Friday, October 15, 2004

A Touchy Subject

The Doctor and I had one of our many spirited debates, this time on abortion. I am personally Pro-Life, and Politically Pro-Choice. Kerry did an eloquent job describing this balance in the Town Hall debate:

But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.
Now many can take this view that I share and chastise it, and that is fine. The Doctor's big issue was why should 'his' money go to fund someone else's abortion. To that. I see why should someone else's money go to fund the loss of innocent life in Iraq. Now please don't get distracted by this comparison, even Doc accepted it is a valid comeback.

But now we are seeing what happens when you restrict access to social services, when joblessness creates unaffordable family environments. when an administration is so wrapped up in itself, thereby being out of touch with the real world, and the plight of those directly effected by it's policies.

This all brings me to an article written by Glen Harold Stassen. He is a Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary. He states:
I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information - federal reports go only to 2000, and many states do not report - but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are counterintuitive and disturbing.
What did he find? First, he confirmed that national abortion rates were at a 24 year low after a 17.4 decline during the 1990s.

What has happened during the last 3 3/4 years of the current administration? Of the three states with statistics through 2003, all show an increase in abortions rates. of the 13 states that have data for 2001 and 2002, 8 show an increase averaging 14.6 %, and 5 show a decrease averaging 4.3%.

His reasoning for the increases include, lowered economic status of Women, lack of a reliable mate, and lack of access to reliable health care.

There is more to the rhetoric of saving babies in this battle, when we have an administration that is creating environments where it is difficult to adequately care for these newborns. I am certainly not saying that there shouldn't be more personal responsibility, but if the pro-lifers are sincerely for protecting the life of the unborn, then they need to start rallying their supporter around a candidate that will promote an economic environment where these women can afford to raise their children. The trends of the last 3+ years show GW is clearly not that candidate!


No comments: