Who will you be supporting in the U.S. presidential election with our Catholic values in mind?

[drcube]

I realize the dems use this argument to cover their support of abortion. But the reality is they don’t do anything to support young mothers either, and haven’t for decades. The last thing anybody did to help young mothers was the Earned Income Credit, and that was Reagan’s. One of my favorite charities are a home for women in danger of abortion and an order of sisters whose vocation is to provide for them. The government isn’t helpful at all in those areas. I will admit the prolife Republican legislature in my state gives tax credits for donations to mothers’ homes.

I would disagree as many of the medical service programs are supported primarily by Democrats. We had Senator Brown calling out Senator Hatch on it not so long ago. There are other programs such as welfare and school lunch programs that are also supported by Democrats.

But even if the Dems did do things for young mothers, that does not excuse promoting the murder of unborn (and for some, even born) children.

I think you confuse legal abortion with promoting murder. They aren’t the same thing. But why not attack the root cause of abortion, sex outside of wedlock, since 86% of all American abortions are performed on unmarried women.

Some legislative efforts help, like driving Planned Parenthood out of my state. But filling the Supreme Court with prolife justices is ultimately the solution. Clinton promised to apppoint pro-abortion justices. Trump promised to appoint prolife justices, and did.

It’s hard to tell if they help. Have there been any studies that suggest abortion goes down more in states with more restrictive laws than elsewhere?

And filling the Supreme Court will only overturn Roe v Wade and give it back to the states where the vast majority of the population will continue to live in states where abortion is legal.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I would disagree as many of the medical service programs are supported primarily by Democrats. We had Senator Brown calling out Senator Hatch on it not so long ago. There are other programs such as welfare and school lunch programs that are also supported by Democrats.

No Repub is going to support a medical program that includes abortion. Dems do, of course.

Our school lunch programs are state. Our legislature and governor are Repubs.

I think you confuse legal abortion with promoting murder.

Deliberately killing innocents is deliberately killing innocents. The Church, of course, opposes sex out of wedlock and abortion. But of the two, the second is by far the worst.

Have there been any studies that suggest abortion goes down more in states with more restrictive laws than elsewhere?

I couldn’t say. But the Dems do not have to insist that I support it or explain to children or grandchildren why the state promotes abortion.

And filling the Supreme Court will only overturn Roe v Wade and give it back to the states where the vast majority of the population will continue to live in states where abortion is legal.

Might be. Those who are okay with killing innocent children will no doubt do whatever they can to keep it legal.

 

[Mark121359]

There is evidence that their concern for the pre-born is not perfect either.

And I don’t recall anybody on here saying they were. But you have got to admit that the Dems concern for the pre-born is off the charts disturbing…no? I mean these people are troubling to watch when they’ve been “honored” with the Margaret Sanger Award. Here’s what HRC said when she was so “honored.”

“Now, I have to tell you that it was a great privilege when I was told that I would receive this award. I admire Margaret Sanger enormously, her courage, her tenacity, her vision … And when I think about what she did all those years ago in Brooklyn, taking on archetypes, taking on attitudes and accusations flowing from all directions, I am really in awe of her.”
~Hillary Rodham Clinton~

 

[drcube]

No Repub is going to support a medical program that includes abortion. Dems do, of course.

Our school lunch programs are state. Our legislature and governor are Repubs.

What does this have to do with Republican Senators failing to support medical service programs for poor children? And, yes, there are certainly gaps in supporting social programs between Democrats and Republicans.

Deliberately killing innocents is deliberately killing innocents. The Church, of course, opposes sex out of wedlock and abortion. But of the two, the second is by far the worst

The former causes the latter.

I couldn’t say. But the Dems do not have to insist that I support it or explain to children or grandchildren why the state promotes abortion.

Well, it seems like a critical point. If you don’t know what causes a reduction of abortion, you don’t know where to put the energy into reducing it.

Might be. Those who are okay with killing innocent children will no doubt do whatever they can to keep it legal.

And those who aren’t okay with it should put effort where it will actually make a difference.

 

[Feanor2]

Democrat politicians,

Democra"tic" politicians. FTFY

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is evidence that their concern for the pre-born is not perfect either.

And I don’t recall anybody on here saying they were. But you have got to admit that the Dems concern for the pre-born is off the charts disturbing…no?

On the one specific issue I raised - universal pre-natal care and delivery services, the Dems are much more likely to promote it than Republicans, who seem to value lowering taxes above all else.

 

[BTypical]

Lowering the abortion rate is good, but I think it’s more important to have the law recognize that the unborn have a right to life.

Which one of these saves more lives?

 

[dvdjs]

Which one of these saves more lives?

Which has a higher likelihood of occurring?

 

[Ridgerunner]

You say this, but you have never demonstrated a cause/effect relationship. Since far and away most abortions worldwide are by married women, a difference in the U.S. does not demonstrate different causation, even if it’s true. And it might not be true.

 

[drcube]

You say this, but you have never demonstrated a cause/effect relationship. Since far and away most abortions worldwide are by married women, a difference in the U.S. does not demonstrate different causation, even if it’s true. And it might not be true.

Wow. You are in denial that sex outside of wedlock results in abortion? You will go far to protect your favorite politicians.

86% of pregnancies outside of wedlock in the United States result in abortion. That is vastly more than pregnancies inside of wedlock. How can you deny what is obvious?

The reason that it is different than the rest of the world is because much of the world uses abortion as a contraceptive (especially Eastern Europe) instead of avoiding sex or using contraceptives inside of marriage when they don’t wish to get pregnant.

 

[Victoria33]

Wow. You are in denial that sex outside of wedlock results in abortion? You will go far to protect your favorite politicians.

86% of pregnancies outside of wedlock in the United States result in abortion. That is vastly more than pregnancies inside of wedlock. How can you deny what is obvious?

The reason that it is different than the rest of the world is because much of the world uses abortion as a contraceptive (especially Eastern Europe) instead of avoiding sex or using contraceptives inside of marriage when they don’t wish to get pregnant.

I thought the post you are quoting does say “outside of the USA”; and by the way, Poland has rock bottom abortion rates, probably among the lowest in the world, that is Eastern Europe.

Russia, Ukraine, Romania probably have high rates.

Hungary with new policy, probably has low rates but that data would be very recent.

As long as mentioning US abortions out of wedlock, let’s remember, demographics generally show minorities getting more in some cases, very disproportionately to their percentage of the population. Far East Asians may be an exception to the rule.

 

[drcube]

I thought the post you are quoting does say “outside of the USA”; and by the way, Poland has rock bottom abortion rates, probably among the lowest in the world, that is Eastern Europe.

Russia, Ukraine, Romania probably have high rates.

Hungary with new policy, probably has low rates but that data would be very recent

Poland is the exception in eastern Europe.

As long as mentioning US abortions out of wedlock, let’s remember, demographics generally show minorities getting more in some cases, very disproportionately to their percentage of the population. Far East Asians may be an exception to the rule.

What do you suggest we learn from minorities getting more abortions? How should that affect policy?

 

[Victoria33]

What do you suggest we learn from minorities getting more abortions? How should that affect policy?

What have we learned? One can easily try to look up what African American pro-lifers say. We are revisiting now, a subject that I don’t believe flatters the forum. Like her or not, Candice Owen is one voice who has talked about how abortion has obliterated the community. One can look that up for oneself. She is pretty clear.

 

[drcube]

What have we learned? One can easily try to look up what African American pro-lifers say. We are revisiting now, a subject that I don’t believe flatters the forum. Like her or not, Candice Owen is one voice who has talked about how abortion has obliterated the community. One can look that up for oneself. She is pretty clear.

Candace Owens says a lot of things that most African Americans disagree with (besides her pro-life stance). Your comment of “look (it) up” doesn’t really answer the question. What do you suggest we learn from minorities getting more abortions and how do you think that it should affect policy?

 

[Victoria33]

Candace Owens says a lot of things that most African Americans disagree with (besides her pro-life stance). Your comment of “look (it) up” doesn’t really answer the question. What do you suggest we learn from minorities getting more abortions and how do you think that it should affect policy?

First off, close down Planned Parenthood whose clinics are notoriously more found in minority neighborhoods per some reports. Second off, defund Planned Parenthood, they make political endorsements, why should they receive tax payer money.

