Why is helping the poor not important in electing a president?

[St_Francis]

I never said that poverty should be eliminated by the governent, did I? You are making an assumption and putting words into my mouth that I never spoke.

It is amazing how people misunderstand the clear posts I have made.

I’m sorry, I posted that without looking it over then deleted it. This was what I wanted to put:

No one is advocating that evil be done to supposedly do good. Where have I advocated that?*All I turned to was Catholic Social Teaching that proclaims ALL life as equal. Poverty does kill, just as sure as abortion does. Lack of early detection of fatal illness because of no medical insurance, poor diet leading to health issues, lack of adequate housing, etc… all of these lead to early death. We should be equally concerned about both, as they are against the dignity of humankind and life itself.

While you may not be *advocating *doing evil, you are contending that deaths “caused by poverty” should be totally equal in importance to Catholics as abortion is. This is what I gather from your posts, and what I am arguing against. I am arguing against it because what you are saying is erroneous and because your argument is being used by many people to advocate voting for a man who is more pro-abortion than NARAL, so it is an important point.

You write that poverty kills as surely as does abortion. No, it does not. Abortion is the direct killing of a human being. It is an attack against a human being with the intention of causing death. Few survive abortion, and many are killed.

However, poverty is not a direct attack on a human being for the purpose of causing death. In fact, it is extremely rare that any person’s poverty is caused by the actions of another (which is not to say that the poor cause it themselves).*

Abortion is an evil act which every person should avoid, and which in the course of the government’s function as protector of those within its borders should prohibit. As an evil to be avoided, it has first priority in our decisions, just as we have to avoid robbing banks even if we give the proceeds to the poor.

 

[houseofsaul]

That is simply false. Why do you feel the need to lie?

Issues of Life and death take precedence over all else for Christians.

Atheistic socialism does not help the poor as you claim. Free enterprise and freedom of religion does.

Being poor takes on a whole new ball of wax on issues of Life and Death. Poor doesn’t always mean we are living in Poverty, poor sometines means we work for a living, make just enough to not qualify for benefits, but still cannot always maintain the basic needs of life.

 

[Kenny_Kamel]

So for everyone saying that Romney doesn’t support abortion and Obama does, what exactly do you think would happen with abortion if Romney is elected? Would it be outlawed? Would less people have abortions? How would this be accomplished?

I don’t support Romney or Obama but I would vote for Romney on the abortion issue because it would be a vote against Obama who is unequivocally the most pro-abortion president (and perhaps politician) in this nation’s history. I have no illusions about Romney actually being able to change anything related to abortion in American upon becoming president but the flipside of the coin is that WE KNOW that Obama has no reservations about increasing abortions, contraception, and pretty much every intrinsic sexual evil as stated by his party platform and further evidenced by his actions as a politician for over a decade.

For example, in 2002 then Illinois State Senator Obama was against legislation that protected children who were born after failed abortions (tantamount to MURDER by neglect).

Link: weeklystandard.com/blogs/audio-obama-says-fetus-or-child-was-just-not-coming-out-limp-and-dead_650611.html

Also you could even argue that helping the poor would lower abortion rates. I can only imagine that many abortions are done for financial reasons. So even if Obama supports abortion and Romney doesn’t, I think you could make the argument that Obama’s policies of helping the poor could arguably stop more abortions than Romney just saying he is against abortion.

These “policies” you describe are lip service the like which every politician espouses. You previously asked what would happen to abortion if Romney was elected, what if I had asked what would happen to the poor if Obama was elected in 2008. I’ll give the verdict, not only are they still poor but there are MORE poor people four years later with no hope in sight. Here is some commentary I made in another recent thread:

One has to realize that when most Democrats talk about anything related to social justice it is just lip service and they do next to nothing that actually serves as a positive benefit to those they claim to be helping. Most often they “help” the poor by keeping them poor and dependent on the government which engenders political support from the dependant.

Democrats do not care about social justice in the same way that they care about creating and expanding government power and bureaucracy. They want your taxes and your votes and your dependancy, this party has been doing this for 100+ years and many people still can’t see though the mist. I suppose when you have a charismatic leader like Obama constantly speaking in platitudes and cliches that can arouse intense emotion you don’t need any actual substance let alone follow though.

Government social justice =/= Catholic social justice

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9760457#post9760457

 

[austenbosten]

But isn’t it the poor who usually turn to abortion because they feel they cannot properly care for a child…rarely do ou hear the story that abortion is performed because of a child cramping their lifestyle. I am sure those happen but you don’t hear of those since the Morning After Pill has come into play.

You know in dem olden days they used to give the baby up for adoption…and it was cheaper than abortion…you know kinda like how it still is today.

 

[Justice_Mercy]

I’m sorry, I posted that without looking it over then deleted it. This was what I wanted to put:

While you may not be *advocating *doing evil, you are contending that deaths “caused by poverty” should be totally equal in importance to Catholics as abortion is. This is what I gather from your posts, and what I am arguing against. I am arguing against it because what you are saying is erroneous and because your argument is being used by many people to advocate voting for a man who is more pro-abortion than NARAL, so it is an important point.

You write that poverty kills as surely as does abortion. No, it does not. Abortion is the direct killing of a human being. It is an attack against a human being with the intention of causing death. Few survive abortion, and many are killed.

However, poverty is not a direct attack on a human being for the purpose of causing death. In fact, it is extremely rare that any person’s poverty is caused by the actions of another (which is not to say that the poor cause it themselves).*

Abortion is an evil act which every person should avoid, and which in the course of the government’s function as protector of those within its borders should prohibit. As an evil to be avoided, it has first priority in our decisions, just as we have to avoid robbing banks even if we give the proceeds to the poor.

I do believe I see where you are coming from. I know that abortion is active murder of an unborn child. However, I do maintain that poverty also kills. We cannot go by “active” death or numbers alone. It is not a choice of either/or for me or one over another… I oppose both abortion and poverty with equal energy, because both are a blight and both demand our attention as Catholics.

I appreciate discussing this issue with you. We may not agree fully, but we are both part of what can help battle these horrible social evils.

 

[houseofsaul]

You know in dem olden days they used to give the baby up for adoption…and it was cheaper than abortion…you know kinda like how it still is today.

The poor who are considering abortion do not see adoption as an option. Cannot afford healrthcare, will lose their jobs taking off for dr appointments or feeling under the weather caused by pregnancy.

I am all for adoption as an option if you were to pick between that and abortion. But as many have pointed out, the past doesn’t matter since we live in the present.

IMO Obama will win. Not because he is the lesser of the two evils, but after four years we already know what to expect and Romney doesnt bring anything to the table that says he will do better, so being creatures of habit, IMO people will vote for what they know than taking the chance that it could get worse.

 

[fix]

That’s still a Utilitarian judgment of one type of human life or numbers of human lives being more valuable than another. Doesn’t anyone see that? Utilitarianism is NOT Catholic social teaching… EVER!

No, what is uitilitarian is urging people to vote for a pro abortion candidiate claiming that in some strange way that will decrease abortion.

 

[Justice_Mercy]

No, what is uitilitarian is urging people to vote for a pro abortion candidiate claiming that in some strange way that will decrease abortion.

well, I never urged anyone to vote for a pro-abortion candidate nor have I claimed what actions will lessen abortion, so I do not know why you are using my statement to make some point it isn’t regarding.

I suggest you use your own words to make your own point and not link my words with something i wasn’t discussing

 

[St_Francis]

So for everyone saying that Romney doesn’t support abortion and Obama does, what exactly do you think would happen with abortion if Romney is elected? Would it be outlawed? Would less people have abortions? How would this be accomplished?

Well, these are good questions.

1. The composition of te Supreme Court is extremely important to the issue of abortion. It is the Supreme Court which can overturn Roe v Wade. It is the USSC which rules on the laws limiting abortion, laws like informed consent and obtaining the consent of a 13-year-old’s parents before she can have an abortion. Obama has made it perfectly clear that he thinks abortion should be completely unrestricted for all at any gestational age.
2. Obamacare requires that some of the exchange policies have abortion coverage, but you can’t find out if the policy you are considering is one of those or not. Moreover, Obamacare does not require that maternity costs be covered–it is common for maternity to be covered separately. So under Obamacare, if a “child” of 26 or under becomes pregnant, there is a great likelihood that an abortion would be covered but not the costs of pregnancy.
3. Romney would probably rescind the requirement that all employers must cover for all the “necessities” of a sexual lifestyle when they want to avoid babies. This requirement is a violation of natural law and common sense, and even under the US system of law a violation of religious liberty. Obama will never rescind it.
4. The president does not have much effect on the number of abortions because there are just too many variables which go into each decision.

Also you could even argue that helping the poor would lower abortion rates.

Anyone can argue anything. But reality shows that at the same time that help for the poor and education about birth control was going up, so were the number and rates of abortions.

I can only imagine that many abortions are done for financial reasons. So even if Obama supports abortion and Romney doesn’t, I think you could make the argument that Obama’s policies of helping the poor could arguably stop more abortions than Romney just saying he is against abortion.

Then why has no one truly *made *this argument? Why has no one shown the facts and figures of reductions in abortions rates relates to increases in government aid to the poor?

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember that discussions of political parties or candidates are not allowed in the Social Justice forum. Thank you for your cooperation.