Stanek weekend question: Should pro-lifers embrace economic liberalism?
New York Times pro-life columnist Ross Douthat pitched an interesting idea this week:
WHAT happens to a modern society when abortion is restricted? This question is at the heart of the debate over Texas’s new abortion law, which bans abortions after 20 weeks and issues health regulations that could thin the ranks of state abortion clinics, making even first-trimester abortions harder to obtain….
One possible answer is that Texas will make a forced march into squalor, misery and patriarchal oppression. Women’s lives will be endangered, their health threatened, their economic opportunities substantially foreclosed….
To prove that case, you would need to look at how abortion restrictions play out in a wealthy, liberal and egalitarian society. Here two examples are instructive: Europe in general and Ireland in particular.
In the first case, many European countries already have versions of Texas’s late-term abortion ban on the books. France, Germany and Italy all ban abortions after the first trimester, and impose waiting periods as well.
Notably, these nations tend to have lower abortion rates than the United States, and none of them are exactly reactionary dystopias in the style of Margaret Atwood’s “Handmaid’s Tale.” So the European experience suggests that at least some abortion restrictions are compatible with equality and female advancement.
Then there is the specific case of Ireland, which has maintained a near-absolute abortion ban throughout its history….
So if liberal fears about the Texas legislation’s impact are correct, one would expect the Irish ban to have produced obvious, disastrous side effects. At the very least, one would expect Ireland to lag in female mortality, health and economic advancement….
Ireland’s maternal health outcomes have long looked much better than those of its neighbors, and even a recent report that produced a higher estimate for maternal mortality still placed the country well within the European norm.
Meanwhile, international rankings offer few indications that Ireland’s abortion laws are holding Irish women back. The country ranks first for gender parity in health care in a recent European Union index. It was in the middle of the pack in The Economist’s recent “glass-ceiling index” for working women. It came in fifth out of 135 countries in the World Economic Forum’s “Global Gender Gap” report. (The United States was 22nd.)
Now it’s also true that Ireland, like most of Europe, is to the left of Texas on many economic issues. All the abortion restrictions described above coexist with universal health care, which Rick Perry’s state conspicuously lacks.
So perhaps, it might be argued, abortion can be safely limited only when the government does more to cover women’s costs in other ways — in which case Texas might still be flirting with disaster.
But note that this is a better argument for liberalism than for abortion.
It suggests, for instance, that liberal donors and activists should be spending more time rallying against Perry’s refusal to take federal Medicaid financing than around Wendy Davis’s famous filibuster.
It implies that the quest to “turn Texas blue” should make economic policy rather than late-term abortion its defining issue.
And it raises the possibility that a pro-life liberalism — that once-commonplace, now-mythical persuasion — would actually have a stronger argument to make than the one Texas’s critics are making now.
What do you think? Should pro-lifers, who are typically fiscal conservatives, embrace economic liberalism?
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
This article really resonates with me, and is an idea that i’ve pitched, less eloquently, for a while now.
I don’t know if there’s any scenario in which I could see right wingers embracing economic liberalism.
But – I do think it would be nice if some of the partisan walls came down, and people didn’t automatically hate an idea just because the other party came up with it.
Insuring more people used to be sort of an understood, common goal people were working towards. Now, if you hear the rhetoric, it seems like the right’s perfect world would be fewer insured, and bad insurance for the masses.
I’m not trying to right wing bash here…my argument is – economic policies influence abortion rates and overall wellbeing. If smart abortion policies are aligned with smart economic policies, real differences can be made. Our current landscape, which is amplified in Texas right now (more restrictive laws, but truly awful economic and health care stats) – I don’t think that’s going to make much progress.
Good weekend question folks!
Let me left-wing bash a little here as well – compromise means both parties moving towards each other – and while I pointed out faults with the right wing, the left wing needs to realize that there are a lot of common sense abortion laws that can be put in place. Unfortunately, any sort of law is met with the ‘slippery slope’ argument – you can’t restrict ‘x’ these days without people drawing up some vast master plan where everything will be banned.
Part of me says that some grand ‘compromise’ would be a welcome start – roll back legal abortion to 12 weeks, and put in place universal health care and better maternity coverage and protections.
Though the realist in me knows that the left wouldn’t allow any roll back of abortions, and the right would never go for a world in which health care is simply a given for people.
Economic liberalism means poverty for all. It is redistribution of wealth and punishes those who make good moral choices to give to those who maybe didn’t make good moral choices. It isn’t the government’s role to dole out aid to people and our founding fathers were against such concepts. Davey Crockett gave a great speech when he was in congress about this very thing. Christ gave the responsibility of caring for the poor to the CHURCH. Sadly the church has greatly failed in many ways when it comes to this issue. So many churches have pompous people marching through the doors on Sunday with an air of a Pharisee but they have not done ONE THING to help the least of their brethren. The solution then is to rouse the church to do her DUTY not give the government free reign to steal from some to give to others.
Besides, there are many private charities available to help pregnant women in crisis with all kind of social, medical and financial help for women. I know because I’ve turned women away from the clinic and brought them to these places where they’ve received the help they need to have their babies.
Economic liberalism doesn’t mean poverty for all, and it would be nice if these conversations went beyond unfounded bumper sticker rhetoric.
Nobody is talking socialism here. What this is talking about is social policies that broaden access to things like health care, which this columnist is at least suggesting could be related to stronger bans.
I think Churches have a great part to play – but they can’t play the whole part. I saw a stat that if food stamps were eliminated and replaced by churches, as you suggest – that every church in the entire US would need to cover $50K to replace that funding. And health care is massively higher than food stamps.
Churches play a role – government plays a role.
Sorry, but in the long run, economic liberalism is also unloving toward unborn children. You can’t deficit spend forever. Greece, and several other European countries are learning that. America is starting to learn that too. We have to think about future generations, and children not just unborn, but unconceived. This means making very difficult and very painful choices about spending, but the alternative is to leave future generations with extremely bleak outlooks.
I don’t have much optimism. People are selfish, and the entitlement mentality is firmly entrenched in most Americans. Once any monetary promise is given, to cut it back even a bit is treated as TEH EVIL! And that’s a shame, because I do feel that the most loving thing that can be done for unborn babies is trying to ensure that there will be financial and medical security for them when they grow up, rather than rampant spending of what we don’t even have now with no thought of the future.
“Economic liberalism means poverty for all.”
Which is why the Scandinavian countries are among the poorest in the world. Oh wait…
JDC -
Based on what stats?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/15/map-how-35-countries-compare-on-child-poverty-the-u-s-is-ranked-34th/
On Child Poverty, US isn’t doing too hot. And just based on GDP, per capita, US is behind Norway.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/05/19/the-5-richest-countries-in-the-world.aspx
Uh,I was being sarcastic. Did the “oh wait…” not make that clear?
prolifist -
I don’t see the data to back up your claim. As a percentage of the GDP, the US, UK, and Ireland aren’t all that far off – and we’re quite above a lot of countries with universal care – and quite below a low.
I don’t see the tie that you seem to be seeing – or is that just your gut feeling, not based on any sort of fact?
I mean, you mentioned Greece – but can you honestly only base that on spending, given their tax evasion problems?
Sorry JDC – ha, yes.
Well, my pledge for the day now.
Read any full comment twice before posting!
Most of the population of the world does not have any insurance, esp. health.
A limited amount of people are admitted to medical schools much less graduate, find a place to intern/resident, etc. And then there are all the Doctors who are retiring early.
Just how much and what are we selling our souls for? What flavor is that ‘pie in the sky’? Is one definition of equal is all have nothing?
Interesting article. I guess I don’t know what exactly “economic liberalism” means. All I know is that I volunteer time working one-on-one with the poor and homeless and that experience has led me to conclude that our social safety net is completely messed up. It’s wholly, heartbreakingly insufficient in some cases and directly encourages irresponsible and short-term thinking/decision making in other cases. And I truly have no idea how to make it better, other than make us all mandatory reporters of stupidity that impacts others negatively. I’m mostly joking with that, but it truly sucks that for each desperate person that isn’t getting what they need I can point to a dozen others that are taking advantage of a broken system. Please understand me, I am not saying they are breaking rules or acting in a fraudulent manner. It’s just that bureaucratic inefficiencies and generalized qualification rubrics have a very real price, and the one’s that are paying that price are those that can least afford to.
In my heart, I don’t believe abortion in the US has to do with economics as much as it does culture. And yes, I know women getting abortions list financial reasons pretty high on the list. That is simply a measure of perception.
I’m curious why Jill says that pro-lifers are typically fiscal conservatives? I know most pro-lifers in politics are Republican, but does the same hold true for pro-lifers that aren’t in politics?
And Economic Liberalism with whose property? It is wonderful to be generous with one’s own goods, but taking another’s property to give to another is theft. Individual property rights are not absolute, but neither are state rights over individual property absolute.
Only God has absolute property rights, and He only asks 10% of newly acquired wealth or profit. When the Lord consents (to the prophet Samuel) to give Israel a king (centralized governance), there is concern for the temptation to deify the state (the Lord says, “Am I not their king”) and the onerousness of an added 10% of income to be given to the King (along with conscription of young persons onto the king’s service).
Is there a clear response in Natural Law thinking that explains and develops this theme given in Divine Revelation?
Economic Liberalism strongly tends towards Economic Totalitarianism. This Economic Statism places in the hands of the state great power over most or all economically relevant elements. The most economically relevant elements of societies are persons themselves, their number, and their birth/death rates.
