![\"GraphDecrease\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2017\/04\/GraphDecrease.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Image by \u201cClker-Free-Vector-Images\u201d (4-18-12)<\/span> [Pixabay<\/a> \/ CC0 public domain<\/a>]<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Jon Curry is an atheist friend and very nice guy, whom I know in real life in the metro Detroit area. His wife even teaches my daughter in a homeschooling cooperative. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n If pro-life Republicans really care about women it\u2019s not easy to see it. I noticed Trump was going to remove the maternity care requirements for health insurance providers as part of his Obama Care roll back. It\u2019s basically a means of sharing the burden a bit. If only women within a certain age range need to acquire the care the cost is concentrated on them and it becomes more financially burdensome. So more poorer women would be likely to purchase a policy that lacks maternity care. If they end up getting pregnant these are the kind of women most likely to get an abortion. If you\u2019re pro-life and you care about women don\u2019t you stand up and say something? Criticize Trump a bit on this? I didn\u2019t see any criticism from people I regard as the most vocal pro-lifers, despite this policy which would be sure to increase the demand for abortion.<\/span><\/p>\n There\u2019s more to being pro-life than just banning abortion or limiting access to abortion. The other side of it is to make the choice of life easier on a pregnant woman. Maternity care is part of that. Paid maternity leave is another. Universal health care would help. A lot of women feel they need to have a full time job in order to have health care. So when they get pregnant they might believe this threatens their career, which is a threat to their access to health care. If we had universal health care there is no fear in this regard and these women might just choose life. These are ways to help reduce the number of abortions, but they don\u2019t align with the Republican agenda of tax cuts for the rich. How often do the Trump fans bring this stuff up? Not often if ever. So what should we conclude about the priorities here? Is abortion of primary importance or is it really towing the Republican line?<\/span><\/p>\n Thanks for the lecture. You tell me nothing I haven\u2019t known in the 35 years I have been pro-life.<\/p>\n It\u2019s not about whether you are aware of this or not. It\u2019s about whether you and people like you (i.e. the most vocal critics of abortion) criticize a Republican when he takes action that makes abortion more likely. Have you criticized Trump for this and I have missed it?<\/span><\/p>\n I haven\u2019t followed the fine details of all that. The GOP debate on health care lasted all of 18 days. Now there will be some new plan, so we\u2019ll have to see the details.<\/p>\n Trump has already said that he\u2019d like to see everyone covered. So do I. That\u2019s been my position since time immemorial.<\/p>\n Trump is long on record favoring Ivanka\u2019s proposal for maternity leave: \u201ca childcare tax credit and six weeks of maternity leave\u201d: according to a\u00a0CNN article<\/a>.<\/p>\n If Obama \u2014 like all singularly compassionate, oh-so-loving liberals \u2014 cared so much for every living creature (excepting the preborn) such leave would already have been enacted, wouldn\u2019t it? But somehow it is left for a Republican President to do.<\/p>\n The article notes that this would be part of the tax reform plan which is on the current agenda in Congress.<\/p>\n A good economy and availability of jobs help lower abortion, too, according to the liberal outlook of \u201cmore money, less abortion\u201d (which is probably true for the most part). Trump is creating jobs by the tens of thousands.<\/p>\n Maternity care of all sorts for women in problem pregnancies is already available for free through crisis pregnancy centers: of which there are more than abortion death mills, and often supported by the government.<\/p>\n Full pregnancy and childbirth coverage for poorer women was already in place through Medicaid. My wife had all four of our children that way (and she had problem pregnancies and serious postpartum depression). We didn\u2019t pay one red cent.<\/p>\n So once again, where\u2019s the beef? He\u2019s already in favor of what even you and I agree with.<\/p>\n Dave, how easy would it be to say that while you generally like Trump you\u2019re not thrilled with his decision to remove the maternity care requirement from health care plans as this would lead to more abortion, and you are pro-life? I don\u2019t think we should be disagreeing on this.<\/span><\/p>\n This has nothing to do with Obama not getting paid maternity leave or Trump claiming he supports such a thing (I doubt he means it, but I hope he proves me wrong as this is another strong pro-life move). This has nothing to do with the fact that your wife didn\u2019t pay maternity costs. It can be true for your lower income level and untrue for middle class income levels. This still will push some middle class women over into the decision of an abortion.<\/span><\/p>\n I do not believe you when you say maternity care is free at crisis pregnancy centers. The hospital bill for my son was $15K, and that was 17 years ago. It was paid by my insurance provider. You\u2019re telling me if an ordinary middle class person comes into a crisis pregnancy center and asks them to cover their maternity expenses they will do it? I don\u2019t believe it.<\/span><\/p>\n Where\u2019s the beef? Pro-life people should have a beef with policies that lead to more abortion. Under Obama Care everyone has to have insurance and<\/em> that insurance must include maternity care. There are a lot of women out there not even thinking about their chances of getting pregnant. Under Obama Care if they get pregnant unexpectedly they would discover that they are covered. That\u2019s a huge relief. Relief that will dissuade many women from getting abortion. Financial suffering is a huge<\/em>\u00a0factor in the choice to get an abortion as any survey on the reasons for abortion will tell you. I gotta think a person that regards abortion as a priority issue will agree with me and a person that thinks carrying water for the Republican party is a bigger priority won\u2019t object. Where do you stand?