« It's okay to kill them, but it violates their dignity to show them | Main | He Saved a Billion People »

July 26, 2007

Comments

If you want to wake people up about abortion, say to them, "Why are you criticizing Michael Vick? Those were HIS dogs on HIS property!" Then watch the moral outrage until you draw the parallel to abortion. (HT: Rush Limbaugh)

I posted the following comments on a regular blog with a person with whom I typically disagree. That other person (a pastor of a UCC church)was trumpeting the very thing you have mentioned. I initially commented"

"Should we have fought to keep slavery safe, legal and rare. Should we have sought economic relief in those days for the slaves, without addressing the immorality of slavery? Should we have fought for simply educating the slaves and avoiding the slavery issue?

My interlocutor (a UCC pastor) responded"

"This is NOT an example of compromise or "sleeping with the enemy." This is about two opposite sides seeing some place where they can agree and accomplish something. The funding is for working to prevent teen pregnancies and thus one source of potential abortions. It is also about funding adoptions and counseling women not to terminate their pregnancies but rather offer the child for adoption."

To which I (Patrick) responded:

"I will listen again and investigate the legislation more carefully. My response is more a reflex against a minimalists approach that seems to acknowledge only the mother and not the unborn, and have seen all to often a dissing of the life issue itself, and rebukes from the other side of the ideological spectrum for not buying the stripped down model of humanity."

We'll see what happens!!!

Hi Patrick, you should consider not letting the perfect being the enemy of the good. Most abortions happen because of economic considerations. Most liberals, myself included, would have no problem with eliminating, or at least lessening, those considerations. What's wrong with that?

Alan wrote:

>>”Most abortions happen because of economic considerations.”

So do most armed robberies.

Most pedophiles have sex with children due to sexual considerations.

Perhaps we should help alleviate the pedophiles urge to sexually abuse children. In the meantime, it makes moral sense to call it evil and criminalize it.

Also, if abortion is not taking an innocent human life, then people can have abortions for whatever reason they want, and we need not even discuss economic considerations. In such a case, such considerations are meaningless.

Suppose a mother has 5 kids and gives birth to a sixth. She gets home with the baby, and realizes this little smiling, smelly clump of post uterine tissue is going to hurt the family purse. To be consistent with your view, the baby dies and nobody need care.

I am writing a book on abortion and what I have noticed while writing it is abortion helps no one-most definitely not the woman. We all know it does not help the child being torn to bits by the abortionist's instruments. But the women who have them aren't exactly singing a happy tune either and the ones that are, are in deep denial. Abortion denigrates women, it says pregnancy is a "medical condition" like we have to be cured from it. Pregnancy is no more a "medical condition" than breathing or urinating. The only times those do become "medical conditions" is when it runs afoul and is no longer doing what it normally would in its natural state. Why do we penalize women just for being women? Why do we say in order to be equal to men we need to deny our fertility and our wombs? Men are jealous because of our closer resemblance to God, in that we too are creators of life. Women need to wake up and reclaim our rightful identity as life-bearers, as women, as divine daughters of the Most High and tell men and those wanna-be men (femininsts) that we will no longer stamp out our true and God-given purpose of life-our children. We need to fight them tooth and nail. If we can fight for the vote, why can't we fight for our children?

Dena -
It always amazes me that so many women who would call themselves feminists are in favor of abortion. You would think they'd be coming at the issue from the perspective that you've shared here!

I mean really, who does abortion benefit? Not the woman and certainly not the child. All it does is give the man another avenue to escape his responsibility when he gets a woman pregnant. You would think that this fact would get feminists in an uproar. But nope. It baffles me.

Guys, the thread was about a story that pointed out possibilities of seriously reducing the number of abortions. Kevin and Patrick mire themselves in snark while Mo and Dena wax on about the desirability of returning women to the status of property.

You may not like the fact that economic considerations are a huge factor in abortion but that's the reality. Since dealing with that factor alone would reduce the number of abortions while improving everyones quality of life, what is wrong with you people?

Dena,Mo,
Ladies you are missing the point of the abortion movement. Let me see if I can explain. Abortion is a medical procedure, the "pro-choice" movement is a political agenda. Homosexuality is a gender identity issue; the "gay rights" movement is a political agenda.
Since the very founding of this nation in 1787-91, there have been forces at work to destroy it. The citizen as the soveriegn as codified in the state and national constitutions reversed the relationship between government and citizen. In the feudal systems as they existed in Europe at that time, the 'citizens' were subjects of the crowns/governments. Even British citizens still were subjects of the crown or soveriegn. In America the citizen became sovereign and the government became subject to the citizen. The government existed to protect the core rights of the citizens. In the rest of the world the citizen/ subject existed to serve the monarch. A soveriegn citizenry is essetially 'self' regulating, the citizen/subject of that time pretty much had every asspect of their lives regulated by their government. What we have today in America since the New Deal of the 30's is ever increasing government 'regulation' of our lives.
The political agenda of the feminists, gays, pro-abortion leaders etc. isn't about the interests of women, men or babies, it's about concentrating more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer of the elite. Quit trying to make sense of it, instead decide which side you come down on and learn why you believe what you believe. The key is that you have to be educated about our civil structure and how it is supposed to work. If we don't, then we don't deserve to be 'sovereign citizens' anymore. The alternative is bigger more regulating government.
Alan and I hold opposing views on theology and such, but I respect the amount of time he spends in the legal research field. You would do well to learn some of the basics of that discipline as I have. BTW, I'm a construction worker not a legal scholar, so if I can grasp the basics of our civil structure, then anyone can. It took me two years to unlearn what I thought I knew about America.
Finally, rigorous debate of a subject demands a thick skin, if you're going to allow your feelings to get hurt every time somebody challenges your view, then perhaps you need to be in a different field.
Dena, if you turely want to defend our children, I urge you not to write another book about your feelings, or fill it with statistics we already know. Instead learn what this nation was supposed to look like, and give some solid steps to turn it around. The information is there if your're willing to do the research. Your personal experiences and views are important but not useful if there isn't any practical application to it.

Alan, how on earth can you read what I'm saying and come away with some idea that I'm advocating 'returning women to the status of property'?!

Once again, I've tried to have a discussion and instead of points being dealt with, I get some strange comment out of left field.

How about addressing my points here and at other threads, points like:
- Why an atheist would be pro-life if the pro-life movement is based on religion and sentiment,
- In the question of abortion, if an embryo isn’t a human being, then what is it? If it’s not, at what point does it become a human being?
- How would Christianity and Islam create an ‘equally oppressive’ society when the foundational teachings of each are completely opposite?
- Where are these ‘Christianists’ and are they also blowing up places or threatening/planning to blow up places the way Islamic jihadists are doing?

Always snark, never a straight answer.

Hi Tim, a quibble here; "In the rest of the world the citizen/ subject existed to serve the monarch.", that was not the exact formula in the
West, especially in England. The Divine Right claims of the Stuarts were a last ditch reaction to the rising power of Parliament. The ancient formula of "the King in Parliament" set up a tension that was finally resolved in 1688 in the favor of parliament.

The New Deal and FDR set the stage for post war prosperity.

Hi Mo, I took your and Dena's comments in the context of the actual provisions of 18USC1531 as well as Kennedy's opinion and Ginsburg's disent. The meme that women are somehow victims and must be protected from abortion is a new and dangerous tact. It assumes that women don't have lives of their own, a concept your remark about men clearly shows.

I understand your problem here. If we have a person at conception, then abortion is murder and yet I seriously doubt that most of you view a woman hiring a doctor to terminate her pregnancy at six weeks in the same way as you would view her were she to hire Guido to eliminate her husband.

Now we can view this as a certain moral blindness on our part or perhaps it is an indication that we intuitively understand that the fetus isn't properly viewed the same as the husband. Hence, in order to make internal sense of this contradiction, you seek to assign the woman the status of victim.

"- Why an atheist would be pro-life if the pro-life movement is based on religion and sentiment,"

I assume you mean anti-abortion, and I would urge you to have your friend post his reasons. Perhaps I have not been clear. The issue isn't how one sees abortion personally; it is if there is a basis for criminalizing early term abortions that is compatible with our Constitution and culture. If your atheist friend can do that, let us know.

"- In the question of abortion, if an embryo isn’t a human being, then what is it? If it’s not, at what point does it become a human being?"

Much conflation here. The realities of life demand a certain arbitrariness - Eighteen year olds didn't get more mature in 1971 because of the 26th amendment and living in New York instead of California doesn't make you competent at 16.

This whole "human being" thing is at its core a religious argument, hence its irrationality. You seem to value some human beings and not others and there is no logic to where you draw the line.

Give me a rational secular argument for criminalizing abortion prior to the twelfth week and I'll be happy to consider it.

"- How would Christianity and Islam create an ‘equally oppressive’ society when the foundational teachings of each are completely opposite?"

Because foundationalism is a bogus approach. That Christianity managed to work out some issues (in some places) that Islam has been seemingly unable to do (yet) is arguably the result of cultural situations, not the basic beliefs of Islam.

