I should make a key
distinction here. I was using the term "socialism" in the way
Republicans like to use it, where they treat any expansion of role of
government in social welfare as socialism. This is the ostensible grounds, for
example, that Mitch McConnell is killing all the legislation coming from the
Democratic House of Representatives--it's socialistic. This argument was used
when I was a child and conservatives such as Ronald Reagan were arguing against
Medicare. If you think you can expand social welfare, and maybe raise taxes to
make sure this is funded, without being accused of socialism, then fine. I don't think this is really socialism, but it is called socialism when it is opposed by people like McConnell. What I
was really arguing is that outlawing abortion is going to require a
strengthening of the welfare efforts of government. In order to make sure that the children who are born who would not have been born otherwise are given a real chance in life, taxes will probably have to go up.
I think there is a governing
philosophy on the conservative side that suggests that what government is
primarily there to do is protect people from violence. So, for example,
terrorists, who can kill you, have to be stopped by government, but if we use
government to make sure people are protected from disease, which can also kill
you, that's socialism and we ought to do that as little as possible. Hence,
it's a good thing to make sure women don't get abortions, since that is a
violent treat to fetuses, but once the mothers carry their children to terms we
will cut funding for any effort to make them better able to take care of those
children. It is simply a fact that for many families to survive, both parents
have to work, yet the legislation that required employers not to fire women for
getting pregnant was sponsored by Democrats like Hillary Clinton, not the
pro-life Republicans. But such legislation was considered an interference with
the free market, and most Republican senators opposed it. I mean
what are women supposed to do, give up their jobs so they can go have their
kids? I suppose if you think the woman’s place is in the home, barefoot and
pregnant in the kitchen, you are OK with this. I am not.
I think serious opposition
to abortion to include a willingness to step up to the plate a support those
struggling families who abort babies for economic reasons. Something is wrong
with our society if a woman finds herself in a situation where she has choose,
as a student of mine once told me, between adequately caring for a child she
already had, or carrying her pregnancy to term. And I think that means a
willingness to step up to the plate via government, and a willingness to pay
more in taxes to make sure that my former student's dilemma arises as infrequently
as possible. Otherwise, I have to regard the "pro-life" commitments
of Republicans as a mere political football to keep their voters in the fold,
not as a genuine commitment to human life.
America is not a pro-life
country. The idea that a woman has the right to do as she chooses with her own
body is intuitively appealing to lots and lots of people. While this mind-set
exists, there will be abortions, and if they are outlawed, they will occur
illegally. (If abortion is outlawed, only outlaws will get abortions, but there
will be plenty of outlaws). Those convinced against their will will be of the
same opinion still. People who don't want to see abortions can remonstrate on ethical grounds, and they can strongly support sex education including contraceptive information even if a case for abstinence is made, and they can support pro-child public policies that reduce the occurrence of unwanted pregnancies.
