Over on the Family Scholars Blog, David Blankenhorn critiques Kerry’s position on abortion. Kerry, you will recall, says he’s personally anti-abortion but says “I can’t take my Catholic belief, my article of faith, and legislate it on a Protestant or a Jew or an atheist …who doesn’t share it. We have separation of church and state in the United States of America.”
Following this logic, shouldn’t we criticize Senator Lieberman for not trying to outlaw eating pork? After all, eating pork is not a theological question – not if you define “theological” as narrowly as David does. (Hat tip: Jake Squid).
I think David’s view is a little too black-and-white to be realistic; abortion is both a moral and a theological question, and the dividing line varies from person to person. For many non-think-tank Americans, abortion is a religious question, and I don’t think it’s possible to understand the abortion debate if you’re not willing to acknowledge that it frequently has a religious component.
For instance, suppose Kerry is against abortion because he believes that God gives each embryo a soul, starting at conception; although Kerry is also familiar with the secular arguments against abortion, he doesn’t believe they hold water. That would certainly make Kerry’s opposition to abortion a religious belief.
Based on that belief, Kerry could decide to be pro-life (reasoning that saving the babies should be his highest priority), or he could decide to be pro-choice (reasoning that he should not enforce his religious beliefs about abortion onto others). Either position strikes me as reasonable and self-consistent (although I personally prefer the pro-choice position).
Now, David is certainly correct to say that taking a position on abortion policy does not require taking a theological stance. But Kerry hasn’t claimed that it does. Kerry has said that, for Kerry, opposing abortion is a theological issue; it doesn’t follow from that statement that Kerry believes that it’s a theological question for everybody.
David continues:
This statement isn’t even remotely true: Most elected Democrats are (alas) opposed to SSM, yet Kerry isn’t “strongly and totally opposed” to most elected Democrats.
Ironically, David is being evasive: As he must know, one can be a registered Democrat and still be a political opponent of Kerry’s (just ask Zell Miller). The question is, David, are you intending to vote for Kerry or for Bush? You have to answer that question before you can credibly claim to not oppose Kerry. (I’m not saying David is required to reveal how he plans to vote – he could just not bring up the question at all. But David is trying to make himself sound credible and objective by claiming he’s not opposed to Kerry – while at the same time, dodging the question of if he opposes Kerry in the election. That won’t wash).
More to the point, I dislike the way David is conflating a reasonable, complex position with evasiveness – as if no politician is allowed to take a nuanced position on any moral question. In essence, all Kerry is saying is that his religion tells him that abortion is immoral, but at the same time he doesn’t believe that all moral questions are best dealt with by a government ban. Rather, on some issues – including issues with a strong connection to religious beliefs, such as abortion – he wants all Americans to have the freedom to make their own moral choices, even if they make choices Kerry would personally disagree with.
That’s a more sophisticated position than David’s implied position (judging from this post, David apparently believes that legislators are required to legally ban every act they feel is immoral), but it’s hardly evasive. In fact, it’s the position that a large number of ordinary Americans hold on abortion, and on many other issues (pornography, alcohol, gambling, etc).
I say this as a partisan – although I am not a registered Democrat, I intend to vote for Kerry. Nonetheless, there is a tendency in politics – on both sides – to interpret any complex or nuanced position as evasiveness or flip-flopping. Whether he’s pro- or anti-Kerry, David’s post is a clear example of this tendency..
Ugh, Zell Miller.
Yes, laws and morals are different things. David Blankenhorn himself presumably does not seek to criminalize all behavior he considers immoral. So there’s nothing inconsistent about Kerry saying that he thinks abortion is wrong but also that it should remain legal. Laws are about rights, not morals.
But I think Blankenhorn is right that Kerry doesn’t really believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the morality of abortion. None of the Catholic Democrats who take the “personally opposed” line do. Not Kerry, not Cuomo, not Kennedy, none of them. They might believe that abortion is somewhat wrong, but it’s hard to take seriously the idea that they consider it the equivalent of killing an innocent person, which is what their church teaches. But for political reasons, they have to pretend to believe it. That is the game American voters require their politicians to play. It’s not so much being religious that matters, as being seen to be religious, paying lip-service to religion.
In his book Under God, Garry Wills went into this in some detail with respect to Cuomo, who pioneered the “personally opposed, but pro-choice” position. Wills notes the contrast between Cuomo’s impassioned, outspoken opposition to the death penalty, an issue on which the man clearly has deeply-held beliefs, with the utter lack of conviction in Cuomo’s public statements expressing disapproval of abortion.
Well since religion concerns itself with morals, it is a moral question which is answered by, in part, one’s religous views of the world, or the absence of
a religious background (which doesn’t necessarily mean that one who doesn’t believe in G-d does think abortion is okay.)
I think what drives the irritation of Blankenhorn and others is the fact that Kerry is lying/pandering. Obviously. He doesn’t really think that life begins at conceptions, religious belief or otherwise. No matter what their position on legalization, someone who really thought that would never (1) vote to give public funds to abortion, or (2) vote against the Laci Peterson law, etc.
It’s like someone who says, “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I want to give government funds to slaveowners so that poor people can own slaves too.” Yeah, right. Some personal opposition.
Well, I believe that life begins at conception, yet I don’t think any of that stuff you mention logically follows. (“Life” is different from “person will civil rights”). Since I know I’m not lying about that, I know that your formulation – “anyone who says they believe that life begins at conception but voted against such and such legislation that Joe M likes, is a liar” – is mistaken.
Personally, I find Kerry’s position more coherant than pro-lifers who say “killing a fetus is no different than murdering a five-year-old, therefore I think that mothers shouldn’t be punished at all for having abortions, and doctors should be fined a couple of thousand dollars.” Talk about pandering!
Kerry has never claimed that he makes no distinction between a fetus and other human beings. Pro-lifers, on the other hand, claim that there is no such distinction all the time – but the actual laws and penalties they propose are ridiculous and immoral if they really believe that there’s no difference.
Of course, in both cases, what’s really happening is that Kerry and the pro-lifers are allowing their views to be mitigated by political realities. That’s fair enough, I think. But if it’s fair when pro-lifers do it, it’s fair when Kerry does it.
That last is well-said, ampersand. It seems to me that the political reality these days has gotten so convoluted that it’s hard to tell what anyone really believes anymore.
In that sense, Dubya’s blatant pandering to the extremist right crowd is almost refreshing. At least it’s obvious where he stands.
But apparently not obvious enough, hence David Blankenhorn’s failure to understand that dogma, beliefs, doctrines, etc are as unlegislative in public policy (or should be) as the definition of god.
My mother grew up in a church where the use of musical instruments in church was banned because they believed that the sound of the human voice should be undiluted by man-made sound as it lifts to god.
Under David’s rules, my mother, assuming she ‘s running for office and in order to not be a “flip-flopper,” would have to promise to back legislation that would bar musical instruments in church, for all people, or she would have to deny her beliefs.
She could not, as seems to me to be the truly “liberal” position,” say that while she personally believes that musical instruments impede the beauty of the human voice on its way to heaven, she would not support legislation that would force everyone to abide by those beliefs.
So is abortion a religious issue? It shouldn’t be. But it’s made one by those religious who insist that it is. Is it a moral issue? Yes it is, in my opinion. I think it’s morally wrong. The issue is completely moot, but I don’t believe I could have an abortion.
But there is more to this question, and it involves other things that I believe are morally wrong — such as a culture that still convinces women that their purpose in life is to have babies, that leads them to believe — still, at least in some small way — that they are the property of men and must depend on them for survivial and that fails to make sex education a priority — let’s just stick with the stork story, shall we?
But then, that’s pretty much the same culture that wants to legislate against abortion, isn’t it?
um, life does not begin at conception. that implies that life comes from something nonliving, a belief dating from the middle ages which has long been disproven. reproduction is not the beginning of a new life but rather the continuation of life. i can’t believe anybody actually seriously debates this question in this day and age. sperm and eggs are not dead, for crying out loud.
conception isn’t even really the beginning of a separate human life. you don’t know what’s going to happen to that fertilized egg. it could very well wind up being an individual human being, yes. it could also wind up being a blasted embryo–all products of conception but no baby. it could also split in two and become TWO individual human beings. it could develop normally and then die three or six months down the road of its own accord. you can’t look at one little cell and say “yep, that for sure is going to cure aids or cancer someday.”
i won’t deny it’s alive, i won’t deny it’s a human cell–and i’m still pro-choice. it IS possible to not go through all kinds of mental contortions to try to deny the aliveness of a blastocyst, embryo or fetus or to try to deny its humanity, and STILL be pro-choice. i don’t know why anybody pretends otherwise. ultimately, it’s not about the fetus. it’s about a woman’s right to control her own body. period.
