Would a Basic Minimum Income dramatically reduce abortions?

[fides' Jack]

17 hours ago, Peace said:

Sure. As soon as you apologize to @Nunsuch

For what?  If I have wronged her somehow, I will surely apologize.  As far as I am aware, I haven't.  But I am not a just man, myself, so there might be something I'm unaware of.

@Nunsuch If I have wronged you in an unjust way, I apologize.  If I have, I ask you to tell me how I have, so I can avoid it in the future.

@Peace Are you really saying that you won't seek pardon for your own offenses until others seek pardon for theirs?

How did Catholics become so cold-hearted?  

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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).

Sometimes, yes, but not for just any reason.  Again, the Church condemns socialism.

3 hours ago, Vernon said:

They have no understanding of basic economics and that might be due to the fact that they are all living well off donated money

Actually, I wish that were the case.  I think the bishops would be more charitable, then.  A significant portion of bishops salary comes from the government (at least in the US, and definitely in Germany).  What percentage?  I really don't know.  But it was definitely a mistake for the Catholic Church to start accepting any kind of government assistance.  That's clear now.  Most of them have been bought by politicians.

But your main point is absolutely spot-on.

Edited February 12, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Peace]

16 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

For what?  If I have wronged her somehow, I will surely apologize.  As far as I am aware, I haven't.  But I am not a just man, myself, so there might be something I'm unaware of.

@Nunsuch If I have wronged you in an unjust way, I apologize.  If I have, I ask you to tell me how I have, so I can avoid it in the future.

@Peace Are you really saying that you won't seek pardon for your own offenses until others seek pardon for theirs?

How did Catholics become so cold-hearted?  

Well in that case "If I have wronged you in an unjust way, I apologize."

16 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Sometimes, yes, but not for just any reason.

Obviously. Who cares? We aren't talking about the state taking your precious money and funding abortion with it.

We are talking about the state taking your precious money and using it to help new mothers care for their children. I know. I know. "The horror".

[fides' Jack]

2 hours ago, Peace said:

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

Actually, I disagree with all of the above.  I think there's room for debate from faithful Catholics on these issues, but to say there is no question about it is just flat wrong.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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

Agreed.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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.

The mother also not working outside the home is a common good.  Would it be just and moral for the government to say that, barring some extraordinary circumstance, women are not allowed to work outside the home?

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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?

IMHO, no to the first 2, and maybe to the 3rd.  I have a big problem with the state itself determining what is considered "safe".

1 hour ago, Peace said:

You can see all of those clearly supported in Catholic Social Teaching.

I don't think so.  You can clearly see Catholic social teaching saying that employers have a responsibility to those things.  There is no Catholic social teaching supporting state-mandates regarding those things.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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.

Praise God.  That would be gravely sinful.

1 hour ago, Peace said:

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

To summarize my position, which you probably don't care for, there is absolutely room for debate as to what specifically the state has a moral right to regulate.  But again, IMHO, it should stay away from employer/employee relationships in most situations in the modern world.  That might be different if most or all businesses are acting in an immoral way for some reason, as it was in the South in the US for some decades.

4 minutes ago, Peace said:

Obviously. Who cares? We aren't talking about the state taking your precious money and funding abortion with it.

We are talking about the state taking your precious money and using it to help new mothers care for their children. I know. I know. "The horror".

That's exactly what we are talking about!  The same government does both - in most countries.  The same ideologies fuel both.  You really trust a government that DOES steal your money to murder babies to know when it's OK to mandate anything?

Hence why I believe it's about souls, more so than lives.

9 minutes ago, Peace said:

Well in that case "If I have wronged you in an unjust way, I apologize."

Despite the fact that it doesn't seem sincere to me given the scare quotes, I will assume that you are being sincere.  I accept your apology.  Thank you.

[Peace]

59 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

The mother also not working outside the home is a common good.  Would it be just and moral for the government to say that, barring some extraordinary circumstance, women are not allowed to work outside the home?

