My conservative friends tell me they are pro-life, and I believe them. But when they tell me that abortion is their number 1 issue, that all other issues are subordinate to it, this I don't believe.
Because if you really have a problem with abortion you don't just work to make abortion illegal. You try to reduce the number of abortions that occur. One thing that would help is to just make choice of life a choice that is easier financially.
If you're part of a family living in the state of North Carolina, where Medicaid expansion has not been adopted, and you make $25K per year, and you get pregnant, you are going to be sorely tempted to get an abortion. This child is going to be a significant financial burden. But if you live in Michigan it's not a problem. You qualify for Medicaid. Everything will be covered.
Republicans are unhappy because Obama Care means more taxes, especially for those that make over $250K. In other words, especially for those that are kind of rich. What's more important? Rolling back those taxes on the rich or saving the lives of the unborn? For the tea party Republicans in North Carolina and in other states we have a clear answer.
More broadly the same test can be applied to single payer health care. We know who doesn't like it. Corporations that want employees to feel insecure in their ability to leave a job. Pharmaceutical companies that don't want to have to negotiate with a single buyer, which would lead to lower costs for consumers and lower profits. Insurance companies who employ thousands of people who's job it is to figure out how to get claims denied, and hospitals who employ thousands of people in an arms race to compete with the administrators at insurance companies. Single payer would single handedly eliminate the US deficit and improve our health care system, but certain powerful corporations don't want it.
Here's what else it would do. Reduce the pressure on a family to get an abortion. If you make $60K in the US you enjoy a decent life, but as corporations have pushed health care costs on to employees more and more so they could enjoy their now record profits this has led to a condition where pregnancy is a huge financial pain. It's not unusual to have $3K annual deductibles even when you adopt the low deductible plan your company offers. This is the one with the higher monthly premiums. Pregnancy means you'll quickly hit that deductible. That's a lot of money for a family making $60K. Maybe they want to save for retirement or the education of other children they already have. Abortion is incentivized on the kind of health care system we have in the US. That incentive is removed with single payer health care.
On the issue of single payer Republicans and tea party types align themselves with the pharmaceuticals, insurance companies, and other corporations that want high profits. They side against the majority of the public. And against the unborn.
31 comments:
Because if you really have a problem with abortion you don't just work to make abortion illegal. You try to reduce the number of abortions that occur. One thing that would help is to just make choice of life a choice that is easier financially.
While this would reduce abortion rates for those marginally more likely to get pregnant anyway, it would also make those marginally less likely to get pregnant to do so - pushing up abortion rates.
The net affect is unknown. In fact, one could make a good argument that if you factor in cultural erosion affects, with more babies born out of wedlock, etc, the net affect might be more 'unwanted children' born and aborted.
Bottom line: your incentives argument isn't so straightforward.
While this would reduce abortion rates for those marginally more likely to get pregnant anyway, it would also make those marginally less likely to get pregnant to do so - pushing up abortion rates.
You're right that it is complicated and there are a lot of factors. I'm kind of guessing. The real world test would be best.
But keep this in mind. The person that was on the margins that now gets pushed over because the financial burden is lessened, that is a person that wants to be pregnant, but has been holding back due to our health care system. So you get more pregnancies, but it's more pregnancies amongst those that want to be pregnant. You wouldn't expect abortions from such people generally speaking.
The person that was on the margins that now gets pushed over because the financial burden is lessened, that is a person that wants to be pregnant, but has been holding back due to our health care system. So you get more pregnancies, but it's more pregnancies amongst those that want to be pregnant.
Sure, but there are others in that same pool that go the other direction. There are some who are going to increase the RISK of unwanted pregnancy because the costs are less.
For example, some men might increase their risky sex behavior because the downside of birth is less. Maybe use condoms less. Or have sex with lower class women. Or be a little more risky with the pull out method. etc
This would result in more 'unwanted pregnancies'. Resulting in more 'unwanted children' AND abortions.
Bottom line: When you decrease the cost of something, you usually get MORE of it. Decreasing the cost of unwanted pregnancies, means more unwanted pregnancies. Many of which will naturally end up in abortions.
It's an interesting point. So many factors influence people's decisions it is hard to predict.
