The Economics of Death

One of my colleagues in the ministerium of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, the Rev. Graham Glover, wrote an anti-abortion piece in a blog called The Jagged Word.  Our church body opposes abortion and is active in the pro-life movement.

Interestingly, Pastor Glover looks at the issue not from the moral, cultural, or ethical aspect, but rather from the political viewpoint of "policies and laws."  He goes on to express ambivalence toward the political issue of Supreme Court justices, even a bit of skepticism, while also expressing the possibility that Supreme Court appointments might help.

The real answer, the author opines, is politics of a different stripe: "policies and laws that end, or at least seek to radically reduce, poverty."

His well-intentioned argument is that abortion is not at its root an ethical or philosophical issue, but rather one of economics, and that as such, it is actually rooted and grounded in poverty.  Poverty is the keystone.  If we can "end" it or "radically reduce" it, that would in fact "end" the "hundreds of thousands of abortions that occur every year in America."

Of course, poverty is not something that can be cured with enough research, the right policy prescription, technology, or even the milk of human kindness.  Poverty is caused by scarcity: demand exceeding supply, which, according to Christian anthropology, is a consequence and curse of the Fall.  Poverty will always be with us in this age, if we are to believe Jesus.  This is not to say that we should not seek out behaviors which bring relief to our fellow man.  Quite the opposite!  That is what charity and alms-giving are all about.  Though we cannot cure poverty in the abstract, though we cannot overcome the Fall by our own prowess, though we cannot scientifically make supply exceed demand - we can love our neighbor in need.

Pastor Glover, however, proposes that the road to the ending or the radical reduction of poverty lies in Socialism.  Interestingly, he begins his argument by an appeal that we "imagine."



Pastor Glover writes: "[I]magine a nation that insures every one of its citizens from conception to death."  Has socialized medicine resulted in fewer abortions in nations where it is the norm?  And how does it work for a fertilized egg to have health insurance, but at the same time, can be aborted?

The author invites us to "imagine a nation that guarantees a living wage to every one of its citizens."  He invites us to "imagine a nation that has more generous maternal leave policies and begins to have a serious conversation about paternal leave."  He alludes to the myth of "the gross income disparity between men and women."  He calls for "radically expanding foster and adoptive services and supporting them in ways far beyond what our budgets currently allot" meaning more government intervention in the economy.  Do all these things, and "maybe" says the author, "just maybe, more women will choose not to have an abortion."

Of course, the argument that Socialism alleviates poverty is monstrous.  What brings countries out of poverty are markets, not Marxism.  This is not opinion; it is empirically and historically demonstrable.




Moreover, even Europe's soft democratic-socialist countries already have these very policies and laws that the author asks us to "imagine", as if such Utopias were only a glimmer in the mind of Lennonesque dreamers.  Has abortion ended in these countries?  Has it been radically reduced?  Or have we seen a further degradation of the value of human life by an increase in related atrocities such as euthanasia and its related boon for tourism in countries that champion such policies?

What about the Soviet Union?  In its seven decades of socialized medicine from cradle to grave, its guaranteed living wage, its maternal leave policy, its unabashed advocacy for women's rights, as well as its famous government-run orphanages - did the USSR end or radically reduce abortion?

There are two fatal flaws in Pastor Glover's argumentation:

1) That Socialism is a way out of poverty, and
2) That abortion is primarily a matter of having more money as opposed to how one views human life.

A little perspective is also called for.  In the United States today, most of the people we consider poor have a place to live, clean potable drinking water, indoor plumbing, electricity, television, and telephones.  They typically have access to free health care through Medicaid, greatly reduced food bills through EBT and other welfare programs, breakfasts and lunches for their children enrolled in the nation's free public schools and free head start programs. People that we consider poor often have luxuries like cellphones, cable TV, sports tickets, pets, tattoos, video games, jewelry, cigarettes, air conditioning, automobiles, etc.  Moreover, they also often manage to find the money to get abortions.

I do agree that we should support policies and laws that push back against poverty (even though it is impossible to eradicate it in this fallen world).  I believe that the free market system, not Socialism, has demonstrably proven itself to be exponentially and consistently superior in that endeavor.  Socialism has not only given us more abortions - paid for by tax money - but has also given the world a hundred million corpses and a legacy of the concentration camp and the mass grave.

Pope St. John Paul II - a player in the downfall of the very Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that championed Pastor Glover's various policy prescriptions - put his finger on the problem.  At its root, the issue of abortion is not economic or political.  Politics follows the anthropological philosophy, of the culture.  Economics is about choice and human action based on one's subjective values.

The root issue which underlies the politics and economics of abortion, according to Pope John Paul, is the "culture of death."  And so it is.