At the top, the leaders of Muslim nations and the leaders of non-Muslim nations seem to be able to work, play, and invest together and they seem to have no problem torturing folks for out present administration.

I remember listening to KBRT in the 1990s and hearing anti family planning elements from the United States carrying on about how they were finding common cause with folks from Saudi Arabia and the Sudan. Cultural conservatives everywhere have a lot in common and cultural conservatism not the core beliefs of Christianity and islam are the problem here.

"- Where are these ‘Christianists’ and are they also blowing up places or threatening/planning to blow up places the way Islamic jihadists are doing?"

There are plenty on this site and who said anything about "blowing up" places? Violent Islamists are a minority as are violent Christianists and the violence is not what distinguishes an "ist" from an "ian"; it is the willingness to impose a theologically based system on a secular state.

Well, I'm not sure where to begin, there are so many problems with this latest post (by unnamed poster):

"I understand your problem here. If we have a person at conception, then abortion is murder and yet I seriously doubt that most of you view a woman hiring a doctor to terminate her pregnancy at six weeks in the same way as you would view her were she to hire Guido to eliminate her husband."

We don't need to declare them the same to declare them both homocide. Also, how I might "view" it (i.e., how I feel about it, which is probably what you meant) has no effect on the outcome of the debate. My feelings don't matter, and neither do yours. I might *feel* worse about my wife being murdered than two children (not my own) being murdered, but that doesn't change the fact that both are crimes and immoral, and it doesn't establish any objective value difference between them.

"... we intuitively understand that the fetus isn't properly viewed the same as the husband."

Yes, of course. They are different. So what? That means one can be killed at will? The newborn also isn't the same as the husband -- should we be allowed to kill her?

"...it is if there is a basis for criminalizing early term abortions that is compatible with our Constitution and culture."

Of course there is. There are already laws that protect the unborn, with the exception made for when mom doesn't want it and a doctor does the killing. (an odd conflict in the law, it seems)

"Much conflation here."

Not really, just much confusion on your part.

"This whole 'human being' thing is at its core a religious argument, hence its irrationality."

[yawn]. That's called "well-poisoning", and it's the first sign that your side is desperate for an argument that works. Instead, you attack those presenting the argument.

"You seem to value some human beings and not others and there is no logic to where you draw the line."

That's an odd statement from someone who thinks that size, location, level of dependency, or degree of development are valid reasons for distinguishing "human persons" from "human non-persons." Please explain the "logical" reason why a three-month old fetus (who has her own heartbeat, DNA, etc.) is not a human being. You are fighting science here, not theology.

"Give me a rational secular argument for criminalizing abortion prior to the twelfth week and I'll be happy to consider it."

Liar. You have no such intention. Tell me what is the substantive (morally-relevant) difference between the 13-week old fetus and the 12-week old fetus that means we can kill one and not the other. It sounds like you're uncomfortable with abortion later in the term, but are okay with killing it early (I guess because it's just smaller and doesn't look like a kid walking around).

"Because foundationalism is a bogus approach."

You seem to have some "foundational" views you hold to quite religiously. I guess it's not always "bogus."

"... what distinguishes an 'ist' from an 'ian' ... is the willingness to impose a theologically based system on a secular state."

Go back and read the Constitution. This is anything but a secular state. By the way, you and your ilk are also imposing a "theologically-based system", the only difference being the theological beliefs (yours, that there is no God, or at least not one that cares about killing babies). Why does that make your basis/belief better?

If the Christian is not allowed to follow his core beliefs in making political decisions (including *voting*), then what is he allowed to use?

Actually Alan, the book is not about my "feelings." If it was I wouldn't be writing it. And I am doing a lot of research. Yes, some of it will be statistical because it is necessary. Just because you know the stats doesn't mean everyone else does. That is part of the story but not the whole story. One of the things I am writing about is the lies and myths of abortion. You can't fight something if you don't have the truth of what you are fighting. I also will have something in it about how we can fight it through different avenues and not just wait for the laws to change. Waiting for the laws to change means more women are being coerced (up to 64% by most reports) and more children are dying.
As for the person who said I was trying to reinstate the status of women to property, that couldn't be further from the truth. By acknowledging she is bestowed with certain gifts from our Creator, we are returning the woman to the state of divine human being. It is the poor-choicers who have truly made her "property." By saying her worth is conditional and based on her net worth, by saying her fertility makes her inferior to man and should be done away with. If anything my view values the whole woman, her mind, her body, her spirit. The poor-choice view only values the body and does its best to confuse the mind while destroying the spirit.

The comments to this entry are closed.