I agree with most of the points Chicago made. This ties in with a few posts back, when we did find some common ground in the idea that what it will really take for abortion to end is a paradigm shift in society so that abortion is no longer seen as acceptable (happily, I think we can even now say there is some progress. A majority of Americans feel that abortion is wrong on some level, even if we as a nation remain deeply conflicted as to how to deal with this). Where we have been at cross purposes is how that shift can be accomplished.
Another thing I think we probably all agree on is that there has been a general increase in social instability since the end of WWII (actually, I would even push this to the start of WII, the war itself being a pretty massive social disruption). While we all differ on what is driving this social disruption (Jlw has one theory; I’d like to see him further articulate it beyond a simple chronology), I think we agree on most of its symptoms – broken homes, the breakdown of the family, the weakening of community bonds, and so forth. At the same time as this breakdown there has been a rise in such things as abortions (compared to pre-Roe; abortion rates have actually been decreasing over the last few decades under both Republican and Democratic governments), sexual promiscuity and sexually transmitted disease, a decline in family size, and so forth. While we may dispute exactly how these are related, that they are in fact related is, I think accepted by all of us.
The question, then, is what should we do? I’m not exactly sure how “returning to the Truth” or any such phrase translates into concrete action. I’m going to end up repeating myself here, but here goes anyway. Maybe I’ll even expand on these points a bit. Programs such as a living wage, affordable housing, quality education, and a clean environment are concrete goals we can work for to help re-establish a minimum level of social stability that is a pre-requisite for re-establishing complete families. Yes, you can raise a strong family in adverse conditions, but it’s much harder. Even those of us lucky enough to have grown up in relatively economically secure, in complete families (as I myself did) should keep in mind that social change trickles up as well as down – a destabilized social base is bound to eventually destabilize the middle and even the top as well. Now notice what I’m not saying is “throw money to the poor.” When I say economics are an issue, what I’m saying is economic insecurity, rather than simple low-income, is the problem. If I only have $5 but food costs $1, that’s not a problem. If I have $5 and food costs $4.50, I’m going to start having issues (and if it’s $6 or $7, I’m really in trouble). It’s not lack of money per se that’s at issue, it’s the lack of security that money makes possible that’s at issue. People should be paid enough to live on so they need fewer subsidies (living wage), lower rents in quality buildings and low-interest mortgages should be more widely available (affordable housing). No one, regardless of income, should have to worry about their child suffering from pollutants and poisons (environment), nor should creed or geography preclude a quality education. This is not so much increasing government aid as it is building institutions (If anything, tax refunds and tax breaks are more accurately “throwing money” at people).
Now on the other hand, maybe I’m just misunderstanding all of you and this is also what you’re proposing. Maybe you are saying something like “let’s make abortion illegal AND increase the minimum wage.” Or maybe you have some other plan so that a single mother doesn’t have to work three jobs to pay the rent, or so that a middle-income couple doesn’t decide to contracept because they don’t think they can afford to pay for college. If so, lay it out.
You can only think this if you believe that the world’s resources are finite, and *especially *if you believe that human ingenuity is finite.