Posted by Jason | Posted in Health Care | Posted on 18-03-2010
This might not be a smooth post. I’m trying to type it up while working, so forgive the choppiness, and as always, ignore grammar and spelling. I went to public school.
In this post last week, I said I would go into the disgusting argument that Democrats are supposedly making to Representative Stupak about how the government needs to pay for abortions, because if the babies are born, they would cost the government more money in health care.
Could this be any more dehumanizing? Can you ever trust a government who looks at life in terms of how much it is going to cost their entitlement program? How do you think they’ll make decisions on whether you’ll get an expensive treatment to stay alive or not? I never trusted the government, but hopefully comments like this make the casual follower of what’s going on question what it is the government is really saying and doing.
As I said in the previous post, I just recently had someone use a similar argument to explain why they reluctantly supported abortions. This person is far from ruthless. She’s actually a extremely positive and inspring person, but I think she might not be looking at what is being said when you analyze it a little deeper. This is all part of the pro-choice movements propaganda campaign. They want you to quit looking at what object you are talking about, which is a baby. They want to dehumanize what is being talked about. It is no different than what a military will do during wars. They do not want soldiers thinking of the enemy has humans that have families, dreams, etc. They want the soldier to think this is a monster that must be slayed. As far as the military goes, this is probably good strategy, but with abortion we aren’t talking about an enemy. We are talking about a child.
This person I was debating with was describing her real life encounters and how she changed from pro-life to pro-choice. She explained how she moved to Vegas and heard daily news stories about mothers killing babies and leaving them in dumpsters, babies being abused till their bodies couldn’t handle it anymore, and women being raped. This all sounds extremely horrible, and it’s not surprising they could have someone say as she did, that she thinks if these mothers don’t have the abortion option, they would then be forced into parenthood, and you would have more abused children. Then she said something similar to what the Democrats say. If you had all these unwanted children running around, you would have more welfare and crime, and it would cost the tax payers more money.
Well there is a couple ways to think about this. Number one, this only effects the tax payer to the extent that the government is involved. The government is involved because it is overgrown. Because, our government steals our money and gives it to those who don’t produce, we can say these children are going to cost tax payers in welfare. We could fix this easily by getting rid of welfare. Because the government criminalizes so many things such as drug use, of course there is going to be more crime. You can easily lower crime by not criminalizing everything under the sun. If you read this post, you saw how easily it was to become a criminal. One guy who writes a letter for an 83 year old gentlemen quickly became a criminal for “practicing law without a license”. So much for the government wanting you to help your neighbors.
Second, no one is forced into parenthood, well no woman anyways. A woman can decide to give a child up for adoption. There are plenty of people in America looking to adopt children. Also, the argument my friend made didn’t make sense, because these actions happened while abortion is legal. OK, but this is beside the point. Let’s get back to the economic value of life argument.
While Democrats appear to be making a value of life argument simply based on the cost of health care, which is completely disgusting since it’s only a small part of someone’s life, we need to think about the argument of a human life’s value based on total costs. Government forces us to pay for others against our will. If we didn’t have government forcing us to do this, you could not say these lives are going to cost us anything. They would cost their parents and family while they are children, but that’s not something parents usually frown upon.
Also, this argument is used as if these children won’t grow up to be producers, which they would if they are allowed to. Are we to assume that if these children grow up in bad homes, they won’t produce? I’m sure all of us know people who overcame so many bad things in life to become a success. Many children who grow up in poor homes grow up with a hunger to succeed. They know what it’s like to live without, and they know they have to work hard to get the best out of life. On the other hand, I’ve seen many kids who seemed to have perfect homes and all the toys a kid could want, that end up doing nothing when they get older. They never went without, so they don’t have that hunger. While I’m probably rambling here, my point is you just don’t know how people are going to turn out. You don’t know if the next baby to be aborted would have been the next Einstein. You don’t know if the next aborted baby would have been the one who discovered something that improves all our lives. The value of one innovation of one person could be more valuable than the cost of hundreds, thousands, or even millions of less productive people (again only costs because of gov’t force).
How many millions of lives were changed by Martin Luther King? What if he had been aborted instead? How many lives in India were changed because of Ghandi? How about Jon Huntsman, Sr.? What, never heard of him? Well, he grew up in poverty. He’s a billionaire, who plans on dying broke. He created a cancer institute, which is striving to cure cancer. How much value is his life worth? Would you have known that by looking at his parents when he was still in womb? You cannot make a prediction on the value or cost of one life. We are all so unique that it’s absolutely impossible. To say that government needs to pay for abortion because of the cost of the persons health care completely ignores all the contributions that that one person could make. Would the Democrats say “Well, I can understand why we had to pay to have Martin Luther King aborted as a fetus, because look how much his health care would have cost.”?