Well, it’s not just that Kerry has campaigned for abortion. It’s that his public career (since “converting” to the pro-choice side 30 years ago) bears no sign whatsoever that he really thinks abortion is wrong whatsoever. His hypocrisy is on a completely different level than pro-lifers.
It’s one thing to say, “I think abortion is wrong, but not as wrong as murdering a 10-year-old, therefore the penalties shouldn’t be as harsh.”
It’s a whole nother level of pandering to say, “I think that life begins at conception AND that abortion is wrong,” to one crowd, but in another crowd to say, “I am proud of voting to support abortion with public funds and I have nothing but praise for people who provide abortions.”
If Kerry means what he says about abortion being wrong, let him say something like this next time that he talks to NARAL:
“I support legalization because of [separation of church and state, or because making it illegal won’t prevent it, or whatever.] But I think that much of what your organization does is wrong. You should try to support more adoptions. You should be counseling women — and men especially — to choose to take care of their own offspring. You should provide funding and actual help for pregnant women to keep their babies. I’ll defend the legal right to do what you do, but at the same time, I condemn it as immoral and selfish.”
Hell will freeze before any politician who is supposedly “personally opposed” will ever make a speech like that.
Joe M:
Since you claim to believe that abortion is the same thing as killing a person, but that women who have an abortion should be allowed to get away with it scott free, you’re in no position to accuse others of hypocrisy or inconsistency.
Joe M says:
“You should try to support more adoptions. You should be counseling women — and men especially — to choose to take care of their own offspring. You should provide funding and actual help for pregnant women to keep their babies.”
Several pro-life organizations already do that, so I see no reason why already besieged organizations like NARAL should dilute their reproductive health focus when others are offering to pay the huge cost of those alternatives. I kind of like that setup actually, if the pro-lifers are really that riled up about an activity that has no societal cost then it’s only right that they foot the bill for what is essentially a luxury option. Let them put their money where their mouths are.
Of course providing such a service isn’t really where they draw the line. Such pregnancy support is almost always a tool for fear mongering, base building, religious proselytizing and misinformation dissemination. The end goal isn’t to provide an alternative but to supplement the ban movement, as they know abortion is sometimes the only viable, affordable (in terms of time and money) option and there will always be women who don’t share their delusions.
Wrong on both counts, Don P., although that’s about par for the course.
I don’t think abortion is literally the equivalent of murder. As you can see from my earlier post, I think it’s wrong, but NOT AS WRONG as murdering a 10-year-old. I know, you think everyone on the other side is a raging hypocrite unless they take the most extreme position imaginable. But think about the fact that some people are actually capable of making distinctions.
Second, I’d punish women who had abortions willingly and without any extenuating circumstances. For example, the infamous Washingtonienne, who was sleeping with 6 bureaucrats at the same time and blogging about it. She bragged that she had an abortion. I’d have no problem putting someone like that in jail. Then there are men who force women into abortions. I’d have no problem putting them in jail either.
Joe M:
I don’t think abortion is literally the equivalent of murder. As you can see from my earlier post, I think it’s wrong, but NOT AS WRONG as murdering a 10-year-old.
How wrong do you think it is, then? Is it wrong like stealing candy is wrong? Wrong like drunk-driving is wrong? Wrong like committing armed-robbery is wrong? Or what? Give us a sense of where you place abortion on the scale of moral and criminal wrongdoing, and why?
Second, I’d punish women who had abortions willingly and without any extenuating circumstances. For example, the infamous Washingtonienne, who was sleeping with 6 bureaucrats at the same time and blogging about it. She bragged that she had an abortion. I’d have no problem putting someone like that in jail. Then there are men who force women into abortions. I’d have no problem putting them in jail either.
How long would you put them in jail for? A day? A week? A month? 10 years? And what qualifies as “any extenuating circumstances?” If the woman already has 4 children she can barely feed and clothe, does that count? What if the abortion is making her depressed, even suicidal? What if she is taking care of a sick child or parent and needs to devote her full attention to that task? What if her boyfriend or husband has threatened to beat her? What if she was raped? The phrase “any extenuating circumstances” is so vague it could mean anything. And how would you go about verifying these “extenuating circumstances,” anyway? If she claimed that she had been raped, how would you verify that? If she threatened to commit suicide unless she was allowed to have an abortion, how would verify that the threat was serious? If she claimed that her husband or boyfriend had threatened to beat her up unless she had an abortion, how would you verify that? And so on.
Joe M:
For example, the infamous Washingtonienne, who was sleeping with 6 bureaucrats at the same time and blogging about it. She bragged that she had an abortion. I’d have no problem putting someone like that in jail.
What if she had slept with only 1 bureaucrat and had not bragged about her abortion? Would you advocate a shorter jail sentence in that case, or no jail time at all?
If so, the difference in jail times would represent punishment for either (a) having multiple sex partners, or (b) public speech (“bragging” about having an abortion), or both.
Punishment for speech is clearly prohibited under the First Amendment, so you couldn’t do that. And punishment for having multiple sexual partners has nothing to do with abortion. It does reveal your real agenda, though, an agenda rooted in your conservative religious sexual morality, which is to try and control other people’s sex lives using criminal law.
Don P says:
“And punishment for having multiple sexual partners has nothing to do with abortion. It does reveal your real agenda, though, an agenda rooted in your conservative religious sexual morality, which is to try and control other people’s sex lives using criminal law.”
And Joe loses yet another toe to a self-inflicted gunshot wound. I’ve rarely anyone struggle so unsucessfully to mask an unreasonable hostile agenda behind a pretense of semi-civil secular reason.
Don P says:
“And what qualifies as “any extenuating circumstances?”
Add “is horrified to the point of psychological damage by the prospect of having an ever growing, squirming entity warping and leeching her from within” to your list of circumstances.
Punishment for speech is clearly prohibited under the First Amendment, so you couldn’t do that.
Wrong. If someone who has committed a murder is heard planning it in advance, that is admissible evidence, regardless of whether it is speech. If the person was heard lambasting blacks, that is admissible for proving it was a hate crime. If the person was heard talking about how the victim had insulted him, that speech might show that he was carried away by emotions, reducing it to second-degree murder. Speech can nearly ALWAYS be used to show the degree of guilt, or non-guilt, as the case may be. The First Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with that.
And punishment for having multiple sexual partners has nothing to do with abortion. It does reveal your real agenda, though, an agenda rooted in your conservative religious sexual morality, which is to try and control other people’s sex lives using criminal law.
I don’t care about controlling other people’s sex lives. Not one bit. But if someone is sleeping with six partners and bragging about abortion, that shows a callous and selfish frame of mind, as well as one that uses abortion purely as a means of irresponsible birth control. By contrast, someone else might just by trying to avoid having a baby that she can’t support by any means. That shows a less blameworthy state of mind.
States of mind are ALWAYS relevant in criminal cases. Same here.
Joe M:
Wrong. If someone who has committed a murder is heard planning it in advance, that is admissible evidence, regardless of whether it is speech. If the person was heard lambasting blacks, that is admissible for proving it was a hate crime.
This is utterly irrelevant. Of course speech can be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution. But speech itself cannot constitute a crime (other than in an extremely narrow set of exceptions, such as the dissemination of classified material). Speech is protected by the First Amendment.
I don’t care about controlling other people’s sex lives. Not one bit.
Then it is irrelevant to the severity of the crime whether she slept with one person or six. If you impose a harsher punishment on the woman who slept with six partners than on the partner who slept with only one, the difference represents punishment for the number of sex partners, not punishment for abortion. So make up your mind.
But if someone is sleeping with six partners and bragging about abortion, that shows a callous and selfish frame of mind,
Sorry, but you can’t punish callousness or selfishness, either. The First Amendment protects freedom of thought as well as freedom of speech. Being callous is not a crime. Being selfish is not a crime.
It is clear by now that you don’t believe in the First Amendment. But how does having six sex partners rather than one prove callousness and selfishness, anyway?
as well as one that uses abortion purely as a means of irresponsible birth control.
How does it prove that?
Still waiting for your answers to my questions about “any extenuating circumstances” and about the severity of the criminal penalties you seek to impose on women who have an abortion.
Joe M:
States of mind are ALWAYS relevant in criminal cases. Same here.
The states of mind that are relevant in criminal cases may include intent, premeditation and motive. I have still waiting for you to explain how having six sex partners rather than one, or publicly acknowledging that you had an abortion rather than failing to do so, proves the presence of a state of mind that is relevant to the severity of the crime, were abortion to be a criminal offense.