<\/span><\/p>\n I like maternity care and maternity leave and universal coverage. If people have the money to pay for these things, then it is arguable that they should (which is a separate issue). Health care ought to be affordable.<\/p>\n I don\u2019t agree all down the line that all these things that supposedly cause more abortion, do. Abortion flows primarily from the presumption that it is morally permissible to kill one\u2019s preborn child. That<\/em> idea is present prior to economic considerations. In other words, the poorer pro-life woman will not commit this act unless driven to it by extreme duress and\/or coercion of self-interested pro-abort parties around her.<\/p>\n Of course I would likely disagree on some particulars of a future Trump Care or Ryan Care. That\u2019s the reality of politics and people coming together with a reasonable compromise. No party gets everything they want in these democratic \/ legislative processes.<\/p>\n If I disagree with something Trump or anyone else believes, I have no problem saying so. It\u2019s a non-issue.<\/p>\n In my experience arguing I\u2019ve come to the conclusion that for most people their beliefs and logic follow their desires. The apologist in you thinks in terms of decisions flowing from logical principles. The decision to have an abortion flows from the logic that it is acceptable to kill a pre-born child. I believe the opposite. People make a decision often based on self-interest. What is best for me in my situation? That includes finances, relationships, and other factors. After that decision is made the moral logic fills the gap. If they choose an abortion the moral justifications enter to support the decision they have made. It\u2019s just a clump of cells. If they choose life then this leaves the possibility they will conclude that what is inside them is more than that.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve argued with young earth Christians. You can hardly think of an issue that\u2019s more open and shut based on the evidence. I have to say I\u2019ve never seen a young earth creationist turned based on argumentation. If people won\u2019t turn for such an obvious error why would they turn for something less obvious? People hardly care about the evidence. I don\u2019t think it\u2019s good for nothing, but it barely registers as compared to preferences.<\/span><\/p>\n So in my view if you really care about abortion you look at it from this perspective. How do I make the choice of life more appealing to a would-be mother? This to me is a far more effective method. To argue based on science, genetics, logic. It\u2019s almost a waste of time. You\u2019re not wrong, but you\u2019re just not changing the minds of many people. If however you help a woman and get her to a position where the choice of life is less burdensome you not only save the baby, you could see a person that maybe had no firm opinion on the abortion issue now come to be a pro-life person. They come to accept the arguments after the conclusion comes to align with their preferred belief. If their preferred belief is that abortion is fine (it\u2019s preferred for financial reasons) they decide to have an abortion, most likely they will accept the rationalizations for abortion for the rest of their lives and they will not turn based on future arguments that you expose them to.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s why I think the maternity care issue is important to abortion.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s a proven fact that people convert on the spot by being shown ultrasounds. That\u2019s why the pro-aborts are so vehemently opposed to them. They know what happens.<\/p>\n They say it is \u201cbased on emotions\u201d (just as with pictures). That gets back to non-rational elements that you highlight (making a decent argument). It\u2019s normal to emotionally react to a picture of a preborn human being (esp. one that was slaughtered) and a moving ultrasound. It\u2019s tough to pretend it\u2019s not human then.<\/p>\n I was talking strictly about presuppositions and how they affect our actions. This can be quite unconscious. If one starts with sexual revolution premises, one arrives at abortion:<\/p>\n 1) one must have unlimited freedom to have sex.<\/p>\n 2) If a baby results from this free sex, it\u2019s owned by the mother anyway, and so she has a right to kill the child. (or, alternatively, \u201cit\u2019s not a person yet because of lack of viability or being a part of the mother\u2019s body\u201d [biologically and genetically untrue] or what-not).<\/p>\n That\u2019s a whole progression of thought that one has to arrive at. It\u2019s the \u201cway down deep\u201d presuppositions: what philosopher Michael Polanyi <\/a>called \u201ctacit knowledge\u201d<\/a>. Christianity (the traditional real thing) goes totally against this. Even the pagan Hippocrates also did (which I once mentioned in one of my rescue court cases, before being sentenced to a week in the slammer).<\/p>\n One has to in effect reject many key tenets of traditional morality (which I would also argue are inherent in human souls) and accept secular premises to arrive at the pro-death position. Relentlessly secularizing culture and society is right along with that tendency, and so it became widespread. People wanted free sex. Once traditional morality (and Christianity in our own society) were rejected, legal and widespread abortion was absolutely inevitable, as a result. Contraception was the intermediary step, as I have written about<\/a>. Homosexual \u201cmarriage\u201d was also inevitable, since it is the ultimate non-procreative outlook on sex (procreation not even being possible).<\/p>\n