British Baby Killers


The UKs Daily Telegraph reports a disastrous vote in parliament. This week the British have voted in favor of human/animal embryonic hybrids being created, voted to allow children to have two biological mothers and no father (through artificial insemination and genetic engineering for lesbian couples) and they also voted not to reduce the time limit for abortions from the appallingly late stage of 24 weeks gestation.

The photograph above shows an unborn child that British people think it is okay to poison in its mother’s womb before dismembering it, crushing its skull, pulling it out of the womb and throwing it away.
Do you wonder why Britain is drifting into moral despair and nihilism? The once proud nation has become a world leader in the culture of death. 
The Owl of the Remove has posted on the future of Britain recently. He prophesies increasing anarchy and lawlessness combined with even higher rates of alcoholism, teen pregnancy, unemployment and street violence. This will lead to an increase in police surveillance, state control and a police state in the name of ‘security.’ One aspect of the new British police state will be the persecution of any who resist the homosexualist, anti-family, pro abortion agenda. This persecution will be quiet to start with, but once the state realizes that there is no opposition, and in fact, the majority of the British support such persecution of religious people, it will become open.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10802160930990168405 Richard Ballard

    This is all very tragic and sad, but probably prophetic as to the future of Great Britain. It sounds something like the grim, dystopian world of social unrest and lack of respect for life imagined in P.D. James’ “Children of Men.” I wonder what might happen if the Queen were to refuse her assent to these horrible parliamentary decisions? I suspect though that such would be very unlikely to happen. Alas.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/00277922447843163814 fried chicken strips

    Ready, resourceful man! / Never without resources / never an impasse as he marches on the future–/only Death, from Death alone he will find no rescue / but from desperate plagues he has plotted his escapes.Man the master, ingenious past all measure / past all dreams, the skills within his grasp–/ he forges on, now to destruction / now again to greatness. When he weaves in / the laws of the land, and the justice of the gods / that binds his oaths together / he and his city rise high–/ but the city casts out / that man who weds himself to inhumanity / thanks to reckless daring. Never share my hearth / never think my thoughts, whoever does such things.–AntigoneSophocles. The Three Theban Plays. Trans. Robert Fagles. New York: Penguin Classics, 1984.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17821971426359725229 Tom in Vegas

    Beyond sad. Don’t get me started on the stem cell barbarism.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/15566408268292424147 leutgeb

    The Queen assented to the 1967 Abortion Act and every other piece of anti-Life legislation since.The (Catholic) King of Belgium abdicated for the day when their Abortion Act became law.As to your previous post regarding pockets of Catholicism and not much leadership, Father, this mirrors the picture in 1535. Only St John Fisher was beheaded of all the Bishops.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    Abdicated for a day? I can’t even put into words the anti-monarchy rant that went through my brain to hear of a monarch ‘abdicating’ for a day in some weak display of pseudo protest.It’s all about day care. If we had universal day care abortion would slowly stop and the populace would get to a place where they understand that it is life at stake. Sadly it is often the religious right that is opposed to day care as they think it will keep women as full time moms and men as full time workers. But the economic ends don’t meet. So instead we have unemployed Dad’sm semi-employed moms, and dead babies. Meanwhile the Chinese are well employed when they’re not killing off Tibetan babies and jailing catholic bishops.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13958697088282913961 Memphis Aggie

    “It’s all about day care”How bizarre. It’s about worldly and pleasurable pursuits over love and self sacrifice. Concern over day care is a very minor symptom. It’s part of the everyday interior fight between our will and God’s.The left is at fault for setting husband against wife in feminism and through the sexual revolution they set self interest against marriage and children. But sure, if you have to blame the right to preserve your world view, go ahead and focus on day care.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12373317560249811006 Fr. Dwight Longenecker

    Come on. The Chinese have had a ‘one child per family’ policy for years, which is enforced by forcible abortions.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    Fr L,My point exactly. We’re shipping our jobs oversees to the world’s largest, most murderous Gulag. If we create a just society where people don’t have to compete with a Gulag and where mothers have a means to care for their babies, then abortion rates will decrease sharply.If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead.Ensure all infants, toddlers, and preschoolers have a baseline level of care available through a public daycare system and abortion will wither away to nothing.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13177183667215351026 James