There are many good reasons to avoid excessive centralization of power in any society. In today’s radically secularist West unmoored even from Natural Law as a guide to legislation, centralization of economic power will inevitibly pit goverents against the Church on population control and methods promoted. Whether it is called “socialism” or “economic fascism” it will tend to support contraception, abortion, and euthanasia as options. And the cpntinued separation of the unitive and procreative elements in sexuality necessary to the contraceptive mentality will further the “gay marriage” movement.
Economic liberalism is necessarily the enemy of the prolife movement and any approach to life based upon belief in a deity that is greater than the state.
Jim – I think you’re looking at it too deeply.
Seems from the article that it is simply saying that economic policies are more liberal – pretty clearly health care is pulled out – but I think we could also throw in things like tax policy and maternity coverage.
I don’t think anybody is talking about socialism here. You found the slippery slope and jumped 10 feet past the bottom.
Ex GOP – Ah, I’d agree if we could fairly isolate the topic from larger considerations. But that is rarely the best approach. And I found some of the comments on the thread alarming, to put it mildly. So I chose not to limit my comments to the article, but towards the direction the discussion had already taken. This is not allowed?
Jim – It most certainly is allowed – I’m not a moderator, don’t uphold any rules, and rules aren’t in place limiting the amount somebody wants to jump down the slippery slope.
What is a comment within the thread that you find alarming?
Maybe more economic liberals should feel more comfortable being pro-life?
Tax me less and I’ll give and spend my money locally because I know where my local problems are. Subsidiarity. <-
My concern is with any form of “Economic Liberalism” which requires that the funding pass through the hands of secularist regimes (or be greatly controlled and taxed by them) ill-equipped to serve the central good of human personhood when radical secularism itself has such a severely inadequate and distorted understanding of human persknhood itself.
Jim -
So you believe that every elected official should be of the same religion as you -
Or do you believe there should be no government at all? Maybe commune living?
Ninek – I actually agree strongly with your first statement – I think pro-life and being more economically liberal (universal health care, progressive tax rates, the earned income credit) go very strongly hand in hand.
As long as kids cost money, the vast majority of people will not want to have more than 2 or 3. They are doing the responsible, conservative thing by using birth control & abortion to limit their families to an affordable size. People don’t want to have kids just to see them go without.
If you want people to have more kids, you should be in favor of making it profitable for them, or at least break-even. No one should be scared & wondering how in the world they will ever afford it when they see a positive pregnancy test.
” A limited amount of people are admitted to medical schools much less graduate, find a place to intern/resident, etc. And then there are all the Doctors who are retiring early.
Just how much and what are we selling our souls for? What flavor is that ‘pie in the sky’? Is one definition of equal is all have nothing?”
Actually that’s a good point. We might have a doctor shortage fairly soon. We can start to fix that by allowing nurse practitioners a wider scope of practice, and not having people worry about 200K in school debt if they choose to be a doctor. If medical education were debt free or close to it, you’d probably have a lot of bright people who would make excellent primary care doctors go to school, when they might not have otherwise.
Lisa – good point. I thought one of the most pro-life ideas in the past election cycle was Santorum proposing to triple the child tax credit.
Lol Ex for some reason when I saw the title I knew you’d be all up in this thread.
At the very least we need to implement some type of universal healthcare if we want to have a prayer of restricting abortion. I like Australia system but there are other systems that work well too. If you don’t worry about going bankrupt if you have complications in pregnancy maybe abortion will look a lot less attractive as an option.
Jack -
Ha – yes – on it like white on rice.
It just baffles me, for instance, that somebody will make these two arguments:
1) We need to allow healthcare companies to have lifetime caps on how much they pay for the individual care for somebody so that everyone’s rates don’t suffer – furthermore, we should get rid of a law that outlaws discriminating coverage based on pre-existing conditions – so we should bring that back.
2) Women who find out that they have a baby who is going to have major health issues should not get an abortion because an abortion is immorally wrong.
Bottom line of the argument – have the baby, and then I’ll fight for laws that will bankrupt your family because you had the baby.
” 1) We need to allow healthcare companies to have lifetime caps on how much they pay for the individual care for somebody so that everyone’s rates don’t suffer – furthermore, we should get rid of a law that outlaws discriminating coverage based on pre-existing conditions – so we should bring that back.
2) Women who find out that they have a baby who is going to have major health issues should not get an abortion because an abortion is immorally wrong.
Bottom line of the argument – have the baby, and then I’ll fight for laws that will bankrupt your family because you had the baby.”
Yeah, I don’t get it. And what I really don’t get is people thinking that doesn’t raise costs for everyone even more to have the family not able to pay their bills, than simply covering the family in the first place, along with everyone else, so we can afford to care for the disabled child and the family doesn’t go bankrupt.
