Hello Bob,

>LL>Sure, there are some who abuse welfare.  But for most,
>LL>welfare has been a godsend.  Such temporary help has always
>LL>been temporary for most folks, as was the intent of most

BK>That's what I've been saying all along.

The annual cost of such temporary help is less than the cost
of five F-15 fighter jets.  And yet, conservatives often complain
that government spending on such programs is far too high.

>LL>welfare programs.  However, there are some folks who would
>LL>like all forms of welfare eliminated.  And that flies in
>LL>the face of Catholic social teaching.

BK>That's what I think.

Every society in the world has some form of welfare.  It is part
of human nature for folks to help other folks.  Especially in times
of need.

>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.

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

BK>Of course, I wasn't thinking of them. There will always be some
BK>who will never be completely self supporting, if at all.

Here's one for you.  An individual on SSI who marries loses one-third
of his/her SSI check.  As such, those on SSI who wish to marry often
choose to live in sin, rather than marry.  Why have conservatives
consistenty denied legislation to change the rules?  Conservatives claim
to encourage folks to marry, and yet encourage folks to live in sin.

>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.

>LL>It is not so much that some folks "should not have
>LL>children", but rather there are some folks who should not
>LL>raise children.

BK>I would consider it preferable if those who shouldn't raise
BK>children didn't have them.

Generally speaking, that may be true.  But not in all cases.
A mother who becomes terminally ill should never be forced to
give up her children.  Neither should a father in the same
position.

>LL>For example, if two mentally retarded
>LL>adults get together and the woman gets pregnant, she should
>LL>not be forced to get an abortion.  But it might be a good
>LL>idea for somebody else to raise the child.

BK>True.

Here's an interesting dilemma.  John Hinckley is a patient at St.
Elizabeth's Hospital.  He is engaged to a young woman who visits him
often at St. Elizabeth's Hospital.  Whereas he and his fiance have a
legal right to marry, and to have children, how would they be able to
raise their kids?  Neither Hinckley nor his fiance is mentally retarded.
And neither Hinckley nor his fiance have been convicted of any crime.
But they are both nutty as a loon, although only Hinckley has been
certified nuts.  Should society dictate to mental patients if they can,
or cannot, have and raise kids?

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * My friends! There are no friends.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5