Which Party's policys are likely to increase the number of abortions?

[Andy T.]

Is this because you think the Church will provide an efficient safety net for the poor, widows, and orphans? And if so, won't that consume resources needed to build a new family life center with polished wood floors and a regulation basketball court? Surely you wouldn't suggest letting widows, orphans and the children of the poor fall through the cracks and starve and beg for bread on the streets.

The church does some work in this area but by and large we have abandoned that calling other than token efforts here and there. Can local congregations pay for the health care needs of widows, orphans and the children of the poor? No, not if it goes beyond simple things and involved hospitalization.

It is true that the Government should never have had to get into this business to start with. It is one of the callings of the Church. But we dropped the ball and show no real interest in picking it back up on a large enough scale to make government assistance for widows, orphans and the children of the poor unnecessary.

Poverty and how to alleviate it are complex issues - way too complex for the shallow thinking expressed in the OP. But I do have one simple solution to the abortion issue: Adoption.

 

[Andy T.]

Can local congregations pay for the health care needs of widows, orphans and the children of the poor? No, not if it goes beyond simple things and involved hospitalization.

By the way, I never said this, so I call strawman. Like I said, it is complex, and I don't buy into the faulty assumption that the gov't is our only answer. Or even the primary answer.

 

[Zaac]

I know what the answer should be. But it rarely is. The Church failed, pure and simple: a cursory glance at the pages of Charles Dickens' novels tells us that.

Correct again Matt. we failed and aren't doing nearly what we should be doing to correct it. God gave us ground and like in so many areas, we ceded it to the government.

The country is where it is because the Church continues to do things its way instead of God's way. Perhaps there are too many goats in the "Church house" running what the sheep should be running.

 

[InTheLight]

Now, some here may say, "Well, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place." Maybe. But why have the unborn child bear the punishment for the alleged sin of the parents? I've used 'maybe' and 'alleged' here advisedly, as we need to consider one or two scenarios other than the stereotypical 'feckless immoral single mom':

1. Married couple - three existing children. Husband main or sole breadwinner, so not in receipt of welfare. They try - successfully - to conceive a fourth child as on husband's wage they can afford this. Husband then loses job due to recession. Welfare benefit cuts by Republicans mean they can't really afford their three pre-existing children, let alone a fourth.

2. The same couple but husband loses job before they try for a fourth. They use contraception. It fails and wife becomes pregnant.

That'll do for starters. This is why I said on another thread re Dems and Reps 'a plague on both their houses'. I don't envy you your choice next month...

I'd like to comment on your post but I'm not understanding what you are asking. I think you are saying:

If poor married people cannot afford an extra child, the likelihood of more abortions increases, esp. if Republicans cut government welfare benefits. Is that your hypothesis? If it is, what is your question?

 

[Matt Black]

Not so much a question than a point: that it's not just Democrats and their policies which have the potential to increase the number of abortions carried out in the US.

Seek help from family, church, community. If none of those can help, then put the child up for adoption - plenty of childless couples in the U.S. who would oblige.

Your OP is faulty and shallow. As is your thinking on this matter. I encourage you to escape from your false assumptions that the gov't is the answer to every question.

All of that's been tried before - and failed. And, again, it amounts to punishing the child for the sins of the parents - fatally, in the case of abortion. So the premise isn't as faulty as you'd like it to be...

Plus, what do you mean by 'community'? The county? The state?

 

[Ed B]

By the way, I never said this, so I call strawman. Like I said, it is complex, and I don't buy into the faulty assumption that the gov't is our only answer. Or even the primary answer.

I mention widows, orphans specifically because we have a Biblical directive to tend to them. That is not a straw man. It is an attempt to recognize our repsonsibilities and the Churches ineffectiveness in dealing with them so the Government doesn't have to.

I agree with you that poverty and dealing with poverty is a very complex issue. Government isn't the only alternative and I never said it was.

 

[Zaac]

Poverty and how to alleviate it are complex issues - way too complex for the shallow thinking expressed in the OP. But I do have one simple solution to the abortion issue: Adoption.

Adoption by whom? When the members of the Church are having abortions too, it kinda cuts out a large chunk of folks who will adopt.

Again, abortion is thriving because folks "in the Church" are helping it to thrive.

As goes the Church, so goes the country and the world.

 

[Andy T.]

There are plenty of people out there willing to adopt. Matt, by community - i mean local - the people whom you live by.

Sorry, I don't buy the OP's premise that the gov't is the only (or even best) solution to poverty.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm not saying it is, either. But equally I'm saying that it is part of the solution.

 

[Matt Black]

Another way in which Republican policies hurt the more vulnerable members of society

 

[Revmitchell]

The government did not step in to take care of people in need because the church failed. I am not sure where that ignorant argument ever came from but it is far from the truth. The government got involved because of the Marxist movement around the world and the indoctrination of our colleges. It is an anti-God movement that lefty Christians have bought into hook, line, and sinker. and it has nothing to do with what the church has or has not done.

 

[Matt Black]

So the churches were doing a great job, were they?

 

[Revmitchell]

So the churches were doing a great job, were they?

There is no cause and effect going on here. And there is not enough tax money in the world to solve that problem. We need real solutions not government control.

 

[Matt Black]

It's not an 'either/or' zero-sum game, surely?