    Marcus:You’ve missed the point of the passage you quoted. It’s not the state’s responsibility to provide for the needs of your brother; it’s yours. It’s mine. We are our brother’s keeper; it is our responsibility to provide for the needs of others from our means. The job of the state is to provide security and just governance, not to relieve us of the responsibility to care for our brother.Regarding daycare: where there’s a necessity and a will, there’s also a way. My mother chose to stay home with us and during the day she also took care of my two cousins and the neighbor girl whose mothers worked. Instead of relying on a state institution actually interact with your neighbors, relatives, parish and community to organize and provide a needed service. In our modern mobile life we’ve lost our foundations and support networks by moving away from our families and especially in having few children so that there isn’t a family that can be relied on. This requires an even greater effort on our part to create new networks through friends, church, etc.Besides, there’s an even simpler way to reduce the number of abortions. Teach girls to have some self-respect and keep their legs together. Any moron can figure out that a little lovin’ leads to a bun in the oven. If you don’t want a kid then keep your pants on. Our depraved society’s obsession with procreation free sex has proven futile and unobtainable. Short of castration and removal of the sex organs there is no way to ensure sterile sex. Trying to get kids to put a Hefty bag on as the solution has only exacerbated the problem; instead we should be teaching them to keep their legs together. For some reason God’s law always proves to be both the moral and most effective way.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    James,I would normally agree with you, but not this time and not on this subject. We need concrete, reliable, in every town, day care available to women and children, period. And my responsiblity will be manifest in the doubling of my property taxes to pay for it.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13177183667215351026 James

    Then organize your parish to provide it and double your tithe to pay for it. The state ‘taint the solution, frequently it’s the problem. The Church is always the solution.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    I tried and I offered to start a 501c3 non-profit to do it through and to fund it. My pastor told me it was too much liability. And anyway, we already have a nursery school that is overbooked and only available a couple hours a day. Day care is $100 per day in my state. The working poor cannot afford it. So a vulnerable pregnant woman must wither reconcile herself to the pain of separation inherent in adoption or live in fear of extreme poverty and depridation. A one parish at a time solution will not work, particularly with all the lazy and uncommitted priests and lay people we have. Sorry. I’m a libertarian in every other aspect of life, but not education/day care and the care of children. So I hear you, I empathize and understand where you are coming from, but respectfully disagree. I am willing to engage Caeser on this issue, tax collectors and all.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13958697088282913961 Memphis Aggie

    I’m with James on this one (no surprise). But I’d like to add that state run “charity” is loveless, spiritually fruitless and encourages a sense of entitlement and ingratitude in the recipient and laxity in the tax paying public whose forced contribution carries no merit. Just as “faith without works is dead” (speaking of James) faithless and loveless “works” from the self serving state is just as dead.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    Memphis, I agree with all that. If the Pope or the US Bishops stepped in and prioritized catholic daycares across America that would be far superior to utilitarian government daycares. It would also be a fitting charitable act to counter the abuse of children. Sadly the church doesn’t seem to be able to do anything without celibates under vows of celibacy to do the work.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13958697088282913961 Memphis Aggie

    My elder son goes to a Catholic School and went to a Catholic Mother’s day out program (not a full time day care) three days a week prior to that. Both are run out of my local parish primarily by lay people (we only have 3 priests). Fortunately, Memphis is a very cheap place to live so my wife can stay at home, but we had to make some choices to make that happen: smaller house, older cars etc. in other words the things most parents do. It’s a wonderful sense of community: I see the teachers and parents of classmates at Mass and my son is somewhat more insulated from the secular world.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/07986690514568554656 Jackie Parkes

    Yes all this is on the cards!

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    Dear Memphis,Your school experience sounds nice. I am planning on sending my kids through my parish school system for the reasons you describe.But regarding care to mothers, you and I are not desparate and contemplating abortion in the first place. The abortion conversation is about a single waitress in LA or New York who made a mistake. She probably already drives a used car and can’t afford a house in Memphis or anywhere else. A couple of days of part time care aren’t going to cut it. Asking her to move to Memphis isn’t going to cut it. I think cheap or free daycare on a mass scale is the real answer and social conservatives really are an obstructionist force when it comes to cheap and available daycare because they associate it with feminist causes.But then again I have already used enough of Fr L’s bandwidth on my whole ‘daycare will solve abortion’ soap box. (which I am obviously passionate about so it is hard not to pontificate about it). His post is about England’s new law.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/13958697088282913961 Memphis Aggie

    Don’t apologize. I like your passion, if not your specific solution. I agree that the Church (read you and me) have responsibilities here (Memphis has it’s own far too active abortion mill). It’ll take a lot more than day care, you need job training, drive-by fathers have to be held responsible etc. Adoption should also be made an easier, less bureaucratic option. Many methods must be employed to reconstruct marriage and the fundamental respect for life or your day care idea, although it has merit, will fail. The fact is millions support this monstrous devaluation of human life and some even revere nature or the environment over human life. I expect this battle will be fought our whole lives.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16748360785347994382 Justin

