Our local Tea Party recently visited the local office of our
state senator to let him know what bills we were following, and what we are
encouraging him to do. The biannual legislative session is underway in Austin,
so we met with the staffer.
Normally a staffer is pretty circumspect about saying where
the legislator stands on any given issue. But we have a conservative state
senator who is generally in agreement with us. He had already authored or
signed on as a co-author on most of the Senate bills we were looking at, so we just
wanted to thank him. Some had already passed through the Senate and had been
sent to the House. A few others hadn’t been moving, so we encouraged paying
attention to those. Then there were a few House bills we wanted him to be aware
of for when they pass through the House and reach the Senate.
So the staffer was friendly and comfortable with us. He said
it was like a breath of fresh air to meet with people like us (people who weren’t
hostile or complaining, I’m assuming). He said last week he had Planned
Parenthood visit him, from the clinic here in Houston that was filmed selling baby parts.* The Senator represents them as well, so the staffer’s job
is to listen politely and let them know he’ll pass along their views to the Senator.
But he shared with us that one of their points was that we
should be in favor of abortion, because that would mean fewer people, and that
would mean a lower tax burden. So it would be fiscally conservative to favor
abortion. The staffer told us they said this with a straight face.
It’s a good idea to try to understand how people with
differing opinions think. So I thought I’d explore this belief. It requires
some surmising on my part, but this is what I think is their though process:
·
They know our state senator has an excellent
long record of being all about lowering the tax burden on his constituents (he
used to the be county tax assessor, and was outspoken about making sure
homeowners got every property tax advantage they could get). Therefore, a lower
tax argument must get his attention.
·
They believe, because he favors lower taxes, he
will favor them above any other issue, including abortion.
·
They believe he doesn’t actually value life of
the unborn when weighed against money issues.
·
They believe more people mean more tax burden.
That must also be true of immigration, and emigration from other states into
ours as well.
So a person who is pro-abortion is making some negative and
erroneous assumptions, about life in general, and about those of us who
disagree with them.
All the while the governor (a conservative) is attempting to
attract businesses to the state, and we’re generally pleased about being a
state that’s growing. That growth includes children. But there’s an assumption
among conservatives that parents take care of their children. There are school
costs, but the parents’ taxes plus their neighbors’ taxes cover that so that we
have productive adults in the rising generation.
That pro-abortion lobby is assuming babies are nothing but a
burden—of money, energy, life.
That’s an unbridgeable divide.
This morning on Glenn Beck’s radio show he referred to a
2013 Melissa Harris-Perry news clip, in which she denies the science that
a human fertilized egg is human life. She was holding a model of a fertilized
egg and said,
 |
| Glenn Beck shows antique zygote models screen shot from here |
[T]he very idea that this would constitute a person, right?
And that some set of constitutional rights should come to this. Look, I get that that is a particular kind of
faith claim. It’s not associated with science. But the reality is that if this
turns into a person, right, there are economic consequences, right? The cost to
raise a child, $10,000 a year up to $20,000 a year. When you’re talking about
what it actually costs to have this thing turn into a human, why not allow
women to make the best choices that we can with as many resources and options
instead of trying to come in and regulate this process?
Glenn Beck also had, in his studio, some antique models of the
developing fertilized egg—which were used to teach the science of human development.
The thing is, there isn’t anything a fertilized human egg
can turn into except a human fetus, and eventually a full-grown human being.
There isn’t any point from the moment of egg and sperm coming together that
this “thing” is either “non-living” or “non-human.” That is scientific fact,
not “faith,” as she claims. Melissa Harris-Perry is a science denier.
And, like the Planned Parenthood lobbyists at the state
senator’s office last week, she is making the economic claim—that life is not
worth protecting if a person deems it not economically worthwhile.
By that argument, who besides the not-yet-born human should
it be legal to kill?
·
The already born child, if the parent doesn’t
want to bear the expense of raising him/her.
·
The elderly, who are no longer contributing
economically.
·
The chronically ill or disabled, who are not
contributing economically.
·
The mentally ill, or disabled, such as Down’s
Syndrome children, who cost more economically than they contribute.
·
Prisoners on death row or life imprisonment, who
cost more economically than they contribute.
·
Anybody receiving government support long-term, costing
more economically than they contribute.
·
Anybody costing another person economically—tough
competitors in the marketplace, unsatisfying employees, dependent spouses and
children, doctors and other service providers who charge too much for their
services, etc.
What is the purpose of earning wealth? To provide for our
lives—our shelter, food, clothing, and other needs and wants. Money is not the
goal; it is the tool. It is to be used to support life, not measure its worth
and deem it disposable.
Now, I don’t actually believe most on the pro-abortion side
are in favor of murder in any other cases. I think they are not deep thinkers;
they simply want what they want—sex without consequences—and believe if they
keep insisting loudly enough, the entire culture will capitulate.
 |
| fetus at 20 weeks image from here |
But as science advances—so that human life is recognized
earlier, and is shown more clearly, and the age of viability is lower—more people
come to recognize their error.
It will be the science deniers who hold out the
longest. At some point it’s not just a difference of opinion; it is people who
rebel against truth. As clear thinker Ezekiel put it millennia ago, “thou
dwellest in the midst of a rebellious house, which have eyes to see, and see
not; they have ears to hear, and hear not: for they are a rebellious house.” [Ezekiel12:2]
_______________________________________________________
* The journalists in this case were later exonerated.
No comments:
Post a Comment