Little more than a gaggle of hacks and geeks.

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] enter The Paleocrat. This article rolled over a heavy rock in my brain, and all the bugs left to fester afteer my past […]

  2. You know approximately where I stand on this…especially after talking about it for an hour in a half last night.

    You’re raising important items to be reconsidered. Some of it, however, is equally pie-in-the-sky. A Living Wage will not make healthcare any more affordable…in fact, it would likely put people slightly above the requirement for Medicaid. Of course, one solution would be accessibility to prenatal care and health insurance access via the government…that may help. I’m not discounting that. However, as we already know, Medicaid is Federally mandated to provide access to abortion. Funding for things such as Title X have increased at astronimical levels the last 8 years. Health insurance and/or prenatal care provided through the Federal Machine will also provide wider access to abortion. I hate to say it, but economically speaking, the fewer claims the lower your premiums…aborting children is cheaper than carrying them to term for insurance companies.

    Are there economic issues pressuring women into abortion? Definitely. I think you and I would differ on the emphasis that would allow for change.

    Economics is part of it…but as you’ve said: economics is not a morally neutral subject. And I know you’re not saying economics is the primary issue. I’m simply saying that voting for individuals that support economic policy that *may* lower the rate of abortion (an assumption that is difficult to really support), is not going validate a Christian’s vote for that individual.

    We’ve got some great ministries already…now we need to mobilize in different ways by abandoning political partisanship and the National Right to Life.


    October 1, 2008 at 10:44 am

  3. My argument is not so much that the Living Wage will make healthcare more affordable as it is that people will be able to better provide for their families. A single mother working 9-5 at minimum won’t cut it. A fatehr working 9-5 at minimum or slightly above will not cut it. This is especially true for familes that wish to a) have many children and b) have the mother remain in the home.

    A fact to note is that Medicaid allows for funds to be used for medical abortions on account of amendments to the Hyde Amendment put in place by what was then a Democratically controlled Congress. The Republicans, unfortunately, didn’t repeal the exceptions. Those exceptions are rape, incest, and life endangerment. These have to be reported as such. This would indicate that Medicaid accounts for a very small number of overall medical abortions.

    More problematic is Medicaid providing abortifacients. I am not aware of any restrictions on abortifacient contraceptives.

    We may differ on the extent that economic factors come into play, but neither of us deny their existence. Dealing with these, however small they may be, is still progress. As I have said before, even if we were to mark the number down as low as 50,000 (which I believe to be very low), this is still about the same as the accumulative population of Battle Creek. Not acting (or voting) in a manner that would save the lives of even 50,000 is, in my estimation, brushing shoulders with indifference.

    Let me make clear what I have not made clear before. I do not believe that these measures “may” help. I am certain that they will. To what extent is a matter of speculation, especially given the relatively difficult task of predicting human behavior. But providing economic safety nets for the poor, sufficient wages for a home’s breadwinner, and incentives for larger families and stay-at-home mothers would most certainly have a significant impact on the situation.

    Would any of those things I have talked about here resolve the problem? No. But this particular discussion concerns the extent by which the government and economy can contribute to the cause. This beign said, without the Church making bold (and even daring) moves, success will never meet its full potential.


    October 1, 2008 at 1:59 pm

  4. This being said, without the Church making bold (and even daring) moves, success will never meet its full potential

    I couldn’t agree more.


    October 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: