[quote="St_Francis, post:9, topic:305377"]
The main problem is tha Catholic teaching tells us we must care for those in need AND that we must not kill innocent unborn babies--not to mention a number of other things. I will first mention the issue for a Catholic who believes what the Government does for the poor is helpful.
Now, historically the DP is generally thought to have been on the side of the poor and those in need. And historically Catholics have been Democrats. Their parents and grandparents were Democrats. Voting for a Republican would be like the worst sort of treason.
When the DP started to add advocacy of licentious freedoms, this fit in with an American progressivist political philosophy and the Church did not immediately respond. Many Catholics were confused by three arguments: the first was the lie that the "fetus" was a mere clump of cells more like an appendix than a baby--put forth by medical experts, this confused those not so trained.
The second argument was based on the lie that many thousands of abortions were happening each year and that many women died from them. Dr Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of NARAL, later said that these numbers were pulled out of the air, and other data indicate that the numbers were a small percentage of those that were used.
This second argument was that it would be better to make abortion legal than to have so many women running the risk of death. This argument contained the lie of the many women having abortions and the fact that since the discovery of penecillin the risks had dropped dramatically.
The third argument was that providing government aid would "reduce the [greatly exaggerated] incidence" of abortion better than prohibition. This has not proved to be the case--altho government aid, access to birth control, and education increased greatly during the years after Roe v Wade, so did the rates of abortion.
The way that many Catholics see this is that the evil of abortion is *not *oitweighed by the good provided by government aid.
I understand and respect this argument. However, I do tend to agree that government aid is more effective than prohibition for now (the data bears this out, see economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-7 among others). But there are a lot of reasons that it is not nearly as effective as it could be. Despite the availability of WIC, food stamps and the like, there are a lot of other things that are unavailable that make an unintended pregnancy a terrifying prospect for a lot of young women (even married ones). First, the fact that paid maternity leave is rather a rare thing in this country, and even if you can afford to take unpaid leave, there is nothing to stop your employer from replacing you in your absence. If you do manage to keep your job and you need childcare, good luck. You may or may not qualify for a child care subsidy, which may or may not cover all of your expenses-- and infant care is VERY expensive, in my state it averages about $14,000/year, or pretty much your whole salary on min. wage. Not to mention the cost of all the pre-natal care you need (which could end up being a lot if you are high risk) and the cost of the birth itself (mine was about $30,000 w/c-section, 4 days in the hospital & associated costs). If you don't have insurance & don't qualify for Medicaid in your state, then it's all out of your pockets. These are just a few of the current problems with giving birth and raising children in this country while poor. It's pretty overwhelming, especially for a very young woman without a lot of family support.
I bring all that up because it's typically dems who want to fix those problems. If having a baby under a certain income bracket didn't seem so impossible to a lot of women, I bet a lot of them would be more willing to have their babies. It is difficult for me to recocile the pro-life rhetoric of conservatives with their unwillingness to spend more money to make choosing life the easier choice. Not to mention the shaming of poor women who do choose to have babies as irresponsible drains on the system, or "welfare queens". Pres. Obama may not be able to fix these problems, but he has talked about it a lot, and at the very least, "Obamacare" DOES provide for young people up to age 26 to stay on their parent's insurance, which is a huge, huge deal, as well as the provision that people cannot be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions (which pregnancy is usually considered to be).