Hello Bob,

BK>The problem here is in considering anectdotal evidence as
BK>definitive. Overall govt initiatives have done a great deal of
BK>good in this country. From civil rights to reducing
BK>malnutrition. Any girl who wants to get pregnant to get an
BK>apartement and a living allowance has another problem no one is
BK>looking at.

Sure, there are some who abuse welfare.  But for most, welfare has
been a godsend.  Such temporary help has always been temporary for most
folks, as was the intent of most welfare programs.  However, there are
some folks who would like all forms of welfare eliminated.  And that
flies in the face of Catholic social teaching.

BK>Welfare was always a temporary condition for the great majority
BK>of recipients. Focusing on the failures would lead to the
BK>denial of help to those who truly were helped.

There are some welfare programs that are designed to be permanent
solutions for some folks.  For example, the SSI program is designed
to be of help for some disabled and poor elderly.  Without such help,
those who depend on SSI would have no way of surviving.

>Rc>flesh and spirit (of spirit through flesh).  And "perhaps
>Rc>share in the responsibility of raising children" is wrong
>Rc>too: the bearing and raising of children, as new members of
>Rc>the communion, is a natural end of marriage, its perfection
>Rc>and fulfillment.  It cannot be considered optional.

BK>As much as I agree with that to a great extent, I also must say
BK>there are those who should not have children, though they may
BK>well desire a partner to get through life with.

It is not so much that some folks "should not have children", but
rather there are some folks who should not raise children.  For
example, if two mentally retarded adults get together and the woman
gets pregnant, she should not be forced to get an abortion.  But it
might be a good idea for somebody else to raise the child.

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * Spam: Sound pig makes hitting bottom of elevator shaft.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5