Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[Peace]

56 minutes ago, Vernon said:

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."

Well if that were implemented I’d rather the funds come via a tax on the general public, rather than imposing it only on individual businesses.

I’m not sure if I support it. It would depend on the details.

But as a Catholic I think we have to give it fair consideration. I’m not too sure that Jesus would look at it as an “unfair burden” if it resulted in lives saved.

[fides' Jack]

4 hours ago, Peace said:

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%

There are 2 topics in this article, neither of which is about support of paid paternity/maternity leave. 

One is whether Pete Buttigieg should have taken as much leave as he did. 

The other is whether the government should force businesses to provide paid paternity/maternity leave.  Opposing government mandates is not at all evidence of opposing paid leave.  I support paid maternity leave, but not at end of a gun, which is exactly what the demoncrats are proposing.

Be that as it may, this was from a poll conducted by a biased group, and is not really representative of anything, anyway.

Finally, an issue I took with your original premise that I didn't bring up is your use of Democrats vs Republicans.  That distinction doesn't make sense to me.  They are now the same party, with fake quibbles over non-issues (most of the time, there are a few exceptions...). 

1 hour ago, Peace said:

But as a Catholic I think we have to give it fair consideration. I’m not too sure that Jesus would look at it as an “unfair burden” if it resulted in lives saved.

Jesus doesn't care about lives as much as souls.  Jesus is very much against socialism and overreaching government mandates, both of which are endangering souls.

Edited February 11, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Peace]

6 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

There are 2 topics in this article, neither of which is about support of paid paternity/maternity leave. 

One is whether Pete Buttigieg should have taken as much leave as he did. 

The other is whether the government should force businesses to provide paid paternity/maternity leave.  Opposing government mandates is not at all evidence of opposing paid leave.  I support paid maternity leave, but not at end of a gun, which is exactly what the demoncrats are proposing.

Nonsense. If it’s not mandatory it’s optional. That’s like saying you support the pro-life movement but you don’t want government restrictions on abortion. It’s no support at all.

6 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Be that as it may, this was from a poll conducted by a biased group, and is not really representative of anything, anyway.

In other words, if it proves me wrong it must be biased. Was this the logic you were referring to?

6 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

Finally, an issue I took with your original premise that I didn't bring up is your use of Democrats vs Republicans.  That distinction doesn't make sense to me.  They are now the same party, with fake quibbles over non-issues (most of the time, there are a few exceptions...). 

Jesus doesn't care about lives as much as souls.  Jesus is very much against socialism and overreaching government mandates, both of which are endangering souls.

I highly doubt that our Lord prioritizes money over saving lives. That is your prerogative.

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

That’s like saying you support the pro-life movement but you don’t want government restrictions on abortion. It’s no support at all.

No it's not.  I showed you were wrong, and rather than admit it you're now doubling down with an absurdity.

I think ALL businesses should offer the option if they can, and I think that ALL businesses should be free to do so without coercion.

3 hours ago, Peace said:

In other words, if it proves me wrong it must be biased.

Again, I didn't bring up the bias originally, and I didn't NEED it to prove myself correct.  I added it to further show that you first result from Google proved nothing.  And it certainly didn't further your case, at all.

So this is a false statement.

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I highly doubt that our Lord prioritizes money over saving lives.

Money = souls? 

That's dangerous thinking, right there.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

No it's not.  I showed you were wrong, and rather than admit it you're now doubling down with an absurdity.

I think ALL businesses should offer the option if they can, and I think that ALL businesses should be free to do so without coercion.

Again, I didn't bring up the bias originally, and I didn't NEED it to prove myself correct.  I added it to further show that you first result from Google proved nothing.  And it certainly didn't further your case, at all.

So this is a false statement.

Money = souls? 

That's dangerous thinking, right there.

Oh please. Everyone knows that the reason why you object to a mandate is because you don’t want the government telling you what to do with your precious money. This “saving souls” jazz is a smokescreen and not even a good one.

You don’t care about practical things that work. What you want is fantasy systems like healthcare “completely untouched by the the government” and “optional maternity leave” because you are a right-wing ideologue who objects to anything and everything that might impinge on your freedom to act as you wish.

You care about your ideology, not souls.

You are only fooling yourself.

[Vernon]

Unfortunately too many Catholics have bought into the idea that the government must solve all our problems. Ideally there should be no question about maternity leave because with rare exceptions the mother ought to be home with her children and not working outside the home. So if we mandate paid maternity leave are we encouraging absentee mothers? I object to thinking that we need to buy the pro-abortion leftwing nonsense that in order for abortions to stop the government must take care of everyone's needs from cradle to grave.

