There's a feed I follow called The Libertarian Catholic.
Every single day, they do mental gymnastics to justify their own diametrically opposed positions. Their group might as well be called Jews for Christ.
And almost every day, they spout off "how can you believe in THIS if you're pro-choice?"
"How can you believe in THAT if you're pro-choice?" They are arguably the most vociferous pro-life website that I follow.
Listen, no one WANTS to kill that cute little baby. Who's going to raise him/her for the next 18 years?
In the old days (let's say the 1950's), there were these magical places called orphanages. If you asked the question: Are orphanages still a thing? This is how AI responds: "In the United States, traditional orphanages, as they were historically known, are largely extinct, having been replaced by a focus on foster care, adoption, and child welfare programs."
Well that answer, as with most things AI, only kind of answers the question.
Back in the 50's, a Mom would carry the child to term, then turn the child over to the orphanage until they could be adopted. The romantic version of the orphanage served many Catholics well, like the Libertarian Catholic, but in real life, orphanages were problematic.
Many Priests and Nuns had a Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child Philosophy. Orphanages, as the decades progressed, turned into more and more horrible places. Why? Oh, now we are going to have to get into some really dicey territory.
Lots of infertile young white couples were looking for that white newborn baby. In the olden days, the only problem with that kid without a home was the Mom's poor decision making skills. In the 50's, the system worked out 'nice.' But as decades progressed, orphanages weren't able to turn those babies over as quickly, the Priests and Nuns were stuck raising minority and special education kids for 18 years.
All of a sudden, the burdens of running an orphanage, where the leftover kids drained both money and resources, became fiscally unrealistic. Many orphanages collapsed from the expense of raising unadoptable children.
It's the law of supply and demand.
The Church's (literal) dark secret is that orphanages went from mostly white to mostly non-white. Many of the remaining kids had a laundry list of special needs.
You run into this problem in the public schools today. In the age of limited funding, students with one-on-one needs sap resources while the average child is herded through the system. That's why you hear Libertarians scream "home school your child!"
You think I don't know what I'm talking about? I am in my early 50's. I have 2 different friends who were married in their 40's and couldn't conceive children. Their wives were haunted by their biological clocks and went through the adoption process. Both adopted black children addicted to drugs at birth because it was the quickest way to get a child.
You can adopt a minority child with major issues TODAY if you wanted to. Finish reading my article, then walk right into the adoption agency. That average white baby has a 4-5 year wait period and a vetting process.
Why do you think so many Americans have gone to China and Eastern Europe to adopt their children? (Every single Chinese girl in my kid's school district has white parents. Every single one. The Chinese have since tightened their grip on newborns going to America.)
Did I by any chance mention the Catholic Church's staffing problems? Even if you re-opened an orphanage, the Catholic Church doesn't have enough priests to fill out their parish work, let alone fulfill any additional duties.
How about this for a start? The Catholic Church re-opens orphanages, and tells the employees not to beat or sexually abuse the children.
Wow, that doesn't seem like that hard of a concept, does it?
This argument doesn't necessarily apply to other religions. Few other religions have a 100+ year history of systemic child sexual abuse.
Right now, the Catholic Church's only "free" pro-life argument is:
Don't have an abortion or you're going to hell.
If that fundamental argument worked, those girls wouldn't be having pre-marital sex in the first place.
You love that unborn baby, more than life itself and you don't like my tone?
Senior citizens could fundamentally change society if they really wanted to. You could move America from a Senior-Based Society to a Birth-Based Society.
First of all you keep Medicare, once you get old, you should have the right to die in a nursing home instead of on the streets.
But other than that, no more Social Security for the seniors. You move that money into paying Mothers to carry that baby to term if they can't afford it. Then shore up adoption programs and open up orphanages. That will cost a mountain of money.
And then when you're old, you work until you die or move into a nursing home.
If you look at the surveys, the most ardent pro-choice supporters tend to be young females. You know, the ones who would actually have to care for the child after birth. The group that tends to be the most pro-life, by numbers, is typically old men. (Specifically old WHITE men.)
Those old men want their grandchildren to have that baby. They want their neighbors to have that baby. They are pro-life so that when they get to the pearly gates, they can say that they lived moral lives, whether that be the case or not.
You are screaming at me that if we cut the military budget and pour that money into saving the unborn child, that would work. Not enough money. Social Security is the # 1 expense on the government's spreadsheets. Securing a senior's quality of life in America can be stripped out and money focused on the next generation. But are seniors, specifically men, ready to alter their quality of life for that unborn child?
You want to argue that you paid into that pot your entire life? Listen, I'm not saying that's what we should do. I'm saying that, as a society, being Pro-Life has a cost. A cost many seniors aren't willing to pay...SEEING THAT THEY ARE THE MOST PRO-LIFE AMERICANS.
95% of the Catholic Church's population in America is either Caucasian or Hispanic. If the Catholic Church could accept only babies from confirmed Catholics in their Catholic Orphanages, maybe that would work, but then they'd be called out as racists. Many would accuse the church of regressing back a century in time.
Me? I'm sure I'm going to be called racist for even writing this article.....
What about Baptist Orphanages? Good Luck with that.
State Orphanages? In the era of the D-O-G-E, you think that any government official, on the record, is willing to propose, potentially, the largest government expenditure in the budget?
You think I have fuzzy math?
Uh... okay.
Last year there were about a million abortions.
The average kid now costs about $300,000 to raise.
That means, if parents aren't raising the those kids, that's $300 billion a year for the government to spend. That doesn't include infrastructure upgrades, like orphanages, or payments to Mom during prenatal care. I would argue that banning abortion and moving unwanted kids into institutional care would cost about a $1 trillion a year.
Last year, social security paid out $1.4 trillion in benefits.
Listen, I am basically a Libertarian.
If you want that child, GREAT!
If you don't want that child, GREAT!
Ultimately that choice should be between a woman and her doctor.
All I am saying is that if you are Pro-Life, and that's the single issue that you vote for, there's a cost for that vote.
Possibly your retirement.
Comments