Taxpayer Funding Immoral Activity
We all know that a big issue relates to the proposed subsidization of individual health insurance plans in the exchange, some of which might cover abortion. The debate resolves around how best to minimize the proximity of taxpayer funds to every occasion of abortion, with the proviso that the procedure will remain legal. It’s tricky. But when we get deeper into this issue, we can go far further than abortion (there is a curious tendency among some to begin and end every discussion of morality with abortion).
I’m talking here about the single largest item in the federal budget – defense and military spending. Even if you accept the premise that funding a military in itself is not immoral, you cannot get past the fact that you are most certainly funding activities that are indeed immoral. The Iraq war was immoral. The continued accumulation of nuclear weapons is immoral. Torture is intrinsically evil – and yet the taxpayer under the Bush administration at least was paying for the various CIA programs that tortured people. Where were the calls of conscientious Catholics to de-fund these activities at that time? And what about the $3 billion a year flowing from the American taxpayer to the Israeli military, as it commits war crimes in Gaza?
Yes, the funding of the abortion merely begins the debate, doesn’t it? And for that matter, let’s talk about conscience protections too. The church also supports selective conscientious objection in the military. How come we don’t hear about this so much?
Comments are closed.
MM – I just wrote up a response that basically amounted to “no” over and over. I think that each of the points in the second paragraph is morally acceptable, except for torture (and I wouldn’t use that term to describe the CIA’s actions).
But that’s not the point. At least that’s not the thrust of the article. Considering how you framed it, I have to assume that you wrote it in order to reduce the focus on the health care debate as it relates to abortion. That’s what I really object to. Do you really believe that we’d be better off morally if we paid less attention to the immorality of abortion?
You also need to fraim this idea in the context of the proper roles of government and its officials, and the rendering unto ceasar. Certainly government does much that is immoral with our money. However, while we are obliged to try to reform our government, we are under the gravest obligations and even penalty of personal sin in certain extreme cases. There is a legitimate priority here.
Let us take two small examples. The government could decide to buy a rifle or a torture device. The rifle can be used for moral and just things like hunting, sport, self defense, or even just war. The torture device on the other hand would certainly never be moral to use. Providing funding for one is intrinsically evil, for the other it can at least be hoped that it will be a good.
Now if the rifle is used for evil, who is responsible? Well, obviously the person pulling the trigger is to some degree, as is any person who ordered them to do so, or conspired with them, etc.
Now members of the legislature are bound never to fund intrinsic evil or authorize it, etc. Funding for abortion certainly would be such evil, and if they funded it there would be no possibility of claiming that someone else misused the funds or authority they provided. On the other hand, funds for the military or intelligence can be used for just purposes. Certainly a member of congress must make some reasonable effort to correct any unjust use of the funds or authority they offer, but there is a moral difference.
This holds weight to voters as well. Our proximity to our representatives in congress is far closer than to most other elements of the federal government, thus our responsibility for their actions is more nearly direct. Thus we must be more concerned about clear cut evil than an ambiguous case.
Each of us has certain rights, responsibilities, duties, and obligations under the natural, moral, and Divine law. We must first look to our own part, then to the part of those whom we are most nearly responsible for.
In closing, I think perhaps there could be found in your line of thinking an argument for a return to the Constitutional understanding of the Congress having the power to declare war. Sadly we have very often gotten ourselves involved in all sort of un-wars with rather less than ideal moral circumstances.
Do you really believe that we’d be better off morally if we paid less attention to the immorality of abortion?
I think we would be better off if we took a more consistent approach, and that very consistent approach would in itself benefit the pro-life cause.
I think we would be better off if we took a more consistent approach, and that very consistent approach would in itself benefit the pro-life cause.
This is precisely the issue. The inconsistency of the “pro-life” movement has severed weakened its force.
smf,
I think you make good points. Nevertheless I think the general point stands. I THINK MM’s general point is the following: We need health care reform. It is a right and good. We certainly don’t want that reform to include or fund abortions or other evils. Being that those evils or analogous evils are already being funded in other ways by our own tax dollars or by our insurance premiums, etc. it would inconsistent of us to draw the line here and now and in doing so prevent all the under or uninsured from benefiting from this good.
The US spends more than half of the world’s military “budget.” The US is the only Western country without universal healthcare, pretty much the only one executing people and has, by margins around 10:1 compared to many European countries, the highest ratio of people in prison. I recommend the song “Jails and Bombs” by Amos Lee. Since abortion is always dragged out, the USA also has far higher teen pregnancy/abortion rates than Western European countries. Given what one gets in return, I’d say we pay more in taxes, in effect, than said countries.
Hopefully it’ll be irrelevant when it comes to abortion. The House is allowing a vote on the Stupak Amendment today.
Josh – exactly.
Being that those evils or analogous evils are already being funded in other ways by our own tax dollars or by our insurance premiums, etc. it would inconsistent of us to draw the line here and now and in doing so prevent all the under or uninsured from benefiting from this good.
We have to do what is right, not what is “consistent.”
Thankfully, people like Rep. Stupak don’t share your scruples about consistency, and went for “both/and.”
Which is why I have some new heroes.
MM,
You are fighting yesteday’s war.
If the health care reform bill passes with the abortion exclusion intact, pro-lifers are going to have to realize that this has done more to weaken the cultural approval of abortion than anyting the Republicans have done in the last forty years.
Before, it was just like any other medical procedure, with a Constitutional guarantee. Now, it’s singled out as something the government will not pay for.
I think there is going to be a major re-alignment. But it’s not going to happen by calling people hypocrites. It’s going to happen by working for results.
I suggest we devote our energies to ensuring the health care bull with the abortion restriction passed the Senate.
Or we can talk about what hypocrites Republicans are because they used taxes to pay for the invastion of Iraq and are now objecting to paying for abortions. That’s probably more fun.
I’ll add one more thing which makes this an inexact parallesl.
If health insurance witht the abortion restriction passes, there is absolutely nothing stopping Planned Parenthood, NARAL, Emily’s List, etc. from setting up a private fund people can donate to to pay for abortions for those who can’t afford them. Not a thing.
The same is not true for the immoral actions you list. If the polity won’t abide appoving an invastion, private citizens can’t get together and from an army and do it even if they truly believe it needs to be done.
That doesn’t meant the government should be doing immoral things, but there are things that only the state can do, and for those things, the bar may need to be a little lower in terms of overcoming the objections of some citizens.
I’d argue this post itself is immoral, in result if not intent, because it muddies the water about abortion. How is this a good thing?
There can be no serious debate about the immorality of abortion, but it’s more than debatable that, say, Israel has committed war crimes in Gaza…unless we define “Israeli war crimes” as being functionally and morally equivalent to “Israeli self-defense.”
MM’s point seems to be that one shouldn’t bother fighting abortion unless one also fights these other supposed evils. This is beyond ludicrous. Any action against evil is a good thing, even if it can be argued, persuasively or not, that a particular opponent doesn’t also abhor other evils.
John Salmon’s point about it being debatable whether Israeli war crimes are actually war crimes is akin to those who argue that abortion is not really murder, because the fetus is not a human. And the argument that Israel can do this for “self-defense” is akin to the consequentialist arguments in favor of abortion – usually related to the woman’s standard of living.
Unfortunately, this kind of moral relativism is so common on the American right.
Unfortunateley, this kind of moral relativism is som common on the American right.
Which apparently means the left never has to examine itself or its motives. So long as MM can point to something the right has done that MM considers more egregious, MM’s work is done.
We’ve got work to do. Are you going to do it?