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, Vernon said:

Unfortunately too many Catholics have bought into the idea that the government must solve all our problems.
 

Perhaps. Are those the sort of people you chill with?

I’ve yet to run into a person in my entire life who believes that.

1 hour ago, Vernon said:

I object to thinking that we need to buy the pro-abortion leftwing nonsense that in order for abortions to stop the government must take care of everyone's needs from cradle to grave.

Well I object to that too, but again I’ve yet to meet a person who believes that. Most pro-abortion leftists would say that a woman has a right to abort, even if the government offered to take care of her needs from the cradle to the grave, no?

[Nihil Obstat]

I believe that an authentically Catholic understanding of the common good absolutely leaves room for government mandated paid maternity leave and various prudent familial supports. It is only the inherently liberal values of capitalism that can coherently claim that it is not the government's place to promote the good of the family. When Catholics internalize that free-market fundamentalism, they are embracing an impoverished, liberal degradation of Catholic social teaching.

 

From Rerum Novarum:

32. [...] The foremost duty, therefore, of the rulers of the State should be to make sure that the laws and institutions, the general character and administration of the commonwealth, shall be such as of themselves to realize public well-being and private prosperity. This is the proper scope of wise statesmanship and is the work of the rulers. Now a State chiefly prospers and thrives through moral rule, well-regulated family life, respect for religion and justice, the moderation and fair imposing of public taxes, the progress of the arts and of trade, the abundant yield of the land-through everything, in fact, which makes the citizens better and happier. Hereby, then, it lies in the power of a ruler to benefit every class in the State, and amongst the rest to promote to the utmost the interests of the poor; and this in virtue of his office, and without being open to suspicion of undue interference - since it is the province of the commonwealth to serve the common good. And the more that is done for the benefit of the working classes by the general laws of the country, the less need will there be to seek for special means to relieve them. [emphasis mine]

33. There is another and deeper consideration which must not be lost sight of. As regards the State, the interests of all, whether high or low, are equal. The members of the working classes are citizens by nature and by the same right as the rich; they are real parts, living the life which makes up, through the family, the body of the commonwealth; and it need hardly be said that they are in every city very largely in the majority. It would be irrational to neglect one portion of the citizens and favor another, and therefore the public administration must duly and solicitously provide for the welfare and the comfort of the working classes; otherwise, that law of justice will be violated which ordains that each man shall have his due. To cite the wise words of St. Thomas Aquinas: "As the part and the whole are in a certain sense identical, so that which belongs to the whole in a sense belongs to the part."(27) Among the many and grave duties of rulers who would do their best for the people, the first and chief is to act with strict justice - with that justice which is called distributive - toward each and every class alike. 

[fides' Jack]

7 hours ago, Peace said:

Everyone knows that the reason why you object to a mandate is because you don’t want the government telling you what to do with your precious money.

That's a line I'm not willing to cross.  That's called rash judgment.  I would NEVER try to tell someone else what they care about or what they believe.  Not even my wife.  Not even my kids.

And no, absolutely it is NOT an issue with money for me.  I'm a melancholic.  I believe in Truth above just about everything else.  I believe wholeheartedly that all of these mandates are leading people like you straight to hell.  I pray that you avoid the mark when it actually happens in the next few years.  That's what the mandates will become.  As Scripture tells us, ALL those who take the mark will go to hell.  And most people will.  

I 100% expect ALL current money to become obsolete within 10 years.  At some point before that, the economy will collapse and there won't be anything to buy with your money, anyway.  I DO NOT care about the money.

If you have even the slightest decency in you, you will apologize for such a completely uncharitable comment.

2 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

When Catholics internalize that free-market fundamentalism, they are embracing an impoverished, liberal degradation of Catholic social teaching.

I agree with you, I'm not a strict libertarian for this exact reason.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

That's a line I'm not willing to cross.  That's called rash judgment.  I would NEVER try to tell someone else what they care about or what they believe.  Not even my wife.  Not even my kids.

And no, absolutely it is NOT an issue with money for me.  I'm a melancholic.  I believe in Truth above just about everything else.  I believe wholeheartedly that all of these mandates are leading people like you straight to hell.  I pray that you avoid the mark when it actually happens in the next few years.  That's what the mandates will become.  As Scripture tells us, ALL those who take the mark will go to hell.  And most people will.  

I 100% expect ALL current money to become obsolete within 10 years.  At some point before that, the economy will collapse and there won't be anything to buy with your money, anyway.  I DO NOT care about the money.

