Trump calls out Biden on religion

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, being that I am neither pro choice, nor pro abortion (few are, btw) I cannot answer this. Of the women I’ve counselled, and I acknowledge this is anecdotal, no one wanted to have an abortion because of convenience or in order to have more sex.
 
VonDerTann said:
It is not the responsibility of the taxpayer or the church to fund “everything” a child needs. Those are the responsibilities of the parents, plural. Can the church and state help? Yes. But neither of those have unlimited resources.
Click to expand...
Why not? The “taxpayer” is forcing the pregnancy to term. Why shouldn’t he be responsible for his actions?
 
StudentMI said:
So the state should replace fathers. Interesting.
Click to expand...
THat is not my idea.

I am just pointing out that you have been calling the traditional evaluation “crazy.” Some have even been suggesting the state should step in to prevent abortion; if they do that, why shouldn’t the state provide the traditional support for the child they have protected.
 
Dovekin said:
I am just pointing out that you have been calling the traditional evaluation “crazy.” Some have even been suggesting the state should step in to prevent abortion; if they do that, why shouldn’t the state provide the traditional support for the child they have protected.
Click to expand...
For the same reason the state doesn’t provide everything to someone who was a potential murder victim.
 
StudentMI said:
For the same reason the state doesn’t provide everything to someone who was a potential murder victim.
Click to expand...
Who traditionally provides everything to potential murder victims?

People have advocated that the state step in and prevent abortions. Traditionally, those who force women to give birth provide for the child until he grows up; it is what the women are being asked to do. Why is it out of the question that the state that chose to be involved in the birth should provide the traditional support.

THis is not my position. I am just trying to find out what “preventing abortion” looks like.
 
StudentMI said:
Have you ever heard of a perverse incentive?
Click to expand...
You think that paying for a child through college would be an incentive for women to give birth? There is your solution. Women get abortions in part because they have no incentive to give birth. If you can provide an incentive, you will accomplish the prevention of abortions.
 
VonDerTann said:
Why not? Because at some level, if a woman has a baby instead of having an abortion, she’s going to have to do something to actually provide for the baby (outside of immediate adoption). Unfortunately, that’s called being a parent.
Click to expand...
So there is much discussion that I can’t post all the links, but decided to pull out this snip. Tag, your it.

Much of the discussion completely ignores the father of the child. I don’t need to tell anyone on this forum what results of a child growing up without a two parent household. Should society pay for every child that is born where the mother or mother and father can’t provide for the child’s needs. Ya’ll tell me.

Say we ban abortions, women are forced to carry to term, population goes up but nothing has changed regarding where family units are in the US. BTW, if we go by some estimates, the US population would be about 10% higher today than what it is if abortion was banned since Roe.

Who pays for the hospital and prenatal care? That certainly is a segment of being pro-life. Who pays the mother during her maternity leave? That certainly is a pro-life issue. Who pays for the day care so the mother can actually go back to work? Who makes certain there is safe housing and proper nutrition for the mother and child. Are these pro-life issues? Or maybe we should ensure that the mother has a living wage so she can pay for everything that is necessary to raise that or other children.

Child support won’t cover all those things, unless the father has a pretty good job. Maybe we could force the fathers into military or some type of work program where they would be forced to live in a barracks and all the money went to the mother to support the child. Then we could ensure they wouldn’t impregnate any more women and they wouldn’t have other kids to pay for.
 
Dovekin said:
You seem intent on converting people so that you can coerce people not to have abortions.
Click to expand...
“Coerce” is not a fair term. Conversion of the heart is opening oneself up with humility to allow God to work in us his will. The Holy Spirit can be quite coercive, but not so much to deny our free will. It is the call of love, not of law.

If enough people are converted, it is the love of God that we see in the smallest of his children that will bring about an end to this epidemic of abortions. There will also be greater love of the alien and stranger, more mercy to those condemned to die, and willingness to help the poor among us. I do not know which party would benefit the most, but both would benefit.
 
The taxpayer is no more forcing the pregnancy to term, than the taxpayer is “forcing” people to not do heroin when the state says it’s outlawed. No one says the taxpayer is on the hook for the care, feeding and support of heroin users.

Further, the state has to my knowledge never been responsible for “all a baby’s needs,” or “all a woman’s needs,” unless you’re considering, say, communism. In fact, there has never been a greater safety net now than at essentially any time in world history - again, unless you’re comparing present day society to practices that can never be replicated (like taking unwanted newborns and delivering them to monasteries to be raised as nuns).
 
Actually farron, I think that makes a lot of sense in many respects.
 
VonDerTann said:
According to the Guttmacher Institute (who I’m not sure I believe), 74% of abortions were procured
because “having a child would interfere with a woman’s education, work or ability to care for dependents.” In other words, lifestyle.
Click to expand...
No doubt there are a percentage who see.the extra car’s, hokiday house or expensive consumer goods as justification.

On the other hand, it can be as simple as “hubby and I already have x number of children, and we cannot put enough food in their bellies or clothes on their backs, let alone feed and clothe more, without me having more/Better paid work, which often requires more educatiion”. Which goes well.beyond “lifestyle” and is a legitimate concern.

The statement doesn’t seem to distinguish between the two groups.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
Again with this line of argument. Why?
Click to expand...
Because folks can’t live on fresh air and sunshine? And the warm glow of moral correctness is not always winderfully sustaining in the face of real.wprld problems?

Because prudence (inclusing prudently planning for one’s own future and that of one’s potential children) is a virtue?

Because the Church does NIOT have an attitude of " just keep pumping babies out and let God provide"?

And because I AM NOT seeing nearly enpugh pro-life solutions to theae concerns?

Please don’t assume I am.advocating abortion by any stretch, but we cannot be airy-fairy about the rel difficulties of having and raising children.
 
Last edited:
No I mean the avoidance of imputing personal responsibility for the choices women make in getting an abortion. We hear horror stories all the time even in pro life circles that oh this woman was forced into it, this woman was going through such tough times, etc. I don’t get this need to, for lack of a better word, ‘excuse’ all these women who get abortions.
 
Last edited:
StudentMI said:
No I mean the avoidance of imputing personal responsibility for the choices women make in getting an abortion. We hear horror stories all the time even in pro life circles that oh this woman was forced into it, this woman was going through such tough times, etc. I don’t get this need to, for lack of a better word, ‘excuse’ all these women who get abortions.
Click to expand...
Because women don’t get themselves preganat. It doesn’t happen in a vacuum. And so the choice is rarely if ever entirely their own.

Plenty are unduly pressured, tricked or manipulated, if not actually forced, either into having sex in the first place, into pregnancy, or into abortion.

That is why they deserve help and sympathy rather than blanket condemnation.
 
Right that’s the line of argument I don’t understand. It equates women to simply being passive victims of male sexuality. It’s silly and unrealistic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top