Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[little2add]

  

[little2add]

On 1/2/2022 at 3:24 PM, Peace said:

“Universal” basic income.

the root cause (or reason for lack of a better term), abortion is not the lack of money, never was!  

it's caused primarly by selfishness.  Driven by the seven deadly sins:  pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.

this "free lunch" you call Basic Minimum Income. will only foster laziness (sloth)

“Success is the product of hard work; you can’t have one without the other”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1850 the federal government declared that a black man was not a human being to justify slavery.

In 1973 the federal government declared that a pre-born human being was not a person to justify abortion.  

handing out Basic Minimum Income will only exacerbate the problem.

Edited February 6, 2022 by little2add

[Dennis Tate]

10 hours ago, little2add said:

the root cause (or reason for lack of a better term), abortion is not the lack of money, never was!  

it's caused primarly by selfishness.  Driven by the seven deadly sins:  pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.

this "free lunch" you call Basic Minimum Income. will only foster laziness (sloth)

“Success is the product of hard work; you can’t have one without the other”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1850 the federal government declared that a black man was not a human being to justify slavery.

In 1973 the federal government declared that a pre-born human being was not a person to justify abortion.  

handing out Basic Minimum Income will only exacerbate the problem.

On the other hand....

if we compare an economy to a body.... money is similar to blood in an economy.  
Much as doctors can give a body blood to preserve life it is possible to use the Bank of Canada, (for example here in Canada)... to create money in a manner that is more just and fair.  

 

Quote

The Bank of Canada was first established by Prime Minister Richard Bennet in 1935 as a private central bank, but was then nationalized by William Lyon Mackenzie King in 1938. By nationalizing the bank, Mackenzie King meant for it to belong to the people so the Canadian government could borrow funds with little or no interest for capital expenditures. The mandate of the newly nationalized Bank of Canada was to act as the banker to the government and to manage the public debt. As Mackenzie King famously said: “Once a nation parts with the control of their currency and credit, it matters not who makes that nation’s laws. Usury, once in control, will wreck any nation. Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile.”

So the Bank of Canada was nationalized in 1938 and the government could now borrow money with little or no interest. And it worked. The Canadian government built freeways, public transportation systems, subway line, airports, the St. Lawrence Seaway and funded a national health care system and the Canada Pension Plan. But then Trudeau, under the influence of the international financial group called Basel’s
Committee’s Recommendations (The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision) made the decision to halt the borrowing of money from the Bank of Canada, and instead, chose to borrow from the private banks who instead of lending to the government at no interest, or low interest, introduced higher interest rates along with compound interest.

All banks know very well the magic of compound interest. And Pierre Trudeau must have known that the mounting compounded national debt would lead to Canadians eventually owing a dollar fifty for every dollar of their disposable incomes. After all, he studied economics at the London School of Economics. Surely the professors there knew about compound interest.

So Pierre Trudeau, instead of feeling blessed that Canada, unlike the US, had a nationalized central bank, signed our bank away to the private banks. Couldn’t Trudeau, such an educated man, surmise that citizens in a few years would be struggling to make car payments and meet rent and mortgages and student loans and to buy healthy food while last year’s profits for the big five (that’s Royal Bank, TD Bank, Scotiabank, Bank of Montreal and CIBC amounted to $31.7 billion?) If he did, he didn’t care. But it doesn’t have to be this way. It really doesn’t. Our Bank of
Canada is still there. Next time." (Ms. Betty Krawczyk)

https://bettysearlyedition.blogspot.com/2015/07/how-pierre-trudeau-turned-us-into-debt.html

 

The situation in the USA is similar.... a high percentage of extremely wealthy people want to use central banking policy in such a way that economic pressure is put on women that pressures them toward feeling that if they do not choose abortion..... that they are doomed to never be able to finish their education.. .which seems to doom them and their child to a life of poverty.  

 

https://www.michaeljournal.org/articles/social-credit/item/the-history-of-banking-control-in-the-united-states

Quote

 

Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States in 1860, under the promise of abolishing the slavery of the blacks. Eleven southern States, favourable to the human slavery of the black race, then decided to secede from the Union, to withdraw from the United States of America: that was the beginning of the Civil War (1861-1865). Lincoln, being short of money to finance the North’s war effort, went to the bankers of New York, who agreed to lend him money at interest rates varying from 24 to 36 percent. Lincoln refused, knowing perfectly well that this was usury and that it would lead the United States to ruin. But his money problem was still not settled!

His friend in Chicago, Colonel Dick Taylor, came to his rescue and put the solution to him: "Just get Congress to pass a bill authorizing the printing of full legal tender treasury notes, and pay your soldiers with them, and go ahead and win your war with them also."

This is what Lincoln did, and he won the war: between 1862 and 1863, in full conformity with the provisions of the U.S. Constitution, Lincoln caused $450 million of debt-free Greenbacks to be issued, to conduct the Civil War. (These Treasury notes were called "Greenbacks" by the people because they were printed with green ink on the back.)

 

.....

Quote

 Lincoln was re-elected President in 1864, and he made it quite clear that he would attack the power of the bankers, once the war was over. The war ended on April 9, 1865, but Lincoln was assassinated five days later, on April 14. A tremendous restriction of credit followed, organized by the banks: the currency in circulation in the country, which was, in 1866, $1,907 million, representing $50.46 for each American citizen, had been reduced to $605 million in 1876, representing $14.60 per capita. The result: in ten years, 56,446 business failures, representing a loss of $2 billion. And as if this was not enough, the bankers reduced the per capita currency in circulation to $6.67 in 1887!

This strategy of using central banking policy to decrease the population can be traced back to Malthusian Catastrophe Theory but the concept is actually much older than that.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusianism

Quote

This event, called a Malthusian catastrophe (also known as a Malthusian trap, population trap, Malthusian check, Malthusian crisis, Malthusian spectre, or Malthusian crunch) occurs when population growth outpaces agricultural production, causing famine or war, resulting in poverty and depopulation.

 

[little2add]

8 hours ago, Dennis Tate said:

money is similar to blood in an economy.  

Baloney 

 

 

[Peace]

On 2/6/2022 at 9:55 AM, little2add said:

the root cause (or reason for lack of a better term), abortion is not the lack of money, never was!  

Nobody said that the "root cause" of abortion is money. But its silly to suggest that economic factors do not play a role in the decisions of individual women to have a child.

The legality of abortion via Roe v. Wade is not the "root cause" for abortion, either. Does that mean that we cease our efforts to have this case overturned?

On 2/6/2022 at 9:55 AM, little2add said:

it's caused primarly by selfishness.  Driven by the seven deadly sins:  pride, greed, lust, envy, gluttony, wrath, and sloth.

That's nice, but we can't exactly regulate "selfishness". What are you going to do, pass a bill in Congress that states "be less selfish"? Look, economic factors play a role in the decision-making of some women who chose to have an abortion, even if the "root cause" is selfishness. If we can pass legislation that affects those economic factors in a way that reduces the likelihood of abortion in individual cases, then we should do it.

What do you want? A "moral" victory by proving that women who abort are selfish, or practical policy that actually reduces the number of abortions?

On 2/6/2022 at 9:55 AM, little2add said:

this "free lunch" you call Basic Minimum Income. will only foster laziness (sloth)

Sure, just like the "free lunches" you have received and continue to receive makes you lazy.

Look, I have received plenty of "free lunches" (both literally and figuratively) during my life. My family went to the food pantry almost every month. We were on welfare. We paid with food stamps at the grocery store. Strangers paid for my education, up and through college. None of these "free lunches" made me lazy. They offered me real support that I was in need of, and helped me be where I am today.

On 2/6/2022 at 9:55 AM, little2add said:

“Success is the product of hard work; you can’t have one without the other”

Well that's simply not true. Some idiot sons are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and have everything handed to them on a silver platter their entire lives. Some folks stumble upon a successful idea by sheer luck.

Does hard work matter? Absolutely! But let's not fool ourselves like we are living in a pure meritocracy whereby "good old talent and hard work" accounts for the entire difference between the have's and the have-nots.

On 2/6/2022 at 9:55 AM, little2add said:

handing out Basic Minimum Income will only exacerbate the problem.

Maybe it will, but you simply stating that on the internet is not evidence that anyone should value.

What happened to beating a dead horse though?

Edited February 10, 2022 by Peace

[little2add]

55 minutes ago, Peace said:

Nobody said that the "root cause" of abortion is money.

What does the name of this tread suggest (1. Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?) to you?

[little2add]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

What do you want? A "moral" victory by proving that women who abort are selfish, or practical policy that actually reduces the number of abortions?

The truth

 

 

I want the truth and only the truth.

life begins at conception!

[Peace]

2 hours ago, little2add said:

What does the name of this tread suggest (1. Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?) to you?

It suggests that nobody said that the "root cause" of abortion is money.

2 hours ago, little2add said:

life begins at conception!

Absolutely.

Now ensoulment on the other hand, I think is still an open question in the Church.

[little2add]

5 hours ago, Peace said:

Absolutely.

Now ensoulment on the other hand, I think is still an open question in the Church.

in your mind, in church teaching however the meaning of “life and ensoulment” are one and the same. 

Whether or not you except this fact is really arbitrary

The statement “Whether or not having money would reduce abortions” is pretty clear that it’s all about money 

[Peace]

4 hours ago, little2add said:

in your mind, in church teaching however the meaning of “life and ensoulment” are one and the same. 

No, the Church has not dogmatically taught that ensoulment occurs as the moment of conception. And the Church has not taught that life and ensoulement are the same thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoulment#Catholicism
 

Quote

 

At the same time, the Catholic teaching has acknowledged that we do not know when the embryo, which is a human "being", becomes a human "person" (called philosophically "ensoulment"). And probabilism may not be used where the life of a human person may be involved,[45] and so the human being must be treated as a person from conception.[46] In relation to elective abortion, Pope John Paul II wrote about ensoulment in his 1995 encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae that:

Throughout Christianity's two thousand year history, this same doctrine of condemning all direct abortions has been constantly taught by the Fathers of the Church and by her Pastors and Doctors. Even scientific and philosophical discussions about the precise moment of the infusion of the spiritual soul have never given rise to any hesitation about the moral condemnation of abortion.[47]

While the Church has always condemned abortion, changing beliefs about the moment the embryo gains a human soul have led their stated reasons for such condemnation, and the classification in canon law of the sin of abortion, to change over time.[21][48]

 

Personally, I think that its most reasonable to conclude that ensoulment occurs at the moment of conception, but the Church had not yet taught that. It is an open question. It has been an open question for a thousand years.

4 hours ago, little2add said:

The statement “Whether or not having money would reduce abortions” is pretty clear that it’s all about money 

Nonsense. If I write "Whether reversing Roe v. Wade would reduce abortions" does not mean that I think abortion is all about Roe v. Wade.

Edited February 10, 2022 by Peace

[fides' Jack]

• It would dramatically increase abortion, as the proponents of both are the same

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

• It would dramatically increase abortion, as the proponents of both are the same

The absence of logic on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Democrats support paid maternal leave in far greater numbers than Republicans.

I suppose you also think that paid maternal leave would increase the number of abortions?

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Peace said:

The absence of logic on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Democrats support paid maternal leave in far greater numbers than Republicans.

I suppose you also think that paid maternal leave would increase the number of abortions?

Relax, it's just @fides' Jack logic, right?  Which is the absence of logic?

I was adding an option to the vote.  I did not attempt to give an explanation, because it would have been too long.

Nor did I make the argument that you seem to think I did, which is that because the left supports both abortion and universal basic income, that the result due to that fact would be an increase in abortion.

I see how you could interpret what I said that way, though.

 

Please provide evidence that democrats support paid maternal leave in far greater numbers than republicans.  I don't believe that's true.

Edited February 10, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Peace]

6 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Relax, it's just @fides' Jack logic, right?  Which is the absence of logic?

I was adding an option to the vote.  I did not attempt to give an explanation, because it would have been too long.

Nor did I make the argument that you seem to think I did, which is that because the left supports both abortion and universal basic income, that the result due to that fact would be an increase in abortion.

I see how you could interpret what I said that way, though.

 

Please provide evidence that democrats support paid maternal leave in far greater numbers than republicans.  I don't believe that's true.

How about we just "Google" and click on the first link that we find?

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/10/20/paid-maternity-parental-paternity-leave

Asked about paid maternity leave:

Republican support: 46%

Democrat support: 83%

[Vernon]

If a company wants to offer paid maternity leave as an incentive or benefit, that's fine, but it should not be forced by the government. It puts an unfair burden on businesses, being forced to pay two people for the labor of one. I don't know where some get the idea that a business is sitting on a pile of gold and all that is needed is laws to make them pay everyone a "decent wage."