I know that American conservatism is like, a form of extreme individualism, but some stuff is just common sense. If you make a college education ridiculously expensive to obtain, a lot of your best and your brightest are going to be stuck at Burger King and your country is going to be that much poorer. If you punish people for getting sick by letting them go bankrupt and rack up thousands in cost that they can’t pay back, everyone’s rates are going to go up. It’s just simple stuff there, that seems really obvious to me. I really think we need to look at capitalist countries like Australia and some of the European countries to see models of education and healthcare they have that we can learn from, because they are obviously doing a lot better job in some ways. And, improving education and healthcare is going to lower our shameful abortion rate, which should be a top priority goal.
The government shouldn’t control the economy. That is socialism. We need a largely free market combined with a secure safety for all citizens. A guaranteed annual income and/or family allowance system means financial reasons will never lead to abortion as income automatically increases when a baby is born.
Problem: Fear that the entire country will turn into Michelle Duggar and/or Nadya “Octomom” Suleman with women perpetually pregnant to get the allowance.
This fear, IMO, is not well-founded but the fear is there. I don’t believe a family allowance would in and of itself mean that every family would had 20 children. It might mean that three will become as common as two children but that wouldn’t be a disaster because that would just mean more pregnancies carried to term.
“Yeah, I don’t get it. And what I really don’t get is people thinking that doesn’t raise costs for everyone even more to have the family not able to pay their bills, than simply covering the family in the first place, along with everyone else, so we can afford to care for the disabled child and the family doesn’t go bankrupt.”
Yep – or, my all-time favorite conversation here, somebody telling me that since my job does not provide health insurance, I should quit it, collect unemployment (lol), and get Medicaid while I looked for a job that DOES provide benefits. Yeah, THAT’S a good solution to the health-coverage problem…
” Yep – or, my all-time favorite conversation here, somebody telling me that since my job does not provide health insurance, I should quit it, collect unemployment (lol), and get Medicaid while I looked for a job that DOES provide benefits. Yeah, THAT’S a good solution to the health-coverage problem…”
Lol! That was the best conversation ever. As if it were so easy for adults with no dependent children to get on Medicaid (before Obamacare in some states, at least), and this person gave you this “advice” after complaining about “lazy” people living off entitlements and their parents. Haha.
“Lol! That was the best conversation ever.”
Ahem, I think you’re forgetting about a certain conversation involving gay orgies.
Ex-GOP: Any state with highly centralized power either recognizes a higher authority than itself or it makes itself the defacto deity/religion. The powerful radically secularist state places itself above other religions, “above all that is called god”. Statism functions as its own creed or is consecrated to a greater one. So if we are to have a single primary religion above the others, then of course I should want it to be the religion I believe is most worthy.
Jim Mitchell – first of all, are you the same Jim from earlier in this conversation?
Secondly – two questions then are outstanding (if you are the same Jim). They don’t require a paragraph to answer – just answer the question:
1) What is a comment within the thread that you find alarming?
2) So you believe that every elected official should be of the same religion as you -
Or do you believe there should be no government at all? Maybe commune living?
Ex-GOP: as this is not a courtroom, but a forum, I answer in the manner I choose with a broader context than your approach might permit. I might as well ask you if you trust the imposture of publically enforced practical agnosticism (a religion) as a means whereby the state subjugates other religions to secure its own power. But you frame your opinions as you choose, and I will do the same. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, the best response is often another question or an oblique comment.
Okay Jim -
It seems to me that your posts are a little scary. I can’t tell if you’d simply outlaw citizens of other religions, or outlaw folks from running for office. You state quite clearly that you don’t agree with tax dollars going towards governments that don’t echo your exact religious convictions. So I’m assuming that if you had your way, Romney would have either not been able to run, or wouldn’t have been in the country in the first place.
There are more alternatives to highly centralized economic control than completely anarchic commune living, EX-GOP.
And people keep telling me no one *really* wants a theocracy…
EX-GOP : are you a radical leftist? You surely argue like one. If I do not support radical secularist statism with highly centralized economic controls and an enforced practical religion of agnosticism (except for subservience to the state) then I frighten you. But you do not fear statist tyranny?
Every regime with highly centralized power IS a theocracy. Either it honors some being greater than itself or it makes itself the de facto deity.
EX-GOP: do you place any limits upon what the state may treaty as its own property? I do not agree with governmental redistribution of wealth schemes, and a state that makes an idol of itself would be difficult to justify. But an imperfect state advocating a false religion does not thereby lose all authority.
Jim – far from a radical lefty.
– Christian
– Pro-life
– Pro- universal health care
– Pro – progressive taxation
Voted Obama over Romney in a heartbeat. Liked most of Reagan’s tax rates. Big fan of McCain until he picked Palin. That’s where I stand.
