In my last post, I talked about how Obama-care has mandated employers to
provide things like contraceptives and other services which might
conflict with the employers' religious beliefs. In an effort to
defend this dangerous idea, liberals have raised many weak arguments.
One example of a weak argument is the idea that, since pregnancies
and babies are expensive, paying for contraceptives actually reduces
the overall cost of health care.
The
wisdom of this argument (if any) rests on the premise that it's
better to sacrifice individual liberties for the betterment of
society as a whole. In this case, by forcing employers to pay for
contraceptives, everyone enjoys lower health care costs. This same
argument has been used for years regarding seat belt laws: since seat
belts saves lives and reduce injuries, forcing individuals to wear
seat belts reduces health care costs to society.
First,
let me ask: Is this really the precedent liberals want to set? Do
they really want the benefit to society to be greater than the rights
of the individual? In this case, they probably do which is why they
raise the argument. However, this opens the door to tyranny.
According to this logic, what would stop congress from passing a law
mandating that everyone use contraceptives? Some might say, “Well,
congress wouldn't do that” but the question still remains if
congress has the power to do it. If we buy into the argument that
congress can decide what's best for society – even at the cost of
individual liberty – then yes, we've given them the power to do it!
In case there are liberals who still don't see the danger, let me ask this: what happens if next year, congress decides there aren't enough babies being born? For the good of society, congress decides that no women may use contraceptives. If the benefit to society is the objective, then what argument will liberals use then?
In case there are liberals who still don't see the danger, let me ask this: what happens if next year, congress decides there aren't enough babies being born? For the good of society, congress decides that no women may use contraceptives. If the benefit to society is the objective, then what argument will liberals use then?
Second,
there's a glaring flaw in the liberals' arguments: You see, the very
notion that society incurs a cost for individuals' health care
decisions stems from the liberal idea that society should pay the
costs individuals' health care. Here's a suggestion: if someone makes
a poor decision, let him suffer the consequences of it. When people
don't have any consequences for bad decisions, it's a license to sin.
Since
we've been talking about contraceptives, let's talk about a related
issue – out of wedlock births. Today, more than half of all births
to women under 30 are out of wedlock. In almost every area examined,
children born to unwed mothers suffer for it. They are more likely
to live in poverty, to drop out of school, and to commit crimes.
What is the liberal solution to the problem? It's to give money to
women who have children out of wedlock! Unmarried mothers often get
food stamps, free health care (Medicaid), rent subsidies, daycare
subsidies, etc. What if they have still another child? Why, they
get more money, of course! Here's the weirdest part – if the women
consider marrying the fathers of their children, they understand they
will likely loose their government benefits. So women have babies
and get benefits – they marry and loose benefits. By the way, with
contraceptives so readily available, why is the illegitimacy rate so
high anyway? Given the fact that illegitimacy rates are so high, do
you think that at least some women might have an incentive to make
bad decisions?
Consider
the alternative. What if women who have children don't receive more
government benefits but are simply burdened with another mouth to
feed? What if they knew they would be saddled with higher and higher
daycare costs for every child they have (while they have to work two
or three jobs to pay for it)? If a woman knew how much of a burden a
child would be, might she make better decisions about birth control
or premarital sex?
Compelling
all people to share the burden of those few who make bad decisions is
another road to tyranny. When individuals have no consequence for
making bad decisions, they have no incentive to make better
decisions. This leads to higher and higher costs for the rest of us.
It's the exact opposite of what liberals are trying to argue now.
There is no savings. If something seems “free,” then more people
will abuse it which leads to higher costs. If women believe they can
have children with no consequence, then the overall cost to society
is greater: higher poverty, higher taxes, higher crime, higher
dropout rates, and higher everything.
Rights
belong to individuals. So do responsibilities. When the government
tries to protect the rights of society at the expense of the rights
of the individual, it's not liberty. It's despotism.
No comments:
Post a Comment