“the “right” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate morality. The “left” within the church attempt to leverage the gov. to legislate compassion. Both approaches fail miserably and are an abdication of our responsibility to be the voice, hands and feet of Jesus in this world.” – spoken by a friend.
Someone slid this article across my desk that inquires as to why evangelical Christians are against universal health care. Now, strictly speaking, I’m not an evangelical. Also, I don’t think that all Christians oppose universal health care, and I will not presume that Christians who do will share all my reasons. I hope this caveat spares me the litany of comments accusing me of ‘generalizing.’
I will take the article as my foil as it is one of the finest expressions of liberal hubris and arrogance that I’ve seen in a while. The author begins by indicating he seriously wanted to know why Christians who are supposed to be all about love would oppose health care. The end includes a long screed:
(p.s. this opinion is reserved for those Christians who have not actually thought about the consequences, and decided that more people are harmed than helped by the new law. They are being consistent with their beliefs. That being said, if you think you are in that camp of people excluded, you probably aren’t. You probably are just being geedy [sic], selfish and jerkish, but convincing yourself that this is why you oppose it, while the truth remains you just dont want taxed, or adhere to some abstract notion of how this bill is UnGodly).
Now, I haven’t been accused of being geedy in a long time, but I suppose it was overdue. What you see embodied in this paragraph is the supreme conviction that, in fact, the author already knows what our real reasons even better than we know our real reasons and the reasons we state are not likely to be the real reasons. Now, I find communication to be difficult in general. Truly sincere communication requires earnest listening. The paragraph above reveals that he isn’t sincere or earnest in his request for clarification. We shall keep this in mind.
I should note that this will be long, so if you cannot endure a sustained argument let me direct you to another medium such as Twitter, or if that is too much as well, TheDailyKos. Granted, this article is long even by my standards… maybe I’ll make it available as a pdf for downloading and printing.
Let us begin by exploring the premise of the man’s argument:
“Isn’t the greatest of virtues love? Isnt that right in the Bible? What is getting lost in the translation from what Christianity should be and is, and what it has become?”
Here we see the hubris on display in vivid colors. Now, we’ve already agreed at this point that ‘born-again, evangelical Christians’ are the most opposed to universal health care. Does it strike anyone else as a little odd that this fellah, who is not a Christian, thinks he’s in a better position than Christians themselves to understand what Christianity should be and contrast it with what it has become?
Let me submit to Mr. [H] that it is an unwarranted assumption to believe that he will have the same understanding of the word ‘love’ as how it is portrayed in the Bible. I find this to be a common difficulty regarding ‘love.’ No one bothers to define it and systematically understand it because everyone thinks they know everything about it instinctively. I include fellow Christians in that.
The net result of this approach when we turn to the Bible is that we insert our ‘instinctive’ meaning of the word ‘love’ wherever we see it, never considering that perhaps the Bible embodies a different meaning.
This comes to play when we consider another statement by the gent:
The more clear Christian response, from my understanding, should be to whole heartedly endorse anything that helps their fellow man lead a life of less suffering
So, apparently ‘love’ is about doing anything to help their fellow man suffer less. Based on this premise, Mr. [H] makes the interesting and logically fallacious inference that if we reject universal health care we must simultaneously not want to help our fellow man. In short, in order to meet Mr. [H]’s standard of ‘love’ we’ve got to ‘love’ in the particular manner that Mr. [H] prescribes, and this apparently is only by implementing universal health care.
The idea that there may be other ways to ease suffering does not appear to cross his mind. I will not here counter the unfounded reduction of ‘love’ to simply easing people’s suffering. I think it can be said that it is at least that but it is certainly more. For a simple example, at its heart we can say that orthodox Christianity certainly does aim to spare people from suffering–especially the eternal and everlasting sort.
But this leads to a very important point that helps us to finally segue into the myriad of reasons for why I reject universal health care and health insurance. Mr. [H] says, “There are about a zillion verses in the Bible saying we should help the poor, show compassion, be loving…”
But there are other verses, too. For example, Jesus said, “Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.” (Matt 10:39). Suffering- even to the point of death- seems to be anticipated in this passage. He also said, “It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.” (Matt 5:29).
These passages and others like them do not justify ambivalence to the human condition but they help illustrate that easing temporal sufferings is not the whole sum of what Christian love will be all about.
Mr. [H] is not to be faulted for highlighting the passages that he likes from the Bible and ignoring (or remaining ignorant) of all the other ones. Liberal Christianity already does that, visible in particular in pursuit of ‘social justice.’ These folks have dispensed with the notion of ‘hell’ that Jesus spoke of before so it naturally follows that once you’ve cut out that and other aspects of the Bible that seem ‘out of date’ that you’re basically left with ‘easing the suffering’ of people as the only lasting value.
The problem is that these same passages they accept come in the context of passages that they don’t. In order to understand them all we must take them all together.
So, I, as a conservative, am not against ‘social justice,’ per se, just as I am not against easing the sufferings of people. How I do this is not unimportant, though. For example, in easing the suffering of some am I morally justified to increase the suffering of others?
The Liberal dismisses the objection that paying for health care out of taxation is improper by saying it ought to be endured for the sake of humanity and to say otherwise is simple greed. It must be acknowledged at the minimum that taking money from someone will indeed cause them suffering at some level. Just because we have in hand a noble cause is it right to inflict this suffering? The Liberal says, “I’m going to extract 40% of your income in order to help the poor! Why the long face? Don’t you WANT to help the poor?!?!?!?”
The earnest Christian cannot go along with this reasoning. The Bible certainly does describe Christian love as being concerned with the poor and showing compassion, and calls for Christians to provide monetarily for the material needs of other Christians abound. But there are two important things that must be noted: 1., At no time are Christians called upon to be generous with other people’s money. Their own money, yes. But not the rich neighbor’s down the street. 2., Their generosity is meant to be as un-coerced as possible.
Both of these points are important. Universal Health Care can only happen by ‘coerced compassion’ that makes primary use of ‘other people’s money.’ You see, there are other passages in the Bible, too. Remember “Do not steal?”
It might be said that it isn’t stealing if ‘the people’ (otherwise known as the proletariat) take it by force of the Government. If that is your argument, I don’t see where you can non-arbitrarily suspend it. You may as well go whole hog and call yourself a full blooded communist. If you concede at any point that it is possible for the Government to go too far in extracting resources, that at some point, somewhere, the forced extraction of funds and resources is in fact stealing, then you allow Christians the right to decide for themselves where that threshold is.
I for one believe that it is stealing, even if the ‘forced extraction’ is for putatively ‘compassionate’ purposes. In saying this, I set myself out of the category of Mr. [H]’s where I ‘just don’t want to be taxed.’ In fact, most of the evangelical Christians he refers to cannot belong in this class, because in fact it is I and we who will largely benefit from this forced extraction. As it currently stands, my family is among those that has the most to gain from the health care bill that was recently passed. My family will be ‘passed over’ and all the benefits we receive will be derived, somehow, from some rich family in some other place who was forced to be ‘compassionate.’
And I think that’s wrong. If some rich Christian family wanted to reach into our lives and help tend to our health care needs and that sort of thing I would probably be deeply appreciative. If rich Christian families did all they could to help the poor out of their own initiative, I don’t have an objection. But to force them at Government-Gun-Point… that I object to.
In another article on the same Psychologytoday.com website a woman, in a very hilarious argument ‘proving’ that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives based on the novel (and faulty) evolutionary logic that ‘whatever is evolutionarily newer is evolutionarily superior’ she defines liberalism in this way:
liberalism (as opposed to conservatism) in the contemporary United States as the genuine concern for the welfare of genetically unrelated others and the willingness to contribute larger proportions of private resources for the welfare of such others.
From the foregoing, however, we understand that this is not entirely accurate. We must add a modifier if we are to honestly define ‘liberalism’: “the willingness to contribute larger proportions of OTHER PEOPLE’s private resources for the welfare of such others.”
Conservatives that I know are all about helping others, just not on someone else’s dime. This is true on principle, and pragmatics: “The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” (Margaret Thatcher).
You see, the Bible presents love as the highest virtue but not as the only virtue. Not all that is done in the name of love is justifiable. Not all that is done in the name of ‘social justice’ is just. The Christian must seek to balance all of the virtues together. Because the orthodox Christian understand that temporal matters matter but they pale in comparison to ultimate matters where injustice perpetrated in the name of love will be called to account, they cannot dispense with these other elements, no matter how nobly they are presented.
