We Can do More (pro life)

  • Thread starter Thread starter OnAJourney
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
undead_rat said:
Because of these laws some unwed fathers choose to facilitate an abortion for their pregnant girlfriend rather than be forced to make monthly child-support payments for 18 years.
Click to expand...
Another set of data/study/report I’m interested in reading! Please, link this for me. Thanks!
 
undead_rat said:
One way would be to eliminate child-support laws that require an unwed father to support his child for 18 years.
Click to expand...
Isn’t this assuring that there is now no responsibility on the men? It’s already mostly a woman’s burden. Now you want to remove even a financial burden from the other half of the pregnancy?
 
Pattylt said:
Now you want to remove even a financial burden from the other half of the pregnancy?
Click to expand...
What I want to do is to reduce the incidence of abortion; to prevent human beings from being murdered.
For myself, that goal takes precedence over other considerations. Do you or do you not agree?
 
Last edited:
It depends how you define “many resources.” Anyhow, when I wrote that sentence, I assumed it was common knowledge that many women who abort are married. I had recently read an article from a pro-choice source which corroborated this anecdotally. I went through my history and can’t find this article now.

But you can check out the Guttmacher Institute, which is suggesting 59% of those who have an abortion are married. However, on further inspection, according to the Iona institute, it appears the Guttmacher Institute lumped in married with “single with a partner.” Now, to me, that’s common law marriage and still goes to proving my point, that it isn’t just young teenage girls and young single women who are getting abortions.

Now, I admit I could do more research, but that was never my intent. The thread was more about brainstorming on how we can reduce abortions. I was just pointing out a blindspot. I notice when I was in a pro-life group, they’d place all their ads on buses and light rail transit, as if women with cars don’t get abortions. Now, to me, having a car is a sign of wealth, but of course it isn’t for most people in the States who absolutely need their car. Where I live, you don’t need a car. All I’m saying is married women have abortions.
 
undead_rat said:
What I want to do is to reduce the incidence of abortion; to prevent human beings from being murdered.
Click to expand...
I don’t think not mandating child support would do that. Part of me thinks that if a woman can murder her child it would be fair not to require the man to pay if she doesn’t but while a man may encourage a woman to murder her child so he doesn’t have to pay the woman may be more inclined to murder her child if she can’t rely on child support.
 
Nobody is saying that child-support will disappear if unwed fathers are no longer threatened with incarceration for failure to pay child support. That is why our taxes would have to go up. Society as a whole will ensure that all children receive their financial support.
So the question is: “Are we, as advocates of reducing the incidence of abortion, willing to pay a little more in order to take a small step in achieving that goal?”
I have never seen any support whatsoever from the pro-life movement for taking this simple step, only resistance to the idea. I think that this points out a certain hypocrisy.
 
Before judging people’s hypocrisy, you should probably show some proof that your idea has merit and would actually help change anything.

I suspect most people aren’t following how your idea would be a good one at all.
 
Dr_Meinheimer said:
Before judging people’s hypocrisy, you should probably show some proof that your idea has merit and would actually help change anything.

I suspect most people aren’t following how your idea would be a good one at all.
Click to expand...
If anyone is “not following” it is only because they don’t want to and do not like the idea. It is just plain as day that unwed fathers promote and facilitate abortion to avoid mandatory child-support payments for 18 years. No “proof” should be needed for something that is an obvious and well known fact.
 
Even if that was true, promoting less responsibility as a means to a problem of abandoning responsibility does not seem like something the Church would endorse.

Providing assistance to those strapped with caring for the child, yes, of course. Absolving them of responsibility will naturally just punish the mother.
 
I don’t think that additional government regulation will be a fix. I think the thing that needs to change is the hearts and minds of citizens regarding, sex, marriage, and children. This starts in the home and in the Church. We need to continue to teach people that Marriage is a good thing, a god ordained institution meant for our blessing. It is where husband and wife work together to accomplish God’s will in society, where we raise children, where we cultivate values and character, where men and women work with one another instead of against one another to accomplish God’s will here on earth. We need to view sex as just as sacred an institution. That sex outside of marriage is an abuse of God’s gift, and that we need to stop treating it as a worthless commodity, and safeguard it. When we abuse God’s gift of sex outside of the God ordained institution of marriage there are natural consequences: unintended pregnancy, poverty, disease, degeneration of the soul, we lose respect for the opposite gender, etc. We need to view children as a blessing, we need to view parenthood as a God ordained obligation and duty to not just birth children, but to raise them in the instruction of the Lord. As Churches and families, where there are unwanted pregnancies where the party having the child is considering abortion, we need to step up and provide assistance willingly, be willing to raise the children of our family members with them, etc. The last thing we want to do is rely on the state to do this. The state will not and is not equipped to teach the Christian view of sex, marriage, and children. If our answer is to ask the state to do this for us, we will be shocked at the results.
 
I agree that the goal is to eliminate abortions! Of course I do! What I want to know is:
How many women get abortions because the father doesn’t want to pay for 18 years.
How many potential fathers either use contraception or avoid sex so they won’t have to pay for 18 years.
How many men even consider ANY consequence when ready to engage in sex.

If excusing men of financial obligation but providing it by government would actually reduce abortions then I would consider it.

However, I think it likely that most Americans would think, “I’m not going to pay more more taxes just so Joe Schmoe doesn’t have to claim responsibility. That’s the hurdle we’d need to jump over.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Honestly, I think the solution is to get the politics out of the Pro Life movement. If I were king, the Federal Government would not give a penny to CPCs. The Pro Life movement could support these efforts all on their own.
Click to expand...
That’s nice But the pro-choice side has even taken measures to outlaw CPCs. So, to think government is going to get out of this argument seems unrealistic, at least for the immediate future.

https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...akes-up-challenge-by-crisis-pregnancy-centers

The government will stay in this topic, pro-ifers shouldn’t give up ground on high–minded ideals.
 
Last edited:
Planned Parenthood receives around half a billion dollars a year, it’s been down as far as say, $350 million but this seems to be a big deal that the pro-life side has tried to do. Get planned parenthood defunded, it’s happened in individual states. So, there is quite an attraction for the pro-choice side to keep those funds rolling in unfortunately.
 
Pattylt said:
I agree that the goal is to eliminate abortions! Of course I do! What I want to know is:
Click to expand...
Actually I don’t. I know that’s never going to happen. Yes, it is nice and a worthy goal but honestly my higher priority is having an unborn child’s right to life recognized by the law.
 
Me personally I’m not really keen on the government funding PP, especially considering PP is a private non profit. They shouldn’t be receiving anything in terms of government money.
 
I don’t think it’s ever going to happen either but I still think it is a worthy goal. You don’t?
 
OnAJourney said:
Me personally I’m not really keen on the government funding PP, especially considering PP is a private non profit. They shouldn’t be receiving anything in terms of government money.
Click to expand...
I agree, in fact, any of these not-for-profit type agencies that get federal money need to be looked at, say, the National Educatiors Association (or whatever NEA is). Now, the government gives grants to help with housing of people. That part I don’t object to. PP should not get any funding.
 
Do you realize how many Catholic non profits also receive government money? A Catholic orphanage recently had to shut its doors when it had to decide between obeying its beliefs and receiving government funding that kept it going or obeying government law and remaining viable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top