I have no idea. Start a thread on it.

59 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

IMHO, no to the first 2, and maybe to the 3rd. 

OK let's take the just wage:

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

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.

Now, right above the pope indicated that the indirect employer (in the first place, the State) substantially determines facets of the labor relationship, and that the State conditions conduct of the direct employer (the business) when it determines the concrete terms of the work contract.

Now, obviously, the employee wage is a concrete term of the actual work contract, so there is plenty of support there for the view that the state may regulate the amount that an employee pays to its employees.

You don't have a leg to stand on.

59 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I have a big problem with the state itself determining what is considered "safe".

Can the State say that it is unsafe for 6 year olds to work in coal mines? And to restrict companies from employing 6 years olds in coal mines and paying them two cents for a whole days work?

Look, you keep taking these ridiculous positions because they impinge on your precious "freedom" and your precious libertarian ideology. What is more important, your "freedom," your "ideology" or your faith?

Sure, you will say your "faith" but again, you are only fooling yourself.

59 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Praise God. 

Just about the only correct thing you wrote in your entire post.

59 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That would be gravely sinful.

Complete nonsense. Neither being a liberal or voting for a Democrat is a sin in itself. Again, you are putting your political ideology ahead of your faith.

59 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

But again, IMHO, it should stay away from employer/employee relationships in most situations in the modern world.

You can think whatever you want. The Catholic Church does not teach anything approaching that.

59 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That's exactly what we are talking about!  The same government does both - in most countries.  The same ideologies fuel both.  You really trust a government that DOES steal your money to murder babies to know when it's OK to mandate anything?

Dude. This is completely ridiculous. Again, the absence of logic. I am not even going to try to explain to you why at this point.

59 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Despite the fact that it doesn't seem sincere to me given the scare quotes, I will assume that you are being sincere.  I accept your apology.  Thank you.

I didn't apologize. I offered you a conditional apology of no substance, which is exactly what you offered @Nunsuch.

Edited February 12, 2022 by Peace

[Vernon]

From my perspective voting for a liberal would be a grave sin because I would be voting for someone who supports the right to kill unborn babies. It doesn't matter whatever government handouts they promise. That disqualifies them.

A "just wage" is when the employer and employee agree in their arrangement. In a free society, no government tampering is necessary and neither is it helpful. By interfering they price laborers out of work, drive up prices for others and otherwise misdirect resources.

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Vernon said:

From my perspective voting for a liberal would be a grave sin because I would be voting for someone who supports the right to kill unborn babies. It doesn't matter whatever government handouts they promise. That disqualifies them.

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election. Trump? Trump supports the right to kill unborn babies. Did you sin by voting for him?

11 minutes ago, Vernon said:

A "just wage" is when the employer and employee agree in their arrangement.

No that is not a "just wage". That is "any wage". The only thing that is excluded by your arrangement is slavery.

Dude. Read the Catechism. This is why I can't take any of you libertarians seriously. You are speaking purely in terms of economic theory. You are not talking in terms of Catholic Social Teaching. This is a Catholic forum not an economic form.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#2434

A just wage is the legitimate fruit of work. To refuse or withhold it can be a grave injustice.221 In determining fair pay both the needs and the contributions of each person must be taken into account. "Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural and spiritual level, taking into account the role and the productivity of each, the state of the business, and the common good."222 Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages.

11 minutes ago, Vernon said:

In a free society, no government tampering is necessary and neither is it helpful. By interfering they price laborers out of work, drive up prices for others and otherwise misdirect resources.

Personally I think there are better alternatives than mandating a minimum wage that better serve the common good and allow each family to provide for their needs. I'm not a huge fan of the minimum wage because I think it is inefficient, as you do. But regulations relating to wages and other work-conditions are within the proper purview of the state, whose primary purpose is serve the common good. If regulation X or regulation Y serves the common good, it is certainly proper for the state to implement it.