In general though, if you can’t answer simple questions directed at you, I’m going to have to make assumptions. When you seem to state that you don’t think money should be directed towards governments that don’t align with your specific brand of religion – well, that seems somewhere between theocratic and anti-American. If you don’t want me to make assumptions, answer questions directly.
Jim
What do you mean when you say ‘governmental redistribution of wealth’?
You don’t believe in progressive taxation?
You don’t believe in child tax credits?
You don’t believe in firefighters and the socialist setup there?
All three cases take money from some people and give it to others.
I’d take it down from the massive vague cloud you are riding on, and bring it back down to some practical language and policy.
EX-GOP: If taxes were not already so outrageously high, and were only for the support of necessary services (like police and firefighters, for examples), there would not need to be child tax credits. Why not counter the vagueness you accuse me of with precise advocacy of the sort of ideal totalitarian regime you’d prefer? To save time and for the sake of brevity, it may suffice, I suppose, to simply mention some titles which come close to your ideal. Just trying to help you accomplish what you’ve failed at thus far, to become an exemplar of the clarity you advocate.
X-GOP…you are NOT pro-life if you voted for OBama. You’re not. Thats would’ve been like you saying you’re pro-Jew while supporting Hitler. Obama is the most pro-abortion president we’ve ever had and props up the abortion industry and places people in his administration with ties to the abortion industry (Sebelius, Holder) every chance he gets. So you can call yourself a purple moon-bounce if you want. But you’re not pro-life.
So you think, for instance, that Reagan was a massive failure when it came to tax policy? And are you now backing off your previous statements that seem to go against any sort of progressive taxation? If somebody couldn’t pay for these necessary services, who pays for them? Or if they are getting robbed, do they not get police help?
Also – who talks like that? ”to become an exemplar of the clarity you advocate.”
Anyway – I think I’ve made my positions pretty clear. I’d raise taxes on the highest tax brackets, and close many of the loopholes that now exist – and I’d essentially expand medicare for all for full universal coverage.
Sydney -
Okay – but you aren’t a Christian if you voted for Romney.
So we’ve both made our declarations – hope the rest of your day goes well.
Ex-GOP – Well, it would be utterly impossible for a knowledgeable Christian to have voted for Obama without completely repudiating Christ. He’s not only the most pro-abortion president ever, but before becoming president he refused repeatedly to vote to protect born alive aborted children (like those Gosnell murdered).
Thanks for the opinion Jim – millions of Christians voted for Obama – in fact, no perfect candidate existed, so many people aligned their votes with what they felt would be best for the country.
Now – let me be 100% clear he – in writing to Sidney – I was not 100% serious – she can be a Christian and still vote for Romney, as Christianity isn’t dependent on voting preferences.
If you’re being serious Jim about your first sentence though…
You know he’s serious.
For ExGOP’s point – most Latinos consider themselves pro-life. However, the vast majority of Latinos voted for Obama. But that’s beside the point. A lot of Catholics (those of us that see pro-life issues and social justice issues as two sides of the same coin) really do get torn at the voting booth. I personally can’t stand either party, and it’s because neither party currently operates from Christian principles. The GOP say that they do, but their policies have led to the redistribution of wealth to a smaller and smaller group of people, while more and more people are going bankrupt. I see nothing wrong with wanting the government to push policies that help the safety net and being pro-life at the same time. In addition, many of the corporations that have been aided by policies of extreme capitalism have used their money to push abortion around the world. Honestly, though, it’s not government that’s the problem. Instead of being used primarily as a means for trade, money has become the ends in and of itself, with it being the primary means for power.
The foundation for the United States of America is also the foundation for the pro-life movement and for economic freedom. Our founders called it “Natural Law.” A shortcut to understanding it is that “we hold these truths to be self-evident” that we have the God given right to life, right to liberty, and right to property. As all truth, it is reflected and taught in the Bible as well as all healthy cultures.
To say that pro-lifers should dance down the collectivism trail is to say that pro-lifers should pull the rug out from under ourselves and give way to relativism and rationalization in principle, which of course includes all the rationalizations used by those who would kill babies in wombs, the sick, and the elderly.
There is only one direction to go from natural rights and freedom and it is not the way of life.
Placing medicine in the hands of the government means that the government gets to pick who lives and dies. Pro-life-ism extends to all stages of development. People need to pay attention to the denial of care which takes place at the discretion of the socialized governments, in the name of cost containment. Government intervention also makes health care less attractive to those people with the most intellectual options for career choices, as the autonomy of practitioners is reduced and the rewards for hard work are limited.
Placing the rest of the economy in the hands of government means that IT picks the winners and losers. People no longer will succeed by their own efforts, but by selection for special treatment and privileges accorded by the government.
