Chuck Norris should just go back to kicking people


It’d be a lot more effective and make a lot more sense. Here is a ridiculous paragraph from an article by Walker, Texas Ranger:

Lastly, as we near the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary had been covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind if their parents had been as progressive as Washington’s wise men and women! Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn?

It’s probably not productive to address this weird mess, but it does remind me of why I don’t really get the socially conservative problems with universal health care. By legislating against abortion but not providing universal coverage, the right’s goal seems to be to beat the sin out of apostate women. But that seems to me to be a cowardly copout. I, as a man, can make it more difficult for a woman to have an abortion by making abortion illegal. However, by doing this I still don’t make it easier for the woman to have the child.

It is far more expensive to give birth in America than it is to have an abortion. I have heard from my friends who have had babies in America that a normal hospital bill for an insured couple is over $5000 (and I’ve heard that $15,000 is not unusual). Now, should giving birth be free like it is in the UK, or the cost of a premium as in Canada? That’s a reasonable question to ask. But to expect a person with few means to carry a baby to term when she (a) can’t afford the hospital bills, (b) can’t afford to raise the child, and (c) abortion is extremely cheap, comparatively strikes me as ill advised.

This doesn’t mean that the government should fund abortions, by the way. I’m just saying that to use a stick (legislating against abortions) without a carrot (making child bearing more affordable) seems cruel and certainly not Christian in any manifestation I can produce from biblical texts.

Now, about that Chuck Norris paragraph. How fallacious can a cutesy article be? Consider that in the preceding paragraphs he is talking about the federal funding of abortions through the omnibus bill and not the health care bill. So to blame “Obamacare” for the allowance of abortions is kind of stupid. He conflates the two bills throughout the piece, admitting that Obama didn’t even have much to do with it since he was in Europe at the time. He clearly doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. He may even have a good point in his article but the muddy logic hurts his case quite badly.

And then comes the ludicrous paragraph quoted above, which suggests that covering poor single women (whom he still calls “uninsured” for some unexplained reason) with health insurance would give them the impetus to terminate their pregnancy. The progressive politics behind Obamacare actually, in my opinion, would strip Mary of the stigma attached to teenaged motherhood. Whether this is good or bad is beside the point. The problem is that Chuck Norris wants to take a progressive bill and place it in a stricter ethos. But we know that that would not have happened, especially in Roman ruled Palestine.

Theologically, it is even more fallacious, since it fails to account for the faith of Mary and the fact that the Romans actually practiced infanticide on unwanted children. Mary, however, kept the child despite social pressures not to and Joseph married her despite very strong social pressures to divorce her quietly in order to save his honour.

My own response to Mr. Norris is probably somewhat taking his bait since his reason for writing such drivel is to provoke and not likely to make a strong point. He succeeded since I’m not the first to respond, but I still think he was a much better kicker than he seems to be a thinker.


Update: I just posted this and then went to Matthew Yglesias’s site where he says something quite similar but wonkier and more relevant to actual voting members of the Senate. He doesn’t even mention Chuck Norris


Tags: , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: