than others is morally wrong. This is my prudential judgment and I ask that it at least be respected even though you may disagree.

.

I agree in the perfect society everyone pays the same percentage of income tax. However if we accept that some level of assistance is appropriate for afformentioned person, and that the consequences of not providing help are serious, then the question is who should bear a greater part of the burden if a flat tax system isn’t going to make it possible. (ignoring company tax). Yes a government in theory should treat all of it’s citizens equally, and therefore the graduated tax system is unjust. But is it really worth it if a large % of children grow up illiterate every year, x% become homeless every year. The state acted in perfect accordance with moral principles, but ignored some basic realities, didn’t provide any safety net, relied on voluntary charitiable donation which inevitably wasn’t enough, and now society has a bit of a problem on it’s hands…hmm what to do with these people

Again, you are mischaracterizing libertarianism, except for the most extreme. Ron Paul the libertarian running for President as a Republican is pretty mainstream among libertarians. You are describing the extreme fringe of a fringe group. Libertarianism allows for taxation for what they deem legitimate purposes of government. They just have a more extreme view of the principle of subsidiarity than most. So? They can even be good faithful Catholics excercising their prudential judgment. And, such extreme “subsidiarists” should be careful to examine their position in light of Catholic Social Teaching just as extreme “redistributionists” like Dorothy Day could reach extreme positions using their prudential judgment without being outside Catholic principles of subsidiarity. Personally, I love Dorothy even when I disagreed w/ her. I do wonder why those who oposethe policies of Catholics who support capitalism are so vitriol toward them. It certainly doesn’t show much respect.

I suggest you look at a the policy section in a few libertarian party websites. For eg the U.S party lp.org/

Nowhere is there mention of *any *level of state assistance for anyone, under any circumstances. If I might summize, everyone pays a flat 6% income tax - just enough to fund law enforcement, the armed services, coastguard etc. If this is official party policy - then why would somebody who’s views are at variance describe themselves as libertarian?

 

[Michael_Francis]

This thread has drifted off topic and is now closed.