It is so odd to see anyone who claims to be pro-life, wanting to put the lives of all people directly into the hands of governments which have shown themselves to be willing to kill, babies, the disabled and the elderly, as well as those who do not toe the current political line.
We are created by God with certain unalienable rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The result of increased government has ALWAYS been to limit those rights.
There are many private and voluntary collective means to lower the burden of bad health, and alleviate economic disasters within our communities. Coercion by the government is never necessary for these arrangements to be made.
NOWHERE in the Bible does it say that we should outsource charity to (corrupt and inefficient) GOVERNMENT.
Socialism is not pro-life.
Pharmer -
You present the problem as if the total free market solution would be that everyone lives and everyone has great coverage.
Let’s look at that.
For those under 65, the free market approach has been insurance companies. Now, we know that millions of people don’t have insurance, haven’t had insurance, so they skip preventative care, skip routine care, and skip care when they are moderately sick. We cover them when they have an emergency – so we say “hey, come on it and other insured people will pay for you when you’re near death” – but that wait kills thousands a year.
For those under 65 with insurance, you seem to take comfort that the government isn’t picking who lives and dies. Great – the insurance companies have done that just fine. Even those with coverage have been subjected to lifetime caps, can be kicked off of plans, and if they have pre-existing conditions, they’ve been unable to get care. Yes, again, we’ll treat those people as they near death – often times too late.
Now, imagine a scenario in which the free market handled EVERYONE – are you telling me that you truly believe that an insurance company, which above all else, is a slave to the bottom line – you’re telling me that you truly believe that if insurance was handling the over 65 crowd, we’d see all elderly people covered for all care up until the time they die?
I think you’ve put on the blinders here. You criticize the twig that exists in the eye of socialized medicine while ignoring a pretty big plank in the eye of the free market.
And that all is just from your first sentence.
– Your sentence on people not going into medicine is hogwash – as a country, we pay massively higher rates that anyone else in the world, and get similar to worse outcomes. So if you look at the data, all these countries that pay less, somehow, still mostly get great care. Completely flies in the face of your theory.
– These countries with socialized medicine often times, as pointed out in this thread, have lower abortion rates. How does that fit into your statement that the government is willing to kill babies? Again, the facts seem to contradict this.
– The Bible also doesn’t say that government shouldn’t handle things like charity. I think it’s a pretty weak argument to say “well, the Bible doesn’t say the government should handle it, so they shouldn’t”. Surely the government nor churches should handle ALL of it. Jesus made it quite clear that His goal wasn’t to sit on an earthly throne and estable a perfect government on earth – thus, there isn’t a whole lot Biblically in regards to how the government should interact on a daily basis – so to say that silence is a denial of that role – I find that to be quite the logical leap.
Its only a matter of time before the fiscal conservatives betray the social conservatives and we end up with a government like Canada where the conservative prime minister won’t even discuss that countries very liberal abortion laws. The proof is the last GOP presidential nominee who while governor promised not to do anything to change Massachusetts laws about abortion. Social conservatives need to wake up and see the writing on the wall before its too late.
“Canada where the conservative prime minister won’t even discuss that countries very liberal abortion laws.”
It’s actually worse then that. Canada doesn’t have very liberal abortion laws, it has no abortion laws at all.
Any comparisons with Ireland in instances such as this are fundamentally flawed given how many Irish women take ‘little journeys’ to have abortions.
Any comparisons with Ireland in instances such as this are fundamentally flawed given how many Irish women take ‘little journeys’ to have abortions.
1. The comparison isn’t “fundamentally flawed” when American women can do the same thing to evade the new laws (and sometimes do, though the in-state declines still outweigh the out of state increases).
2. Ireland’s abortion rates are still magnitudes lower, even when that’s taken into account.
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/20/ireland-statistics-94-of-pregnant-women-reject-abortion/
1. that hasn’t happened to any great extent.
2. not compared to the other european countries mentioned.
Ex-GOP has not been reading New England Journal of Medicine, Investors Business Daily or other surveys of health care providers and their Post Obama-care plans.
Ex-GOP also appears to see government as being more efficient than private industry, and generally sees profit and growth as evil. j
The saddest thing to see is that people have no idea where resources come from, and they will kill the source of those resources by growing government and putting it in charge of everyone’s lives. They don’t understand that the profit and growth of American industry is what feeds them and keeps them in smart phones and automobiles.
Once the government has control of the entire economy and the health care system, people will lose their freedoms. The government will control the lives of everyone by threatening to withhold the necessities of life from those who dissent. Very simply, most people are too cowardly to risk their lives and fortunes for moral or ethical ideals.
America was a great experiment in human freedom. Naturally, because of the freedoms, it became the most inventive prosperous nation in the world.