Again, we are not talking about economic theory here. Pure economics is concerned only with the allocation of resources, whether that is done under a Marxian economic system or a capitalist economic system. Neither is tempered by moral considerations and as such pure forms of both systems are rejected by the Church. The Church teaches that the free-market cannot be left to operate alone, complete untempered by moral considerations relating to the common good. The free market may result in the most efficient allocation of resources. That does not make the free-market moral.

You obviously haven't studied Catholic Social Teaching on any of these matters, which can be seen from the definition of a "just wage" that you set forth above. So I suggest that you study what the Church teaches.

Now, if you don't care what the Church teaches, then we have nothing left to discuss on the topic.

[Nunsuch]

Since I have never participated on this thread, I have no idea why I became a subject of discussion here. But I will say this. @fides' Jack, I don't want your insincere apologies. Frankly, what you think of me matters not at all. In fact, just ignore me. That is what I intend to do toward you in the future. I have more important things to pay attention to. @Peace, thanks for your concern. But I'm outa here. 

[little2add]

The premise of this thread is there they would be less abortions if a person had steady income. 
it brings to mine the question of what is the value of a human being?  
 

it kind of makes you wonder how our past generations came into being, before socialize welfare.  Abortion was not allowed as it was believed to be immoral. Chemical/medical birth control was not an option.  Chemical birth control (the pill) was believed to be immoral too.  
large families was common and considered a blessing.  
Sunday Businesses closed, people went to church to pray and worship and it was a day of rest.

Lest we forget the original ancient lawgivers who gave us (mankind) the Hippocratic Oath. 

The oath has been in existence from 400 BC. 

Hippocrates was a philosopher as much as a physician. He considered healing to be a scientific art. The oath sets the standards of conduct at a time when healers were considered near divine and no laws or litigations existed.

Hippocratic Oath

I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract: 

To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others.

I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them.

I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.

In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, even upon those suffering from stones, but I will leave this to those who are trained in this craft.

Into whatever homes I go, I will enter them for the benefit of the sick, avoiding any voluntary act of impropriety or corruption, including the seduction of women or men, whether they are free men or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear in the lives of my patients, whether in connection with my professional practice or not, which ought not to be spoken of outside, I will keep secret, as considering all such things to be private.

So long as I maintain this Oath faithfully and without corruption, may it be granted to me to partake of life fully and the practice of my art, gaining the respect of all men for all time. However, should I transgress this Oath and violate it, may the opposite be my fate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Peace]

42 minutes ago, Nunsuch said:

Since I have never participated on this thread, I have no idea why I became a subject of discussion here. But I will say this. @fides' Jack, I don't want your insincere apologies. Frankly, what you think of me matters not at all. In fact, just ignore me. That is what I intend to do toward you in the future. I have more important things to pay attention to. @Peace, thanks for your concern. But I'm outa here. 

Thanks yeah I should chill out of a bit too. I've said my "peace" on the subject.

[little2add]

After 1973, some two thousand three hundred and seventy three after the Hippocratic Oath was written, it’s was updated by excluding the lines “I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion” in its entirety.

The art of medicine has gone downhill ever since!  

 

 

Our faith tells us that every life is precious from the moment of conception to the final breath

JMJ

[fides' Jack]

1 hour ago, Nunsuch said:

Frankly, what you think of me matters not at all. 

Great, likewise.

[Nihil Obstat]

6 hours ago, Vernon said:

 

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

by 

Thomas E. Woods Jr.

I used to like him. If you dig back far enough in my post history you will find a great many political things that I now completely repudiate. Eventually, after reading pope Leo's fantastic encyclicals Immortale Dei, Libertas, and Diuturnum, I came to realize that Woods' position is deeply, radically un-Catholic. It absolutely flies in the face of the ordinary magisterial teachings from Leo until now. It's free-market fundamentalist, it's inherently liberal, it's a profound error.

Calling Leo's writing lifechanging for me is probably not an exaggeration. Reading them with an open mind and without pre-conceived notions of what the Church ought to be teaching gives a beautiful, coherent view of the common good, the origins of the state, and the exercise of freedom and responsibility.

