Supporting Democrats: Isn't promting social welfare a good thing?
Well, shouldn't Catholics support a party that would expand social welfare for poor people, even if it means supporting abortion?
This comes down to the unexpected consequences of trying to make life perfect.
Since sex is linked to childbearing and marriage, the society places an emphasis on responsibility for one's actions, including responsibility for sexual actions and their consequences.
The family may not be perfect, but the pressures on individuals allow a woman to know she will be safe and cared for, along with her children. In the Philippines, families are large, and help each other.
In traditional societies, you are part of a family, which is the main unit in society to provide for the sick, the injured, the old, the young, and the pregnant.
But once you destroy the family (and here the blame goes to the "sexual revolution" and easy divorce) you get societal breakdown.
As a doctor, I saw how welfare, as something only for "poor people" quickly morphed into a "get away from a strict mother by having a baby and getting a monthly check".
And I saw how an unexpected pregnancy went from "we parents will help you" or "Of course I'll marry you and take care of you and my child" to "well, it's your fault for getting pregnant so don't blame it on me" and "well, don't expect me to raise the kid, I have a job. Get an abortion and stay in school".
Yes, I support welfare, but I'm not sure the idea of easy to get welfare, when combined with the irresponsibility of the sexual revolution and the "me me me" ideas of freedom in America is a good combination.
To allow sexual freedom and seeing individuals as free from all rules, the problem is that the idea of personal responsibility shrivels.
We no longer have to rely on family, with all of it's problems and restrictions, or the local church, which is so judgemental. So where does one go for when one is in trouble? A government program.
Seeing the government as the one one relies on in troubles has another problem: it expands the power of the government over lives.
A third problem: The huge bureaucracy requires huge taxes to support it, and they increase the tax burden, there is less take home pay. The ultimate result is it makes it necessary for more women to enter the workforce in order to help support their families.
And, in these days of financial instability, one could notice a final problem: Who will support us in old age if our savings are lost?
But what if the government goes bankrupt? Unlikely...unless of course someone nukes New York and Washington...
Yet even in peace, with a large and aging population who because of divorce or choice lack family to care for them, who will care for the elderly?
The NYTimes already had an article discussing the problem of aging singles, and except for "nursing home insurance" and friends, didn't have many answers.
At least they were optimistic. At least one medical ethicist had an article some years back that says euthanasia of the demented was preferable than having a woman quit her job and be unable to save for her own old age by caring for her mother.
So what happens if the economy should fail, the government will not be there to provide cradle to grave goodies for the public? For thousands of years, the answer has been the family...and the simple compassionate types who sacrifice to help their family, and who try help strangers to the best of their ability....
Yup. The ordinary folk those fundamentalist types who worship a deity and try to live justly, be they Buddhist, Catholic or Muslim...