The hypocritical elites in academia and the media have managed to make people feel guilty for succeeding. It is now time for America to die, because people no longer understand or want freedom, and they have lost the will to work for what they need.
My function is to try to prolong the freedoms available in America for a little longer.
I fully understand that most others want to live a life of mediocrity, abdicate their moral responsibilities and subsist under the thrall of a socialized government.
Pharmer -
Massively disappointed – I broke down insurance vs medicare and what we’ve seen – and hit SPECIFICALLY on some of your other claims.
And you come back with rambling conspiracy theories and unfounded nothingness.
Literally, there’s nothing of any substance in your post – nothing.
1. Then on what grounds can you throw away the comparison right away?
2. Yes, compared to the other European countries mentioned.
http://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=GenderStat&f=inID%3A12
http://prolifecampaign.ie/plc/wp-content/uploads/Irish%20Abortion%20Figures.pdf
Granted, abortion data may be incomplete or flawed for various reasons (reporting isn’t always mandatory, some abortionists fail to report all of their abortions even when required to, black market abortions, etc). But we must work with what we’ve got.
Has Truthseeker seriously not shown up on this thread?
1. “Then on what grounds can you throw away the comparison right away?” – are you kidding? You want to compare something that is with something that isn’t?
2. The claim in this instance is based on comparing the socio-economic impacts between other european nations and ireland on the basis that it has no abortions, yet women in ireland do indeed have abortions.
Who claimed that no Irish women ever get abortions?
No one that I’m aware of Jack, why?
are you kidding? You want to compare something that is with something that isn’t?
Why not? Examining how well other jurisdictions fare under a given policy is essential to forecasting its effect. This is done with other issues as well (ie healthcare policy, tax rates, stimulus spending, etc).
The claim in this instance is based on comparing the socio-economic impacts between other european nations and ireland on the basis that it has no abortions, yet women in ireland do indeed have abortions.
Actually, the central claim is that “at least some abortion restrictions are compatible with equality and female advancement”. France, Germany, Italy, and now Texas fall under this category. Furthermore, even a near total ban on abortion doesn’t live up to Margaret Atwood’s scaremongering (rather, Ireland also ranks well in terms of maternal mortality and women’s empowerment). It’s noted that all of the European countries have universal healthcare and other social programs that Texas lacks, so maybe “abortion can be safely limited only when the government does more to cover women’s costs in other ways” and “Texas might still be flirting with disaster”. But this only suggests that Texas should consider adopting these programs (rather than preserving abortion on demand).
The article attempts to dispute the claim that “Texas will make a forced march into squalor, misery and patriarchal oppression. Women’s lives will be endangered, their health threatened, their economic opportunities substantially foreclosed….” by citing “wealthy, liberal and egalitarian society(ies)” for whom it is claimed that “at least some abortion restrictions are compatible with equality and female advancement.” – well that’s mistake for a start given that Texas is so far removed from being a liberal and egalitarian society.
It also claims better socio-economic conditions for women - “international rankings offer few indications that Ireland’s abortion laws are holding Irish women back” – while ignoring the fact that although ireland may be abortion free irish women aren’t.
well that’s mistake for a start given that Texas is so far removed from being a liberal and egalitarian society.
That’s taken into consideration and discussed in the article. He doesn’t draw a conclusion on what would happen to Texas in light of this difference. The title of the column is even “The Texas Abortion Experiment“.
It also claims better socio-economic conditions for women - “international rankings offer few indications that Ireland’s abortion laws are holding Irish women back” – while ignoring the fact that although ireland may be abortion free irish women aren’t.
The vast majority are. And it remains true that abortion being illegal in Ireland hasn’t resulted in widespread maternal mortality or made women barefoot and pregnant.
“That’s taken into consideration and discussed in the article. He doesn’t draw a conclusion on what would happen to Texas in light of this difference. The title of the column is even “The Texas Abortion Experiment“. – so, all rather pointless really. Trying to compare an omelette with a chicken.
“abortion being illegal in Ireland hasn’t resulted in widespread maternal mortality or made women barefoot and pregnant.” – no, because they can still actually obtain one.
Yeah… and their rate is estimated at about 4 or 5 out of a thousand, last I read. Certainly beats the US, and beats the rest of the UK for that matter.
It really stretches the boundaries of credibility to think that those couple thousand abortions a year are what’s keeping the women of Ireland from being idk subjugated and dropping like flies, or something.
I’d hazard a guess the ‘liberal and egalitarian’ stuff would make a difference too Jack. Especially compared to somewhere like Texas.
Society, fabric, the shredding of – work to be done, g’night.
so, all rather pointless really. Trying to compare an omelette with a chicken.
Actually comparing it to something is more useful than just waving around coat hangers and shouting “war on women!”.