I don’t answer to you, Don P. Your version of 20 Questions is always a way to bog other people down in trivia.
Of course speech can be used as evidence in a criminal prosecution.
Duh. That’s my point. The abortion is the crime, and the speech is the evidence of a wrongful state of mind, just as occurs in every other criminal case. I don’t know why that should be so hard to understand.
DRA: an ever growing, squirming entity warping and leeching her from within
Why do you hate babies so much? I mean this as a genuine question. Your language drips with contempt for babies — “warping,” “leeching.” Why so negative? These “warping” and “leeching” babies didn’t ask to exist, after all. They only exist because their parents chose certain actions, actions that everyone knows can cause children.
Deep River A. wrote: And Joe loses yet another toe to a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
DRA, I’m delighted to see you posting here, as always. (Seriously!) But please remember that civil (or at least “semi-civil”) posting is what I prefer here. Especially when addressing folks with minority views (and Joe’s views are a minority on this blog).
Joe, I seem to have been drawn into yet another “which side is more hypocritcal” argument with you – an argument that’s irrelevant to all important issues, in my opinion. Even if Planned Parenthood/Kerry/pro-choicers were as evil as you apparently believe, that still wouldn’t make forcing pregnant women to give birth against their wills right.
And the same thing goes in reverse – even if all pro-lifers are scum (and I’m not saying they are – on the contrary, there are many pro-lifers I like), it doesn’t mean that the pro-life position is wrong. “Who is scummier” is therefore an irrelevant argument.
Regarding your suggested speech to Planned Parenthood, screw that. Kerry isn’t required to dance to your fiddle tune to be a good person. I hope someday you’ll grow up and realize that people who disagree with you aren’t all scum.
I’m hereby exiting this particular aspect of the discussion. You may have the last word.
Joe wrote: Why do you hate babies so much?
Joe, see the comment I wrote to DRA, about remaining civil? That applies to you as well.
The problem with the term “life begins at” is that it’s really a politically expedient euphemism for ensoulment. As Dana pointed out, a sperm and an egg are alive separate and alive joined. “Life” begins nowhere, it’s a continous line back to one-celled organisms we evolved from.
So the debate is when something becomes a human being, when it has a “soul”. Right-to-lifers claim that a fetus has a soul when the sperm and egg join. But you can’t make law based on what a group of people’s religious beliefs about ensoulment are. What if I say that my religious belief is that all sperm have souls and men who masturbate are murderers? I doubt most of even the right-to-lifers would be comfortable backing up that legislation, even though it’s as scientifically and legally sound as calling a blastocyst a human being with a soul.
Sorry — I’ve already let the infamous Don P. distract me from the main point.
John Kerry is lying when he claims to be personally opposed to abortion. People who are personally opposed to something DON’T ask the government to pay for it. They tend to DO something about their personal opposition, rather than always catering to the other side.
That said, what of this distinction between the “theological” and “moral” arguments against abortion?
There I think Kerry is being nonsensical as well.
Opposition to abortion can be theological in the sense that a person believes it for religious reasons. But so can opposition to any other form of killing. Many people might think murder is wrong because God Said Not To Kill, or because God gave human beings souls. But we don’t say that murder laws violate the “separation of church and state.” The mere fact that something is believed for theological reasons is NOT A REASON for keeping it out of politics.
What might matter is if there is no conceivable secular reason for a particular policy. So Kerry might mean that we shouldn’t enforce beliefs that are purely theological and can’t possibly be anything else..
So a Catholic might say, “I believe in going to confession, but that belief is PURELY religious. There’s no conceivable secular reason here, and no person who is not Catholic would have any reason to agree with me. So I won’t try to mandate it by law.”
But abortion plainly doesn’t fit into that category. There are pro-lifers who are atheist, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever. No one religion has a monopoly on the pro-life position. Moreover, the reasons for being pro-life can easily be expressed in purely secular terms, just like the laws against murder generally: It’s wrong to take innocent human life.
So Kerry’s attempt to have it both ways just doesn’t make sense.
Regarding your suggested speech to Planned Parenthood, screw that. Kerry isn’t required to dance to your fiddle tune to be a good person. I hope someday you’ll grow up and realize that people who disagree with you aren’t all scum.
It has nothing to do with being scum, or dancing to my fiddle tune. It has to do with being honest.
If someone says, “I’m personally opposed to X, but I don’t think it should be illegal,” anyone might rationally ask, “OK, then, in your private life, how do you express opposition to X? What have you done to make X more rare? Does your so-called personal opposition mean anything at all? Or is it nothing more than a campaign statement?”
It would be the same for any issue at all. Say someone says, “I’m personally opposed to divorce, but I think it should be legal.” OK, fine. A lot of people think that.
But then suppose it turns out that the person voted to give tax dollars to divorce programs that encourage people to get divorced. Suppose the person went every year before a conference of divorce lawyers and praised them for doing wonderful work, etc., etc. Suppose the person’s public statements were full of excuses for divorce, explaining why divorce is so necessary, etc., etc.
At some point, people might rationally ask, “So if you are really ‘personally opposed’ to divorce, where is the evidence of that? Can’t you ever say a kind word to the many conventions of marriage counselors who try to help people AVOID divorce, rather than always playing to the divorce-supporters? If you’re really against divorce, why don’t you act like it?”
Joe M:
I don’t answer to you, Don P.
You’re refusing to answer my questions, yes. I think the reason is pretty clear. Those who seek to criminalize abortion almost always evade the question of what punishment they seek to impose on women who have an abortion because they know that answering that question would reveal them to be either (a) hypocrites and liars who don’t even believe their own rhetoric (“abortion is murder, or close to murder, but women who have abortions should be allowed to get away with it with a slap on wrist, or no consequences at all”), or (b) mean and cruel fanatics who want to throw women in jail for terminating a pregnancy. Do you really think anyone’s going to take you seriously until you’ve addressed this problem?
Duh. That’s my point. The abortion is the crime, and the speech is the evidence of a wrongful state of mind,
What “wrongful state of mind” that is relevant to the severity of the crime do you claim the speech is evidence of?
Amp: Joe, I seem to have been drawn into yet another “which side is more hypocritcal” argument with you – an argument that’s irrelevant to all important issues, in my opinion.
Well, nice to hear that now. You were the one who posted about whether Kerry’s view is consistent, and then you were the one who first accused pro-lifers of being less “coherent” than Kerry, as well as “pandering.”
Joe M:
John Kerry is lying when he claims to be personally opposed to abortion.
Joe M is lying when he claims to believe that abortion should be a serious crime, because he would allow most women who have an abortion to get away with this “crime” with a slap on the wrist, or no punishment at all.
Amp: Joe wrote: Why do you hate babies so much? Joe, see the comment I wrote to DRA, about remaining civil? That applies to you as well.
I’m just curious. Someone who uses such derogatory language invites questions. If someone described Mexican immigrants as “warping” and “leeching” our society, I’d be curious (at the very least) as to why they had such a negative view.
Just so it doesn’t get lost in the shuffle, let me repeat a comment that actually concerns the topic of the post:
That said, what of this distinction between the “theological” and “moral” arguments against abortion?
There I think Kerry is being nonsensical as well.
Opposition to abortion can be theological in the sense that a person believes it for religious reasons. But so can opposition to any other form of killing. Many people might think murder is wrong because God Said Not To Kill, or because God gave human beings souls. But we don’t say that murder laws violate the “separation of church and state.” The mere fact that something is believed for theological reasons is NOT A REASON for keeping it out of politics.
What might matter is if there is no conceivable secular reason for a particular policy. So Kerry might mean that we shouldn’t enforce beliefs that are purely theological and can’t possibly be anything else..
So a Catholic might say, “I believe in going to confession, but that belief is PURELY religious. There’s no conceivable secular reason here, and no person who is not Catholic would have any reason to agree with me. So I won’t try to mandate it by law.”
But abortion plainly doesn’t fit into that category. There are pro-lifers who are atheist, or Jewish, or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever. No one religion has a monopoly on the pro-life position. Moreover, the reasons for being pro-life can easily be expressed in purely secular terms, just like the laws against murder generally: It’s wrong to take innocent human life.
So Kerry’s attempt to have it both ways just doesn’t make sense.
Let me boil that previous post down to one question:
What would you think of a politician who said this: “Personally, the reason that I’m against torture is because I think God forbids it. But since my belief is religious, therefore I can’t vote for any law that bans torture, because that would be imposing my religious belief.”