If one really cares about what the Bible says, you will see that there is little to no justification found within it for the forced extraction of resources to give to others. Generosity is encouraged, true, but it is only generous if it is your own money and it is only credited as generous if it comes freely. If anyone cares about what the Bible says, they may wish to take a look at 2 Corinthians chapter 8.
Or, they might want to consider a reading of that famous passage about Christian charity/communism in Acts 2:44-45:
All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.
I note that they sold their own possessions and goods. They didn’t go across the street with a bludgeon and say, “Give me some money so we can help the poor or we’re really going to clock you! Oh, don’t whine! Aren’t you loving? Don’t you care about the poor? You should be happy to give us your money. Give it up, now!”
We can also make the observation from this passage that the generosity on display in this Acts passage and described in 2 Cor 8 do not come with any justification or imperative to extend Christian notions of ‘charity’ to non-Christians. In other words, there is no warrant in the Bible for taking the principles of compassion and imposing them on others.
We now arrive at a discussion of the wisdom embodied in the opening quote of this article. The ‘right’ tends to legislate morality. The ‘left’ wants to legislate compassion. The left, filled to the brim with secular humanists and liberal Christians, are often up in arms about the efforts of the ‘right’ to impose their moral view of the world on everyone else. We must see the deep irony, here: the left intends to do the exact same thing! Only it is far worse!
The left reasons that everyone will share their notion of care and compassion for the poor and suffering and insists that we all should go along with them if we are compassionate people (like they are). They are, in fact, violating ‘the separation of church and state’ that they hold dear in order to enshrine their values on everyone else. They believe this is a ‘secular’ value. The fact that Christians don’t go along with them is understood as being selfish and greedy. In fact, Christians do not share those values in that sense as already described in brief above.
But another difficulty arises when we view it in these terms and we see it in display in the health care bill that has just been passed. Namely, the left believes that ‘easing suffering’ ‘compassion’ and ‘caring for the poor’ means allowing women to get abortions. Now, don’t misunderstand me. It is not my point here to argue the case against abortion. My point is that if we all sat down to decide precisely what ‘health care’ consists of, there will be many, many differences of opinion. They cannot be resolved simply by declaring, “Ah, but the majority has spoken!” because they would not cease for that reason to be a matter of conscience and personal conviction.
If ever there was a time for a ‘separation of church and state’ as the Liberals understand that phrase it is in questions of ‘charity’ and the ‘public good’!
If you believe that all of these things are of importance however you define them, then fund them from your own money. Don’t make us financially support your pet causes and we won’t make you do the same. In fact, historically, we haven’t. Christians are the ones that founded all institutions of higher learning. They are the ones that founded schools, and when these were co-opted by Liberals, they started their own schools again out of their own funds while still paying for the public schools, set up their own health clinics and hospitals and any number of charities. If you ‘compassionate liberals’ did the same with your own funds, I doubt we’d be having this discussion.
But of course you don’t want to do that, do you? Is it because you are selfish and greedy and prefer to subsidize these programs using the resources of others and merely cite the ‘public good’ as your excuse?
I should here clarify that I refer to myself as a ‘Libertarian-Constitutionalist.’ In other words, I am not the sort who is interested in ‘legislating morality,’ but if we are going to legislate such things (any thing) then we should at least do so in a uniform manner according to a firm respect for the rule of law. Don’t try to foist the knee-jerk response, “Oh yea, well you’re legislating YOUR morality…” because if you say that, you don’t know what you’re talking about. If you read my blog even a little you will see that that is not my position at all. Research before you speak.
We are 2,500 words into this and you are probably thinking we are done. Sorry. We aren’t. Here we go.
In the original article, Mr. [H] says,
It seems I live in a parellel universe where somehow this equates to “but people who are poor are lazy and shouldn’t get our help.” Do you really think Jesus would oppose universal healthcare because his taxes would get raised? Really?
Given my previous discussion, I think Jesus would oppose universal health care because it embodies the silly and naive notion that Man can really spare himself from all of the hardships that come from being alive. I think if Jesus were asked this question he wouldn’t even bother to state a position. He’d say something like, “My kingdom is not of this world. This world will be consumed in fire. Unless you believe in me, you too will perish.”
This isn’t to say that this ought to be the full sum of the Christian attitude. I’m only saying that if one actually bothers to read the Bible in full, it is evident in numerous places that Jesus came to carry out a rescue mission and not to issue moral platitudes or lay out the blueprints for a utopia.
Simply appealing to wussy notions about a ‘compassionate’ Jesus without remembering times when he was hard, insulting, and abrasive won’t cut it. Nor can we limit our discourse to only what Jesus said and did because, well, like I said, he had a specific mission in mind and that mission pertains to the mission of the Church but is NOT the mission of the Church. I cannot die for the sins of the world.
So, has Mr. [H] ever read this passage?
In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you have received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it…. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: ‘If a man will not work, he shall not eat.’ 2 Thessalonians 3:6-10
What about this passage from 1 Thess. 4:11-12
Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody.
Now, we should be clear here that these passages–like nearly all passages about ‘social justice’ type issues–are speaking only to the Christian within the Christian community. So, it would not be right to mindlessly extend these prohibitions to the non-Christian community. We might chastise a lazy fellow believer, but we are not called upon to chastise our lazy neighbor, because we do not have the same basis to make our appeal, which is Jesus Christ (Philippians 4:2).
That said, we can from these and other passages draw some important principles. Let us begin with one big one: in the name of love it is never right to enslave anyone.
In New Testament terms, slavery is anything that masters us or controls us other than God. See Galatians 3:26-29, Gal. 5:1, 1 Corinthians. 6:12 and 1 Cor. 10:23-24. The last passage reads:
“Everything is permissible” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible- but not everything is constructive. Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.”
And the Galatians 5:1 passage reads:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
In the first place, it should be understood that when we talk about seeking the good of others, we cannot pick our concept of ‘goodness’ out of the air or allow our own natural inclinations to be the sole determinant of what is ‘good,’ especially if we are Christians. What is ‘good for others’ can be a matter for discussion and it doesn’t follow that just because a liberal secular humanist says, “Let’s do good” that he has in mind the same sort of things that a Christian would.
The liberal secular humanist ought to realize that.
I say this because for the Christian, enslaving people for their own good is not a morally sustainable path. Christianity is about freedom and being free. Wherever Christianity has gone, freedom followed in its wake. Certainly I believe it has followed in the way that really matters- spiritually and eternally (which is surely what the Galatians passage is primarily referencing) but it has demonstrably brought temporal freedom, too.
Orthodox Christians, and conservatives in general, understand that the pursuit of love must come hand in hand with freedom. (I must here give credit to Ayn Rand and the Objectivists for getting this basically right… these are the rare atheists who tend to be conservatives.)
Some examples will do. For example, the Christian Church has historically maintained that marriages should be pursued in such a way that both the man and the woman consent to the marriage. A more striking example can be made by contrast: unlike the Muslims who spread their faith by the sword, the Christians understood that saving faith cannot and could not come from coercion.
There will be instant reaction to this citing a number of notable exceptions which I do not deny. However, exceptions are exceptions. They do not obliterate the general truth.
I do not suggest that this path of freedom- temporal and spiritual- has been straight and without incident but it is a historical fact that the freest nation on this planet was founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution in their native lands who, when finally given the opportunity to enshrine their values, created a Constitution that would prevent such things from happening again. It wasn’t religion they were against, but religion as a tool for abuse by the Government- and it wasn’t the only tool they were afraid of.
For whatever its faults, it cannot be denied that America has been the freest most tolerant nation on this planet and this has come in large part because the nation’s founders enshrined the biblical value of freedom into its founding documents.
From this you may infer that I see universal health care as an enslavement. You infer correctly.
I do not see how socialized health care is not in effect even if not in name, essentially making us all wards of the state. I do not believe that it is good to be a ward of the state. I do not believe it is good to make anyone wards of the state. It therefore follows that I oppose universal health care which makes people wards of the state. I am seeking the good of others when I say: let us not enslave them. And yes, I don’t want to be enslaved myself.
