Roe v. Wade - Anti-Abortion Folks Don't Do Enough to Support Single Mothers

[Luigi]

Others say: People who oppose abortion don't do enough to support mothers and their babies/children. You are anti-abortion but you are not really pro-life." 

I reply: That's simply not true.

1. It's not really my responsibility to take care of other people's children. Since Adam met Eve, in every culture on the face of the earth, the parents are primarily responsible for their own children. Often, members of extended families also contribute to the care and feeding of children - grandparents, single aunts & uncles, siblings, cousins, etc. I've been the beneficiary of that kind of familial support myself. 

2. But all working women and men do, in fact, contribute to the care, feeding, housing, clothing, and education of other people's children every day by paying their taxes, which are the source of government funds for WIC, AFDC, public education, free health care, etc. No one in America wants to see anyone else in America go hungry, or thirsty, or homeless, or uneducated, or unhealthy, so we allow at least three levels of government to take some of our hard-earned dollars and use them for the public good, including the good of other people's children. 

3. Virtually every person in this country - religious or not - does, in fact, contribute to the care of other people's children regularly by contributing to back-to-school supplies drives, Thanksgiving food collections, Christmas toy drives, diaper drives, donations to scholarship funds, buying (unwanted and unnecessary) fundraising pizzas, popcorn, gift wrap, ready-to-bake pastries, and a vast array of other goods. 

4. People who make the "Not X Enough" argument usually have no other viable argument to present, so they resort to this ad hominem argument. 

[fides' Jack]

And it's also true that Catholic organizations are largely responsible for the creation of pregnancy centers and mothering homes that specifically cater to these babies that we would rather see live than die.  Pro-life people have a record of providing the most, and the best, support for single mothers.

[Nunsuch]

Do a basic correlation between the members of Congress who vote against abortion and who vote against aid to single mothers and children. The correlation is high. So the premise here is flawed. Those who are pro-choice are much more likely to vote for assistance to the poor. This is partly partisan (Democrats are more supportive of social programs; Republicans are more opposed to abortion), but the result is still the same.

[little2add]

On 5/27/2022 at 12:21 PM, Nunsuch said:

So the premise here is flawed.

touché.  However, it may be your thinking that's flawed, my Dear. 

  Bringing a child into the world and the cost to care, feed and love said offspring for the rest of your  life (or at least until after college) is a tremendously difficult and taxing undertaking no matter of your status in life (rich or poor).  

Government healthcare to pay the cost for abortion and the harvesting of pre-born organs is not only immoral, it voilates our freedom of religion. 

BTW: I would much rater be poor with my children and grandchild than a well-off childless confirmed bachelor, any day of the week.

Life can be struggle (and should be)  and in the end choosing to  raise a child or more, will make you a better person and greatly improve your quality of life!

J.M.J.

 

Edited May 28, 2022 by little2add

[Nunsuch]

@little2addI hope you are happy. And, while what you say may be true for you, it is not for everyone. There are many opinions (as opposed to fact) in what you say, and of course you are entitled to your opinions. But they cannot be confused with facts.

[little2add]

3 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

I hope you are happy.

[little2add]

37 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

There are many opinions (as opposed to fact) in what you say,

what did I say that was nonfactual?

please elaborate

[fides' Jack]

I would just say voting to aid single mothers does not mean actually aiding single mothers.  When we're talking about social welfare programs, by design most of the money in those programs is wasted, anyway.  What's not wasted is simply monetary incentive for fatherless homes, which makes the whole problem worse.  This is why the vast majority of minority communities in big cities are filled with single mothers; they are not stupid, if they know they can make more off the government or keep more for themselves than if they are living with a man, especially when they aren't married, it's a no-brainer.

Of course it's not always true, but in general government programs like those hurt more than help.  So if a pro-life Republican votes against welfare programs for single mothers, what he's doing is voting for the single mother and against the government program.

What does help single mothers are private organizations like the one in my city that just opened multiple locations and will give single mothers a home, for free, for months to help them get back on their feet, and they actually help her find a job and provide child-care.  Of course, real help like this comes, as I stated, mainly from pro-life, conservative groups.  The left is against this kind of help, probably because it actually works.  