I can sympathize with Kerry. Here is a truely nuanced position on abortion (from a fellow card-carrying Catholic):
1. Abortion is morally wrong.
2. I am the only person directed by my opinion, why should anyone else in America do as I say they should do? I can’t, nor do I want to, make other people’s decisions for them.
3. The enacting or repealing of laws is neither the best nor the only way of changing actions.
Therefore, I am very happy with Roe vs. Wade, even though I am personally opposed to abortion. I myself would never have an abortion, but I cannot claim to know the circumstances, beliefs, or backgrounds of others. Education, prevention, and one-on-one discussions are far more effective ways of combating abortion than the creation (or repeal) of laws.
Also, consider this: if abortion were to become illegal, how many desperate women would resort to unsafe practices: unqualified doctors, coathangers, harmful, backroom medication…to abort an unwanted baby? How many more people, women, would die in this horrible manner if abortion were outlawed? The true compassionate pro-lifer should not advocate making abortion illegal; rather, if all life is truely regarded as valuable, fight for education and, more importantly, prevention. (And see Bush’s silly, ineffective “abstinance-only” programs for what they are: tokens for the neo-cons.)
Joe, please don’t repeat posts. That’s called “spamming.”
As for who brought up “pandering” first… Sigh. I didn’t mean to claim that I was blameless; sorry if I gave that impression. Clearly, I’m to blame for my own actions, not you. However, you’re mistaken to imply that it was me who brought up pandering first. Do a text search for “pander” if you honestly don’t remember.
Going back to what we’re discussing (and thank you for that). Here’s what I wrote in my post, with an essential point you may have missed bolded:
For instance, suppose Kerry is against abortion because he believes that God gives each embryo a soul, starting at conception; although Kerry is also familiar with the secular arguments against abortion, he doesn’t believe they hold water. That would certainly make Kerry’s opposition to abortion a religious belief.
Note also that in my example, Kerry is only speaking for himself; he’s not denying that other people might have secular reasons they find convincing to be pro-life.
To address your example, Joe: Any politician who could not find a non-religious argument against torture that holds water is a fool, and does not deserve to be elected. No reasonable person could hold such an opinion.
However, reasonable people can and do disagree on whether or not there is a secular argument against abortion that holds water.
Spam is from people selling something, not from people who are just trying to make sure the discussion gets back to the original post.
Anyway, how about this hypothetical:
A politician in Alabama is convinced on secular grounds that the tax system doesn’t need reforming.
Then he hears the Christian argument that Alabama’s tax system should be reformed so that it is more fair to the poor. On purely religious grounds, he is convinced by that argument.
Now here we have a politician who is in exactly the situation you ascribe to Kerry. He supports reform for religious reasons, but opposes reform for secular reasons. Something has to win. Reform, or no reform. Religious reasons or secular reasons.
Why is he bound to say, “I’m voting against reform because that’s what my secular reasons say”? Doesn’t it matter that lots of people out there might think the secular reasons are perfectly valid, even if this politician doesn’t? If he voted for reform, how on earth would this be an imposition of religious values when lots of people vote for reform out of secular reasons?
Doesn’t the “separation of church and state” come in ONLY when you’re talking about a policy where there can’t be ANY CONCEIVABLE secular reason? (I.e., the Jew can’t force everyone to wear a yarmulke, the Catholic can’t force everyone to go to confession, etc., because those beliefs have no secular component at all.)
Charity:
Your heart’s in the right place but your argument for your position really doesn’t work. For one thing, as a card-carrying Catholic (are they really giving out cards now?) you should know that Catholic teaching on abortion, as clearly stated in the Catechism and reinforced on numerous occasions by the Pope and those who speak for him, is that abortion should be a criminal offense. You can’t claim to accept Catholic teaching on abortion, in a “personal” capacity or otherwise, unless you believe that abortion should be a crime.
Even if you are willing to admit that you reject that particular aspect of Catholic teaching on abortion, you can’t really maintain that you accept the church’s moral (as opposed to legal) teaching on abortion either. In theory, it might be possible to plausibly argue that you can accept the church’s teaching about the moral status of abortion (i.e., that it is “abominable,” etc.) while also arguing that for pragmatic, real-world reasons (what the church would call “prudential” considerations) it should remain largely legal. But even if you can do that, you would still be obligated by your claim to share the church’s view of the morality of abortion to condemn it in the strongest terms, just as you would condemn murder. But I don’t see any sign that pro-choice Catholics who claim to “personally oppose” abortion in accordance with the church’s moral teachings really think of abortion as even remotely as wrong as the church itself does.
I just wish you would admit this. Kerry and the other pro-choice Catholics in Congress at least have the excuse that political realities require them to fudge the truth, but I don’t see that the rest of you do. If more of you were willing to stand up and publicly challenge your church on abortion, and on all the other matters where the beliefs and practises of the laity depart radically from church teaching, then Kerry and co. would have more room to say what they really believe.
Joe M:
Doesn’t the “separation of church and state” come in ONLY when you’re talking about a policy where there can’t be ANY CONCEIVABLE secular reason?
No. Establishment Clause jurisprudence is complex, and built around the “Lemon Test” that the Supreme Court devised many years ago. The mere fact that a religiously-motivated law “conceivably” has a secular purpose is not sufficient to render it constitutional.
But anyway, who do you really think you’re kidding with this spiel, Joe? We all know you don’t really give a flying f**k about consistency and integrity on abortion. The incoherence of your own position proves that. You’re just using Kerry’s problematic “personally opposed” argument as a pretext for an attack on him that is really motivated by the fact that he’s pro-choice.
Charity, I think your argument makes perfect sense, as do your thoughts on imposing (or not, as the case may be) your opinions/views/etc on the rest of the population.
DonP, I am not sure what the deal is with you getting to decide that other people aren’t catholic enough. Whether or not it is the ideal (from the church’s p.o.v.), the fact is that pretty much every catholic in the whole world holds some beliefs that don’t mesh with the official view. And yet somehow, magically, that doesn’t make them less catholic.
Unless you’re the pope, or maybe some high-up bishop, I don’t think it’s fair, or, really, even just plain *nice*, to chastise someone else for their improper catholicism. People are religious for a lot of different reasons, and my guess is that “a desire to change the church that I choose to identify with” is pretty low on the list.
leen:
DonP, I am not sure what the deal is with you getting to decide that other people aren’t catholic enough.
I’m not sure what “Catholic enough” is supposed to mean. I do think there’s a point at which it becomes fundamentally dishonest to continue to refer to yourself as a member or adherent of a religion when you reject the teachings and practises of that religion.
Whether or not it is the ideal (from the church’s p.o.v.), the fact is that pretty much every catholic in the whole world holds some beliefs that don’t mesh with the official view. And yet somehow, magically, that doesn’t make them less catholic.
It doesn’t? What does make a person a Catholic, then? If being a member of a religion isn’t fundamentally about what you believe and how you behave, what is it about?
We now have the means to identify every father of an aborted conceptus, or for that matter a liveborn infant. We ought to specify the penalties for the woman having the abortion, AND for the accessory to the crime, the father. Howz about it folks? National DNA database for all men. Mandatory jail time for improper procreation – one set length, to be split among the two parents. That would ensure that the mother would rat on the father to reduce her own jail time. If men were harsh on their own irresponsible parties, legal (or illegal) abortion would decrease. So, step up to the plate, Joe M and others – be the first to offer your DNA to the national database, and be the first to fire, refuse to vote for, refuse to shop at, refuse to work for, or otherwise interact with any MALE who has ever had extramarital sex. Pin that “A” on your own gender for a change.
I liked the original post amper.
political philosophy
You can believe unborn humans should have rights and also believe that you are not in a position to enforce those rights.
Our democracy and civil society itself is this kind of compromise: I will give other people the right to regulate my (and others) behavior, even in ways i find objectionable at times, because I believe the political decision making body is the proper place of authority.
So, while a person can oppose abortion, they can also place decision making authority in another person’s hands- the woman.
Similarly,I do not think I should have a say in determining (almost all) the laws of Canada or Spain- even when I find them repugnant. The proper authority to determine the laws in those geographic regions is the political body elected by the people in those regions.
In the context of a family, I think that no children should be fed fast food or made to go to religious schools, but I will not try to make these parental choices illegal, because there is another value I hold in higher regard: parental rights. I belive the parent is the proper person to make these decisions, not the State.
Is Kerry Consistant?
It seems safe to say:
1. it is reasonable to believe that Kerry could consistantly be anti-abortion and pro-choice, but
2. it is also reasonable to believe that Kerry could personally feel differently than his public statements, for the purposes of political gain.
Either way, you know what his policies will be as President will be with respect to reproductive choice.
Does it bother me that a person would hold a position in public simply to gain more votes?