I think what you have to do though in the case where you don't really have data, you just have to advocate the policies that you think are most likely to lead to positive outcomes, even if you can't prove it. Take tax cuts for the rich that Republicans are always pining for. They didn't have evidence that it helped an economy overall, but they thought it was plausible based on the limited information they had and their thought experiments, so they advocated it. Similarly I guess what I'm offering here is a thought experiment.
A woman goes to the doctor for her second checkup. She's already got the bill for her fist checkup. The finances are right at the front of her mind. Abortion is now very tempting as she sits there thinking about the finances. Give her single payer and the temptation is gone. Lives are saved.
On your scenario you have a guy that wants sex, and now willing to have more risky sex because he knows the doctor bills won't be so bad, actually it's all free of course. But he's going to get a girl pregnant and then, knowing there's no doctor bills, now he's going to want an abortion because he didn't want the child in the first place. It's a very indirect incentive structure. Yeah, it could happen sometimes. Probably would. But would that offset the many lives saved as women think directly about the medical bills as they sit in the waiting room? I can't prove it but to me it's just implausible to think the convoluted thinking of a guy with enough foresight to think ahead that risky sex isn't so bad because of single payer, but not enough foresight to use birth control, that in my mind would be a less frequent scenario. I get that it's the guy on the margins, maybe he hates condoms and is on the edge of taking them off even on the prior for profit health care system. I can't prove you wrong, but I would put my money on lives saved. But perhaps I would be proved wrong as the tax cuts for the rich crowd has been proved wrong. :)
Also remember that more affluence generally means less kids. Single payer is indirect affluence increase for the poor. This is all just a more reasonable conclusion, but truly we wouldn't know unless we tried.
You skipped right over the Personal Responsibility part yet again.
A person should not have the option to terminate a pregnancy based on a personal choice to engage in an act that can produce children and more over they should be held financially responsible for their actions. Having the option to abort because of a choice THEY made is the core issue you glazed right over.
You want to debate termination due to incest, rape, medical reasons (risk to mom) or if there is a serious medical issue with child then come to the table.
To argue that the choice here is to support (give free shit) to people who do not exercise personal responsibility or to allow them to abort based on not being able to pay for their actions should not be what is up for debate sir.
Sure - giving a person who otherwise can not afford a child the free care to have that child will most likely reduce the number of abortions I suspect. Taking other responsible peoples money to cover the irresponsible is always the easiest thing to do.
I love how you mentioned "they side against the Majority of the Public" - you mean they side against the majority of the mob? Voting yourself other peoples money is easy Jon - that proves zero that the majority who are comprised mainly of those not exercising personal responsibility vote to take funds/money and resources to cover their choices are larger than those who oppose - the minority of us who actually exercise personal restraint and who pay for all their children.
My sister and her not husband had a second child in a State that paid all their bills, paid for food, diapers and some daycare - they had that child not because they should, but because they could - because they had little to now skin in the game and that is the crux of what your supporting - options for those who can not and do not exercise good judgment to A - Abort or B - Have someone else pay for their choices.
That's your argument here.
BTW - I am actually intellectually torn, is stopping abortions important to me as a conservative - absolutely, but the thought of how in the hell we would be able to feed the 1.2 million new mouths each year perplexes me greatly. It wouldn't be hard to prove or argue that probably 90% or more of those abortions would have had children born into poverty or a bad home life and that the tax payers would be responsible yet again.
Stopping people who should not be having babies from having babies and if they do have those children holding them financially responsible from birth to is what I think is most important.
Why not offer $5,000 and a free operation to anyone getting snipped or their tubes tied? We offer free abortions so lets get ahead of this. With medical science being what it is - if the person brings back the $5k then
How about offering free 5 year inserts/shots starting at age 16 - hell we give away free condoms so go the distance and make sure no one can have a baby for 5 years.
The solutions here are all reactive - we need to start offering pro-active solutions to stem this problem and by doing so the abortion discussion also diminishes significantly because poor decision makers can continue making poor decisions the only difference - no baby.
Having the option to abort because of a choice THEY made is the core issue you glazed right over.
Like I've said before, it's my blog and I get to post about any subject I like. This post is not about whether a person should have a right to an abortion. That's a perfectly fine discussion, but it's not something I'm discussing here.