Just because a voice is in the minority, does not mean it is wrong. Oh, and as for prominent black pro-lifers, Reverend Childers, Star Parker, the Black Pro-life League, Ben Carson.

But back to the voices of a minority, do most blacks know that the founder of Planned Parenthood said in her writings that minorities were to be targeted? Even set up a project for doing such? Referred to some groups of people as weeds?

Trump’s support from blacks at the very least, appears to be growing. Billions have been poured into the inner city under Trump, there appears to be less strife now.

Even Charles Barkley who I believe is mostly neutral:

Charles Barkley Says Democrats 'Do Nothing' for Black Voters

"We need to start holding you Democrats accountable," Barkley said in a new interview.

www.newsweek.com

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Planned Parenthood whose clinics are notoriously more found in minority neighborhoods

They go where the demand is. Rich folks has lots of options for abortions. Also despair is higher in minority neighborhoods, which leads to more abortions. Also unwed pregnancy is more common in some minority neighborhoods. All this speaks to demand. And I haven’t even mentioned the non-abortion services that have higher demand in minority neighborhoods. Despite the eugenics theories , the location of clinics is not some plot to exterminate minority races as some have alleged.

 

[drcube]

First off, close down Planned Parenthood whose clinics are notoriously more found in minority neighborhoods per some reports. Second off, defund Planned Parenthood, they make political endorsements, why should they receive tax payer money.

It’s struck me as odd the loyalty that PP gets from many women. It is clear there was a failure to meet the basic medical needs of women in the 60s and 70s that created a lot of positive goodwill towards PP. I don’t know if closing PP is an answer (they will play martyr) as much as meeting women’s medical needs through other means (taxpayer supported community clinics and such).

Just because a voice is in the minority, does not mean it is wrong. Oh, and as for prominent black pro-lifers, Reverend Childers, Star Parker, the Black Pro-life League, Ben Carson.

I’m inclined to listen to a majority in a population that I am not a member of. It’s not that I don’t think it can be wrong, but more that I don’t understand a culture and try to avoid placing my own values on that group.

But back to the voices of a minority, do most blacks know that the founder of Planned Parenthood said in her writings that minorities were to be targeted? Even set up a project for doing such? Referred to some groups of people as weeds?

She was not a nice person.

Trump’s support from blacks at the very least, appears to be growing. Billions have been poured into the inner city under Trump, there appears to be less strife now.

Hard to say. There is little good data yet.

Even Charles Barkley who I believe is mostly neutral:

Charles has a point.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

It’s struck me as odd the loyalty that PP gets from many women.

To be fair, could it be lack of alternatives, if Republicans stepped up and really stepped, couldn’t they help scale up Community Health Centers not only to serve as a replacement for those in need of things like STD Screening, Care and Treatment and Breast and Cancer Screenings but work as an avenue for basic medical access like primary and preventative care and others? Maybe a Community Health Service (like an NHS) could serve as part of a solution to health care reform?

(taxpayer supported community clinics and such).

Yes! To be fair, is this an area where the GOP can soften, bolster support for Community Health Centers as well as efforts to support families like Family Resource Centers (which is already a thing but perhaps can be scaled up)?

 

[Ridgerunner]

To be fair, could it be lack of alternatives, if Republicans stepped up and really stepped, couldn’t they help scale up Community Health Centers

And where are the Democrats in all this stepping up?

 

[drcube]

To be fair, could it be lack of alternatives, if Republicans stepped up and really stepped, couldn’t they help scale up Community Health Centers not only to serve as a replacement for those in need of things like STD Screening, Care and Treatment and Breast and Cancer Screenings but work as an avenue for basic medical access like primary and preventative care and others? Maybe a Community Health Service (like an NHS) could serve as part of a solution to health care reform?

There are certainly opportunities to help these women that the government neglects to do.

Yes! To be fair, is this an area where the GOP can soften, bolster support for Community Health Centers as well as efforts to support families like Family Resource Centers (which is already a thing but perhaps can be scaled up)?

I agree.

And where are the Democrats in all this stepping up?

Do you mean besides trying to make sure everyone is insured and creating tax breaks to help those are poor having insurance so they could get their medical needs meant?