Not too much. I rather like the idea that politicians are representative of their constituents, not just representatives of themselves.
I am much more disturbed by politicians deceiving people as to the facts of a situation, or what policies they support.
Secular v. Religious
There is a problem with separating laws based on religious rather than “secular” reasons. All laws are based in some form of philosophy, religious or otherwise. Laws against killing humans (rather than ducks) can stem from religious teachings, “thou shalt not kill,” or from other philosophical understandings about human rights or social contracts.
I think the abortion debate is intractable because the discussion involves basic philosophical issues that people don’t agree upon, and are unlikely to change their minds upon: is an unborn human entitled to political protections? when do the rights (if any) of unborn humans outweighs the rights of women to control their own bodies?
There is no correct answer to these questions, without first choosing a set of beliefs on some type of faith.
It’s really not reasonable to believe that Kerry believes the teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is an abominable moral evil, given his pattern of statements and actions. We both understand why he’s spinning his position the way he is, and we both think that’s okay, but let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than spin.
Joe M says:
“Why do you hate babies so much? I mean this as a genuine question. Your language drips with contempt for babies — “warping,” “leeching.” Why so negative? These “warping” and “leeching” babies didn’t ask to exist, after all.”
Oh I have nothing against babies at all Joe. In fact I love them, though I would never have any of my own. What you’re talking about are effectively mindless fetuses, not babies.
In any case, is it really so hard for you to imagine how for some people the idea of having any kind of entity growing and moving inside them is horrifying? Wouldn’t matter if the entity in question was a telepathic reincarnation of Mark Twain as a supercute puppy with all his memories and capabilities intact, some women (and many men) would still want it out of them as soon as possible.
Joe says:
“They only exist because their parents chose certain actions, actions that everyone knows can cause children.”
Careful Joe, your agenda is showing. There are some rape victims and users of contraceptives that failed who are getting tired of rolling their eyes and sadly shaking their heads at this sort of statement
Joe says
“What would you think of a politician who said this: “Personally, the reason that I’m against torture is because I think God forbids it. But since my belief is religious, therefore I can’t vote for any law that bans torture, because that would be imposing my religious belief.”
This and your tax example are irrelevant because both disrupt a democratic society to an extent that would hamper or dissolve it, while abortion does not. Democratic government’s role is not to legislate morality, but to ensure the smooth functioning of a civilization by providing the services and enforcing the necessary compromises that allow its citizens to co-exist in the pursuit of whatever reasonable course they deem to be happiness.
Don P.: It’s really not reasonable to believe that Kerry believes the teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is an abominable moral evil, given his pattern of statements and actions. We both understand why he’s spinning his position the way he is, and we both think that’s okay, but let’s not kid ourselves that it’s anything other than spin.
Nice to see that for once, Don P. is 100% in agreement with me.
“More to the point, I dislike the way David is conflating a reasonable, complex position with evasiveness – as if no politician is allowed to take a nuanced position on any moral question.”
It isn’t no politician, it is Kerry–a man with a long history of trying to have it all ways on many issues.
“Kerry has never claimed that he makes no distinction between a fetus and other human beings.”
That is an odd way to phrase it. You don’t have to ‘claim’ to make a distinction when you do in fact make a distinction. You make it, and that stands for itself.
He does in fact make such a distinction. Fetuses have no rights whatsoever under law if the mother chooses to kill it and he supports that distinction between fetuses and human beings.
The thing that I find objectionable is that he wants to get political credit for that distinction, while simultaneously claiming to have the highest personal respect for the life of the fetus. That is the kind of argument you might make about the color of someone’s house (I don’t really like that color but I acknowledge that lots of people like that color). But it makes no sense to say “I have high personal respect for the life of the fetus, but I respect the right of other people to kill it.” It would be like saying “I deeply detest the use of torture, but since I know some people disagree about the appropriateness of its use I am unwilling to take any action to prevent it.”
More abstractly:
There is more to Catholicism and being a Catholic than one’s stance on political issues. Kerry is a prime example of how the religion may not match specifically to one’s spirituality or publicity.
See Richard Rodriguez’s memoirs – a hispanic, Catholic, gay, conservative professor – if you want another illustration of this from the other side. Rodriguez specifically holds onto the Catholic rituals and community even though he isn’t considered a “real” Catholic by virtue of being gay.
I’m an atheist and managed to attend church for a long time for the same reasons that Rodriguez puts forth. I ignored the proselytizing and chose to hear the messages of love and community.
If Kerry’s position on abortion is problematic, Sebastian Holsclaw’s position is utterly incoherent. He’s another “Abortion is the killing of an innocent person, but women who have abortions should get away with it scott-free” conservative.
“There is no correct answer to these questions, without first choosing a set of beliefs on some type of faith.”
This is another example of religious bigotry, assuming that an atheist is incapable of making a moral choice for lack of a religious base. This of course is utter nonsense, but it permeates this entire discussion thread.
If we must distract the issue with my personal views on abortion, I think the law should make distinctions between fully-formed viable fetuses and those that are not viable. Such distinctions are currently made only in theory.
But really that is just a dodge from my other points.
It’s a woman’s decision period,not mens.
http://www.network54.com/Forum/88449
And what about the 6 beaurocrats, how long should their jail sentence be? or are they exempt? Woman do not spontaneously get pregnant, yet men are not planning out their jail terms for making babies that they don’t assume responsibility for.
I wish I could be as eloquent as some of you people. it’s good conversation to read.
Ah, one of the many reasons it’s nice not to be a Catholic anymore :-)
As for the ‘you’re not really a catholic’ thing, I truly believe that if everyone who calls themselves Catholic that doesn’t believe in every line of Catholic theology stopped going to Church, there’d be a whole lot of empty pews.
My Mother calls herself a Catholic and rarely goes to church. My Grandmother was the most devout Catholic I knew, but she got divorced and remarried. I grew up with a girl, devout Catholic, who was rather promiscuous and had an abortion.
I think you’ll find more Catholics are ‘Cafeteria Catholics’ than not. Growing up in a heavily Catholic area, this is my experience. Very few people buy all of it, and sex questions (and abortion is, at its root, about sex) are one of the main areas of disagreement.
Why some of these people *stay* Catholic is another question–but, make no mistake, tradition plays a part. I’m convinced my Mother considers herself ‘Catholic’ because she’s Italian, and Italians are Catholics, and that’s all there is to it.
If Kerry opposes abortions, should he seek to impose his view on others? More generally, do the ends justify the means?
The argument that abortion is “politically” ok but “morally” wrong looks suspiciously nuanced to me. And I’m not thrilled with trying to draw distinctions between “religious” beliefs and other beliefs: you believe something or you don’t. Nevertheless, I recognize that people will act contrary to their own beliefs when 1) acting strategically, 2) acting as an agent for another party, or 3) acting out of self-doubt.
For example, imagine that I believe that after death, followers of the One True Faith go to eternal reward while everyone else is sentenced to eternal torture. Because I love my fellow man, I want to induce him to practice the OTF. Please don’t dismiss my views as parochial; this is a matter of promoting the public welfare (as I see it) no different than national defense or healthcare or filling potholes – except that it is more important because the consequences are greater.
In this situation, what limits are there on the steps I should take to promote the OTF?
Strategic conduct: Even though I desperately want to induce people to practice the OTF, I might conclude that imposing this faith on others is not the best way to promote this end. Maybe I think that such a policy would tend to promote other faiths underground. Maybe I think that the process of imposing the OTF would distort the practice of the OTF. Or maybe I can’t muster enough support to implement my policy. To the contrary, I may fear that others want to impose a different faith. Consequently, I may conclude that the best opportunity to promote the OTF arises in a society in which people are generally restrained from imposing policies on others, and therefore I may work to promote such a society.
Agency: Perhaps my world view, including the OTF, promotes the idea that people should sometimes act as a representative of others. Maybe the OTF provides that elected officials should seek to implement the public’s views and not their own. Maybe the OTF provides that civil servants (judges, policy, bureaucrats) should seek to implement the elected officials’ views and not their own. Maybe the OTF provides that soldiers should implement their commanding officer’s view and not their own. Maybe the OTF provides that lawyers should represent their client’s view and not their own. Maybe the OTF provides that doctors should promote their patient’s view and not their own. Etc.
Self-doubt: Before imposing the OTF on others, I may reflect on the long, disasterous history of people who have imposed their views on others. While I may have unshakable faith in the OTF, a prudent regard for the limits of my own judgment and abilities may stay my hand.
