If you dropped in to America from another planet and were told there was a group of people dedicated to reducing the number of abortions, and then were asked, "would that group be for or against family planning and contraception?" you might reasonably assume these anti-abortion folks would be ferocious advocates for such efforts. After all, a surefire way to have no abortions would be to have no unintended pregnancies.
Instead, anti-abortion groups are generally the biggest opponents of government-financed family planning, the most recent example being their vocal, and effective, attack on family planning funds in the economic recovery bill. There are a few reasons for this, and each comes with its own moral dilemma.
Reason #1 - The anti-abortion movement was initially driven by the Catholic Church, which also opposes contraception as a sin. The Church believes sex not aimed at procreation is immoral and condoms kidnap the potential lives represented by the sperm.
The moral problem: there's evidence that birth control reduces the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Out of adherence to an abstract theological principle, the church condones a policy that probably leads to more abortion.
Reason #2 - In more recent years, the anti-abortion movement has been fueled by evangelical Christians who oppose birth control and sex education largely for different reasons. They believe it encourages earlier and more premarital sex. They prefer family planning efforts that emphasize abstinence instead.
The moral problem: even if one accepts the idea that prevalence of contraception leads to more premarital sex -- and I do -- one is faced with the question: what if contraception leads to more sex but fewer abortions? Evangelicals have avoided confronting this tradeoff by rejecting the premise but there is evidence that government financed family planning does reduce abortions.
Reason #3 - Promoting government-financed family planning helps the organizations that perform abortions. Specifically, the largest recipient of family planning money is Planned Parenthood which also performs hundreds of thousands of abortions. Hence, even though federal family planning money doesn't directly fund abortions -- that's already illegal -- it does help "the abortion industry." Tom McLuskey of Family Research Council estimates that Planned Parenthood did 180 abortions for each adoption referral.
The moral problem: Planned Parenthood also provides prenatal care that prevents infant death and birth control that stops unintended pregnancies. Pro-lifers have declared that one cannot aid evil, even if it doing so has positive byproducts. Yet most evangelicals advocate such moral cost-benefit analysis in other contexts -- arguing, for instance, that the evil of torture was counterbalanced by the benefit of stopping mass murder.
I can't help but wonder...if conservatives didn't oppose government-funded sex education and contraception, would they be able to create a large parallel-universe family planning industry that promotes the full range of family planning services, other than abortion.
Instead, they find themselves in a difficult and paradoxical position: in order to stop abortions, they block policies that could reduce the number of abortions.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Your Name,
You bring up some issues that merit further clarification.
First, the RCC's tax-exempt status is the same one shared by every other religious group and 501(c)(3) organization in the country. The IRS grants these exemptions because these groups do work that would cost the government substantially more if it had to provide the service. Therefore, you are not funding anything. You would be paying substantially higher taxes if these 501(c)(3)'s did not exist and the government were forced to provide the services-such as hospitals, schools, social services, etc
As a gay man, you are as free as any heterosexual to live a life of fidelity to God's Revelation-or not. I am not compelled by my Church to do or refrain from doing anything. They teach, and I either give my assent of faith, or not. The choice is mine. The same goes for everyone else.
Finally, Steven Waldman has done a great service in posting the Encyclical Humanae Vitae for people's thoughtful perusal. I don't ask that you agree with it, but spend some time with it to get a better understanding of what we believe and why-unfiltered by the media.
Peace.
Gerard Nadal,
dachte ich mir schon.
Which is as far as I shall go in a non-English language here. Last time two of us fell into the temptation of writing anything but English on a thread here at Beliefnet, some of the super-fundies got their panties in a twist about it. English being God's one approved tongue, says so right there in their fundamentalist Bibles.
I certainly do not deny that the Catholic church has participated in some decent activities through various charities.
What troubles me, greatly, is granting tax-exempt status to your Church when you are so directly involved in the political processes as you are. I would like to think that it would also trouble me if the shoe were on the other foot, tho' I am human enough to doubt it.
We already know that the Church, together with the leadership of the Church of Later Day Saints overstepped the boundaries set out in maintaining tax-exempt status during the Prop.8 fight in California (apart from direct lies of commission for which you should be ashamed).
Given that you are not willing to keep out of politics, I don't see why you should continue to receive tax-exempt status. You can't have it both ways. Either you are a social good for all Americans or you discriminate against us.
I did, by the by, read Humanae Vitae back in College. We had to read it in Latin and another European language. Found it just as follow of error then as I do today. A few nice ideas, but mainly based on false precepts.
Hi Panthera,
Reading Humanae Vitae in the original Latin! That's impressive!!!
I agree that 501(c)(3)'s need to walk a very fine line when it comes to the IRS regulations. Being very involved in my Church, I can tell you that 98% of Catholic priests try to keep well away from direct involvement from the pulpit. However, private citizens within the Church are not only free, but morally obligated to participate in the political process as equal citizens.
I'm sure that your sense of equal justice leads you to be as bewildered as me at how Democrat Politicians are routinely shown during campaign season preaching from Protestant pulpits, and yet get a pass from the media. Curious, no?
All the Best.
Gerard,
"Therefore, you are not funding anything."
Wrong. All taxes help to fund all religions' tax-exempt status. You said you didn't want to fund abortions. I said I didn't want to fund your religion. Tell me what religion performs abortions? (Or sells condoms, for that matter?)
" if these 501(c)(3)'s did not exist and the government were forced to provide the services-such as hospitals, schools, social services, etc"
I believe 'the government' (TM) does fund education (though both miserly and miserably). And I think governments should be funding health care for all citizens. Rather healthy citizens than supporting illegal wars with our tax dollars, imo.
"I am not compelled by my Church to do or refrain from doing anything. They teach, and I either give my assent of faith, or not. The choice is mine. The same goes for everyone else."
That's as may be, but it doesn't address my claim that I am not given the same religious freedoms you are, and that I am compelled to support your religion thru my taxes.
And frankly, I wouldn't waste my time reading any more of HV in order to "get a better understanding of what we believe and why". I already understand both what you beleive and why - and I happen to disagree with most of it. My question was (and remains) why on earth should non-Catholics be forced to comply with tenets of a religion to which they do not belong?
RE: Instead, they find themselves in a difficult and paradoxical position: in order to stop abortions, they block policies that could reduce the number of abortions.
This is so because adherence to their rigid, narrow dogma is more important to them that coming to any sort of practical solution that will work for everyone else.
Which in turn illustrates why using one religious group's views as a basis for forming public policy, is bad policy.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.