Columnist oversimplified moral problem by reducing it to abortion

  • Follow Opinion columns

I agree with columnist Star Parker's article "The root of nation's economic crisis is a fundamental moral crisis" (Feb. 17), but maybe not for the same reasons. In it she argues favorably for protesting government-paid abortions and the right of protesters to break the law to do so, if necessary. And she attributes the economic downturn, in part, to the moral dilemma of killing of unborn babies.

I AGREE THAT there is a correlation between man's downfall and his morality, whether in economics or any other facet of life. But hasn't this been the case since man's existence -- at least according to Christian belief found in the Bible?

My problem with Parker's position is that she takes a universal problem of morality and reduces it to abortion to make her point. Nations fall not so much on the fact that they kill their unborn, as Parker would have us believe, but rather because they have gone their own way in all walks of life. Abortion is just one flaw in man's nature that contributes to his downfall.

Don't get me wrong -- I don't intend to make light of the taking of a life. But in God's view, sin is sin, whether it's the taking of life of an unborn or lying on an income tax return.

The basis of the column was to show the so-called unjust treatment a pastor in Oakland, Calif. had received for breaking the Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities Ordinance -- an ordinance that protects the right of privacy of women, and carries certain penalties and fines. The pastor, identified as black, was found guilty of "unlawful approach" -- a conviction that could have been avoided had he stayed within the guidelines set forth in the ordinance -- no closer than eight feet of clients entering the clinic.

Parker does not mention the cost associated with taking care of children allowed to be born. People of her ilk argue and protest vehemently to see to it that children are born, then turn around and deny resources for their upbringing and welfare, even when the mother is void of means to do so herself. If their concern for the welfare of children is as great as it is to see them born, then their passion and protest could be better understood and supported. But that is not the case at all.

The average cost of an abortion at the facility in Oakland is about $600; the gross annual income amounts to around $3 million. Not bad for an inner-city neighborhood business, she exclaims -- a neighborhood where the median household income is 49 percent of the average income of the state of California, 30 percent of the families are below the poverty line and 58 percent of the households with children are single-parent.

In total, California spends about $52 million of taxpayers' funds for "abortion of poor young women." However, Parker fails to show what California spends a year on those who are convinced not to abort, which is a much larger sum. With potential parents having no means to support their children, all medical costs associated with births and rearing of children most likely will be borne by the state -- a tremendous cost that makes $52 million look like chicken feed.

While I'm not an advocate for abortions, I do believe that if we are going to argue against them, then we should be arguing just as vehemently in support of taking care of the children born. That argument tends to get lost in the discussion.

OBEYING OAKLAND'S ordinance is not an infringement on protesters' First Amendment rights, as Parker would have us believe. To have a baby or not is a moral decision, not a legal one, and should be left in the hands of women, not the government -- or protesters, for that matter. The law gives women that right; and until it is changed, Parker and the pastor, and all who share their position, would do well to obey it or suffer the consequence for not doing so.

People who say that government intrudes too much in our lives should champion the freedom of choice for women with respect to pregnancy and abortion. Not to do so is hypocrisy at the highest level, and cannot be defended.

(The writer is a former Augusta city councilman, and a retired labor relations manager from Bechtel Savannah River Inc. He lives in Martinez.)

Comments (5) Add comment
ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.
patriciathomas
42
Points
patriciathomas 02/28/09 - 06:14 am
0
0
Mr Abrams, I find most of

Mr Abrams, I find most of your writings intelligent and well thought out. This one, however, makes a few assumptions and ignores a few pertinent facts. The assumption that lying on a tax form is a sin is just a little presumptuous. Your assumption that "rendering unto Cesar..." means always accepting Cesar's point of view. Some Americans feel defending themselves from Cesar also falls into this category. (IMHO) And, when you compare the cost of abortion to the cost of supporting those subsidy dependent offspring, you assume that removing the enabling source will not deter the endless production of the subsidy dependent, thus making abortion a viable alternative. My argument is, while arguing against the government subsidized abortion, why not remove the enabling source of baby production that seems to be precipitating the situation to begin with? Sort of like addressing the root cause. It all begins with vote buying programs that have led to the decline of such a huge part of this nation. Now THERE'S a sin that can use some addressing.

willistontownsc
55
Points
willistontownsc 02/28/09 - 07:17 am
0
0
My point exactly Mr. Abrams,

My point exactly Mr. Abrams, thanks for this wonderful op-ed.

soldout
1280
Points
soldout 02/28/09 - 08:14 am
0
0
the opposite of prolife is

the opposite of prolife is prodeath; not prochoice. I didn't hear anything about the right of choice for the baby. The same people who protest abortion are usually the same people who take better care of their children and would help these children if the women choose life. Once someone reaches the point where killing a baby is okay they are morally bankrupt and cannot be trusted in anything. They would have to be demonically influenced to ever be able to say; "it is okay to kill an unborn baby". In our heart we always knew it was wrong and had to harden our heart to ever say it is okay. Once a heart is that hard; joy, peace and love can't be there. Only Christ can soften that heart and change that pro-death mentally.

JesusIsComing
9
Points
JesusIsComing 02/28/09 - 08:15 am
0
0
Star Parker uses abortion as

Star Parker uses abortion as one of many examples of the moral decline in our nation. In that it involves taking the life of innocent babies, I think it might be an issue worth addressing first. "Hasn't this been the case since man's existence"? - yes, but does that mean it should not be addresses? God most certainly does not equate killing a baby with lying on one's taxes. This argument only works when an evangelist is trying to get self-righteous people to see that "we all have sinned" but God certainly calls some sins worse than others. Some are "abominations" to Him and some are "detestable". Abrams shows his NewSpeak very well in defining the Reproductive Health Care Facilities Ordinance as "an ordinance that protects the right of privacy of women, and carries certain penalties and fines." The ordinance is merely to prevent effective abortion protesting - you know it and Abrams knows it. In case Abrams doesn't know protesters against Jim Crow laws were often found guilty of "unlawful approach" too. And then Abrams uses the old "if you protest abortions you'd better be ready to care for those unwanted babies" argument. ONLY pro-lifers care ABOUT and FOR these babies.

GR-10
0
Points
GR-10 02/28/09 - 08:32 am
0
0
Mr. Abrams, I agree with you!

Mr. Abrams, I agree with you! Our family has assisted many unwanted children through the years and have adopted several.
We have worked with programs to assist children for decades, including the inner city. I think if every person who is pro-life would put their money, time and effort where there mouths are, many children would have a much better chance at a productive life and lifestyle. We took in a pregnant 17 year old. Her mother threw her out at 14. She ran the streets. She is now 19, back in school, married and leading a productive life. If she hadn't found us, she would still be running the streets, and probably DSS would have her baby in foster care. Her older sister did not find someone to help her and she has 3 children, all in foster care, and is in jail. Her brother is the same, children all over the place, and he committed suicide. In conclusion, people start helping these unwanted children who are having children, and allow the option of pro-choice. I think people have forgotten, or ignore the story of the Prodigal Son. Who leaves his Father's house and suffers much, and when he returns to the Father, The Father rejoices.

Back to Top

Search Augusta jobs