What government plans do you support to reduce abortions?

[GodLovesCats]

The most frustrating part of discussing abortion with people who totally oppose it except to save the mother's life is when challenged, they never answer the title question. So I am putting it here hoping all abortion opponents will stop dancing around the extremely obvious and repeatedly proven fact that without a lot of help from the government, hundreds of thousands of pregnant girls and women need abortions for many justifiable reasons. It is literally impossible to oppose both abortion and all government programs that can prevent most of them unless you happen to be a misogynist whose real intention is to control women, which I am sure no Christians are because they believe in love.

One reason I am a Democrat is I want the number of abortions to drop. I want all of the reasons many girls and women suffer psychologically, physically, and socially during their unwanted pregnancies to nearly disappear. I also want the reasons women who wanted babies, but suddenly find themselves unable to care for them, to be gone. Only the federal and blue state governments can do that for them.

So, what do you want the federal government to do to help pregnant girls and women who lack the ability and resources to carry their unborn babies for nine months and take care of them for the next 20 years? What would be your plan if you were a politician? Would you prefer they get all their help from states or the federal government? Keep in mind we are not talking about crisis pregnancy centers here because they have very limited resources and, as Catholic Church-based organizations, will do nothing for non-Christians who need help. It truly is the government or nothing, no matter how she got pregnant or why she is considering abortion.

 

[Fantine]

I, too, am a Democrat, and I, too, am horrified at the silence in response to this thread and to government unresponsiveness to people's needs, particularly in Republican-led states in the South.

But you are wrong about Catholic Charities. They offer help to anyone in need, not just Catholics. As a matter of fact I read an article recently about our local Catholic Charities work in resettling Afghan refugees--very few, if any, who are Christian.

I cannot vouch for the policies of every Christian denomination, but the other local churches I am familiar with, primarily mainline Protestant such as Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Methodist, are equally generous to all.

The Methodists in my community are amazing--not a good thing goes on in this town that they don't play a part in assisting.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I, too, am a Democrat, and I, too, am horrified at the silence in response to this thread and to government unresponsiveness to people's needs, particularly in Republican-led states in the South.

But you are wrong about Catholic Charities. They offer help to anyone in need, not just Catholics. As a matter of fact I read an article recently about our local Catholic Charities work in resettling Afghan refugees - very few, if any, who are Christian.

I read articles about Catholic churches forcing girls to convert to Christianity before getting help with their pregnancy crises. Their real mission has never been to help any pregnant teenagers, but they all pretend it is on billboards and other advertisements. It is just to prevent them from getting abortions, period. They all do it in extremely unethical (and totally un-Christian) ways. Their nonprofit status is the only thing preventing CPCs from being shut down by state governments.

I have no faith in Republicans to wake up and decide to help pregnant teenagers until it happens. Some anti-abortion laws have no exceptions for rape or incest, which means they only care about controlling women, not the unborn baby's life, because that is what the sex crimes are. When all anti-abortion laws have exceptions for rape and incest, I can think otherwise .Until then, I am 100% positive all Republicans who write those evil laws care about is controlling girls and women, not protecting babies.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

The most frustrating part of discussing abortion with people who totally oppose it except to save the mother's life is when challenged, they never answer the title question. So I am putting it here hoping all abortion opponents will stop dancing around the extremely obvious and repeatedly proven fact that without a lot of help from the government, hundreds of thousands of pregnant girls and women need abortions for many justifiable reasons. It is literally impossible to oppose both abortion and all government programs that can prevent most of them unless you happen to be a misogynist whose real intention is to control women, which I am sure no Christians are because they believe in love.

One reason I am a Democrat is I want the number of abortions to drop. I want all of the reasons many girls and women suffer psychologically, physically, and socially during their unwanted pregnancies to nearly disappear. I also want the reasons women who wanted babies, but suddenly find themselves unable to care for them, to be gone. Only the federal and blue state governments can do that for them.

So, what do you want the federal government to do to help pregnant girls and women who lack the ability and resources to carry their unborn babies for nine months and take care of them for the next 20 years? What would be your plan if you were a politician? Would you prefer they get all their help from states or the federal government? Keep in mind we are not talking about crisis pregnancy centers here because they have very limited resources and, as Catholic Church-based organizations, will do nothing for non-Christians who need help. It truly is the government or nothing, no matter how she got pregnant or why she is considering abortion.

When a perpetrator kills a pregnant woman they are prosecuted for murdering two individuals. Seems a bit hypocritical. So the only ignored legislation sitting in Congress , very old, would be the one extending this law to include pregnant women who do the same. This is a bridge too far for many.

 

[GodLovesCats]

When a perpetrator kills a pregnant woman they are prosecuted for murdering two individuals. Seems a bit hypocritical. So the only ignored legislation sitting in Congress, very old, would be the one extending this law to include pregnant women who do the same. This is a bridge too far for many.

That is exactly what Republicans are: hypocrites. They want to save the mother's life in a medical emergency, but don't care if she suffers PTSD after being a victim of incest or rape. They talk about wanting to save the offspring's life. So why aren't they talking about how to do it? Why aren't they talking about how to prevent the mother from wanting to consider abortion? Why aren't they talking about how to support the mother's and baby's medical needs? Why aren't they talking about real solutions to the many problems that are caused directly by pregnancy?

I will happily stand corrected when Republicans talk about all of this stuff and then follow up by walking the walk after talking the talk. If you oppose abortion, remember I will not stop asking these questions until I get direct answers with detailed explanations.

 

[dqhall]

I read articles about Catholic churches forcing girls to convert to Christianity before getting help with their pregnancy crises. Their real mission has never been to help any pregnant teenagers, but they all pretend it is on billboards and other advertisements. It is just to prevent them from getting abortions, period. They all do it in extremely unethical (and totally un-Christian) ways. Their nonprofit status is the only thing preventing CPCs from being shut down by state governments.

I have no faith in Republicans to wake up and decide to help pregnant teenagers until it happens. Some anti-abortion laws have no exceptions for rape or incest, which means they only care about controlling women, not the unborn baby's life, because that is what the sex crimes are. When all anti-abortion laws have exceptions for rape and incest, I can think otherwise .Until then, I am 100% positive all Republicans who write those evil laws care about is controlling girls and women, not protecting babies.

The church does not approve of premarital sex as this is a form of sexual immorality described as fornication. Celibacy during times when one is not trying to make a baby prevents abortions.

Years ago nuns living in the Congo of Africa were being raped. They had to use of birth control pills to prevent pregnancy out of wedlock.
Use of contraceptives to prevent abortion

 

[GodLovesCats]

The church does not approve of premarital sex as this is a form of sexual immorality described as fornication. Celibacy during times when one is not trying to make a baby prevents abortions.

But they lie and promise to help all women who were raped or have premarital sex get abortions anyway - on billboards, in newspapers, online, etc. So people who get pregnant out of outside of wedlock are sucked into believing they will; get help, only to find themselves being forced to not get any of the assistance they need or want when they need it - which is right now, not months later. This is completely immoral, unethical, and dishonest. The only thing protecting crisis pregnancy centers is the fact they are faith-based charities; any for=profit company would be punished big time - maybe even forced to go out of business.

Even if CPCs did what they claim to do, they would be unable to provide any assistance beyond giving away some baby care supplies after babies are born. No Catholic church in the world is able to do anything else for them- or serve all of those who decide to carry their pregnancies to term. I have no tolerance for anyone telling me just because these limited supplies and services exist, the government needs to stay out of it and do nothing for pregnant and lactating mothers. What would be your plan for the government, not churches, to help them and their unwanted babies both before and after childbirth?

 

[Lost Witness]

The most frustrating part of discussing abortion with people who totally oppose it except to save the mother's life is when challenged, they never answer the title question. So I am putting it here hoping all abortion opponents will stop dancing around the extremely obvious and repeatedly proven fact that without a lot of help from the government, hundreds of thousands of pregnant girls and women need abortions for many justifiable reasons. It is literally impossible to oppose both abortion and all government programs that can prevent most of them unless you happen to be a misogynist whose real intention is to control women, which I am sure no Christians are because they believe in love.

One reason I am a Democrat is I want the number of abortions to drop. I want all of the reasons many girls and women suffer psychologically, physically, and socially during their unwanted pregnancies to nearly disappear. I also want the reasons women who wanted babies, but suddenly find themselves unable to care for them, to be gone. Only the federal and blue state governments can do that for them.

So, what do you want the federal government to do to help pregnant girls and women who lack the ability and resources to carry their unborn babies for nine months and take care of them for the next 20 years? What would be your plan if you were a politician? Would you prefer they get all their help from states or the federal government? Keep in mind we are not talking about crisis pregnancy centers here because they have very limited resources and, as Catholic Church-based organizations, will do nothing for non-Christians who need help. It truly is the government or nothing, no matter how she got pregnant or why she is considering abortion.

Thou shalt not kill.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Thou shalt not kill.

You totally ignored the post you quoted. I bet you did not read one word of it.

Read the entire post before replying. I will keep asking you for a clear and direct answer to my question until you give it to me.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Why is it so hard for people to understand government assistance is the only possible way to prevent hundreds of thousands of abortions?