What I'm focusing on is the sincerity of the claim of some on the right that abortion is the most important issue to them. If it was they'd support single payer health care. Now, I've never heard you say abortion is the most important issue, so this post is not a criticism of you. For you maybe it's a back burner issue. That's fine of course, and so I think your opposition to public health care is totally consistent with your position on abortion. Tax cuts for the rich are more important to you than abortion.
To argue that the choice here is to support (give free shit) to people who do not exercise personal responsibility or to allow them to abort based on not being able to pay for their actions should not be what is up for debate sir.
It can be up for debate. Who are you to say what should or should not be up for debate? I don't need your permission to debate an issue.
I love how you mentioned "they side against the Majority of the Public" - you mean they side against the majority of the mob?
Yeah, sure. You side against the mob. People who don't like democracy and prefer tyranny (that is rule by a select few without input from the people) generally refer to people as "the mob". You prefer oligarchy to demcracy. That's fine, call democracy mob rule if you like. Yeah, I side with the mob.
Why not offer $5,000 and a free operation to anyone getting snipped or their tubes tied? We offer free abortions so lets get ahead of this.
Yeah, I think you're on the right track here. Preventive medicine, even though financed by the public, can save a lot of money in the long run. That's actually a large part of the idea behind single payer, which costs about half as much as what we have and produces better outcomes.
If our government followed "mob" rule, the war on drugs would end, the war in Iraq would not have happened, the war in Afghanistan would be over. The terrorism directed against Cuba would end as would the embargo. We'd have a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. Since we are an oligarchy and not a democracy though, none of those things happen. Mob rule sounds pretty good to me. I've got sources for those claims here:
http://bigwhiteogre.blogspot.com/2010/07/american-government-vs-american-people.html
And all the 'Mob's" freedoms would be gone - ya you would like that I am sure.
90% plus of Americans believe in God - does that mean your okay with being thrown in jail or worse then? Majority rules and your with the mob remember.
That is the beauty of a Republic form of gov't - it eliminates (for the most part) the ability for the mob to rule - it is supposed to allow people to vote for a person to rep them (as you know) who should be more informed than the mob or at least in the mind set to follow the Constitution to make laws/amendments on behalf of their voting block which then uncovers the even bigger brilliance of our founders - leave individual decisions up to each State - to be paid for by that individual State to see what works best.
No problems with Michigan paying for peoples bad decision - they want it - they pay for it. I will find a State that does not allow abortions and holds the individual responsible for their actions - they won't tax me for other peoples bad choices and that makes it fair. You and your State can welcome in illegals, offer cradle to grave services, legalize drugs - just pay for it until you run out of OPM then that State will have to tax more to cover or change their laws.
That's the diff again JC - I don't care about your position and I wish you the best, but leave me out of it - let me and my fellow state citizens run our state the way we want to - we'll deport/jail illegals, we will be very business friendly, we will hold people accountable for their actions - and you can do the exact opposite. Each state will be required to help fund the National Gov't, but outside that healthcare, soc sec, pensions, illegals, gay marriage and what ever else should be decided by the citizens via the vote, but the one and only caveat being - no State can tax another State for their gov't programs.
Happy to see how that plays out.
Your right - its your blog, I was simply pointing out the huge flaw in the debate - that the only options on the table to discuss were A - Abortion because the person making bad choices does not have the means to have a child or B - Have the responsible people in this country fund all the people making bad choices because it reduces abortion (theoretically) and by virtue of that strange analogy - those people who have abortion at the top of their list should then support a single payer system to reduce abortions.
For those on the Right that say Abortion is #1 on their priority list - well I believe they are talking about the act of killing 1.2 million babies per year with the unwavering support of the left - the facilitation of killing and disposing 1.2 million babies - most of which would be healthy babies every single year in the US.
However - If those same people (on the Right) actually sat down for a moment and thought about an economy that has to feed 1.2 million more people each and every year - I think only then will you get their true feelings/ideas about how to stop the problem downstream at the root.
With that said - no they should not support a single payer system because it may reduce the number of abortions - that is a flawed argument.
My conservative friends tell me they are pro-life, and I believe them. But when they tell me that abortion is their number 1 issue, that all other issues are subordinate to it
Do your conservative friends support providing free and ample access to contraception?
