~ 18 October 2004 ~

The Abortion Economy

Jason Steffens points out an op/ed from the Louisville Courier-Journal from last week pondering whether or not President Bush was indeed pro-life (I suppose I should read my city’s newspaper more often…). Glen Stassen, ethicist at Fuller Seminary, seems to think that President Bush has been bad for the pro-life movement because abrotions have increased under his watch.

Stassen argues that Bush’s economic policies have directly contributed to an increase in abortion versus the Clinton era:

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, childcare, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs and insurance and support for prospective mothers.

By this bizzare reasoning, Stassen makes abortion into strictly an economic issue, forgoing any moral element. His premise implies that the socialist utopia he suggests would be abortion-free. It also suggests that Stassen thinks that a pro-abortion John Kerry would be better suited to reduce abortions. Like I said, it’s bizzare.

Go read Jason Seffens’ post for a more detailed analysis.

Posted by Jared Bridges | | Print This Print This

3 Comments:

  1. Jason Steffens » 19 October 2004:

    His premise implies that the socialist utopia he suggests would be abortion-free.

    Excellent point. I hadn’t thought of that implication.

  2. James Chang » 9 December 2004:

    It is your mis-reading of Prof. Stassen’s argument that is truly bizarre. What Prof. Stassen was arguing was not that there does not exist a moral dimension in the life-abortion debate; he was instead arguing that for Bush to argue for life and trying only to solve *some* of the root causes of abortion is ignorant at best and utterly immoral at worst. He should have tried to solve *all* the problems instead.

    It’s like asking, “Why do people steal more often at a time of natural disaster?” Aside from weak moral fibre and inherent human sinfulness (yes I am a Christian)a good reason is because they’re in a hard time, and they’re hungry.

    No a socialist utopia will not solve the problem abortion, but a police-state that bans abortion outright yet fails to create a stable economy and social infrastructure wouldn’t help either.

    How about a socialist utopia PLUS stricter laws against abortion? I don’t know. It seems that this is what Stassen’s arguing for, but your misreading of his argument is just plainly terrible.

  3. Jared Bridges » 9 December 2004:

    James,

    I find it strange that any Christian would see some progress made in the abortion fight worse than no progress at all (in a Kerry administration there would be regress).

    What Prof. Stassen seems to be arguing is that since Pres. Bush hasn’t abolished abortion completely, it is best to go with a policy that focuses solely upon economic issues–even if that means the abdicaiton of legal protection of the unborn.

    You say, “No a socialist utopia will not solve the problem abortion, but a police-state that bans abortion outright yet fails to create a stable economy and social infrastructure wouldn’t help either.”

    The last time I checked, the USA was not a police state (contrary the cries of the left). I fail to see how it can be morally right for a government to ease the economic conditions of a country (which supposedly causes less abortions) while simultaneously championing a pro-abortion platform. The true hypocrisy is found here.

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.


»

© 2003-2016 Jared Bridges