 

[Not of the World]

I am a Christian man. I believe that abortion is morally acceptable if and when the health risks of the mother are significant or when it's known that the baby will be severely deformed, etc. However, I do NOT believe that's acceptable to God for a healthy woman to abort her healthy offspring. The commandment to "not kill" comes to mind, so does "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". A healthy woman killing her healthy, unborn, offspring violates both of those commandments and, thus, it is immoral and sinful, gravely sinful, I believe. Just for the record, I don't judge (condemn) women who get abortions because it's not my place to do so, as Jesus told us. Besides, I have my own mountain of sin that I need to worry about.

I may be mistaken but it's my impression that most women get abortions because they simply don't want to go through with the pregnancy. Maybe my impression is mistaken but it's my understanding that there are many, many, couples who would be elated to be able to adopt a healthy infant and would financially contribute to help the pregnant woman.

I would encourage the OP to do her own research and see if there are organizations that will help pregnant women who are in financial need, such as Catholic Charities and others, and even organizations (government or otherwise) that assist with adoption.

I do NOT share the view that government is the "only way" and that government needs to seize more wealth from working people in order to give it to those who don't work. Such policies breed more bad behavior and increase the problem, not to mention the government is bad at administering anything.

2 THESSALONIANS 3:10 ESV
For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.

 

[dqhall]

But they lie and promise to help all women who were raped or have premarital sex get abortions anyway - on billboards, in newspapers, online, etc. So people who get pregnant out of outside of wedlock are sucked into believing they will; get help, only to find themselves being forced to not get any of the assistance they need or want when they need it - which is right now, not months later. This is completely immoral, unethical, and dishonest. The only thing protecting crisis pregnancy centers is the fact they are faith-based charities; any for=profit company would be punished big time - maybe even forced to go out of business.

Even if CPCs did what they claim to do, they would be unable to provide any assistance beyond giving away some baby care supplies after babies are born. No Catholic church in the world is able to do anything else for them- or serve all of those who decide to carry their pregnancies to term. I have no tolerance for anyone telling me just because these limited supplies and services exist, the government needs to stay out of it and do nothing for pregnant and lactating mothers. What would be your plan for the government, not churches, to help them and their unwanted babies both before and after childbirth?

There is a charity that provided room and board for a pregnant woman until she could deliver her baby and put it up for adoption. It is all very expensive.

There are religious laws forbidding premarital sex and adultery. The civil law forbids sex with minors, it is called statutory rape. Teenage women without ethical teachings are at risk of getting pregnant before marriage. There are laws against prostitution and trafficking prostitutes. There are laws against rape, sexual assault and molestation. There are reasons for Biblical teachings against sexual immorality.

Premarital sex is immoral, but contraceptives are legal. When Brazil subsidized birth control, a population explosion diminished. Couples with six or more children were often trapped in poverty. Niger, Angola, Benin and Mali have the highest birth rates in the world. Angola has a per capita income of about $2,000. Japan has a case of population decline. More housing became available. People abandoned a remote mountainous village and moved to more prosperous towns leaving abandoned houses behind. Japan has a per capita income of about $45,000.

There are government programs designed to help the poor, including single mothers. If a woman can tell authorities who made her pregnant, she may seek a court ordered paternity test. Child support payments may be court ordered, even if the father of her child is married to someone else and already supporting other children.

There are charities that help the poor, including single mothers. There are also government funded foster care programs for women who can not take care of their babies.

Some complained they did not want to pay any more taxes to support the poor. They seek to cut off poor single mothers.

 

[Not of the World]

Some complained they did not want any more taxes to support the poor. They seek to cut off poor single mothers.

I think your post is great but I don't agree with the characterization "they seek to cut off poor single mothers".

Unfortunately, many of America's welfare policies encourage more irresponsible behavior which then requires MORE taxation to continue to pay for it and the problem grows out of control to the point that we have many fatherless families with crime and murder rates through the roof and yet, we're supposed to subsidize more of it? No thanks.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I think your post is great but I don't agree with the characterization "they seek to cut off poor single mothers".

Unfortunately, many of America's welfare policies encourage more irresponsible behavior which then requires MORE taxation to continue to pay for it and the problem grows out of control to the point that we have many fatherless families with crime and murder rates through the roof and yet, we're supposed to subsidize more of it? No thanks.

Without government money, the people I am worried about will not get any money And as Christians, we are supposed to like paying higher taxes if they will do the greater good.

The characterization is fair if you only care about taking money away from some of the people who need it most and have no other way to get it.

 

[Not of the World]

Without government money, the people I am worried about will not get any money And as Christians, we are supposed to like paying higher taxes if they will do the greater good.

The characterization is fair if you only care about taking money away from some of the people who need it most and have no other way to get it.

