ashcomp | (no subject)

So. . .C-Span Radio today had on an official from Feminists for Life, because the current vice-presidential candidate is a member. They are, needless to say, a pro-life group. She spoke with some eloquence of the need to change society to make it easier to support a woman's choice to keep an unplanned child. The premise there is that women choose abortion because they are forced to by lack of resources, among many other causes. The main thrust of the interview, though, was their pride in the success of a prominent member.

I rather liked Mr. Obama's comment on the subject, that all sides to this particular debate find common ground in a desire to reduce the number of abortions performed. (Not the same thing as making it illegal).
My main complaint with the pro-life/anti-abortion movement is their lack of follow-through. Life is sacred, supposedly, but only until the moment of birth. The hungry baby, once born, is somebody else's problem. God Bless the child. Right. If life is sacred, adopt and raise a crack baby. If life is sacred, support the mother's choice by funding nationwide free childcare--operated by professionals with Civil Service status and pension rights. Yes, make it a government program funded by--wait for it--taxes! Which is to say, put your wallet where your mouth is. That way, the job will get done. And, I expect, abortion rates will plummet.

The demonstrated response of individual people of faith and goodwill is, while noble, inadequate to the task. While a few enlightened businesses provide child care, few if any cover all the costs. And most are far more interested in reducing overhead than providing child care or family leave.

So, to reiterate: try positive approaches for a change. Step up and pay for the care, feeding, and education of children in poverty. And maybe something useful will be accomplished.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

you've got it right, barry.

Thanks; I hope so. That doesn't mean everyone's going to agree with me :-)

And you base this on what research?

This is the standard pro-abortion party line. You told me yourself that you do not belong to a church, so how would you know what modern churches do? I only know what mine church does and it does quite a bit. Anyone who has a serious interest can find the answer to the question, assuming one is questioning.

You plan might work if the Constitution was changed to eliminate the separation of church and state, destroying churches. This is what the Communists did.

I read the newspaper every day, and spend much of the day listening to NPR, which tends to rehash the news all day long. This is quite sufficent to tell me that some large number (no, no count) of the poor in this country are in trouble because they either can't get work, or work enough hours, because of lack of affordable child care. If they leave their kids alone to go to work, they can be arrested and jailed. And it happens, when the kids get into trouble and draw attention to themselves.

Most,if not all churches do charitable work, but these efforts cover a lot of ground. Frequently they're combined with missionary activities overseas. What I'm saying is that the sum total of these efforts is not enough to provide meaningfully for every unwanted child born--or potentially born--in this country alone.

I'm not pro-abortion by any means. I am, however, firmly pro-choice. Until this society can move itself to make the necessary commitment of love and money to provide for every needy child, it must not interfere with the mother's right to act in her own interest. That means, to me, a safe place for kids, 24 by 7 if necessary, to allow for people working late shifts.

Not sure where communists come into this particular discussion. They tended to move against any and all religion, in order to maintain their own hold on power. Separation of church and state is one of the most brilliant notions ever enacted into law. The erosion of that separation under the Bush administration is one of the more serious problems in the country today.

Getting back to an earlier conversation we've had, I do believe that there are individuals in this country getting into the "church" business every day, to take advantage of the tax exemption and collect money which they then abuse for their own gain. Removing the tax exemption might discourage some of that--but believe me, it isn't going to happen. What might be more practical, is to not grant any such exemption to any religious organization less than, say, 100 years old. That would tend to eliminate the entrepreneurial temptations, and give the organizations an opportunity to show that they were providing some service and value to their practitioners. And that they actually offered something which would hold a congregation for that length of time. Again, no research, but I somehow don't think that the early Christian church was aided in it's growth by any subsidies from the Roman treasury. Even Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar. . ."