Similarly, I could well understand Kerry’s views on abortion to reflect strategic thinking, agency, or self-doubt. He may believe that there should be no abortions, but also believe that advocating prohibition would not achieve that end. He may regard the benefits of the separation of church and state to be so great as to outweigh the benefits of violating the separation to adopt a religion-based abortion ban. He may believe that he should reflect the view of the majority of people who support abortion rights. He may believe that a prudent regard for the limits of human institutions militates in favor of leaving the final choice to the women involved. All of these options seem consistent with Kerry’s views as I understand them.
Of course, Kerry could also be entirely insincere in his objections to abortion. But I can’t reach that conclusion simply on the basis if his statements to date.
I have had too many conversations with people who say something akin to, “I’m prolife but I believe in a woman’s right to choose.”
Then I tell them that’s what the term prochoice means, that despite your own personal convictions you believe in every women’s right to choose. Prolife and prochoice are political terms that stand for specific, clearly defined beliefs- women should decide or someone else should decide.
They usually reply, “No, I’m not prochoice, I am prolife. But I believe in women’s right to choose.”
People that argue this annoy me. Men who hold they’re “prolife but believe in a woman’s right to choose” make me wonder if they’ve made the decision to not to get an abortion if they get pregnant, and if not themselves, then exactly who are they ‘prolife’ for in any reasonable sense of the word? John Kerry’s bullshit wishy washy position on abortion annoys me like his wishy washy answer to whether or not he would appoint antiabortion judges to the Supreme Court annoys me (yes he would, but only if he “felt” it would be safe to appoint an antiabortion Supreme.)
Then this week six Senate Democrats go and confirm James Leon Holmes to the federal bench in Arkansas, a man who served as the president of Arkansas Right to Life in the 80’s and compared abortion doctors to Nazis. The six Democrats (including the two Democratic senators from Arkansas) argued that his antiabortion beliefs won’t influence on his decisions as a federal judge.
That’s bullshit.
Until Democrats can do better than this for women’s rights, my basic human rights, I won’t be casting my votes for them.
Sam: I was actually recently reading an article I did on the subject which broke the pro-life/pro-choice thing down into nine categories (specifically because of similar conversations I’ve had with others). The position of your pro-life-but-pro-choice friend would be the mid-ground position on my 9-chart: “Abortion Should Be Legal, Though I Personally Disagree With its Morality”. But that isn’t QUITE the same as being “pro-choice” in the general sense, for the same reason that, for example, you could be vehemently anti-alcohol and think people who drink alcohol are idiots without being a prohibitionist, or be repulsed by pornography without wanting it to be illegal. In the case of your friend, what he’s saying is perhaps that he WISHES it wasn’t legal, but wouldn’t fight to overturn roe v. wade, either — again, not quite a “pro-choice” position.
The article I’m referring to is:
http://www.ludicrosity.com/archives/2003_11_02_archive.htm
(p.s. I’m a pro-life athiest myself so I’m in the unique position of having to be on the “side” of the christian zealots while not agreeing with a single reason WHY they’re against abortion. It’s quite frustrating. Those of us who oppose legalized abortion for practical/societal/ethical reasons can’t stand being lumped together with the “ma’am jesus wounna wantcha to keel your baby!” people hehe)
John, most of the people I know who say “Abortion Should Be Legal, Though I Personally Disagree With its Morality” would not say that they wish it were illegal, either. So I think you may be assuming that “wish” when that assumption isn’t justified.
Also, I have some evangelical Christian friends, and with all due respect I think the stereotypical crack about evangelicals in your second post is far over the line of what civility would allow. :-(
In the case of your friend, what he’s saying is perhaps that he WISHES it wasn’t legal, but wouldn’t fight to overturn roe v. wade, either — again, not quite a “pro-choice” position.
I have no idea how you get that interpretation. If one believes in a woman’s right to choose abortion, one obviously does not wish that abortion wasn’t legal, because if it wasn’t legal there would be no choice.
Ampersand:
Well in my experience,when you see one of those anti-gay, anti-abortion evangelicals on television or the radio, nine times out of ten they’ve got a southern accent….
Just because it’s a stereotype doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
If we must distract the issue with my personal views on abortion, I think the law should make distinctions between fully-formed viable fetuses and those that are not viable. Such distinctions are currently made only in theory.
99% of all abortions in America take place before viability. By any reasonable definition of “pro-choice,” anyone who thinks 99% of all abortions in America should remain legal is pro-choice.
By the way, I’ve asked Sebastian on several occasions how he would rewrite abortion law to make viability a distinction “in practise” as well as “in theory” but no answer has ever been forthcoming.
Don P says:
“By the way, I’ve asked Sebastian on several occasions how he would rewrite abortion law to make viability a distinction “in practise” as well as “in theory” but no answer has ever been forthcoming.”
between this possible memory lapse (I’ll give Sebastian the benefit of the doubt) and Joe’s wilfull evasion of some of your biting questions I have to sympathize with you Don. It’s frustrating not being able to deliver the socratic piledriver because the other guy doesn’t hear you.
I said: “Why do you hate babies so much? I mean this as a genuine question. Your language drips with contempt for babies — “warping,” “leeching.” Why so negative? These “warping” and “leeching” babies didn’t ask to exist, after all.”
DRA said: Oh I have nothing against babies at all Joe. In fact I love them, though I would never have any of my own. What you’re talking about are effectively mindless fetuses, not babies. In any case, is it really so hard for you to imagine how for some people the idea of having any kind of entity growing and moving inside them is horrifying?
Yes, it is hard to imagine. The normal reaction from normal women is wonder and awe. It could be mixed with disappointment if she didn’t want a child right then, or happiness if she had been trying. But wonder and awe is much more appropriate than “horror.”
And much more in line with what one would expect from evolution. After all, organisms that find reproduction “horrifying” should be rather quickly eliminated from nature. Ah, well, that’s natural selection in action.
After all, organisms that find reproduction “horrifying” should be rather quickly eliminated from nature. Ah, well, that’s natural selection in action.
This is incorrect. My cat may be horrified, awed or have no feelings at all when she finds herself pregnant. Her feelings about it have no effect on the future evolution of cats because she’s going to have those kittens regardless. (Unless she gets sick or something.)
Many mammals practice maternal infanticide of certain defectives, those that won’t suckle or have other gross defects. Mice eat them, although they usually aren’t omnivores. This is a problem in research colonies, where the researcher is interested in identifying the mutant newborns.
It is well known that male felines and canids, and some herbivores as well, will kill nurslings fathered by some other male when they take over a female or a herd.
Argument from nature is always a little dangerous.
OK, how about this: Humans, unlike any other species, are smart enough to figure out what causes reproduction. Humans who find reproduction “horrifying” (in ALL cases, not just in the case of defectives or other human’s children) will probably take steps to avoid it. If this happens, their lineage will disappear from the earth. As I say, natural selection in action.
Joe M says:
“The normal reaction from normal women is wonder and awe… After all, organisms that find reproduction “horrifying” should be rather quickly eliminated from nature. Ah, well, that’s natural selection in action.”
Could you sneer a little louder Joe, maybe write those “normal”s in all caps, I don’t think you’ve hurt enough feelings yet. As for natural selection I’m sure we can all learn a lesson from all those gay people who don’t exist anymore because evolution weeded every last one of their genes out centuries ago doncha know *eye roll*
This has nothing to do with evolution or biology and everything to do with personality. I know for a fact that just as some people are terrified of heights, the dark, sunburns, dentists, tiny spiders or moss, some women are terrified of pregnancy. And why shouldn’t they be? Even the rosiest maternal advisor cannot deny that pregnancy is dangerous, uncomfortable, disruptive, long, possibly permanently health-debilitating, and likely to culminate in an agonizing ordeal. Let’s not repeat the visceral fear of having another living thing inside you (“Alien” was an effective shocker for a reason). Even that bible you’re so keen on thumping Joe says pregnancy is a painful divine punishment inflicted by god for the garden of Eden debacle.
When you’ve volunteered for a combination root canal, spinal tap, and having a large catfish surgically implanted in your abdomen, then I will listen to what you have to say about “normal” people and horror.
Well, yes, if homosexuality was completely caused by genetics, it should logically have been eliminated long ago. If natural selection can operate on things as subtle as the presence of body hair or the length of limbs, it would surely operate on something as fundamental to reproductive fitness as THAT.
I’d bet that if homosexuality has any biological component at all, it’s probably some hormonal quirk in the womb, one that isn’t really subject to natural selection and that could recur at any time. (It’ll be interesting to see what happens when doctors are able to test for that sort of thing prenatally. I’d be against abortion, as always, but pro-choicers’ heads will probably explode as they try to figure out the liberal position on aborting gay fetuses.)