HP- welcome back. Haven't posted too much myself but continue to lurk here.
90% plus of Americans believe in God - does that mean your okay with being thrown in jail or worse then? Majority rules and your with the mob remember.
As a God believer do you really want to jail those that don't think like you?
This is why "mob" rule is better than oligarchy. I know a lot of Christians and not a single one that wants to jail people for being atheist. So I'm comfortable aligning myself with the mob, since they agree with me that we don't have to hold the same beliefs.
That is the beauty of a Republic form of gov't - it eliminates (for the most part) the ability for the mob to rule
Not to worry though because we certainly don't have a Republic, but an oligarchy as a well publicized study showed. Here's a link. So we have rule by the rich few, the voice of the people is not much of a factor.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
Again with the "you take a state, I take a state" discussion. Yes we know you think if you were in control everything would be great.
With that said - no they should not support a single payer system because it may reduce the number of abortions - that is a flawed argument.
They should support it if it is their #1 priority, however if they have other priorities, like limiting population growth among undesirables, as you do, then you are right that they should not support single payer. It depends on their priorities.
HP
"Lower class(?) women !!!?" what does this mean? poor, uneducated, prostitutes? You couldn't mean sluts? could you.
Sorry old mate but which century are you in?
What defines a slut? a woman who has sex with many men at the drop of the appropriate hormone?
Gees that would define 80% of pre married men.
I'm not so much questioning your moral code but the industrial spray paint job of the reality in order to make your point.you seem to forget that 60% of (unwanted)were created by emotional factors.
Jon is right it is way more complex than a issue that would be influenced by mere finance.
In the 50/early 60's OOPS pregnancies occurred when there was far more factors to don't than today... the reality was a range of blizzard and barbaric abortion practices. My own birth mother ( a WW2 widowed refugee with 2 other children) died from the consequences of a wire coat hanger illegal botched back alley abortion.
Gentlemen you are talking about an informed, educated and objective minority of potential mums.
The net result of such a plan would not alter much by way of actual abortions. But it would (historically) show up in other unconsidered By you stats.
chad
you said "90%+ believe in God"... on what authority? The data I've read it's nearer 65% . Then again you need to define which God and which version of Christianity.
YOUR version of Christianity is flawed and at best based on selective reading of the OT and catholic choice of which 'books' are included in the New Testament.
The truth is that there are no contemporary accounts of the life of JC much less his teaching the books that are nearest were written much later as were some of the books not included.
The point is the moral code you base your views on are not necessarily either exclusive to Christianity, Judaism and are interpretive.
NB I, like Jon would like to see abortion disappear as an option of birth control as I would like to see world peace. Sadly both are practically speaking currently aspirational.
The moral conundrum to me is where to draw the line.
One thing I do know prohibition or denying human genetics ( nature) is a pointless if retrogressive step from the aspirations.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/10/how-i-lost-faith-in-the-pro-life-movement.html
this is a different expression of Jon's original point, showing with data that places which offer more complete social insurance and have legalized abortion tend to have much lower abortion rates. it speculates on why abortion being illegal is a much different issue than reducing the number of abortions. there are also those of us who are christians but don't agree that illegal abortion is the most biblical approach to the issue (because scripture).
Wow, what an article Robb thanks for sharing. Obama the man responsible for preventing more abortions than anyone else before him or probably after? Incredible. This article captures my sentiment totally and with additional powerful arguments that capture how the person interested in precenting abortions should side with progressives. This was a real eye opener.
if nothing else the data disproves HP's hypothesis that improved social insurance might actually taise abortion rates; it's not a thought exercise, but reality, outside of the united states.
i also think it's funny how much energy chad devotes to the personal responsibility of the mother and spends to energy on the responsibility of the father. it's not like DNA isn't a thing. much like your discussion about subconscious pretexts i can't help but wonder if chad really does care about abortion or if it's more about controlling women.
One thing I do question from the article you cite, Robb, is the claim that the legality of abortion doesn't affect the abortion rate. I'll have to look more closely at her source, but I find that implausible. Looking at the US around 1970 when abortion started to be legalized in various states, and then in 1973 when that was extended to the entire nation, you can see a rapid increase in the rate.
It's possible that this is putting the cart before the horse. Abortion, like gay marriage, simply went through a rapid increase in acceptance among the population, so the abortion rates went up because people just no longer had a problem with it, despite the law. So the claim could be right. Just a little surprising to me. I'd want to have a good understanding before trying to advance that argument.
Also an interesting point regarding Chad's attitude toward women. Is he generally more quick to assign blame to women and advance policies that focus the "punishment" on them more? I'll be keeping an eye out as the discussion continues.
Jon,
Would you be in favor of a law which made preemptive murder of those who seemed "at risk" for being more predisposed to committing mass murder in the future?
Suppose you could take a behavioral test at age 10 to predict with a high degree of probability a group of individuals who will likely commit mass murder in the future.
Additionally, it was shown with a real world case study that the murder rate dramatically plummeted due to the practice of testing and then killing those predisposed to this violent behavior.
Would you be in favor of this practice if this was the only viable alternative to preventing future murders?
Would you feel that those opposed to preemptively killing these pre-murderers were in fact, not really concerned with stopping murder?
Would you be in favor of this practice if this was the only viable alternative to preventing future murders?
Tough call. I'd probably want more information, like who is in charge, is this system prone to abuse, that kind of thing.
Would you feel that those opposed to preemptively killing these pre-murderers were in fact, not really concerned with stopping murder?
No but I might say that stopping murder is not their top priority. Nothing wrong with having various priorities and ranking them. For a lot of people on the right, some of whom act like they're really worked up over abortion, I think their real preference is tax cuts for the rich. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I do think it's the honest truth, something these pro-lifers sometimes aren't willing to admit.
Would you feel that those opposed to preemptively killing these pre-murderers were in fact, not really concerned with stopping murder?
No but I might say that stopping murder is not their top priority. Nothing wrong with having various priorities and ranking them.
Interesting. What about the person who said, stopping murder is my top priority, but pre-emtively murdering someone is a moral line I am not willing to cross, so that option should be off the table. Setting aside other ways to prevent abortion (I will talk about this next), I think you're leaving out the fact that some people simply are not open to certain options (i.e. keeping abortion legal) in the basis that in their view this is allowing/supporting abortion, which is a moral line they are unwilling to cross. Thus, what a pragmatist might see as a way to bring about a greater net good, to argue that X option brings about a greater good than Y option, presupposes that all options are and should be on the table.
Thus, a major part of your argument is really "if you don't allow for all options to eliminate abortion, this really isn't your top priority". I find this a fallacious argument. What do you think?
For a lot of people on the right, some of whom act like they're really worked up over abortion, I think their real preference is tax cuts for the rich. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but I do think it's the honest truth, something these pro-lifers sometimes aren't willing to admit.
This is another example of taking a very negative view of a situation, and also ignoring the fact that this is a problem will all people, not just a single group. Most people do not draw a straight line between tax cuts and abortion. That's a connection they don't make in their mind. If you were to sit down and make the argument for a pro life conservative, your issue would be one of credibility, not rationality.
They simply wouldn't believe you - your point would not be that compelling. The reason is simple - the vast majority of people trust those in their tribe, and in particular the authority figures in their tribe as well. Most people are not like you Jon, who are open and able to discern the facts, and then are open to changing their mind. Just because you could be presented with an argument, and are able to verify it, and open to change your mind, doesn't mean most people will do this.
So if you were to present the argument for tax cuts for the rich = more abortions, most pro lifers will ignore you because you're not in your tribe. If however, their pastor made that exact same argument, I think you'd get a lot more adherents who would be open to this idea.
But the bigger point is this - you can either point out the fact that a certain group is not open to rational discourse and show how they are illogical in their thinking (in your view), or you can instead try and think about how they could be persuaded to take actions more in line with saving lives. You share common ground with them - why not focus on the ways you can use this to persuade them to make a positive impact?