The liberal will say that this is a ‘good enslavement’ but I vehemently disagree. I am not here speaking of the forceful extraction of funds from people, but rather the effect that such ‘social justice’ programs actually have on the people they say they want to ‘help.’ I already mentioned how liberals see abortion as ‘helping people.’ I can’t go along with that. However, creating a universal health care system is the same as creating a universal welfare state.
I do not see why if the ‘let us love in the name of the public good’ argument is extended it should not be extended all the way. Why not have a ‘universal food distribution,’ too? How can it be fair and right and socially just for one man to have a $40 steak but another man can only afford $3/lb hamburger? And what about the people who are going hungry?
Mr. [H] said,
“By not backing healthcare reform, it is as if every Christian who opposes it is indirectly inflicting harm and suffering onto others.”
If not going in for universal health care is actually backing the harm and suffering of others then it should follow that not having a ‘universal food distribution’ is doing the same thing.
Surely it follows that if there are 5 people out of 100 who do not have access to quality health care then we should take the whole lot of them and redistribute the wealth equally among them! Or, what about just helping the 5 people and allowing the other 95 to retain their freedom?
If there are 5 people out of 100 who are going hungry we do not put forward the solution that we must put everyone under a universalized food program. At least, not here in America. Rationing cards and the like are the things of communist countries. So, some people have obviously followed Mr. [H]’s reasoning to its logical conclusion. Why doesn’t Mr. [H]?
We can be thankful that he is inconsistent but inconsistency isn’t the kind of thing we really commend people for.
Everywhere that ‘universal health care’ has gone lower quality and rationing has come with it. And why not? Where public dollars are at stake, surely it follows that no one should get special treatment. And who can possibly deny the reality that someone–the government, of course–will have to decide who gets what treatments based on the finite available dollars?
The freedom to make one’s own health care choices is preserved by allowing them to pay for it out of their own pocket. I leave aside dealing with the painfully naive notion that these government agents will always have our interests in mind. This is out of touch with reality. History gives no reason to hope in such nonsense.
Moreover, the fact that a finite pool of ‘public’ resources has to be carefully administered ‘equally’ to the public has given rise to a series of big problems. First of all, whenever something is ‘socialized’ the quality tends to go down. It has to. The laws of reality require it. Let me explain.
Remember the guy with the $40 steak and the guy with $3 a pound hamburger? Let us suppose that the government has to balance this out ‘fairly’ and ‘equally’ since it is administering public dollars. Well, life is life. No matter how you cut it, there just ain’t no way you’re going to be able to distribute quality steaks to everyone in America whenever they want it. Oh sure, you might be able to petition for one and on occasion get your wish, but you would never be able to go out and get one if you so chose because its all has to be withheld for fair administration. So what can the government afford to give out to everyone? At best, the $3 a pound hamburger. In reality, it will be even worse than that because without the profit motive to spur people on to raise, slaughter, and distribute quality beef, the quality would decline.
This is exactly what happens in any place where this philosophy is fully implemented. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.
You can expect that the quality of health care, and access to health care in general, will both decrease if ever a universal health plan is imposed fully. Not only will we become wards of the state, but the freedom to seek and pursue quality health care will be seriously curtailed.
You may disagree with me and say that somehow we’ll be able to pull it off this time, but regardless, you see that my objection is not about simply being ‘greedy’ and ‘selfish.’ I earnestly believe that more suffering would result from universal health care and so, in the name of love and decreasing temporal suffering, I feel compelled to resist it.
But of course it doesn’t matter what I say. Liberals know what I really mean.
The above presumes at that our government agents really are working out of noble reasons according to good common sense moral dictates. Unfortunately, as the abortion thing serves to illustrate, this presumption cannot be made.
There is a threat to freedom and liberty that accompanies the equal distribution of finite resources for the public good, and it is embodied in the very common and utterly logical conclusion that one of the most effective ways to raise or sustain the quality of living on this basis for all people is to… reduce the number of people.
Population control reasoning almost always comes right along with this way of thinking. It makes perfect sense, right? If there are only 100 $40 steaks available but 1,000 people to share them between, and you hate having to pick cow hooves out of your hamburger, surely the simplest thing to do is just get rid of 900 of those people!
