Another scary article

My former ob/Gyn was a prolife Catholic Doctor.

He also had a leadership role in the crisis pregnancy center. Among the services provided at the center was to assist the patients getting onto Medicaid if needed.

Women without medical care during pregnancy are more likely to face difficult or preterm labor.

My son was born at 28 weeks and the hospital costs were over 100,000 dollars. We had insurance.

He was born at a county hospital. I know lots of his NICU roommates didn’t, they were older teens in some cases. The hospital worked with Medicaid.

I’m not sure that the costs could have possibly been covered by private donations.


Once again we see an ideological value (the proper role of charity) take precedence over preventing abortion.

I made not judgement one way or the other. My only point is conservatives have values that are more important than abortion, even while they criticize liberals for putting their values ahead of abortion.

False dichotomy.

1 Like

You are entitled to your suspicions, but voicing them here in a way that defames other posters is not aligned proper forum behavior. Surely you understand that.

You are right. It is a false dichotomy. Why then are you treating it as real dichotomy, saying you won’t support state-funded pre-natal care and delivery services because you want to rely on private charity instead? You are the one making it a dichotomy, not me. I am perfectly happy with using both.

First of all, you’ve not proven that state-funded health care prevents abortions. My claim is that state-funded health care isn’t necessary to reduce abortions. There is Medicaid, after all, and there are community health clinics which provide health care for the poor.

I disagree with your premise that poverty causes abortion.

I’m personally involved with a charity that provides shelter for homeless moms and their children. I have seen the benefits of human involvement in turning lives around. Many of these women are shocked to learn that their babies are really babies and not just clumps of cells. Women get abortions because pregnancy gets in the way of what they want to do, like careers, etc.

Second of all, by your reasoning, all women of child-bearing age should be given a universal pay rate by the state because you are claiming lack of money causes abortions. Perhaps we should also provide them with rent-free housing. Where do you draw the line?


You’ve not proven that voting for Trump prevents abortions.

To utilize Medicaid one must first become impoverished. It is not for the middle class. A middle class women might consider the burden and risk of childbirth sufficient reason to get an abortion. I would like to dissuade her too. As for community health clinics, they do not provide free delivery services.

That was not my premise. Abortion has many causes, but the cost of delivery services is certainly one that some women weigh in the balance. I don’t want them to have any reason for deciding on abortion.

I applaud that effort wholehearthedly.

Again, that was not my position. I only suggested prenatal care if they are pregnant and delivery services.

You’re right. But I am happy that Trump has reduced funding for abortions.

That will never happen. According to the latest Gutmacher study, the cost of delivery is not the primary reason women have abortions.

Thank you. :slight_smile: May I ask for a donation?

Since there are many reasons besides pregnancy and delivery services for women wanting abortions, I don’t think your solution will solve the problem.

I know it is not the primary reason, but it is a reason for some. And that is good enough for me.

No, it won’t solve the problem. But it will help.

You know the man of wealth and taste was Satan, right?


@0Scarlett_nidiyilii what’s puzzling me is the nature of his game.

1 Like

I don’t think that is necessarily true. If the parties were reversed on abortion, I would vote D.

I don’t disagree with everything the Ds are for, and I have a lot of problems with the Rs; on the other hand, if abortion were no longer an issue, I would probably mostly vote R but more on a case by case basis, not all the time as I do now.

Why should states have rights to override the right to life, the basic premise of the Declaration of Independence?

Managed partially. Which means inadequately.

That Mr. Trump doesn’t drink alcohol is to his credit.

The Declaration of Independence was a justification to revolt from the sovereign, not a declaration of how we Ballance the States right to protect life, and a woman’s right to " liberty" involving her own body. ( Liberty invoking another declaration right…give me liberty or give me death).
Abortion has always involved analysis of two competing rights of two people. ( Which tips my hand).

Hardly “always”, i.e., abortion became a contentious issue of rights only in modern times.

No, the electoral college does not function as designed. It serves only one of its two original functions. The first was to balance the selection of President and Vice President between larger and smaller states. That has worked. The other intent was to create a sort of assembly of electors who could pick the best man for the job, a sort of temporary Parliament. But the 12th amendment pretty much hollowed that premise out, coupled with faithless elector laws.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit