The Abortion Issue

[angel27]

The definitive answer on the abortion issue can be found here:

Catholic Charities Social Action Pro-Life 101

Its a long read but well worth the time and I beleive it addresses almost if not every argument posted.

[PennyQuilts]

Aren't you the one who said we should abolish welfare? I agree - it's abused and people are lazy. But seriously - if these babies are being forced to be born who's going to pay the way? Obviously the parents won't give a crap if they wanted to abort them in the first place.

Many people who abort babies make good money and simply don't want to change a lifestyle they've worked hard to achieve. Or they got together with someone they don't want to be tied to the rest of their life and a baby resulted. Plenty of them would make sure any child born to them was well cared for - it is just that they don't want to go down the road that child requires. I worry less about the ones who considered abortion supporting a child than I do the ones who have baby after baby and don't get a thought to what the child needs. And most people who end up having a baby after considering abortion love their children as much as anyone else.

[Caboose]

I just think it's very hypocritical that the same people who want to save these babies don't give a sh*t once they're born.

What is hypocritical is the same people who complain about others not giving a **** in fact don't themselves. It is a fact that conservatives are more charitable than liberals and it is also a fact that those who identify themselves as liberals have the means to end all poverty in America without it costing the tax-payers a dime and yet they continue to let children suffer through poverty and have so for decades.

So take all of the other sanctimonious and morally superior people on the left side of this dichotomy that you have created, pool all of their money since they are so compassionate and willing to help the poor, and simply end poverty in America. Nothing is stopping you and you have more than enough money. Why isn't it being done?

Maybe some of you Utopians should realize that the only cure for poverty is wealth.

[GWB]

Many people who abort babies make good money and simply don't want to change a lifestyle they've worked hard to achieve. Or they got together with someone they don't want to be tied to the rest of their life and a baby resulted. Plenty of them would make sure any child born to them was well cared for - it is just that they don't want to go down the road that child requires. I worry less about the ones who considered abortion supporting a child than I do the ones who have baby after baby and don't get a thought to what the child needs. And most people who end up having a baby after considering abortion love their children as much as anyone else.

Speaking of making good money...

[Karried]

It is a fact that conservatives are more charitable than liberals

Source?

[Il Dolce Gelato]

12 week Ultra Sound - That is in the first trimester.
I think I recognize some of those body parts?

[GWB]

Do "conservatives" give more to charitable causes than "liberals"? According to Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks, they do. Dr. Brooks, a professor of public administration at Syracuse's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, was quite astounded with the results of his own research, which was so at variance with the common perception of the generous "liberal" and the Scrooge-like "conservative."

In his book, Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservativism (Basic Books, 2006), Brooks discovered that approximately equal percentages of liberals and conservatives give to private charitable causes. However, conservatives gave about 30 percent more money per year to private charitable causes, even though his study found liberal families earned an average of 6 percent more per year in income than did conservative families. This greater generosity among conservative families proved to be true in Brooks' research for every income group, "from poor to middle class to rich."

This "giving gap" also extended beyond money to time donated to charitable causes, as well. Brooks also discovered that in 2002, conservative Americans were much more likely to donate blood each year than liberals and to do so more often within a year. Brooks found "if liberals and moderates gave blood at the same rate as conservatives, the blood supply in the United States would jump by about 45 percent."

When Brooks compared his findings to IRS data on the percentage of household income given away, he found that "red" states in the 2004 election were more charitable than "blue" states. Brooks found that 24 of the 25 states that were above average in family charitable giving voted for Bush in 2004, and 17 of the 25 states below average in giving voted for Kerry. Brooks concluded, "The electoral map and the charity map are remarkably similar."

Why? A clue may be found in the 1996 General Social Survey, which asked Americans whether they agreed that "the government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality." People who "disagreed strongly" with that statement gave 12 times more money to charity per year than those who "agreed strongly" with the statement.

One's values, beliefs and political philosophies seem to impact how much one shares of one's own income with the less fortunate in society. Facts are often surprising and illuminating.

Conservatives Give More to Charity than Liberals? - Casting Stones

Bleeding heart liberals believing in giving, as long as the government is doing it.

[dismayed]

This latest discussion was really interesting to me so I did some research real quick to see what I could turn up on "Who Really Cares?" It turns out that it really isn't as clear cut as it has been stated. The book in question makes a distinction between charity and philanthropy with philanthropy being donations of larger sums of money largely aimed at educational institutions, fine arts, and so on. As we all know the two richest and two largest philanthropists in the nation, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are both well-known liberals. There donations effectively were not counted for the purposes of this study. Also the author admits that the data he parsed had a lot of qualifying information hitched to it that they decided not to really mention in the book to give a clearer picture. Finally it should be noted that while professor Brooks is a registered Independent he is president of the conservative think-tank the Enterprise Institute.

If we were to view this from a dispassionate science standpoint we would probably say that he has some very interesting data that is worth noting, but we need several other studies to be done by others that reach the same conclusion to really confirm this. It is very interesting data though.

[GWB]

This latest discussion was really interesting to me so I did some research real quick to see what I could turn up on "Who Really Cares?" It turns out that it really isn't as clear cut as it has been stated. The book in question makes a distinction between charity and philanthropy with philanthropy being donations of larger sums of money largely aimed at educational institutions, fine arts, and so on. As we all know the two richest and two largest philanthropists in the nation, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are both well-known liberals. There donations effectively were not counted for the purposes of this study. Also the author admits that the data he parsed had a lot of qualifying information hitched to it that they decided not to really mention in the book to give a clearer picture. Finally it should be noted that while professor Brooks is a registered Independent he is president of the conservative think-tank the Enterprise Institute.

If we were to view this from a dispassionate science standpoint we would probably say that he has some very interesting data that is worth noting, but we need several other studies to be done by others that reach the same conclusion to really confirm this. It is very interesting data though.

I think there's plenty of information, if you did a search on google, it would pretty much confirm that conservatives out give liberals. Liberals want to see people helped probably as equal as conservative do (I assume), but conservatives give out of their pocketbooks while liberals want the government to do it.

[Prunepicker]

Source?

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers

[Karried]

The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion.

Just as I thought.. conservatives give a majority of their charitable contributions to the church ... which in many cases go to their preacher's many mega mansions and Mercedes.

Somehow, I don't think those poor struggling single mothers forced by guilt to carry their unwanted children get the full benefit of these donations..

[GWB]

Just as I thought.. conservatives give a majority of their charitable contributions to the church ... which in many cases go to their preacher's many mega mansions and Mercedes.

Somehow, I don't think those poor struggling single mothers forced by guilt to carry their unwanted children get the full benefit of these donations..

That's just plain wrong and a big assumption on your part. There are many Christian organizations that have homes for single unwed mothers, far more than you realize. Just because a person's religion motivates them to give to charity, doesn't mean they give it all to the church. Many non-profit organizations, religious, or not, would go under if conservatives quit giving as generously as they do. That's just a fact, whether you want to admit it or not.

[Karried]

In today's economy, once people give the suggested 10% tithe commitment to their church, how much do you actually believe is left over for other ' non-profits'?

I give to a non-profit specific to Single mothers because I can't bear the thought of the children suffering. I know the majority of it goes to helping the children.

I'm not implying that all conservative giving is allocated this way, but I cringe at the suggested idea that 'liberals' don't give and they may actually give less than 'conservatives' .. if this is a true fact, then yes, it can be attributed to the religious aspect.. giving to the church.. but I really don't care who gives what, as long as people are giving.

And, I hate all the labels by the way.

[Prunepicker]

And, I hate all the labels by the way.

Labels help define people and objectives.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Labels help define people . . . .

And serve no real purpose other than seperate them.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on

[danielf1935]

Thunder, for you to place all pastors/ Church's in a negative light is totally unfair, I now many that don't live in mansion's or drive luxury cars. My pastor, Bro. Paul Salyer, whom just recently passed, lived in a house given to him and his family by the church several years ago, it was about 6 blocks from SE Highschool (I don't recall any mansions in that area), his wife drove a 4 year old Nissan and he drove a 13 year old pickup.

The last time I checked, we were a "FREE COUNTRY", and have the right to pick and choose who we donate to.

[Midtowner]

Labels help define people and objectives.

In simplistic, unjustified, slanted, misleading and conclusory terms, if you're into that sort of thing.

[traxx]

I just think it's very hypocritical that the same people who want to save these babies don't give a sh*t once they're born.

Says you. That's really irresponsible to just pull that statement out of the air and not only apply it to many on this board but also to so many of your fellow Americans.

I'm not gonna get into the liberal vs. conservative and who gives more debate. I'm gonna stick to the issue of this topic, children.

The pro-choice people on this discussion keep saying that the pro-life people are sitting in judgment, but I've explained that it's not true. With that being said, who are you to judge me? Not that it's any of your business, but I've given plenty of money in benevolence. I haven't just given tithes to pay for my pastor's $12,000 Skylark. So I do care about children after they are born. It pains my heart every time I read or hear about a child being abused or murdered. I just can't stand any wrong doing against a child, it gets all over me.

I know you can't compare those of us on here who give to church to Bill Gates or Warren Buffet but remember this passage for Luke chapter 21:

1As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins.[a] 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on."

[Caboose]

This latest discussion was really interesting to me so I did some research real quick to see what I could turn up on "Who Really Cares?" It turns out that it really isn't as clear cut as it has been stated. The book in question makes a distinction between charity and philanthropy with philanthropy being donations of larger sums of money largely aimed at educational institutions, fine arts, and so on. As we all know the two richest and two largest philanthropists in the nation, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, are both well-known liberals. There donations effectively were not counted for the purposes of this study. Also the author admits that the data he parsed had a lot of qualifying information hitched to it that they decided not to really mention in the book to give a clearer picture. Finally it should be noted that while professor Brooks is a registered Independent he is president of the conservative think-tank the Enterprise Institute.

If we were to view this from a dispassionate science standpoint we would probably say that he has some very interesting data that is worth noting, but we need several other studies to be done by others that reach the same conclusion to really confirm this. It is very interesting data though.

Nothing wrong with philanthropy as you state it, but it really doesn't do anything for the poor.

[PennyQuilts]

Nothing wrong with philanthropy as you state it, but it really doesn't do anything for the poor.

When you write "poor," do you mean the generational poor or just someone who is down on their luck due to, say, an illness or being laid off?

[Prunepicker]

And serve no real purpose other than seperate them.

Not true. Labels allow you to know what your getting. Labels also allow you to
know the intent of someone, especially when they start demeaning, belittling
and name calling.

As far as separating, that's what people do when they find out what's in the
unlabeled package.

[willy_p19]

Many of the pious types obey a set of political ideals far more than the mostly irrelevant and backwards rules written in the Bible. The Bible has unclear rules on voluntary abortion, the free-market, economics, health care, or any of the other issues of today, so they have to imagine what they think Yahweh would say. Since their god exists in their imagination, He agrees with them in every way. Suddenly, the Republican Party has divine backing, and is a religion.

Their problem in arguing for the Bible's cause, though it doesn't specifically mention voluntary abortion, it certainly condones it from a scriptural and ideological standpoint. How many fetuses has Yahweh ordered the death of?

I'll give you guys a chance before I respond with what the bible suggests and doesn't say about abortion.

[Thunder]

Thunder, for you to place all pastors/ Church's in a negative light is totally unfair, I now many that don't live in mansion's or drive luxury cars. My pastor, Bro. Paul Salyer, whom just recently passed, lived in a house given to him and his family by the church several years ago, it was about 6 blocks from SE Highschool (I don't recall any mansions in that area), his wife drove a 4 year old Nissan and he drove a 13 year old pickup.

The last time I checked, we were a "FREE COUNTRY", and have the right to pick and choose who we donate to.

What are you talking about?

I came here to share the news I've discovered, but seem it had already been posted here. Born baby thrown in trash. Sad.

Anyways, what Daniel?

[traxx]

Many of the pious types obey a set of political ideals far more than the mostly irrelevant and backwards rules written in the Bible. The Bible has unclear rules on voluntary abortion, the free-market, economics, health care, or any of the other issues of today, so they have to imagine what they think Yahweh would say. Since their god exists in their imagination, He agrees with them in every way. Suddenly, the Republican Party has divine backing, and is a religion.

Their problem in arguing for the Bible's cause, though it doesn't specifically mention voluntary abortion, it certainly condones it from a scriptural and ideological standpoint. How many fetuses has Yahweh ordered the death of?

I'll give you guys a chance before I respond with what the bible suggests and doesn't say about abortion.

How does willy have 0 posts? I'm looking at one right now. I looked and he/she has one other post. Hmmm...weird.

[The Old Downtown Guy]

Six pages deep . . . still going strong . . . nothing new . . . I'll check back later.

Michael

Pray For World Peace . . . pass it on