    It all boils down to value. The value you place on life, regardless at what stage. Our society has placed such a small value on life, that supporting and nuturing life is not worth most people’s time, effort, and yes, sacrifice. Ritgh now society values cars, houses, bank accounts, and ‘keeping up with the joneses’ more then life.Until we start valuing life above all things (sans Christ) then we will continue to allow babies to be tossed in the trash, half man half animal creations, creation of babies for scientific purposes, and what ever other evil thing uncaring people can think of.If we start valueing life, as a society, then we will sacrifice in order to support and protect all lives and provide options for those who are scared and lost. A great modern example to follow on this topic the late Cardinal O’Conner. He changed, through his lovign sacrifice, how people view life in one of the largest cities in the world; and this change created societal support networks that allowed the changes we all desire.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17743644130726659163 The Cellarer

    A poll that shows MP’s out of step with public opinion.Cardinal Keith O’Brien has welcomed the results of an opinion poll released today which shows that over two thirds of the UK population oppose the creation of part-human part-animal embryos. The poll conducted by ORB (Opinion Research Business – http://www.opinion.co.uk) on behalf of the Catholic Media Office asked how strongly people opposed or supported such research, 67% opposed (of which 51% opposed strongly) any moves to create hybrid embryos. The poll also questioned attitudes on IVF treatment being given to women without the child’s genetic father being identified. 64% of respondents believed IVF clinics should be required to identify a child’s genetic father. Both proposals are contained in the Government’s “Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill”. Commenting on the results, Cardinal O’Brien who has led UK opposition to the Bill said;”I am delighted to see that the overwhelming majority of people, like me, are completely opposed to the creation of animal-human hybrids. I sincerely hope that Gordon Brown and all our MPs will take notice of this result and reconsider the need for this legislation. It is also heartening to see that the vast majority of people across the UK firmly believe that when a woman receives IVF treatment the clinic involved should know that the child’s genetic father is identified.”Cardinal Welcomes Embyro Poll Results

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04121823336083912055 elizabeth

    marcus aurelius said: So a vulnerable pregnant woman must wither reconcile herself to the pain of separation inherent in adoption or live in fear of extreme poverty and depridation. I have to disagree with this argument. I think painting adoption as a traumatic event that will forever haunt and emotionally cripple a birthmother is a clever theory passed off as undeniable fact by the pro-abortion, pro-contraception lobby. By perpetuating the worst-case scenario of adoption (and of course, yes, there are birthmothers who regret their decision, but not in the numbers the pro-abort crowd would claim), you unwittingly lend credence to the idea that abortion is the only liberating, empowering decision that leaves women unscathed.A revaluing of adoption would go a long way to reducing the number of abortions in the US. As would affordable, accessible day care. Because, as I wish more young women were counseled, abortion is a permanent solution to what is in many cases only a temporary problem (child care, maternity leave, etc.).

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    I would love to see an ad campaign celebrating adoption. I agree. But I personally know someone who aborted rather than go through with adoption and so I am afraid that we should face that reality. By providing both adoption and the means for mothers to care for babies on their own we would drammatically decrease abortion.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14767820723697122005 SteveG

    Marcus,Your proposed solution is the opposite of what is needed.The dissolution of the family and community has its roots in the switch from a society where children where attached primarily to adults in their lives, to a society in which peer orientation is seen as paramount and necessary for proper socialization.This shift in culture is founded in the insane cultural experiment undertaken by modern societies, in which children are removed from their parents’ care, at earlier and earlier ages, for longer and longer periods.The very idea of placing children in the care of strangers for most of their day, where they compete for attention and approval from that stranger, for most of their life, in order to socialize them into little consumers is foolish beyond redemption. It is also unheard of in all of human history prior to the last century or so. It is very literally, the institutionalizing of children.Yes..it does produce efficient workers and good consumers, and yes it has achieved technological advances in spades. At the same time it’s decimated the sense of community and family that any decent society is founded upon.Anything that moves us further in that direction (i.e. day care for all) will only serve to cripple us further and strip away whatever cultural ties we have left.I heartily recommend studying some of the work of John Taylor Gatto, and Gordon Neufeld to see how healthy, educated human beings are formed before buying into the daycare for all solution.We need to be moving in exactly the opposite direction.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    Steveg,You’ve got no hard evidence for any of that ranting. If the choice is between a daycare baby and a dead baby I’ll take the daycare baby. You have no idea if our earliest cave people ancestors pooled their resources to care fore infants or not, and even if they did not, who cares? What difference does this pseudo historical/anthropological argument even make? If the choice is between a daycare baby and a dead baby, I’ll take daycare. If poverty is forcing people to work, I’ll take daycare family over destitute family.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/04121823336083912055 elizabeth

    marcus auerelius — I’m sorry for your friend’s experience. But the experience of one person does not prove your argument about adoption. Portraying adoption as an emotional minefield plays into the hands of the pro-choicers. You said better a child in day care than a dead child. Well, better a child living with an adoptive family than a dead child.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/10972454879541846090 NIckName

