ObamaCare: To Pay Taxes or Not to Pay Taxes
When it comes to paying taxes, tensions are already high. Now that the new Healthcare Reform is on the way, tensions are through the roof, especially for those in the pro-life movement. If abortions are to be publically funded, are we as Christians to pay taxes that may go towards performing this murderous act? Well, Albert Mohler has done a service to the church by answering this question on his blog. Read all of it here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm glad he comes out and says we need to continue paying taxes. I don't agree with his assertion that the passed legislation is inherently evil and I find the use of the phrase "Obamacare" somewhat disrespectful.
ReplyDeleteOne reason I tend to support the healthcare bill is its ability to actually lower the abortion rate in the US. Here's an article on what universal healthcare has done for the abortion rate in other countries: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287_pf.html
Hey Ryan, thanks for the comment. It's encouraging to know that some people read some of the things I put on here, and then comment on them. Normally, I don't respond to many of the comments, but I thought that yours was a good one worth dialoguing with. My goal in responding is to provoke good thoughts without harsh responses. Therefore, I don't want to come off as argumentative or condescending. If I do, feel free to give me a chokeslam through a table or a DDT on a chair. Your choice. Here it goes...
ReplyDeleteThough I don't want to put words into Mr. Mohler's mouth, I can't find anywhere in his article where he says that the passed legislation is "inherently evil." In fact, having listened to his more in-depth comments on this subject, I know he believes there will be lots of good that comes out this reform. However, he does believe that abortion is inherently evil (as do I) and is concerned about public funding for abortions.
Thanks for the article. I read it while I should have been working.. Ha!
So here's my stance on the healthcare bill. I'm all for it with one (huge!) exception. I'm all for providing healthcare for those who can't afford it (though I don't know if government funded healthcare is the way I would go, but I could manage). I know there are big problems with the current healthcare system, so I'm all for reforming it. However, once the healthcare reform includes publicly funded abortions, I'm out the door. It's a huge step backwards for Pro-Lifers. We've fought and fought to make abortion illegal, and now a healthcare system steps in and provides it free of charge to anyone, effectively providing precedence for any future rulings on abortion. It's disgusting to hear how many babies are aborted each day. I don't just want the abortion rate lowered. I want zero abortions.
On top of that, I don't agree with TR Reid's article on why universal healthcare will lower the abortion rates in the US. At the risk of me rambling more, I'll keep them short.
1. According to his article, Reid argues that there is an indirect correlation between universal healthcare and abortions. What he left out is astounding. I used the same comparative statistics (http://data.un.org) he did to find the abortion rates, and then I did a search to find out which countries have universal healthcare with abortion funding. Here's some other countries he failed to include with their abortion rate in parentheses: Australia (19.7), China (24.2), Cuba (24.8), France (16.9), New Zealand (19.7), and Russia (53.7). It's selective reporting.
2. To say that there is an indirect correlation between universal healthcare and abortions is nearly the exact same argument I heard in college about legalizing marijuana. "If we would just legalize marijuana, then people wouldn't use it as much." Seriously?
3. You can't compare the US to other countries when it comes to abortions. Here's why. The vast majority of abortions today are minorities. It's a sad thing, but Planned Parenthood purposely targets minority neighborhoods to build their buildings. They are targeting minorities. The other countries Reid lists scarcely have any minorities when compared the United States. On top of that, it's naive to think that you can compare countries over an issue like this because abortion is more of a matter how a person views the sanctity of life. There are too many variables to take into account when comparing nations to one another on such a specific topic like this.
Ok, so I didn't keep them short. Here's my main point. I can't support a bill that hands out free murders and then tries to disguise itself by saying that by making them free, people will stop accepting them.
Also, here's a great article in response to Reid's (http://healthcare.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2M4NjIyMzM2NWE3ZDUyMGViNmI0MDlmNmRlNmVhNzY=).
Hey Guys, you've spurred me to do some research into these stats. I've spent the last 6 hours (yes, I need a hobby or friends) making tables that have abortion rate, socialized health care, legality of abortion, and population growth for 197 countries. The results were pretty surprising.
ReplyDelete1) Of the 39 countries with more than 10 abortions per 1000 women, only 7 don't have socialized health care.
2) The 10 countries with the highest abortion rates have been communist in the last 30 years, (or still are).
3) Only 10 of the 53 countries that I could find that had abortion rates printed are experiencing positive population growth.
4) The highest ranked nation with socialized health care in birth rate is Pakistan 52/197.
Here the average woman has 3.52 births.
5) The highest ranked nation with socialized health care and where women can request abortions in the same category is Tajikistan at 58.
6) Of the bottom 25 countries in terms of birth rate, 23 of them have socialized health care. All of them have negative population growth.
7) Of the 59 countries that are currently experiencing negative population growth (meaning their average birth rate per woman is below 2), only 8 don't have social health care.
8) There are only 3 European nations currently experiencing positive population growth. They are Liechtenstein, Albania, and Iceland.
9) In only 6 of the top 75 nations in birth rate can women have opt to have an abortion.
10) Of the 113 nations that do not have socialized health care 14 allow abortions or about 12%. That is compared to 59 of the 88 countries that do have social health care or roughly 55%
I understand Jon when you said that its naive to compare countries on things like this, but I think that the numbers in these statistical categories nearly argue contrary to Reid's point. There's a general correlation to increased abortion rates, to nations with socialized health care, and that also correlates with a general population decline in nations with socialized health care and abortions. Good grief, people have been talking about how wonderful the European model of health care is. That's great and all, but they're estimating that some European countries will have 1/2 their current population within 2 generations. That goes especially for Russia and most of the former soviet republics. Not to say that there's a direct cause and effect relationship, but population wise Europe is in a lot of trouble in coming generations. The populations in Africa and Asia will explode (as our current population data is already telling us). The US, is hovering slightly in the population growth category.
It is a complicated issue, but the statistical correlations between these factors pretty clearly point to higher abortion rates with socialized health care, and decreasing population growth. I dunno, food for thought.
Thanks for the research, Bob. And yea, you might want to start looking for a hobby. Ha!
ReplyDeleteWow, didn't expect so much discussion. Normally I get slapped with the liberal tag and give up.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I'll add is that I think the point was missed a little bit on my end. I'm not trying to say that free abortions = lowering the rate, I'm not for free abortion either. The point is that people choose to have abortions often because of fear of medical costs, parenting costs, and get pregnant because of their inability to purchase effective birth control. The reason minorities are seemingly targeted is because they are less likely to be able to afford to support a child. Sad, but true.
I'm sure that how they view life plays a role in the decision process, but since I can't expect those outside the body of Christ to view life the same way I do, providing a system that makes it easier for others to choose life is something I can support.
It will be interesting to see how the abortion piece plays out in this bill. I'm not convinced that either side is giving us a true picture of what it will look like, or that they even know how to.
Hey Ryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification. I'd agree with your points about why some people choose to get abortions and why minorities are targeted. And that's also a good point about seeing how abortions will factor into this bill. Here's all I'm saying. If this bill does not allow for free abortions, I could see myself somewhat backing this bill. But if it does, I can't support it. It reverses all the good universal healthcare provides. Though the poor may get abortions because they can't afford a child, the middle class and rich get abortions because they don't want to be inconvenienced.