Edited May 28, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Luigi]

On 5/27/2022 at 11:21 AM, Nunsuch said:

Do a basic correlation between the members of Congress who vote against abortion and who vote against aid to single mothers and children. The correlation is high. So the premise here is flawed. Those who are pro-choice are much more likely to vote for assistance to the poor. This is partly partisan (Democrats are more supportive of social programs; Republicans are more opposed to abortion), but the result is still the same.

It could be that Democrats prefer government-mandated and government-administered benefits and that Republicans prefer voluntary administration of benefits (exercise of personal freedom). The voluntary administration of benefits (of any kind) actually correlate with the Catholic concept of charity (voluntary exercise of the free will) much better than government-mandated, which removes all-or-most charitable motivation from the transaction.

[fides' Jack]

3 minutes ago, Luigi said:

It could be that Democrats prefer government-mandated and government-administered benefits and that Republicans prefer voluntary administration of benefits (exercise of personal freedom). The voluntary administration of benefits (of any kind) actually correlate with the Catholic concept of charity (voluntary exercise of the free will) much better than government-mandated, which removes all-or-most charitable motivation from the transaction.

Replace "Republicans" with "Conservatives" and I think this is spot on.  Anymore Republicans are basically Democrats in hiding.

[Luigi]

1 minute ago, fides' Jack said:

Replace "Republicans" with "Conservatives" and I think this is spot on.  Anymore Republicans are basically Democrats in hiding.

I was using Nunsuch's terms from the parenthetical statement. I don't really care which terms are used - they're all squishy. 

[Nunsuch]

15 hours ago, Luigi said:

It could be that Democrats prefer government-mandated and government-administered benefits and that Republicans prefer voluntary administration of benefits (exercise of personal freedom). The voluntary administration of benefits (of any kind) actually correlate with the Catholic concept of charity (voluntary exercise of the free will) much better than government-mandated, which removes all-or-most charitable motivation from the transaction.

I believe that Democrats are more likely to believe in the centrality of structural injustice. This is also Catholic Social Teaching, going back at least to Pope Leo XIII (Rerum Novarum). Charity is not at the center of Catholic Social Teaching, though it is important.

[Credo in Deum]

On 5/27/2022 at 9:21 AM, Nunsuch said:

Do a basic correlation between the members of Congress who vote against abortion and who vote against aid to single mothers and children. The correlation is high. So the premise here is flawed. Those who are pro-choice are much more likely to vote for assistance to the poor. This is partly partisan (Democrats are more supportive of social programs; Republicans are more opposed to abortion), but the result is still the same.

 Democrats are more willing to support social programs which are basically social safety nets for reckless behavior; behavior which is contrary to the commandments and therefore contrary to true charity.  It would be unwise for a pro-life person to support such programs which incentives single parenthood, fatherlessness, and the abortion culture. Those who do not care about safeguarding the family likewise don't care about killing a baby. 

Clearly, there are those who are single parents through no fault of their own. However, current social programs do not care about such distinctions, so until these programs are reformed, no one should be funding them.  Are Catholics called to support single parenthood?  

 

This we know to be true. 

People would think twice about what they do if abortion is no longer legal. 

People would think twice about what they do if we limited aid programs to single parents who met certain criteria.  

 

 

[Nunsuch]

So—even if you are correct, which I don’t concede, innocent children should suffer? How very pro-life (and Christian) of you. No wonder people reject the church, with such self-righteousness and judgmentalism. 

[Credo in Deum]

11 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

So—even if you are correct, which I don’t concede, innocent children should suffer? How very pro-life (and Christian) of you. No wonder people reject the church, with such self-righteousness and judgmentalism. 

There is nothing self-righteous about it, nor is there anything unloving about it.  No one is saying we shouldn't help those in need, but there is a difference between helping those in need and supporting social aid programs which incentivize a way of life contrary to the gospel just so you can score human respect points.

Did an all loving God spare us from the consequences of our first parents' sin?  No. 

Did he still show us mercy while not condoning such actions which lead to our fall.  Yes. 

Democrat social programs create safety nets for sinful behavior! You support this sinful behavior when you support their social programs. 

  

 

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Credo in Deum