I don't share your premise that pregnant women will receive no help whatsoever. That's why I encourage you to pick up the phone and call some places and find out what services are currently available.

As for taxes, they are necessary to support public workers, infrastructure, defense, education, healthcare, etc. I support that. I do NOT support the monolithic amount of government waste and corruption that is currently taking place that is ROBBING poor and middle-class Americans of a much higher standard of living. You view government as the solution and I'm telling you that government is the problem. Let's keep in mind that the U.S. has spent over $100 BILLION in Ukraine, money that would be FAR better spent by the American people in their local communities.

 

[Not of the World]

The ultimate solution for reducing and eliminating abortion is for people to follow God by doing his will. It is inconceivable for a Godly couple to even consider abortion.
With that said, the Bible tells us many times that this world is wicked and that it is ruled by Satan and that this world will one day cease to exist. We are commanded to NOT be "of the world" but, rather, to be of God and to do his will.

How about you? Do you follow Jesus or do you follow the world?

 

[Fantine]

I may be mistaken but it's my impression that most women get abortions because they simply don't want to go through with the pregnancy. Maybe my impression is mistaken but it's my understanding that there are many, many, couples who would be elated to be able to adopt a healthy infant and would financially contribute to help the pregnant woman.

I would encourage the OP to do her own research and see if there are organizations that will help pregnant women who are in financial need, such as Catholic Charities and others, and even organizations (government or otherwise) that assist with adoption.

I hate to sound cynical, but in my experience the biggest pro-lifers are women who struggle with infertility.

You seem to be reducing the unborn children of healthy (and probably white) women to commodities that would be desired by comfortable (and probably white) married couples struggling with infertility.

I understand that couples want children who look like them, and some people even say that it is traumatic for children to be raised by parents of different races (although I think that can be remedied by making sure their culture is celebrated and having close friends of other races.)

If more healthy white babies were available for adoption, there would be many more disabled and non-white children without homes.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I hate to sound cynical, but in my experience the biggest pro-lifers are women who struggle with infertility.

You seem to be reducing the unborn children of healthy (and probably white) women to commodities that would be desired by comfortable (and probably white) married couples struggling with infertility.

I understand that couples want children who look like them, and some people even say that it is traumatic for children to be raised by parents of different races (although I think that can be remedied by making sure their culture is celebrated and having close friends of other races.)

If more healthy white babies were available for adoption, there would be many more disabled and non-white children without homes.

Bingo. When couples have their picks of the litter they will choose to adopt totally healthy babies. It would make absolutely no sense to expect any infertile woman )or wife of an infertile man) to want a blind, deaf, mute, paralyzed, autistic, epileptic, retarded, or otherwise disabled infants That goes against human nature because everyone is a sinner. The goal of an infertile couple is always to have a normal baby, not one who will cost them millions of dollars in medical expenses over his/her lifetime and possibly never become independent. Banning abortion clearly is not the answer to helping disabled kids whose parents have no money or skill to take care of them. What will help them are government programs.

So let's talk about how the government can find couples who are interested in adopting disabled infants and match them with unborn babies who had already been diagnosed with disabilities before birth that the biological parents are unwilling and/or unable to treat.

As for racial differences, I read most people who have abortions are black because of systemic racism. Until all races are treated equally in every way, many more blacks than whites will be in poverty and unable to take care of babies for financial reasons.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I don't share your premise that pregnant women will receive no help whatsoever. That's why I encourage you to pick up the phone and call some places and find out what services are currently available.

As for taxes, they are necessary to support public workers, infrastructure, defense, education, healthcare, etc. I support that. I do NOT support the monolithic amount of government waste and corruption that is currently taking place that is ROBBING poor and middle-class Americans of a much higher standard of living. You view government as the solution and I'm telling you that government is the problem. Let's keep in mind that the U.S. has spent over $100 BILLION in Ukraine, money that would be FAR better spent by the American people in their local communities.

So you do support all fertile girls and women having health insurance for contraception, gynecology/obstetrics appointments regardless of how they get pregnant and babies who were born prematurely? All of those must be included to prevent thousands of abortions.

Remember there is a huge difference between giving money to Ukraine (after President Zelensky asked for it BTW) and wasting it on domestic programs. If that $100 billion dollars sent to Ukraine was spent on universal health care and free childcare for people who need it, would you support that?

 

[Not of the World]

So you do support all fertile girls and women having health insurance for contraception, gynecology/obstetrics appointments...

I support and advocate for people to follow Christ and walk the narrow path that he prescribed for us.

I disagree with the concept that a woman who chooses to have sex and then becomes pregnant is morally justified to KILL her offspring unless someone else pays all of her expenses.