Abortion is horrible in my estimation but just as repulsive is the reason why so many people support it–not because it is ostensibly about a woman’s choice but because it decreases the number of people the state will have to tend to.
The (in)famous Bart Stupak reported that this very reasoning was in play in discussions about abortion and the Senate health bill that was passed:
What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue–come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”
The article I use to document this is interesting in its own right and I submit it for your consideration.
The aptly named Jacob Appel, a ‘bioethicist’ has made a similar argument in regards to eugenics:
The most obvious advantage of mandatory screening [of embryos] is that it will reduce the long-term suffering of the children who are spared disease. At the same time, preventing future cancers will certainly save tax dollars. These savings could be redirected toward researching new therapies and providing quality care for current patients.
Here you see a clear case of finding a way to give out the quality $40 steaks. You do it simply by eliminating all those people who might otherwise have been competing for those dollars.
This latter quote also calls attention to one of the other despicable aspects of this reasoning- and which I want no part of as a Christian- is the notion that you will ‘reduce the long-term suffering’ of these children, sparing them from having the disease by…. watch this… preventing them from coming into existence in the first place.
Oh ho, Mr. Appel! What a stellar solution! We shall eliminate suffering by eliminating the sufferers! Is this what you wanted, Mr. [H]? This is exactly the sort of reasoning that statists quickly turn to when trying to figure out how to extend equal services in the public good. I find it evil and repulsive and morally repugnant.
Keep in mind that Mr. Appel uses as his example for screening a disease that while 4 out of 5 women with the gene may get is one that is treatable in 9 out of 10 cases.
This is what some people mean by ‘compassion’ and ‘reducing suffering’ and how they mean to go about ‘cutting costs’ in order to ‘improve quality.’
In the face of these examples, which I wish to be clear are meant to be illustrative, not exhaustive, for I could produce many more *cough* John Holdren *cough*, I must flatly condemn any such program that inspires such thinking. If we must wonder why ‘born again evangelicals’ so often are most opposed to universal health care we may begin to wonder why liberal secular humanists (whether atheists or ‘Christians’) so easily embrace tyrannical and totalitarian malthusian and Nazi style thinking. But that is another post.
So you see that there are a great many reasons why I reject universal health care. These things I have listed which are urged in the name of ‘love’ do mischief with other virtues expressed in the Bible: It deprives people of their work ethic, lowers the quality of care, reduces the access to care period, reduces humanity to temporal beings (I mean, if you really wanted to reduce suffering why not hook everyone up to morphine for their entire lives a la the Matrix? What? Don’t you care for people?), takes money away from people who worked hard for it whether they consent or not and uses the money and resources to do things that they may not find morally acceptable.
On top of all these things, already bad, I find that the people who are really committed to bringing about ‘universal health care’ in the name of ‘love’ and ‘compassion’ and using the government to ‘help people’ are very often (I do not say they all are this way!) pursing a program that I consider to be vile, disgusting, abhorrent, and… evil. Pure, out and out evil.
I have no confidence that we could ever implement any socialistic program in this country without having these despicable people pushing for it and carrying it out. The people most likely to implement it with moral sanity are the very people that the left wishes would just stay out government altogether. People don’t want Christians to ‘impose’ their morality on others, but it is precisely this ‘morality’ which gives rise to Jesus’ statement that the whole moral law can be summed up in “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind; and the second is like it- Love your neighbor as yourself.”
You can’t have one without the other, friend. Not from a Christian viewpoint, at least.
And I should say, in conclusion, lest I be misunderstood, the notion that if we care and love people so much that we’ll just deny them existence and enjoy the consequence of having them not around to dilute the available ‘public funds’ is so despotic that there is no way, ever, that I can be reconciled to it or any program that exhibits even a hint of it. I should rather die. And I shall stand against this tyranny to my dying breath. Those who espouse this point of view I count as my enemy. I shall not even dine with them.
Because I do love people–enough so that I should like them to exist, and I have every hope that we can ease their suffering, but not at the same time by enslaving them and making them the chattel of the state.
If this means that I reject this bill because it is ‘ungodly’ and that makes me unloving, well, you can eat my shorts.
I have a solid dozen other posts on this blog that talk about these topics. The search tool in the right column is your friend.
[edited and very slightly updated November, 2013]