If you have even the slightest decency in you, you will apologize for such a completely uncharitable comment.

I agree with you, I'm not a strict libertarian for this exact reason.

Sure. As soon as you apologize to @Nunsuch

[Vernon]

Quote

I believe that an authentically Catholic understanding of the common good absolutely leaves room for government mandated paid maternity leave and various prudent familial supports. It is only the inherently liberal values of capitalism that can coherently claim that it is not the government's place to promote the good of the family. When Catholics internalize that free-market fundamentalism, they are embracing an impoverished, liberal degradation of Catholic social teaching.

 

I prefer a free market to a coercive market but with a basic safety net and that in no way is in conflict with my Catholic faith. It is not Catholic to force businesses to pay people to not work. This does not work for the greater good and is unfair to those who do not have children. Somehow many bishops have bought into the idea it's a one-way street and that employers have limitless supplies of cash and all that we need to do is force these greedy capitalists to give us our due, that we'll all be well off. They have no understanding of basic economics and that might be due to the fact that they are all living well off donated money and did not have to compete and work in the marketplace where wealth is created.

[Peace]

There's no question that things like provisioning for maternal leave, cheap or free health care, etc. are moral and just. The whole idea that the government cannot and should not be involved in providing these things, or mandating that employers provide them is a ridiculous view of the role of the state in my opinion. They are moral and just but the state should have no power to require them of the public? All moral and just actions must be left to the discretion of individual citizens as to whether to perform them or not? I do not see that concept anywhere in CST. I think it's simply right-wingers attempting to impose their libertarian view on the faith. It places an unfounded emphasis on personal freedom, in my view.

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html

19. Wages and Other Social Benefits

After outlining the important role that concern for providing employment for all workers plays in safeguarding respect for the inalienable rights of man in view of his work, it is worthwhile taking a closer look at these rights, which in the final analysis are formed within the relationship between worker and direct employer. All that has been said above on the subject of the indirect employer is aimed at defining these relationships more exactly, by showing the many forms of conditioning within which these relationships are indirectly formed. This consideration does not however have a purely descriptive purpose; it is not a brief treatise on economics or politics. It is a matter of highlighting the deontological and moral aspect. The key problem of social ethics in this case is that of just remuneration for work done. In the context of the present there is no more important way for securing a just relationship between the worker and the employer than that constituted by remuneration for work. Whether the work is done in a system of private ownership of the means of production or in a system where ownership has undergone a certain "socialization", the relationship between the employer (first and foremost the direct employer) and the worker is resolved on the basis of the wage, that is through just remuneration for work done.

It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic system and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in the final analysis to be evaluated by the way in which man's work is properly remunerated in the system. Here we return once more to the first principle of the whole ethical and social order, namely, the principle of the common use of goods. In every system, regardless of the fundamental relationships within it between capital and labour, wages, that is to say remuneration for work, are still a practical means whereby the vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of nature and manufactured goods. Both kinds of goods become accessible to the worker through the wage which he receives as remuneration for his work. Hence, in every case, a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and, in a sense, the key means.

This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such remuneration can be given either through what is called a family wage-that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse having to take up gainful employment outside the home-or through other social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own lives.

Experience confirms that there must be a social re-evaluation of the mother's role, of the toil connected with it, and of the need that children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop into responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically stable persons. It will redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother-without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination, and without penalizing her as compared with other women-to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society and of the family when it contradicts or hinders these primary goals of the mission of a mother.

In this context it should be emphasized that, on a more general level, the whole labour process must be organized and adapted in such a way as to respect the requirements of the person and his or her forms of life, above all life in the home, taking into account the individual's age and sex. It is a fact that in many societies women work in nearly every sector of life. But it is fitting that they should be able to fulfil their tasks in accordance with their own nature, without being discriminated against and without being excluded from jobs for which they are capable, but also without lack of respect for their family aspirations and for their specific role in contributing, together with men, to the good of society. The true advancement of women requires that labour should be structured in such a way that women do not have to pay for their advancement by abandoning what is specific to them and at the expense of the family, in which women as mothers have an irreplaceable role.

Besides wages, various social benefits intended to ensure the life and health of workers and their families play a part here. The expenses involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work, demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers, and that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge. Another sector regarding benefits is the sector associated with the right to rest. In the first place this involves a regular weekly rest comprising at least Sunday, and also a longer period of rest, namely the holiday or vacation taken once a year or possibly in several shorter periods during the year. A third sector concerns the right to a pension and to insurance for old age and in case of accidents at work. Within the sphere of these principal rights, there develops a whole system of particular rights which, together with remuneration for work, determine the correct relationship between worker and employer. Among these rights there should never be overlooked the right to a working environment and to manufacturing processes which are not harmful to the workers' physical health or to their moral integrity.

