-Nearly half of all abortions in the world are performed in countries that have made abortion illegal.
-The lowest abortion rates in the world - less than 10 per 1,000 women of reproductive age - are in Europe, where abortion is legal and available.
-By contrast, in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean, where abortion law is most restrictive, the regional rates are 29 and 31 per 1,000 women, respectively.
-These countries are also much poorer than the U.S. and provide fewer social services; and a larger proportion of their population lives in poverty.
-In Western European countries, in contrast, where more social services are provided and fewer women live in poverty, the abortion rates are consistently the lowest rates in the world.
(Source: Guttmacher Institute, "An Overview of Abortion in The United States")
Taken from Here
This was part of my reading, as I continue to study the positions, policies and plans of the prospective candidates. Abortion is one of the most critical issues in voting for a culture of life to me. So I want to read up on the issue from all sides. I have also felt that the issue is broader and more complex than most conservative voices present. It is similar to the issue of preventing pregnancy; I've never been convinced that the sole way to address the issue is "Just don't do it". I know that talking about this can become a lighting rod for some of you who read this; but I am honest in my position that I am currently a Conflicted Conservative.
I want abortions to end. I want children to be wanted and loved. I want to protect and move towards a culture of life in all spheres of American life. I'm an adoption pusher, I'm a pro-pregnancy preacher...just look at the back row and nursery in our church! But I also work in a poor, marginalized and under-resourced community...these issues have reframed the discussion in many ways for me. Living in and among this community is expanding the arguments in ways that life in my prior ministry world didn't. Not a judgment on that world but on me. This eye opening experience has been true in many areas, especially in the area of race, poverty, crime and education. My die hard Republican, conservative roots are getting challenged by the realities of where I minister and who I work with and the world I am becoming more and more aware of.
Some old answers no longer satisfy the questions for me.
I've posted in the past some critical points on Obama's record, here is an interview with him from the Christian mag, Relevant.
Here is another article that discusses the issue of Obama and reducing the number of abortions via policy changes and the rise of the "New Democrats"
Here is a Catholic attorney speaking on the issue...catholics are very prolife.
Do these articles answer all the moral objections...no, but it's a conversation you wont get a chance on hearing in most circles.
8 comments:
Wow, that really hammers home the point that you can't change peoples' hearts through legislation, doesn't it?
I want to vote Pro-Life, but what about the Poor?
Category: Religion and Philosophy
I want to vote Pro-Life, but what about the Poor?
I want to vote Pro-life, but what about the poor? This issue is pertinent during presidential elections - stereotypically if you are Pro-life, you will vote for the Republican candidate and if you care for the poor, you will vote for the Democratic candidate.
But what if you are Pro-life and you care about the poor? Do we choose to support the unborn at the expense of the poor or do we choose the poor at the expense of the unborn? I can assure you that this is not the issue - it is a false dichotomy. It is a false choice. We must always do both. We do not have the authority to choose who gets social justice and who does not, or who participates in the Common Good and who does not. We can always vote pro-life and care for the poor.
The question really comes down to how we help the poor. Religious progressives/liberals will have us think that the solution of poverty is the issue of the State. We are unable to come up with the solution by ourselves, for we are just regular folk, and we need the progressive/liberal elite to save us. Obama's comment about people in small towns illustrates this type of elitism perfectly.
But government programs will never solve the issue of poverty. Government programs rarely solve any problem. The problem with the State in trying to solve problems is that it becomes full of itself. It creates a bloated bureaucracy, it's very impersonal, runs itself in a very inefficient way, wastes money, and because it's always political - some politician must always profit by it.
President Johnson's Great War on Poverty will illustrate this point. Intended to eliminate poverty, Johnson stated, "the war on poverty is not a struggle simply to support people, to make them dependent on the generosity of others." Instead, the plan was to give the poor the behavioral skills and values necessary to escape from both poverty and dependence. Johnson sought to address the "the causes, not just the consequences of poverty." (1)
Unfortunately, Johnson's intentions were never realized. The War on Poverty became an Industry of Poverty bent on self preservation by creating a whole new dependent class. More than thirty years ago, then President Jimmy Carter stated, "the welfare system is anti-work, anti-family, inequitable in its treatment of the poor and wasteful of the taxpayers' dollars." (2)
What is the single most significant contribution of the Democratically controlled House during the 30 years after the inauguration of the War of Poverty? The creation of a brand new group in America, a dependant class trapped in generational welfare.
While the perception is that liberalism is compassionate to those in need, it actually is the greatest detriment to the solution of poverty. Take education as an other example. Parents who have children attending failing Public Schools know their kids are at a great disadvantage. Instead of fostering competition and open up opportunities that vouchers (which Republicans support) can make a reality, Liberals and the Democratic Party oppose them.
Why? One reason is the special interests of the teacher unions. Another reason is that the public schools are the clearing house for relativistic secularism. Instead of freedom of choice in education to provide tools for the poor to conquer poverty - liberalism will limit their choices because they know better.
But what about the Republicans? Religious and non-religious conservatives believe that the issue of poverty will never be solved by a top down approach - it must come through the grass roots where the poor are, and then proceed to the top. The State will never solve the issue of poverty alone; there must be a cooperation between local Churches and organizations (where the people are), business (where jobs are created), and then the State (to provide assurance that help is provided without discrimination).
The emphasis is on personal responsibility and independence from the State. Help must come to those in need, to provide a safety net: but it must not simply be a hand out, but a hand up out of poverty. The old approach to poverty encouraged dependence.
One of the significant contributions of the Republicans after taking control of the House in 1994 was welfare reform. "The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which replaced the failed social program known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The reform legislation had three goals: to reduce welfare dependence and increase employment; to reduce child poverty; and to reduce illegitimacy and strengthen marriage." (3)
What were the results? Here are statistics measuring it's progress from 1995 - 2003 provided by a study from the Heritage foundation.
1) Overall poverty, child poverty, and black child poverty have all dropped substantially.
Although liberals predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6 million persons into poverty, the U.S. Bureau of the Census reports there are 3.5 million fewer people living in poverty today than there were in 1995 (the last year before the reform).
2) Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995
3) Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children
In fact, the poverty rate for black children is now at the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.
4) Hunger among children has been cut roughly in half
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are 420,000 fewer hungry children today than at the time welfare reform was enacted.
5) Welfare caseloads have been cut nearly in half and employment of the most disadvantaged single mothers has increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.
6) The explosive growth of out-of-wedlock childbearing has come to a virtual halt
The share of children living in single-mother families has fallen, and the share living in married-couple families has increased, especially among black families. (4)
One of the keys of this legislation is the requirement of 30 hrs of work or looking for work without losing medical benefits. Under the old system, if one became employed - state medical benefits were lost. This would give incentive to stay on welfare, instead of leading the person to self reliance.
President Bush along with the Republican House and Senate not only passed significant pro-life legislation in a time of war, but also passed major legislation to help those in need.
1) No Child Left Behind Act 2001
President Bush initiated this legislation through bi-partisan cooperation with Senator Ted Kennedy. It's purpose is fourfold: stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, proven education methods, and more choices for parents. (5)
2) Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003
This legislation provides seniors and individuals with disabilities with a prescription drug benefit, more choices, and better benefits under Medicare. (6)
3) White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
It's purpose is to encourage the full participation of faith-based organizations to help the poor, prevent discrimination against them, protect the religious freedom of beneficiaries, and preserve religious hiring rights of faith-based charities. (7)
Those who are closest to the poor know how to help the poor.
Conclusion
How do we avoid poverty? If you are going to have children, get married, and stay married. Eighty percent of those in poverty are single parents and children from single parent homes. Divorce and having children while not married are the biggest steps into poverty. A loving and stable marriage is the greatest gift that you can give to your children. Provide love and discipline, and teach them right and wrong. Model a strong work ethic.
Building a Culture of Life is essential in helping the poor and the protection of the unborn is at it's very foundation. We cannot exclude them from each other, we must always protect the unborn and help the poor. If we claim to be pro-life, we must protect the unborn from Barack Obama's promised war of terror and protect the poor from progressive/liberal solutions to poverty.
A friend of mine on myspace: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=118874902&blogID=442100307
Posted this and gives permission to share it...
Eek Gads Mary...post a link with a teaser, that was like reading a senate bill. ;)
Good points...interesting how almost NONE of those conclusions have been rally points in the Republicans message this political season.
Why is that?
I have not heard any of those accomplishments or realities stated or defended. That is amazing to me, especially if the politically savvy know that these issues are major voting points during this election.
If the republican party cant get a message out, defend the pro-life agenda, communicate its positions for the poor in a way that is clear, convincing and rooted in common sense...then who's fault is it if the masses vote for someone who presents their agenda in such a way?
If what you post is true...isnt it amazing how the Republicans have not been able to chose not to present that in a manner that is as clear and concise?
I will say that even though I agree with many of the statements and policy positions stated in this email...the site and the way the information and dialouge is communicated is in my opinion one of the major reasons that Rebublicans are viewed as combative, abusive and engage in framing the converation in personal attacks or steroetyping.
That turns me off and it does so to many in the emerging generations. When will conservatives learn to speak the language of the people?
Statements like:
"Religious progressives/liberals will have us think that the solution of poverty is the issue of the State. We are unable to come up with the solution by ourselves, for we are just regular folk, and we need the progressive/liberal elite to save us."
I think that grossly understates many peoples sincere wrestling with the issue of poverty, the role of government and the place of sound policies.
Tagging them, defining them and then pigeon holing them...is a common way of engaging these debates...one that will not help honest people come to a clearer understanding of the point you are making...no matter how right it may be.
I seriously doubt that this position:
"Government programs will never solve the issue of poverty."
is going to engage many people in serious thinking but it surly will pick a fight.
I've never heard someone say this or ever talked to someone who really believed it. I am sure I guess that straw man is out there but...I've never met them.
Now this statement:
"The problem with the State in trying to solve problems is that it becomes full of itself. It creates a bloated bureaucracy, it's very impersonal, runs itself in a very inefficient way, wastes money, and because it's always political - some politician must always profit by it. "
Is one I agree with and most conservatives do but I am curious if this position is held when it comes to the Military?
Conservatives are almost in unison about the absolute need for government run, funded and legislated Military. Are the same judgments fair game for the way our military is handled.
Can a conservative oppose these realities and still be pro-troops? Is there a pro-life message that isn't rooted in pro-military? Are they synonymous with each other?
I wrestle with the incongruency of many pro-life people that seem to pick and choose which and when they want to build a culture of life.
Bomb but not abort seems like more than a bumper sticker to sincere people trying to get their minds around what it means to be a Christ follower, a peace maker and socially conservative.
None of that is said to inflame the issue but to express a sincere frustration with the wearied paths of evangelicalism's platforms...it seems like choices always leave me pinching my noes and picking which moral evil I have to put up with when I vote.
I hate that.
I wish to God that someday I am going to be happy with who I vote for, maybe I am alone in this frustration...but it is getting very, very old.
I know the mantras that come our of the conservative think tanks keep telling me, I just need to hold in there...take your medicine...its good for you...but I look around and reality seems to paint a different picture.
Eric, Nice reply :) I knew it would get you talking lolol
Trust me I know what its like to not only be around the poor, but be one of the poor. I have been homeless with 4 kids. I have been in some hard times where meals were once a day maybe. My childhood was really hard.
I agree with many of this mans points but I also disagree with a few too.
I personally do believe in war, even God led people into war. He is the creator.
I believe wars can be a good thing, and they can be a bad. I personally am pro-life. I believe in less government.
I believe as he (the original poster) does and believe that the churches need to do their jobs and help the poor,the problem is many churches are not, many people are not, that is why we now have welfare. Eric I have been around people where they can work and will not, they don't need to because they know how to use the system. There is always going to be abuses in this system I understand that, no matter what system it is. I just don't believe in socialism as the liberals believe or at least what Obama does. Did you hear today he was talking about taking the freedom of speech out and make it where many areas of speech are censored?
My point is when is it to far? Does the liberals really care for the poor? Seriously do they? I haven't totally agreed with one President runner up either. But we probably won't.
But its deciding when all the chips fall what we really are willing to sleep with. You can be pro-life and you can help the poor. I think your church reaching out is helping someone and that's all you can do.
I remember your dad telling me one time, "Mary would you be happy if all you did was serve 1 person and that is all you could do?" I struggled with that really hard. My heart is to serve the poor, help the hurting. But I had to learn to trust God, ask Him to show me the way and give Him my life and even though its a different way of helping others as what you are doing specifically, its helping one person at a time and that is all we can do as people. Tell others, and get the community involved. We need to start at home.
Have you prayed about maybe having a soup kitchen run from your church? I wish I lived closer I would be right in the middle helping!!
You know every since I met your family, well your dad its def a heart connection. I have never met people that had heart for the poor and hurting as I have since meeting you all. Thank you Eric for sharing your heart for the poor, your rare, your church is amazing. I will be lifting your church and the serving ministry in prayer.
Good blog and more on abortion
http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/
Hi Mary,
You are a treasure to me. You speak, always, from the heart and from experience. I know without a shadow of a doubt, if you were part of Eric's church, you would be a whirlwind of love in action.
You have dealt with the poverty issue, lived without a father to care for you, lived with a loving mother that with few resources has reared an active, loving, Christian with one of the deepest hearts I know. You, my lovely niece, are a Georgia peach, picked from the highest branch.
Would to God I had your zeal in the face of all the difficulties you have faced and overcome.
You inspire and challege your loving Uncle,
Fred
Mary,
Thank you for the really kind words, I can hear your love in them and they are extremely welcomed. Your support, input and giving towards what is going on around here...have been such a blessing. I too have enjoyed getting a chance to know family via the internet.
Too cool...
http://randyalcorn.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-im-voting-for-98-pro-life-john.html
Specific blog post on this issue :)
worth the read!
Post a Comment