Mark Tushnet, a constitutional law scholar, argues carefully that the most important question about pro-life positions is their coherence. He demonstrates that the problem with pro-life arguments is that they are at best backed up by nominal support for “pregnancy crisis” centers, or for support of children in adoptions. Where is the committed right wing effort to decrease the amount of suffering among children of poor health? Then Governor Bush was much criticized in the 2000 election for the failure of his Texas administration to implement serious child health coverage reforms, for example.
And today? Though there is little federal information about abortion’s prevalence during the first W. Bush administration, Christian ethicist Glen Stassen discusses the data that suggests that abortions have dramatically increased since President Bush took office. Perhaps the fear that women quite obviously (and rightly) have about the lack of sufficient child care might play more than a minor causal role in this pretty interesting correlation. (thanks to metafilter.
Labels: abortion, Christian ethicist, coherance, consistency of thought, healthcare costs, logical conundrum, pro-life, pro-life? prove it, reducing the amount of suffering, women’s health