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    Elizabeth,What argument are you making? Of course I agree with you that adoption is great! Denying the human nature and the fact that some people wrongly have an issue with it won’t make the issue go away. Providing care for children regardless of the economic circumstances and marital status of their parents is everywhere and always good. The Catholic church used to be a leading caregiver in the form of orphanages. Why then do we think that daycare is wrong?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/16319597730114177000 eliz

    MA — We’re all saying the same thing here. Life, and the right to be born, trumps all else. We’re all on the same page regarding essentials here.And if it’s possible to agree with both marcus aurelius and steveg, I do.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14767820723697122005 SteveG

    You’ve got no hard evidence for any of that ranting.Actually, you are quite mistaken about that, and I am sorry that you feel this is ranting. There is not only evidence for most of what I have mentioned, but at least with regards to the importance of adult orientation over peer orientation, it is more or less settled science in the field of psychology.I referred you to one of the leading minds in the field of what’s called Attachment Theory (the study of human relationships).I would again strongly suggest that you read Dr. Gordon Nuefeld’s book Hold On to Your Kids before dismissing what I’ve offered as a rant. The study in this field and what they know about human relationships is quite compelling.With regard to the issues of compulsory schooling, I can fully admit that maybe my phrasing was unnecessarily inflammatory, but that does not change the reality of the factual claims. It is a fact that until the last Century or so, compulsory schooling was unthinkable in the U.S. The idea of the wholesale pushing of children into an institution in order to train them arose in early 18th Century in Prussia. It was imported to the U.S. sometimes with good intent, and sometimes with not so good intent, beginning in the late 19th and early 20th century. One of the ill intents (at least from the perspective of families) was to lessen the influence of parents, community and religion in a child’s life. That is very boldly stated in the writings of many of the founders of the modern school system. They weren’t even shy about their intentions at the outset.“Every teacher should realize he is a social servant set apart for the maintenance of the proper social order and the securing of the right social growth. In this way the teacher is always the prophet of the true God and the usherer in of the true kingdom of heaven.” (John Dewey)Who’s John Dewey?From Wiki’s first Paragraph on him…He is also known as the father of functional psychology and was a leading representative of the progressive movement in U.S. schooling during the first half of the 20th century.From Woodrow Wilson…We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.(Address to the Federation of High School Teachers while still president of Princeton University)I could multiply quotes like the ones above 10 or 20 fold from the writings of those who established the current school system, but again I’d refer you to the Work of John Taylor Gatto and his book The Underground History of American Eductaion published by Oxford Village Press. He also has made it available on-line to read for free.Who’s Gatto? Some conspiracy theorist, or maybe a hack? Hardly… He was a public school teacher in New York City for 30 years and He climaxed his teaching career as New York State Teacher of the Year in 1991 after being named New York City Teacher of the Year on three occasions. After that award, he quit teaching and gave his reasons in an op-ed piece that was printed in the Wall Street Journal, which is readily available on the internet.Is his work perfect? Of course not, and he admits that is likely the case, but he nonetheless makes a very strong case for what I hinted at originally.Compulsory schooling for a majority of the year, for a majority of the day, for most of childhood, was a social experiment largely driven by business interests. More importantly, part of the intent was specifically to weaken the ties to families, communities and religion to make kids more pliable to social planners.I’d suggest at least giving that evidence a fair hearing before dismissing it.What’s all this got to do with the issue at hand? It’s important because unless we understand both the historical and psychological context of what’s happening (among a myriad of other contextual factors), we won’t see that this was a large factor in the weakening of family and community in the U.S.If we don’t understand the problem correctly, we will have no chance of repairing it. As I’ve already said, the prescription you offer serves only to extend into earlier childhood the very source of many of these problems.If the choice is between a daycare baby and a dead baby I’ll take the daycare baby.But this is a false choice, and it misses at least two MAJOR aspects of the discussion.First, it misses the reality that the roots of abortion are found in the weakening of the family and community, which are the cause if many of the conditions which lead to ‘unwanted’ pregnancy. If we do anything that further weakens that on a societal level, we will likely experience an increase, rather than a decrease, in abortions.I think it is badly mistaken to think that just because day care would be available, the women who abort would suddenly choose not to.I say that because the second thing your proposal misses is the reality that it is often pregnancy and delivery that are equally unwanted.Pregnancy and delivery are, to put it mildly, very difficult. Even though there can be very joyful aspects to them, they take a tremendous emotional and physical toll on a woman. A woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant will not automatically endure that simply because day care is available. If it were that easy (i.e. just making sure that the child will be cared for), then adoption would solve the problem. But women get abortions for much more complex reasons than just a lack of day care. And day care does nothing to alleviate most of those reasons.You have no idea if our earliest cave people ancestors pooled their resources to care fore infants or not, and even if they did not, who cares?Of course they did…but they did it in small and local families and communities because that is what works. Looking to a Federal or state body, which is layers upon layers removed from the persons involved, turns the persons into statistics and would be very ineffective. It also has the unintended consequence I’ve described already of weakening the family and community (who actually can be good at this) further.If the choice is between a daycare baby and a dead baby, I’ll take daycare. If poverty is forcing people to work, I’ll take daycare family over destitute family.Again, this is a false choice. It is such an overly simplistic analysis that any implementation to remedy things based on it is bound to backfire.For some additional background on why mothers work, and why they end up destitute, I’d also suggest you read The Two Income Trap by Elizabeth Warren. Again, not a perfect book, but another very important piece of the puzzle in explaining how we got where we are.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14767820723697122005 SteveG

    By the way, for anyone interested in a more concise look at some of what I talk about above (more concise than Gatto’s book), below is a really good article by the journalist/historian Walter Karp.The Teaching of HistoryIt focuses primarily on the teaching of history (as the title indicates), but it gives a good general sweep of the history of public education overall as well.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    Steveg,If your conclusion is that daycare is bad and contributes to the culture of death i still disagree with you lock, stock, and barrel.My son has 12 hours of daycare a week, four hours per day, 3 days per week. I just picked him up. He was sitting in a circle with a bunch of other kids playing castle. The instructor was doing an excelent job. In fact, I would say those professionals are teching my son a few things that my wife and I haven’t. For one thing, they taught him to say ‘No thank you’ instead of just No. Not sure how they managed that, but since they deal with lots and lots of 4 year olds with lots of different personalities, they know a few tricks i don’t. The bottom line is that day care and nursery school are not some evil menace threatening to turn our kids into utilitarian zombies.Secondly I am not sure exactly who you are preaching to. You seem to be preaching to married couples. First of all, married couples probably constitute the lowes statistic for abortion. Second of all, you are talking about an ‘it takes a village’ sort of approach where you anticipate maiden aunts, uncles, and grandparents to help out. So why aren’t you preaching to siblings to co-locate with their reproductive sibs? Or grandparents for that matter, who retire in Florda instead of staying with their kids in industrial towns.Is sending your kid to daycare for 12 hours per day a bad idea? Yes, I can agree with that. Is it better for a parent to stay home with their kids? Yes, I think I can get behind that one too. Is daycare better than abortion? Yes we both agree with that. So now what of single mothers? The fact is that single motherhood happens and I for one think mother and child should be treated with dignity and respect and cared for by society. I’m not sure what your proferred solution is…? Stay at home welfare moms? I think stay at home welfar-ism causes its own issues.Finally, where have all the orphanages gone? On the one hand I think we are better at adoption than we were 100 years ago. On the other hand I think there is a lot of abortion. I would still argue that cheap and available daycare is something to strive for and I would gladly pay double the property tax to make it happen. Would I rather all those kids lived in two parent homes with one stay at home or near-full time parent? Sure. But in the absence of such a utopia (which has never existed hence the need for orphanages), I would rather do my part as a concerned citizen and catholic who cares. I think free daycare would be a good way to do that. You seem to conflate that with forced, utilitarian parent-elimination schemes. I see it as an optional safety valve for kids and parents who need it.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11740482509910163332 Gail F

    Marcus Aurelius:You can’t be serious. Most mothers, single or not, do not opt for paid daycare. There are plenty of statistics for this. The most popular out-of-home care is care by other family members. You are barking up the wrong tree on this one. You are assuming that women would keep their children and work to provide for them if they could. But considering that most women who have children don’t choose this option, that assumption doesn’t hold up.Women have abortions because they are taught by our culture that they ought to be having sex and that sex has no consequences. Then when it DOES have a consequence, they feel betrayed and they are afraid that their entire lives will be ruined by a baby they have no idea how to take care of with a man who has no intention of taking care of it either. Abortion seems like a way of making it all go away, as if the pregnancy never happened. And Elizabeth is right, the equally crazy notion that giving a child up for adoption will ruin the mother’s life and the baby’s too doesn’t help. The solution is getting people to stop buying this crazy version of reality. Women value children — they just think that the only right way to have children is to plan for them like you plan for a vacation or a move. But life doesn’t work that way, and it’s a travesty that millions of women (and men too) believe it does.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14767820723697122005 SteveG

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    You are assuming that women would keep their children and work to provide for them if they could.And you are assuming that they won’t. So whats your point? You’re too greedy and selfish to help people with no extended family? Or you believre that no one has ever had an abortion for fear of providing for the child rather than bearing it? (I believe I know of at least one case personally). Or is your point that you have no responsibility to help the working poor or abandoned mothers because all those slackers ought to have extended family around?And if this is all a symptom of the modern world, why was the catholic church once the leading provider of orphanages? You believe that there was no such thing as an unwanted child until the mid 1900s? You believe that daycare would exacerbate the problem by caring for children who don’t have a loving extended family network? Do you believe the church was in sin when she provided orphanage care 100 years or so ago then?I’m obviously talking to some hardened hearts here.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/11740482509910163332 Gail F

    Marcus Aurelius:Everyone who doesn’t agree with you has a hard heart, is that it? Here is what you are ignoring. Public schools are overwhelmed by children with problems, and the sorry state of family life today is the reason for a great deal of those problems. I am not making that up. See “The Case for Marriage” for a complete rundown of studies that will tell you this. Schools simply cannot make up for what children don’t get at home, and the more troubled kids and families there are, the more obvious this is. Extending government care of children down to infancy (universal daycare) will not help this. It will make it worse. What you are proposing will not accomplish what you think it will.Gail F

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    And you think all those kids would be better off if there were no public schools at all? I strongly disagree.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/17284905121465747077 Steve

    Most people who call themselves conservatives generally don’t like to support services that benefit the poor and vulnerable (e.g., children) if it means higher tax rates. Enthusiasm for low taxes trumps concern for the poor and the social covenant that is so very much a part of civilized secular societies and nothing short of an essential part of Christianity. Let the babies be born, but don’t you dare tax me more to help support them; in fact, if you can swing it, won’t you please eliminate the capital gains tax on my first ten million? This was the philosophy behind the so-called Reagan Revolution, when conservatives such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson pretended to be pro-life but seemed to value tax cuts even more. Unfortunately, this selfish attitude persists today and is implicit in much (though not all) of the resistance to government-back health insurance and cheap, good quality daycare. May those of us who value Catholic social teaching — and the dignity of every human life — not fall prey to this form of “pull yourself up by your own bootstraps” selfishness. Greed is indeed one of the seven deadly sins.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14767820723697122005 SteveG

    Marcus and SteveYour inability to think in context of the larger historical and cultural framework is staggeringly myopic.For many of us, the disagreement has nothing to do with tax rates, or a ‘pull yourself up’ mentality.It has to do with being able to think past a 10 year window of history and seeing that, more often than not, when large institutions propose remedy’s to societal ills, they have a profoundly negative impact on society, in particular on families.Marcus, If you’d simply study the history of the public school movement from its inception in the early 20th century, you’d be able to see that the very foundations of it were laid by the industrialists. Those founders had as their explicitly stated purpose to create a situation for children in which the influence of parents, communities, and churches would be stripped away.Why they would want such a horror is an interesting story, but there is no doubt that compulsory schooling has been one of the driving factors in the disconnect between children and their parents.It has driven children out of the arms of the adults in their lives and into the arms of their peers.Go study the works of guys like John Dewey, who was pivotal in establishing the modern school system. His elitism, and his motives are staggeringly anti-family, and he wasn’t shy about putting those motives on record.SteveIf the type of social welfare you see as the answer is truly the answer, why do the western European countries where they’ve been implemented still have and fully accept abortions?Think about it..we have disintegrating families (families, which the church explicitly tells us is the basic unit of society) and your solution…’Hey…toss them in day care younger and longer. And while we are at it…have the most inefficient bureaucracy (the government) in the country run the show.’The remedy you two offer would be humorous if it wasn’t so dangerous…and so anti-family. If this all seems a bit uncharitable of a tone, well…sorry for that, but I am having a tough time holding onto charity. You both already crossed way over the line by stating that those who have principled differing opinions, are hard-hearted money grubbers.Not a very Christian thing to do if you ask me.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    Steveg,Thomas Jefferson was one of the principle architects of the public school system and he was neither an industrialist nor a statist. Your arguments that public education is some sort of distopian conspiracy by the industrial powers that be is just silly.The catholic church has long been charged by the Holy Spirit with caring for the needy and the church is herself a large institution. These orphanages and other programs weren’t perfect, but they were the best we had.These days, foster care, well-organized adoption, and public education have come together to make orphanages largely obsolete in the developed world. Well organized day care for the poor, for abandoned mothers, for single mothers, et cetera would close the loop and dramatically decrease abortion and many other societal ills. Yes it would be expensive but I for one would gladly pay for it. Sure, it would have the added benefit of drastically reducing crime and increasing the value of our labor pool. I really don’t deny that seculars and industrialists would also benefit from this. And why shouldn’t they? But as catholics we are called to care for these children regardless of the marital ethics of their parents or the depth of their wallets.BTW, the catholic near east welfare association is looking for a dontation for their shelter for homeless girls in Iraq. Many of these girls are being forced into prostitution in Syria so it is important that we help them.http://www.cnewa.org/donate-projectlist-us.aspx?locationID=6

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14767820723697122005 SteveG

    Thomas Jefferson was one of the principle architects of the public school system and he was neither an industrialist nor a statist. Yes, Jefferson was one of the first to propose something along the lines of a public system, but he had absolutely no hand in ‘architecting’ the modern public school system.If you would bother to read his comments on education, you’d quickly see that what we have now bears very little resemblance to what he proposed…in particular he would have rejected (and did in his writings) the idea of the compulsory aspect of public education. In his own words…It is better to tolerate the rare instance of a parent refusing to let his child be educated, than to shock the common feelings and ideas by the forcible asportation and education of the infant against the will of the father… What is proposed… is to remove the objection of expense, by offering education gratis, and to strengthen parental excitement by the disfranchisement of his child while uneducated.”( Note to Elementary School Act)Compulsory public schooling does not even begin to take shape until late in the 19th Century, and even then the average student was attending only 12 to 14 weeks of the year, and local control of what was being taught was dominant. You can believe it a conspiracy if you want, and I doubt I can say anything to change your view, but there simply is little question that the modern school system arose in the early 20th Century (beginning primarily with the extension of high school being available to the middle class) and the principles espoused by it’s builders were in most ways, the opposite of what Jefferson envisioned. Jefferson believed in a classical education for all, primarily in order to allow citizens to be on guard against tyranny of all sorts and to guarantee their liberty. Most of the early architects of the modern system on the other hand (acting almost a century later), were heavily influenced by the idea of Social Darwinism, and specifically set out to build a two tiered system. In that system elite individuals received a classic liberal education, while the mass of the citizens received something more ‘fitting’ to their station in life, and which culminated in being a training ground for both white collar and blue collar occupations.Your arguments that public education is some sort of distopian conspiracy by the industrial powers that be is just silly.A conspiracy implies some secret underground cabal..but this wasn’t that at all. The founders of the modern system were very open about what was being built. There was no secret and its readily knowable from nothing but their own words. No connecting of dots, or mysterious webs and networks, not even ill intent need be implied (they were likely doing what they thought best).It was not a conspiracy at all…just a group of very powerful people with some very stupid ideas about how to educate who happened to win out.But the principles they were working under are summed up in the words of the once and future president of the U.S., who was in one of the most influential positions in the education establishment at the time they were uttered (president of Princeton)We want one class to have a liberal education. We want another class, a very much larger class of necessity, to forgo the privilege of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.(Woodrow Wilson Federation of High School Teachers)The rest of what you say isn’t really worth commenting on, but this deserves a response.But as catholics we are called to care for these children regardless of the marital ethics of their parents or the depth of their wallets.Yes…of course we all agree…but the church does not say HOW that must be done. It does not tell us that we are not fulfilling that call if we don’t think one particular answer is misguided. It does not say that it is evidence of hardness of heart that might lead one to think that your particular solution is not wise.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/01379244511897838006 Marcus Aurelius

    OK so you disagree with compulsory education. I don’t think I was advocating that. Parents can and do homeschool their kids, and obviously they will continue to do so with their very young children. So I’m not sure what you are so afraid of or how a two tier system is so threatening. And frankly, I do think we need a lot more engineers, chemists, accountants, machinists, and other trades than we do anthropologists and that sort of thing. But does that have to do with abortion, child care, or anything else?