So let pose question: Economies are based on a thriving population-id-less people, less people to buy things-things like cars, homes, stamps, EVERYTHING. Less people = less money.
If companies like huggies and johnson & johnson baby powder and disney, would all be pro-life and support LIFE initiatives-they would surely profit-motivating those who would secure wealth, and spend wealth to their benefit. However, companies like Disney-who are avid ‘choice’ activists, rarely comply with these income generating initiatives.
Also-if couples hoping to adopt a baby would all pool their wealth-the 2,000,000 person demand to adopt a baby, would slowly but surely also be filled:
READ THIS WHOLE THING:
http://cityofangels.us/A2.1_DONATE-Ad-Sponsorship_PRO-LIFE_GIVING_WOMENS_HEALTH_CLINIC_PREGNANCY_HELP_CENTER_ABORTION_Los_Angeles_VIRGINIA_BEACH/2_DONATE_SPONSORSHIP_PRO_LIFE-GIVING_City_Of_Angels_Native_Mission.htm#sthash.TIAVO399.dpbs
Responding to a laundry list of lies and false premises of EX GOP is too time consuming for a person who has health care to do for a couple more years.
Very briefly, Medicare has had the highest medical claim rejection RATE of any insurer, beating out all the private insurers. Leftists study carefuly what RATE means before replying that Medicare serves a larger population. With the numbers readily available, how can you talk about heartless profiteering by private insurers?
The U.S. government as long been ensconced in place as the largest and fastest killer of patients, compared to any other health “insurer”, even with private charity stepping in to provide free care, and pharmaceutical companies donating expensive drugs, Medicare can still kill patients off faster than the private insurance companies. The leftist party has even been able to decimate the working poor by using the media to convince many of them that obtaining health care is not possible, when it in fact is available.
The leftist answer is to give total control to the government. Pharmer suspects that environmentalist belief that humans are a pestilence might be the reason for wanting to shrink the population.
Search online for some interesting (socialized medicine) stories of New Zealand deporting an obese immigrant chef for reason of his weight, and seeking to deport a family because the father has a brain tumor. Now that Mexico has supposedly overtaken the U.S. as having the worlds fattest population, one wonders how Amnesty and Obamacare will collide.
I think there’s good reason for pro-lifers to stay out of social policy debates in general.
Practically speaking, what would endorsing one set of plans over another accomplish? It would split our base up, alienating southern small-government conservatives from mid-western social justice moderate Catholics who are ardently pro-life. This is the same reason pro-life groups don’t and shouldn’t get into contraception policy and legality. Beyond that, we’d just become one advocacy group among many, we wouldn’t add that much to the debate. There are a host of groups arguing about social policies already, we’d only have marginal influence at best.
It’s not worth it to divide our already scarce resources on issues which distract from our central priority, which must be resorting legal protection for unborn children. As a whole, pro-lifers already spend most of our time and effort on CPCs and other direct outreach programs, we don’t actually divert that much as a portion of the whole towards politics and legislation. We’re the only ones standing up in the public forum and advocating for the unborn before the law. While every group under the Sun has a position on social/economic policies, NO ONE ELSE is talking about the babies, and it’s already hard enough to get the media to give our position the time of day.
If there’s insufficient attention for either govt programs for mothers and children, or private charities therein, it’s in part because elective abortion is an implicit outlet valve on society for those women. If we rolled back legal abortion, THEN we could address the subsequent demand for greater societal care for women facing an unplanned pregnancy.
Finally, even if we did want to get involved in the social policy debate, which way would we go? I know there are strong advocates on both sides, and both sides demonize the other like crazy (I’m not playing the middle here, I’m a fairly strong conservative on most issues). I do believe one side is “right” or has “better” policy proscriptions than the other. But I also believe that, on the whole, both sides sincerely believe that their policy goals are intended to help society as best as possible. If you’re on the left, you want a stronger social safety net, if you’re on the right, you believe economic growth is priority, because it will lead to greater social prosperity for the most people. I’m not asking people to AGREE with either position, but to accept the general sincerity of each side’s advocates. Whichever side is “right” here, will probably be able to help set the conditions which will support those women in need, as a consequence of their policies. And this will happen regardless of what organized pro-lifers do.
Pharmer -
Cute argument, but not relevant at all to your initial claim and my objection. Who cares if they reject claims if it has nothing to do with end of life treatment. Again, your claim was “Placing medicine in the hands of the government means that the government gets to pick who lives and dies.”
For every one case you can find regarding medicare hastening somebody’s death, I can find you 5 in regards to a family who had somebody kicked off a medical plan because of serious health issues – or people who have not been able to get coverage because of pre-existing conditions.
To say that the government actively kills people in this country is just hogwash – there’s no basis of fact, and it’s the worst kind of paranoid fear mongering out there.