Even that bible you’re so keen on thumping Joe
Funny, I never quote the Bible. How easily some people traffic in stereotypes . . . .
Joe M:
Well, yes, if homosexuality was completely caused by genetics, it should logically have been eliminated long ago.
No, that doesn’t follow at all.
There is very strong evidence that homosexuality is caused by a combination of genetic and environmental factors.
I’d be against abortion, as always, but pro-choicers’ heads will probably explode as they try to figure out the liberal position on aborting gay fetuses.
No, the liberal position is that aborting a fetus because it’s gay is wrong.
Wow! A first in the history of the Internet! Don P. actually says that one narrow type of abortion would be wrong!
But not illegal, the careful reader will note. Thus, under Don P.’s position, parents will be as free to abort gay fetuses as they are to abort female fetuses (which they do at present).
I honestly can’t believe the utter innanity of throwing out the “normal people” argument. Where I live, “normal” people don’t spend their time highlighting differences — and in some cases exaggerating or even inventing them — in order to make one side appear menacing while their own side is sweetness and light.
But I suppose it’s not really surprising. I’ve long been fascinated with the biblical story of creation, in a number of ways. My fascination is a long story, but the short version is this: if Adam and Eve disobeyed god, eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil — something they shouldn’t have done because they were not god, and therefore not capable of properly understanding the knowledge they gained from eating of the tree — then the entire history of Western religion, or more particularly its theology and basic dogma, is distorted.
The kicker, of course, was that the First Couple were banished from the garden BELIEVING they understood the difference between good and evil, thus creating the duality — the either/or, black/white thinking — that has cursed this planet and its people to this day.
And here we are now with their spiritual descendants still believing they are like god and fully understand the divine and mysterious workings of this universe.
I, for one, don’t want to pretend that. I am, however, fairly certain that under the “kicked out of the garden” scenario, I might be on stronger ground trying to figure out how to get back, and I can guarantee it will begin with a bit more humility.
Well, yes, if homosexuality was completely caused by genetics, it should logically have been eliminated long ago.
No, that doesn’t follow at all.
I’m so impressed by that show of knowledge.
Anyway, the most fundamental principle of natural selection is that it tends to eliminate qualities shown by organisms who don’t reproduce as often. Homosexuals reproduce only a fraction of the time, maybe a fourth as often as heterosexuals do. If they were carrying a particular gene, that gene would occur in only a fraction of the next generation, and so on. It is the most straightforward application of natural selection to note that any such gene would rapidly disappear. If natural selection can account for the staggering diversity of life on earth, how wouldn’t it affect something as basic as reproductive desires?
There are all sorts of clever explanations for how homosexuality could really be genetic after all, but none of them are convincing. If homosexuality is really genetic, that is a huge problem for Darwinism. If Darwinism is true, that is a huge problem for the “homosexuality-is-genetic” theory. I go with the latter.
Joe M:
Thus, under Don P.’s position, parents will be as free to abort gay fetuses as they are to abort female fetuses (which they do at present).
Yes. As I already explained to you, a law that banned abortions sought for particular reasons would be almost completely unenforceable.
Joe M says:
“Funny, I never quote the Bible. How easily some people traffic in stereotypes . . . ”
Joe M said this earlier:
“Why do you hate babies so much?”
Consider us even on the stereotype scoreboard.
Besides, I have a strong suspicion from the many posts you’ve made that you are religiously motivated but know that openly thumping the book would cost you credibility here.
I honestly can’t believe the utter innanity of throwing out the “normal people” argument. Where I live, “normal” people don’t spend their time highlighting differences — and in some cases exaggerating or even inventing them — in order to make one side appear menacing while their own side is sweetness and light.
Ahh, irony. That’s precisely what you are doing in your post. Maybe you’re not one of the “normal” people where you live?
Consider us even on the stereotype scoreboard.
Huh? I never quote the Bible, not here, not anywhere. Whereas you do seem to hate the idea of new babies coming into the world. I can’t think of another reason why you would keep coming up with fresh insults: Babies are the equivalent of “aliens,” or “catfish,” etc. Creative, but essentially hateful.
Joe M says:
“Anyway, the most fundamental principle of natural selection is that it tends to eliminate qualities shown by organisms who don’t reproduce as often. Homosexuals reproduce only a fraction of the time, maybe a fourth as often as heterosexuals do. If they were carrying a particular gene, that gene would occur in only a fraction of the next generation, and so on. It is the most straightforward application of natural selection to note that any such gene would rapidly disappear. ”
Muscular dystrophy is a genetic condition that causes terminal muscle wasting early on in life, usually preventing reproduction. It has however existed for centuries because it only affects men, only kicks in some of the time, and can be dormantly carried by women who pass it on to their female descendants.
Now, is it not possible that the genetic factor for homosexuality might be carried through the years in a similar “zig zagging” pattern? Perhaps it lays dormant in most, waking up in only a few through the generations.
Joe M says:
“If homosexuality is really genetic, that is a huge problem for Darwinism. If Darwinism is true…”
“If” true!? Can you really deny having primarely theocratic religious motivations after that statement?
Joe M. If homosexuality is really genetic, that is a huge problem for Darwinism. If Darwinism is true, that is a huge problem for the “homosexuality-is-genetic” theory. I go with the latter.
If hemophilia is really genetic, that is a huge problem for Darwinism. If Darwinism is true, that is a huge problem for the “hemophilia-is-genetic” theory.
Why do I suspect Joe M. is oversimplifying the theory of natural selection to the point of absurdity?
Some humans find reproduction to be horrifying at certain times in their lives — like when a woman knows (by intuition or express recognition) that there is no possibility of a stable relationship with the father. This, too, seems to me to be a form of natural selection in action, and most women who have an abortion go on to have children in ways that they find quite satisfying, and not horrifying at all.
With regard to restrictions on “late abortions”, all I can say is, would anybody try to impose gun control laws if hand guns were hardly ever used in the commission of a crime? Without at all trying to downplay the moral seriousness of abortion — I don’t understand why there is so much handwringing about the need to regulate “late abortions” that occur only rarely, and are usually undertaken in response to serious complications of pregnancy.
If there are nine different permutations of moral positioning on abortion, then there is no consensus — and therefore, the mother should be allowed to apply her own moral reasoning and be the judge of her own circumstances, up to a point, when through time and development, the interests at stake gradually shift such that there is consensus that the possibility of the fetus’s independent existence should not be ignored. Someone cite me facts and figures as to why, in fact, this is not basically the situation (whatever the law says) that exists right now, and why a legislative fix is required?
P.S. — The Church has never advocated punishment for abortion that was comparable to other types of “murder” and society has also clearly made a distinction between the two for a very long time. Is this an instinctive rejection of the notion that a single celled embryo is equivalent to a newborn baby? Yes, I think so.
Joe M:
Anyway, the most fundamental principle of natural selection is that it tends to eliminate qualities shown by organisms who don’t reproduce as often. Homosexuals reproduce only a fraction of the time, maybe a fourth as often as heterosexuals do. If they were carrying a particular gene, that gene would occur in only a fraction of the next generation, and so on. It is the most straightforward application of natural selection to note that any such gene would rapidly disappear.
No it isn’t. You don’t know what you’re talking about, as usual. Why hasn’t the gene that produces sickle-cell anemia disappeared, Joe? Evolutionary biologists know. Do you?
If natural selection can account for the staggering diversity of life on earth, how wouldn’t it affect something as basic as reproductive desires?
It can.
There are all sorts of clever explanations for how homosexuality could really be genetic after all, but none of them are convincing.
What’s “unconvincing” about all of them?
If homosexuality is really genetic, that is a huge problem for Darwinism.
No it isn’t.
Joe M says:
“I never quote the Bible, not here, not anywhere. Whereas you do seem to hate the idea of new babies coming into the world. I can’t think of another reason why you would keep coming up with fresh insults: Babies are the equivalent of “aliens,” or “catfish,” etc. Creative, but essentially hateful.”
My turn
Where have I ever said I hate babies coming into the world? Go ahead, scroll through my posts on this and other threads. If I’m guilty of putting words in your mouth you’re hardly worthy of casting the first stone either. I have no issues with children, I just wish they didn’t have to be nonsensically controversial mindless fetuses inside someone else first.
All I’m saying is that for (using your term) “normal” women, even those who want children, pregnancy is an unfortunate ordeal they would gladly skip over if possible. Face it, its an unpleasant experience no matter how desired the outcome is. I use the terms and language I do because men who will never struggle physically or psychologically with having a living thing inside them or the societal pressure to spend nine months in that state need the strong imagery to even begin to empathize with women and their attitudes toward reproduction.
