« Links Mentioned on the 5/25/16 Show | Main | Does Having Homosexual Friends Mean You're Unequally Yoked? »

May 26, 2016

Comments

I think pro lifers watched the planned parenthood videos perhaps because we were praying for the day when abortion would be exposed. But the mainstream didn't watch the videos because the assumption was that they were bias and untrustworthy. This was the narrative of the pro-choice media and pundits. People didn't actually see them so there was no outrage. Unlike perhaps when abolition was gaining steam. Also, there is more of a need to be in denial of the reality of abortion because so many everyday people have had them or helped pay for them. Unlike slave ownership it's not just the wealthy landowners having abortions. It's the neighbors teenage daughter. So the need to downplay abortion is necessary in order to assuage the tremendous guilt. I write this as a Christian who used to think this way. Before I knew Christ I thought abortion was just another birth control option and I would've paid for one if any of the women I was having sex with got pregnant. This kind of thinking comes from a liberal ideology that is pervasive in the schools, media, and the general culture. We must pray that eyes would be opened. God is big enough.

Could it be that our acceptance of abortion, like acceptance of the slave trade, is still mainly a matter of ignorance?

Acceptance is not mainly about ignorance. It’s entirely about ignorance. The absence of knowledge takes many forms. From Cecile Richards, to Kermit Gosnell, to know-nothing college students. They don’t have the truth.

And yet….

They are entirely responsible.

To clarify, Amy is talking about a very specific type of ignorance. The process. It’s the flesh and blood type.

My comment was a general one.

We must change their minds in a loving way, but they are without excuse.

I doubt it's as simple as ignorance. It's also about maintaining sexual license and women's liberation. Embracing the pro-life position would mean treating sex as a serious, meaningful act for which you have to take responsibility. As one pro-choicer recently told me, as we were discussing abortion, "we build [sex] up SOOOO much more then we need...you don't need to be in love to have it, just like them. You can do it for fun without being a slut." Accepting responsibility for the child you created through sex with the girl you only like (not love) would take all the fun out of sex.

And regarding women's liberation, it is true that women who get pregnant and raise a child will have less of an advantage in the workforce than men. They will make less money, work less hours, and be less likely to get promotions. But the narrative of the left is that this is holding women down to a lesser status (because motherhood counts for nothing). Embracing the pro-life position would mean setting women back in terms of power and equality, according to the leftist narrative.

These two things (the women's liberation narrative and the free and fun sex narrative) are more precious to many people than human life. In the same discussion in which I quoted the pro-choice person above another one flatly admitted that children (POST BIRTH) were "lesser human beings" that were not worth the same protection as adults and that children could be killed post-birth under some circumstances. He also admitted that people with Down Syndrome were worth less as human beings. While no other pro-choicer person in the discussion voiced any agreement with this person (there were 5 pro-choicers and only me and one other pro-lifer) not a single denounced what he said. That's a deafening silence. And I think they were unwilling to come out and distance themselves from that position because they knew they might need to go there themselves as a last defense.

These two things (the women's liberation narrative and the free and fun sex narrative) are more precious to many people than human life.
Very true. This is different from process ignorance. This is moral ignorance.

Of course, this leads to the question:

Is this willful evil?

OR

Do people believe these things thinking they’re doing the right thing morally?

I believe the evidence points to the latter. The ignorance is more glaring in the latter, but one can make a very strong case for it in the former as well. People who spend a lot of time engaging the pro-abortion movement would be very discouraged if they faced more of the former.

Willful evil = moral ignorance

Does this hold mostly?

The absence of moral truth

Also, there is more of a need to be in denial of the reality of abortion because so many everyday people have had them or helped pay for them.

This has been my position, as well, and I was actually arguing this the day before I saw this video. The general public in England in 1791 didn't have slaves and weren't involved in the trade, so they were better able to see the moral issue for what it was because they weren't complicit and so didn't need to deny their guilt by denying the evil. But this video does seem to suggest that ignorance is more of a factor than I previously thought. Previously, I just assumed that everyone was in the camp of seeing the truth about abortion but deciding it didn't matter. The problem definitely isn't "simply ignorance" (I've written on this blog before about those who say the unborn are human but they are "lives worth sacrificing"—that is much harder to fight), but if it was that easy to change people's minds, then we could someday see a snowballing turn of public opinion like they saw in England.

I wonder how many people weren’t swayed by the video or didn’t want to view it.

To echo MFGA above, far too many young people (and not so young people for that matter) have bought into the idea the the First Freedom, the Most Fundamental Human Right is the right to have sex with a partner regardless of that partner's marital status, gender, number, age, or species. Any obstacle to the exercise of that freedom is a force of oppression, a tyrant, (even a tiny, innocent baby). This is where the pro-abortion argument is beginning to shift as they lose ground on the "fetus equals human" front, which is where you get the "lives worth sacrificing" notion you're starting to see in feminist blogs.

Many of the young people I know fall into the "personally I don't like the idea of abortion but I know too many girls in school whose whole lives are 'wrecked' now that they have babies" category. It makes you wonder what messages they've picked up from the culture, and the adults, around them that they equate being a parent with "wrecking" your life. My guess would be that many of the young people in this video fall into this category. These people, in my experience, haven't thought to much about the humanity of the baby they can't see. Their focus is on the struggles and trials the life of the friend they can see. Giving them a way to see the humanity of the life that is ended in an abortion can influence them.

It is one of the reasons the pro-abortion crowd resists laws mandating waiting periods and ultrasounds. They know how many women change their mind about plunking down money at the abortion clinic once they are confronted with the humanity of the baby they want to abort apparent even in the grainy image of a sonogram.

But the abortion advocates are aware that they are losing ground on the humanity of the fetus. Peter Singer's nebulous "personhood" arguments aren't getting a lot of traction. People can see that leads to a direction where you can redefine all sorts of people into sub-persons. So they are starting to shift over to the "reproductive rights" line of argument where babies become lives worth sacrificing on the altar of ones freedom to have commitment free, consequence free sex.

So Lijenborg, KWM, Amy & others, in what you envision as a pro-life society, how would that work? What would that society look like and how would it determine offenders and what would it do to them?

RagTime,

What would that society look like and how would it determine offenders and what would it do to them?

I’ll speak for myself, but in a "pro-life society," ideally, it would be illegal to kill innocent human beings. Why do I need to also figure out what I would do to offenders? People break all sorts of laws under many different circumstances and justice has many different forms.

Why do you want me to map all of that out for you?

Would there be a form of justice that you could support?

RagTime, in addition to what KWM said, for quite a while lawmakers and judges in this country managed to find a way to deal with having laws protecting unborn human life. I'm confident we could do so again.

Amy, could you provide the direct link to the video the viewers watched? (Forgive me if I missed it.)

Bruce: You can see it at AbortionProcedures.com. (It's printed at the bottom of the screen on the video above, but not as a link.)

KWM,

So as I understand it, you would punish anyone who "kills innocent human life." So, would that mean a 16-year-old girl who takes a Plan B pill? Would a woman who is raped and impregnated, then miscarries, be a murder suspect?

RagTime,

So as I understand it, you would punish anyone who "kills innocent human life."

Now I'll appeal to your reading ability. Did I say that?

What sort of punishment would you support?

You said: "I’ll speak for myself, but in a "pro-life society," ideally, it would be illegal to kill innocent human beings..." You said it would be illegal, but then, perhaps you mean it would be one of those loosely followed laws, such as jaywalking (which I do quite frequently I confess)which doesn't get enforced all the time.

For me, this is where it gets sticky. A man who compels a woman to abort his baby, even if she were undecided on whether to keep it, is committing something akin to a manslaughter. The same could be said for the parent who compels a pregnant daughter to abort. It's a woman's choice (and God's, since He can decide if a pregnancy is viable or not).

RagTime,

What sort of justice/punishment would work in your opinion?

OR

Do you think abortion should be legal solely because you can't come up with a standard of justice or punishment?

If neither, why are you asking me about it?

KWM,

The issue I find fault with is many Pro-Lifers talk about overturning Roe V Wade or adding a constitutional amendment that makes abortion illegal thinking "that's the end of that!"

But it's not, there's a question of how a society would enforce that law which is where things get tricky.

RagTime,

Ok. What about my questions?

I see it as a form of murder if the woman is compelled to have an abortion, and state laws governing that penalty would apply.

The ideal in a "pro-life" society is that virtually nobody needs abortions because people stop having casual sexual relationships with people they have no intention or desire to have children with.

Abortion is a symptom.

The disease, Sexual Immorality Normalization Syndrome (or S.I.N.S.) is sociological and psychological disorder in which the subject culture is in denial of the intimate connection between the ideas of marriage, procreation, morality and sexual behavior. The subject engages in a reductionist fantasy that sex is merely a recreational behavior rather than a profound, intimate part of a reproductive relationship.

S.I.N.S. is the underlying cause of many problems currently causing conflict in our society: the imposition of the acceptance of homosexuality, the prevalence of sexualized imagery in pop cultural media (and attendant disorders, like bulimia, in women who view themselves as insufficiently attractive), the widespread consumption of pornography, the redefinition of marriage, and the current hot-button issue over transgenderism (which is rooted in the notion that sexual identity is either a cultural construct or a personal choice rather than a biological trait).

>> in what you envision as a pro-life society, how would that work? What would that society look like and how would it determine offenders and what would it do to them?
Excellent thought, Ragtime.

Which leads to other good questions.

In a society that returns to a pro-life mindset, how are we to view the era of Planned Parenthood and the other providers of abortion, champions of reproductive rights, exploiters of women, or something else?

In a society that rediscovers the integrity of the pro-life position, how do we perceive the physicians who included abortion services, as advocates of reproductive freedom or those who made a buck at the expense of the woman and the tax-payers who were forced to finance such?

In a restored pro-life mentality, how do we view the forces that impacted our culture (media, political activism, the cause celebre), misguided efforts or social manipulation?

And, the most important question:

In a pro-life culture, what do we make of the woman who had been forced into an abortion, who willing believed abortion was the best course of action, or embraced the pro-abortion mindset which enabled a lot of atrocities?

RagTime,

I see it as a form of murder if the woman is compelled to have an abortion

This is odd. Why is it murder? And why only if the woman is compelled?

But it's not, there's a question of how a society would enforce that law which is where things get tricky.

Again, you are aware we managed to do it before, right?

HypotheticalHypothetical 1856 pro-choice democrat: "SoLijenborg, KWM, Amy & others, in what you envision as a pro-abolition society, how would that work? What would that society look like and how would it determine offenders and what would it do to them?"

Perspective

The comments to this entry are closed.