 

As a sidenote, I think it is important to continue to point out that capitalism is a fundamentally liberal ideology. The basic, irreconcilable errors of liberalism are foundational for the free-market capitalist ideology. So for those conservatives out there in the ether who are quick to point out how liberalism is ruining western civilization, yes, I agree, I hope you follow through on the implications of that thought. And for any capitalists that I offend by calling them liberals, good, I hope to further offend you by drawing attention to it.

[fides' Jack]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Can the State say that it is unsafe for 6 year olds to work in coal mines? And to restrict companies from employing 6 years olds in coal mines and paying them two cents for a whole days work?

If that were a thing, then yes, but it's not, so it would make no sense for the government to make a law like that.  

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Now, obviously, the employee wage is a concrete term of the actual work contract, so there is plenty of support there for the view that the state may regulate the amount that an employee pays to its employees.

You're not wrong.  Like I said, it's my opinion, but I don't think the employee wage should qualify under the conditions that the state should have the right to regulate.  But yes, that is something that would be open to debate.  I don't think the Church supports or condemns doing so.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Dude. Read the Catechism. This is why I can't take any of you libertarians seriously. You are speaking purely in terms of economic theory. You are not talking in terms of Catholic Social Teaching. This is a Catholic forum not an economic form.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#2434

Wow, an actual source that supports an argument directly!  

But I think the rest of @Vernon's statement still applies, generally: "In a free society, no government tampering is necessary and neither is it helpful. By interfering they price laborers out of work, drive up prices for others and otherwise misdirect resources."

A free society is the best way to ensure that just wages (as defined in the Catechism, quoted by @Peace) are paid in an honest format.  (Qualified in view of the last statement I made in this post - just wages are not the primary concern of a moral government, but they can certainly be a big concern)

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Again, we are not talking about economic theory here. Pure economics is concerned only with the allocation of resources, whether that is done under a Marxian economic system or a capitalist economic system. Neither is tempered by moral considerations and as such pure forms of both systems are rejected by the Church. The Church teaches that the free-market cannot be left to operate alone, complete untempered by moral considerations relating to the common good. The free market may result in the most efficient allocation of resources. That does not make the free-market moral.

Absolutely agree, 100%.

Even the founding fathers of the US agreed: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."  If that's true, I suspect that while the free market might be the best long-term option (qualified in view of my last statement in this post), it is the free people who make it moral, and not the other way around.  And when the people turn away from God, they not only lose their morality, but also their freedom, as we are seeing right now across the globe.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

You obviously haven't studied Catholic Social Teaching on any of these matters, which can be seen from the definition of a "just wage" that you set forth above.

Rash judgment.  He could have studied it very well but simply forgot that piece, or perhaps just misspoke on the matter.

As Catholics we're obligated, by moral law, to assume the best of people.

3 hours ago, Peace said:

I didn't apologize. I offered you a conditional apology of no substance, which is exactly what you offered nunsuch.

Think what you want.  I was sincere.  I just lacked the knowledge (and still do) about what needed an apology.

2 hours ago, Peace said:

Who did you vote for in the last presidential election. Trump? Trump supports the right to kill unborn babies. Did you sin by voting for him?

No, as the Church teaches, you are allowed to vote for a pro-abortion politician if it is the lesser of two evils, under certain conditions.  Clinton did not qualify for those conditions.  Neither did Biden.  Trump did.

If there were another party that had a chance and was not pro-abortion, we would have been morally obligated to vote for that party.  

However, despite not being entirely pro-life, we now know in hindsight that Trump was the best choice, if only because he fought to protect the unborn more than any other president since Roe v Wade.  

It's hard to believe a greater evil than abortion might arise, but the way things are looking, it's entirely possible.

3 hours ago, Peace said:

Dude. This is completely ridiculous. Again, the absence of logic. I am not even going to try to explain to you why at this point.