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/14767820723697122005 SteveG

    So I’m not sure what you are so afraid of or how a two tier system is so threatening. Because the lower tier doesn’t educate, it doesn’t teach one how to think, it merely trains one in a set of skills.That does a disservice to the 95% of people stuck in the bottom tier (that includes both of us). Unless you went to an elite private school, you didn’t get an education (not an insult, neither did I), you got something much, much, much, much less.If one has an education…if one knows how to think in context…gaining a set of skills to perform tasks is very easy. If you get training instead, and aren’t taught how to think, it leaves one at a terrible disadvantage. It also leaves one much more dependent on the whims of an industry, an employer, the government, etc.And frankly, I do think we need a lot more engineers, chemists, accountants, machinists, and other trades than we do anthropologists and that sort of thing.I don’t necessarily disagree. But getting an actual education doesn’t preclude one from any of those fields, nor mean that one will be an anthropologist.Assuming that the machinist doesn’t deserve an actual education is the exact type of elitist attitude that the founders of public schooling where working under, and is exactly what the public school system delivers.Regardless of the numbers of people in any of those fields, what we need is a lot more people who can truly think for themselves, and who get something approaching a real education.But does that have to do with abortion, child care, or anything else?Yes, I think so, though you of course are free to disagree. Let me see if I can try to explain better than I have thus far.The Church tells us that the family (not necessarily the American nuclear version by the way) is the fundamental unit of society. As the family goes, so goes the culture, and so goes its moral life.We have, I think, undoubtedly seen a tremendous weakening of the family in the West over the past 4 or 5 decades (rampant divorce being but one of many indicators that spring to mind). This decline in the support and moorings of the family are at the heart of what has made something like abortion (among many other ills) become seen as acceptable. This decline is at the heart of why we have acceptance of pre-marital sex, premarital pregnancy, birth control for teenagers, etc., etc., etc.This decline has led to a general, widespread and very serious decline in this society’s moral standards.It seems very clear to me that any real answer to the problem of abortion (as well as so many other related and unrelated ills) lies primarily in strengthening families.The questions then, I think, become 1) How did we get here in the first place (only by knowing that can we chart a path out) and 2) how do we avoid worsening (weakening families) further.It seems clear to me that any proposals that don’t take those two questions into serious consideration are bound to not only fail, but have the potential to make things worse.I brought up the whole public schooling issue because I see its acceptance as a place in our history where a similar mistake was made (probably with equally fine intentions as you likely have) that I think has probably done more damage to the family life in our society than people generally appreciate. When it comes to public funded, public run, universal day care, it seems very obvious to me that one of the unintended consequences will be a much further weakening of the family, and I see it as being on the same continuum as public funded, public run, compulsory schooling in the life of the child.I know that you disagree from top to bottom, but hopefully what I am trying to say is a bit clearer.I think it’s obvious why public funded, public run, universal day care would be detrimental to family’s, but maybe it’s not as obvious as I suppose.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/12373317560249811006 Fr. Dwight Longenecker

    Steve, I hate to interrupt, but your posts are far too long for a combox. I’m going to close this one down, and will probably delete some comments simply because they’re too long.I think a forum or private email debate is a better place to talk at this length.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/08110491371985845560 kentuckyliz

    The best place for a young child is with its mother. Let’s quit with the slave labor (workfare laws) and let the moms stay at home with the kids until they’re school age at least. Sticking infants in day care is criminal and done on a mass scale is incredibly damaging to society.Mothering children is as important a job as being a convenience store cashier. Doncha think? Forcing welfare moms to work and stick their infants in day care is saying the convenience store clerking is more important than raising a child.Yes, let’s have welfare/child support enforcement of biodads. It’s the price of the Sexual Revolution. Gummint supported whoredom.Married Anglican clergy practicing contraception before it was legal/still considered gravely immoral was the FIRST STEP towards this situation. Then came Lambeth 1930, then came the eugenics movement (which appealed to British and American upper classes), then came Sanger convincing all the preachers, then came Darwin’s and Freud’s materialism and drives, then came Kinsey normalizing prisoner sex patterns for the general population, then came science’s contribution with the Pill, then came Elvis ha ha, then came Griswold v Conneticut and its wholesale invention of privacy rights, then came Roe v Wade. You read the warnings of the Marian apparitions leading up to this and around this time, and God was clearly trying to intervene, but no–souls are falling into hell like snowflakes. The apparitions spoke against women having abortions long before abortion was legal. The social rot preceded the court decisions. And it all started with married Anglican clergy secretly practicing contraception and getting exposed for it. Then selfish Christians wanted the same benefits and they supported it too and quit seeing it as gravely immoral…then it all snowballed from there. There’s a good article in Touchstone magazine about this.Paul VI was a prophet. 40 years since Humana Vitae and the triumphalist secularist spirit of the 60s-70s is gone…his words have all come true.Re Britain’s fall–When the Son of Man comes again, will he find faith on earth?When the Bible poses this question, and I look around at what is, I tend to think, No. Even apparent Christians embrace grave sin without flinching, as if God didn’t exist and didn’t care.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X