17 minutes ago, Vernon said:

 It is not Catholic to force businesses to pay people to not work.

You are clearly wrong.

Under what principle of Catholic Social Teaching? Obviously the state provides for many people who cannot work (such as the disabled). In that case you are forcing the general public (taxpayers) to pay for people who are not working. And the general public pays that tax in vastly different amounts (some pay a ton, some pay a little, and some pay others). Do you think the Church teaches that the state cannot force people to pay for others who cannot work? In effect, that taxation and wealth redistribution is unjust? If you think that, then I think you need to educate yourself concerning what the church has taught on these topics. If the state can force you or I to pay a part of our income to care for a disabled person, certainly the state can force a business to pay a part of its income for the care of women who want to take time off to raise their children. This is clearly a moral good that the church supports.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Peace

[Peace]

* Correction: "(some pay a ton, some pay a little, and some pay no tax)"

[Vernon]

Quote

There's no question that things like provisioning for maternal leave, cheap or free health care, etc. are moral and just. 

It is not moral and just if I am an employer and you force me to do that. Also, there is no such thing as free or cheap health care. I didn't say there should be no programs to help those in need.

 

For those who think that wealth can be legislated or that money grows on trees, I recommend this book:

The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy

by 

Thomas E. Woods Jr.

[Peace]

42 minutes ago, Vernon said:

It is not moral and just if I am an employer and you force me to do that.

Under what principle is it not just and moral? Look, the Church has taught that the state can take money out of your pocket (in the form of taxes) and give it to someone else (in the form of various social programs for the needy). Are new mothers not in need?

Taking money from an employer and giving it to a new mother for the care of her children is the same exact thing.

As for Thomas Woods that's all well and good, but the pope has clearly refuted your view right here:

https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_14091981_laborem-exercens.html
 

Quote

 

The concept of indirect employer includes both persons and institutions of various kinds, and also collective labour contracts and the principles of conduct which are laid down by these persons and institutions and which determine the whole socioeconomic system or are its result. The concept of "indirect employer" thus refers to many different elements. The responsibility of the indirect employer differs from that of the direct employer-the term itself indicates that the responsibility is less direct-but it remains a true responsibility: the indirect employer substantially determines one or other facet of the labour relationship, thus conditioning the conduct of the direct employer when the latter determines in concrete terms the actual work contract and labour relations. This is not to absolve the direct employer from his own responsibility, but only to draw attention to the whole network of influences that condition his conduct. When it is a question of establishing an ethically correct labour policy, all these influences must be kept in mind. A policy is correct when the objective rights of the worker are fully respected.

The concept of indirect employer is applicable to every society, and in the first place to the State. For it is the State that must conduct a just labour policy.

 

Thus, the state as the "indirect employer" has the power to set terms governing the labor-relationship between the direct-employer and the employee.

In this case the employee is a working woman who become pregnant. The terms of the labor relationship are that when a female employee becomes pregnant, the employer will pay continue to pay her salary for a period of time while she takes time off to care for her young child. Mother taking care of their young children is a common good and the existence of the state is to serve the common good.

Now you can quibble about the "economics" of individual policies and their effect on employers. Obviously there are prudential factors that should be considered when considering whether individual policies will have the desired effect of furthering the common good, but if you are trying to argue that the state does not have the right to impose that sort of policy in principle, in the case where it can be made feasible and serve the common good, you simply don't have a leg to stand on.

What else do you think the state can't do to regulate labor relationships? Can the state require employers to pay a just wage? Can the state require employers to provide insurance? Can the state require employers to provide working conditions that are safe?

You can see all of those clearly supported in Catholic Social Teaching. But for some reason you take issue with the idea of the state requiring employers to give new mothers some amount of compensation while the take care of their young children? It seems to be a ridiculous conclusion. I think you are looking at it from the standpoint of a libertarian, not a Catholic. I don't see anything in Catholic Social Teaching that supports your view on this issue, but if you have it, please feel free to post the substance of it here.

And I'm not some super liberal either. I'm generally a small-government person myself. I highly doubt I've voted for a single Democrat in the past 15 years. I might even look at individual maternal leave policies and object to them, as having unintended consequences that would hurt the overall common good.

But that's a far cry from the stance you seem to take. That the state does not have a right to regulate this aspect of the labor relationship in principle. That's simply not in accordance with what the Church teaches.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Peace