Jonathan -- i think you're right that it's a bit of a fallacy. however, apply too many modifying principles, too many uncrossable lines and you begin to define it as a secondary priority. the specific issues at odds with each other are unimportant; the question is whether we're actually pursuing choices which reflect our stated goals and priorities. you're right that tribalism is antithetical to mental flexibility, but i think that's its own fallacy. it really shouldn't matter whether someone is self aware. it's not a matter of assigning blame. the critique is whether people are actually pursuing their stated priorities, consciously or unconsciously. perhaps Jon could do more to persuade, but i think it's sufficient to point out susceptibility to deviation from top priorities, particularly when acknowledging that it's a blade that cuts in both directions.
Rob^2,
Interesting. Jon's original statement was:
My conservative friends tell me they are pro-life, and I believe them. But when they tell me that abortion is their number 1 issue, that all other issues are subordinate to it, this I don't believe.
Because if you really have a problem with abortion you don't just work to make abortion illegal. You try to reduce the number of abortions that occur.
This is different argument than arguing that the pro-life movement is ineffective. Jon is ascribing intent by virtue of the focus on preventing abortions. My point is that I think it can be an intellectually coherent view to focus on actively stopping abortions, and not focus on the prevention of potential future abortions as much, if one puts these two in different levels of moral severity. I.E. feeling outrage of pre-emptive murder of 12 year olds which are actively taking place, as opposed to also focusing on trying to reduce the subsequent future murders this 12 year old is statically expected to perpetrate.
You can make the case that this would be an ineffective and short sighted approach, but that's different than arguing that it reflects a lack of true conviction towards the issue. Murdering 12 year olds pre-emtively will be off the table for some morally, and not for others. Likewise legalizing abortion will be off the table for some as well.
Moving on to the topic of the evaluating the effectiveness of a particular approach, yes it is true that this is important to consider. But the degree of ultimate importance is up for debate, and based on your world view. Is it more important that I adhere to my personal convictions to the best of my ability, (i.e. follow my conscious), or that I constantly evaluate the actual effectiveness of my actions in achieving my end goal and be willing to change my tactics? What if an argument/study/data indicates that I should take one action, but this action would violate my conscious? Would it be wrong for me to take this action?
The question is, how do you evaluate questions like this, and the answer depends on your world view.
If one wants to argue that the best aka "right" way to address an issue is to evaluate the ultimate effectiveness of the result, and then change course according to the latest analysis / theory, you can absolutely argue this. However, this is not only a moral claim, but one which many people will not agree with as a starting point.
To be more concrete, it's one thing to argue that X,Y, and Z actions will ultimately reduce the number of abortions, but it's quite another to then say "therefore if you are not open to employing these actions, you are not a true believer in the cause, and additionally, your ineffective method is in fact, morally wrong".
Jonathan, I'm trying hard to grasp your point, but struggling. Let me restate it for you and let me know if I have it.
There's a difference between opposing certain behavior and supporting some questionable methods for stopping that behavior. Is that it?
So I could say I support healthy eating habits, but I don't support forcing people at the point of a gun to eat healthy. But it's not fair to turn around and say I really don't support healthy eating habits.
Is this the point?
I agree with this logically, I just don't know that I think it's all that relevant here. OK, maybe depending on how you define "top priority" we're dealing with these weird people who say they are interested in reducing abortion, but when Obama puts forward policies that actually could reduce the number of abortions by hundreds of thousands they're all opposed.
If you want to lose weight and you say it's important to you but you refuse to do any of the things that actually lead to weight loss (eat right, exercise) at what point do we say that no, it's really not that important to you. On the right the unwillingness to do anything that actually reduces the number of abortions, isn't that a factor in evaluating their sincerity at some point?
Jonathan -- you're right that it's intellectually coherent in a sense to state both priorities (e.g. being pro-life and anti-abortion), but that doesn't change the fundamental debate over which philosophical tenets have priority as demonstrated by action.
it's also intellectually coherent to be both anti-murder and pro-gun, but they are often pragmatically antithetical.
essentially what you've done is attempt to conflate intellectual coherence with anti-utilitarianism (i.e. that the ends don't justify the means). and while i agree with you that the ends don't justify the means, i'm not especially convinced that's a valid counterargument to the assertion that the natural tension of intellectually coherent yet pragmatically opposed philosophical ideals forces a choice of priority.
at best it only illustrates that Jon needs to clean up the wording of his arguments.
even then i think he illustrates the breadth of priority subordination that goes unacknowledged with respect to abortion with this summation:
If you want to lose weight and you say it's important to you but you refuse to do any of the things that actually lead to weight loss (eat right, exercise) at what point do we say that no, it's really not that important to you. On the right the unwillingness to do anything that actually reduces the number of abortions, isn't that a factor in evaluating their sincerity at some point?