Good, then I win that point by forfeiture.  I'll take that.   

10 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

As a sidenote, I think it is important to continue to point out that capitalism is a fundamentally liberal ideology. The basic, irreconcilable errors of liberalism are foundational for the free-market capitalist ideology. So for those conservatives out there in the ether who are quick to point out how liberalism is ruining western civilization, yes, I agree, I hope you follow through on the implications of that thought. And for any capitalists that I offend by calling them liberals, good, I hope to further offend you by drawing attention to it.

I've said it before, and I still believe, that the best possible form of government is a benevolent monarchy.

Edited February 13, 2022 by fides' Jack

[Peace]

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Rash judgment.  He could have studied it very well but simply forgot that piece, or perhaps just misspoke on the matter.

Nonsense.

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

As Catholics we're obligated, by moral law, to assume the best of people.

Take your own advice.

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Clinton did not qualify for those conditions.  Neither did Biden.  Trump did.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that Trump did not. So as anyone accuses Biden voters of sinning by voting for a pro-abortion politician, I accuse him of sinning for voting for a pro-abortion politician.

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

If there were another party that had a chance and was not pro-abortion, we would have been morally obligated to vote for that party.  

Nonsense. That's a complete cop-out. If Catholics and other Christians took a principled stance and chose to vote only for candidates who have a stance on abortion that is consistent with the Catholic Church, then that candidate would have as solid of a chance of winning as anyone else. They don't have a "chance" because of people like you who made a sinful choice by choosing to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

However, despite not being entirely pro-life, we now know in hindsight that Trump was the best choice, if only because he fought to protect the unborn more than any other president since Roe v Wade.  

Even if he was, who cares? Being a more pro-life president than Clinton is an accomplishment now?

8 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I've said it before, and I still believe, that the best possible form of government is a benevolent monarchy.

Are you going to create one of those in your Antarctic fantasy-land?

[fides' Jack]

2 minutes ago, Peace said:

Take your own advice.

I have, this entire thread, at least.

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

That's your opinion. My opinion is that Trump did not. So as anyone accuses Biden voters of sinning by voting for a pro-abortion politician, I accuse him of sinning for voting for a pro-abortion politician.

Well, you can think that, but you're wrong.

3 minutes ago, Peace said:

Nonsense. That's a complete cop-out. If Catholics and other Christians took a principled stance and chose to vote only for candidates who have a stance on abortion that is consistent with the Catholic Church, then that candidate would have as solid of a chance of winning as anyone else. They don't have a "chance" because of people like you who made a sinful choice by choosing to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

So, your argument here is, I'm wrong because those people do have a chance, but they don't really have a chance because of circular logic?  So therefore I'm wrong but I'm not wrong?

In all honesty, you do bring up a fair point regarding people being too loose on the matter of voting for the lesser of two evils.  However, I DID look at all the other politicians that I could have voted for, and ALL of them were pro-abortion AND other things that made them worse than Trump.  Unfortunately, even if I assumed that all of the candidates had an equal chance of winning (which is clearly false), none of my options had a morally better stance than Trump.

So it's entirely possible to have avoided sin by voting for a 3rd party, or for Trump, it was NOT possible to avoid sin by voting for Biden.  His stance on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE was contrary to Catholic moral teaching.

11 minutes ago, Peace said:

Even if he was, who cares? Being a more pro-life president than Clinton is an accomplishment now?

No, that's just my point.  I'm not happy with Trump at all from a moral stance.  He was also very pro-lgbt, which is entirely inconsistent with morality.  In fact, he was more pro-lgbt than Obama, or even Biden has been thus far.  But I have to give credit where it's due - he was more pro-life than any other president since Roe v Wade.  Again, that's not saying much...

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

Are you going to create one of those in your Antarctic fantasy-land?

If only it were possible...  I certainly couldn't be the king, though.  I'm not a just man.  I imagine if I were king, that "kingdom" would end up being worse than most countries are right now.  That's not a comforting thought.