If you want to lose weight and you say it's important to you but you refuse to do any of the things that actually lead to weight loss (eat right, exercise) at what point do we say that no, it's really not that important to you. On the right the unwillingness to do anything that actually reduces the number of abortions, isn't that a factor in evaluating their sincerity at some point?
Jon (and to a lesser extent - zRobb),
Your point is well taken. If everyone views the choices and resulting consequences the same, I would agree. I would make the case that it is not clear at all to many pro-life advocates that alternate solutions would in fact lead to a reduction in abortions. You might counter that if they looked into the issue and gave it some thought, it would become apparent, and their lack of interest/unwillingness to do so thus demonstrates a lack of commitment to the issue as a whole. Fitness buffs who are big into exercise, but don't really care about diet for example.
However, I would say that it is too harsh a criticism to make the leap from "Obama puts forth policies which reduce abortion" to "you don't really care about abortion if you don't consider these choices". Frankly, most conservative pro-life proponents probably haven't even heard arguments in these terms before.
So again, it's not simply a matter of all the options are spread out on the table to be examined for all to see. Everyone works from within their own tribes, and have their own presuppositions, exposure and openness to a limited set of ideas.
If you want to make the argument "conservatives should take a look at alternatives for reducing abortions" I'm right there with you in agreement. If you want to move to "conservatives should know, realize, be aware, and acknowledge alternatives to achieving their goal" my answer would be - "sure, but 99.99% of the population should be open to new and different ideas, but they are not - so what?"
Also, there's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black here as well. If this is an issue you are concerned with, focus and be open to ways to persuade not just deride conservatives. Don't just look at a problem all of humanity has with tunnel vision and try and single out one group, but use your energy thinking about a solution - how can you evangelize the social conservatives in your area with the good news of the possibility of saving the unborn. Maybe you could help take down capitalism in the process. To focus on the problem and not the solution makes me wonder how much you really are concerned about these issues to begin with. Don't you see the buffet of options to impart actual change in the minds of conservatives in your community like I do? ;-)
Take a page from a guy like Bob Inglis http://energyandenterprise.com/our-leaders/
Jon,
We are still not understanding each other. This is not a 'direct' vs 'indirect' incentive structure - I am arguing that there are direct incentives in BOTH directions. Basically, in the end, its a empirical question.
Without rehashing my arguments again, surely you can agree with this concluding statement: "When you decrease the cost of something, you usually get MORE of it. Decreasing the cost of unwanted pregnancies, means more unwanted pregnancies. Many of which will naturally end up in abortions."
That break down is ultimately empirical.
Yeah, I get that, and I think Robb's information is the empirical evidence you're looking for.
So we have the following factors:
1-Obama Care makes an unwanted pregnancy less costly. We could get more unwanted pregnancies (not necessarily abortions though).
2-Obama Care makes the cost of carrying a child to term and also bringing the child through the initial medical events less costly. We could get fewer women choosing abortion.
3-Obama Care mandates contraception coverage for all employers. As per Robb's article we know this leads immediately to a massive reduction in unwanted pregnancies and also a massive reduction in the number of abortions performed. This was not my original point in this blog post, but it's possibly a larger factor than the one I discuss (reducing health care costs for lower and middle income groups).
Yeah, I get that, and I think Robb's information is the empirical evidence you're looking for.
Still not apples to apples. Of course, short term empirical evidence is going to benefit the ObamaCare argument. Since that is where the dramatic change currently happened, so short term incentives will align rapidly.
The opposing incentives, the ones I am arguing have the opposite affect, have a much longer delay factor. Whether a dad now chooses to use a condom or not, will not immediately appear in the data. How this new calculus will impact future generations, will not immediately appear in the data. How this will impact current culture, will not immediately appear in the data. etc.
In other words, it's expected that the ObamaCare change would have short term empirical gains to reduced abortions - but that doesn't mean it's expected to have long term, much less, "net" reduction in abortions, which is far more important.
Post a Comment