P.S. — The Church has never advocated punishment for abortion that was comparable to other types of “murder”
Actually, the teaching of the Catholic Church, as laid down in the Catechism, is that “unborn children” should receive the same legal protection as any other person. That means that murder laws must apply to fetuses as well as to born people.
Of course, few Catholics actually believe this nonsense. But it is there in the Catechism.
The normal reaction from normal women is wonder and awe.
Okay, so I woke up late today, and I got to this comment after it had mostly been passed by, but I still feel compelled to comment.
This is quite probably one of the most insulting, asinine, sneering, hurtful comments I’ve ever read on this site. It absolutely confirms everything bad I’ve ever thought about Joe M and his political persuasion. The fact he would even think it, much less voice it in this forum, indicates such a breathtaking degree of both arrogance and ignorance that it left me stunned.
Let’s examine some of the assumptions and meanings of his statement.
The normal reaction from normal women is wonder and awe.
MEANS “You are not a normal woman.” Possibly “you are not a ‘real’ woman.” “Real women want babies.”
MEANS “I, a man who will never have to deal with becoming pregnant, feel comfortable acting as the arbitor of what constitutes normal for women.”
MEANS “I, a man who will never have to deal with becoming pregnant, feel comfortable telling you what emotions and thoughts are correct when it comes to pregnancy.”
MEANS “All women who do not feel wonder and awe at the prospect of pregnancy are abnormal.”
MEANS “Since all normal women want babies, one could even say that making babies is their job or purpose.”
Now, I’m all in favor of being polite whenever possible . . . and I agree with Amp that Joe M. ought to get a little more leeway because he’s one of very few representatives of his political persuasion here, but how far does that leeway go? I can’t help feel that this is a bit like someone storming into a meeting of NOW howling that they’ve all got to go home and make their husbands dinner (because, after all, that’s what ‘normal’ women do). It’s not a polite thing to do or say.
—Myca
Don P., I understand that the Church’s position is one of moral equivalence in the definition of the “offense”, but my point is that it has never advocated an equivalent approach to the impossition of “punishment.” Your point (I think) is that this difference constitutes implicit recognition that the underlying doctrine, supposedly self-evident in natural law, is actually not quite so self-evident — a point that I agree with.
Sorry if someone was offended, but I still think it is entirely accurate to say that it is more normal — for a man or a woman — to view a pregnancy as a matter of wonder and awe, than to recoil with a visceral horror that can be expressed only by references to a “catfish” or an “alien.”
The latter, I just don’t understand. Every one of us comes from a genealogy where, back to the beginning of time, each and every generation began its life when someone from the previous generation got pregnant. I just don’t get why anyone would view the beginning of life with terror rather than marvel.
For the record, men are even more abnormal (to put it lightly) when they resent pregnancy so much that they engage in violence against pregnant women. I know, Myca wouldn’t have any opinion on that, because she thinks that someone from one sex can’t tell someone from the opposite sex what to feel or think; and after all, she’ll never experience what it’s like for a man to realize that he got a woman pregnant. But I am not so shy. Men who feel that way are anti-social, wicked, and weird.
Barbara, the Catechism explicitly states that, from conception, “unborn children” deserve the same legal protections against being deprived of life as any born person. Those legal protections are the statutes against murder, manslaughter, etc.
Don P., in practice, however, no matter what the catechism says these days (and this is a recent innovation if I recall correctly), the church has never pursued this equivalence for a variety of reasons, some of which you have stated and others of which are quite patronizing towards women (as in, women who undergo abortions lack understanding of the immorality of their decisions) and some of which are merely strategic (i.e., what can we get away with). And yes, the institutional church has lost its marbles on the issue of abortion and contraception, which is tied up with the church’s beliefs on the role of women in society in general.
There is no such thing as “more” or “less” normal. “Normal” is subjective and requires (moral) judgement. It also depends on a collective recognition that there is a “right” and a “wrong” way to react to something. That dichotomy doesn’t exist in terms of childbirth–though I think we all agree that violence in general is the “wrong” way to handle things.
Joe M. probably means more common, which may be true.
Joe M. I just don’t get why anyone would view the beginning of life with terror rather than marvel.
Your failure to get it doesn’t make some women’s terror any less real. I don’t get why some people climb mountains, but I realize that some do it. I do not label these people “abnormal” for doing something I don’t understand.
Joe M says:
“The latter, I just don’t understand. Every one of us comes from a genealogy where, back to the beginning of time, each and every generation began its life when someone from the previous generation got pregnant. I just don’t get why anyone would view the beginning of life with terror rather than marvel.”
Okay, since you decided to ignore my response and simply repeat your question, I shall repeat my more than adequate responses until you choose to engage them:
“some people are terrified of heights, the dark, sunburns, dentists, tiny spiders or moss, some women are terrified of pregnancy. And why shouldn’t they be? Even the rosiest maternal advisor cannot deny that pregnancy is dangerous, uncomfortable, disruptive, long, possibly permanently health-debilitating, and likely to culminate in an agonizing ordeal. Let’s not repeat the visceral fear of having another living thing inside you (“Alien” was an effective shocker for a reason).”
“All I’m saying is that for (using your term) “normal” women, even those who want children, pregnancy is an unfortunate ordeal they would gladly skip over if possible. Face it, its an unpleasant experience no matter how desired the outcome is. I use the terms and language I do because men who will never struggle physically or psychologically with having a living thing inside them or the societal pressure to spend nine months in that state need the strong imagery to even begin to empathize with women and their attitudes toward reproduction.”
Look, I can see why many people — or all people, at one time or another — might say, “Gee, I’d prefer not to have a baby right now.” That I understand.
But unless we’re just talking about a completely irrational phobia, I still don’t get why someone would compare a baby to “aliens” or “catfish.”
Let me put it this way:
Most people drink milk at some time. They see this as perfectly normal, even if a given person doesn’t happen to want a drink of milk right now.
A few people just plain don’t like milk. That’s fine too. People have their own tastes.
But suppose someone says, “I hate the very idea of milk. It fills me with disgust. The idea of drinking some leprousy, white emission from a cow is terrifying, like drinking pus or urine.”
Then, I would say, “Good grief, chill out. Most people are perfectly fine with drinking milk. Why are you so phobic about something that is just a normal part of life for most people? If you just didn’t happen to want milk, that would be fine, but your attitude is a little bizarre and extreme.”
For the record, men are even more abnormal (to put it lightly) when they resent pregnancy so much that they engage in violence against pregnant women.
The fact that you would conflate a man’s physical abuse of a pregnant woman with a woman’s statement of opinion and emotion tells me everything about you I’ll ever need to know.
Woman doesn’t like the idea of pregnancy and expresses it in words.
Man beats woman bloody with his fists.
They’re comparable. Right, Joe?
I know, Myca wouldn’t have any opinion on that, because she thinks that someone from one sex can’t tell someone from the opposite sex what to feel or think; and after all, she’ll never experience what it’s like for a man to realize that he got a woman pregnant.
First, I’m a man.
Second, I expect I will, in fact, know what it’s like to realize I ‘got a woman pregnant.’ Probably, my wife. I anticipate great joy.
Third, my restriction on telling other people what to think and feel is even more tight than you think. I don’t think ANYONE can tell ANYONE else what they’re ‘supposed’ to think or feel. I don’t think there’s a ‘right’ emotion and a ‘wrong’ emotion for a given situation. People are different. What really tears me up, though, is people who will never have to deal with situation X dictating what the ‘normal’ response to situation X should be. I would object just as strenuously to a woman claiming that it’s ‘normal’ for men to embrace pregnancy, and that men who are upset about the prospect are therefore abnormal. That’s just as bad.
However, of course, I DO feel that there are right and wrong actions. Whatever anyone may ‘feel,’ we’re all able to agree not to engage in violence.
That’s a pretty simple distinction, Joe. It’s not too difficult to understand.
—Myca
Joe M says:
“Look, I can see why many people — or all people, at one time or another — might say, “Gee, I’d prefer not to have a baby right now.” That I understand.”
If you could transform into a woman and bear an unwanted fetus for nine months to save it’s “life” Joe, would you do it? Take your time, you’ll want to eventually. Did I mention that this particular pregnancy will be riddled with complications, will require a cesarian, and will leave you with permanently reduced health? Also, there is a strong chance that the resulting child will turn out more like Hitler than beethoven.
Say you’d do it Joe. Say you’d do it again and again if that’s what it took to save fetuses. Say that you’d have no fears, and lie that you’ll feel no pain and discomfort, because that’s the way real women should be and you’re “man” enough to live up to that ideal.
…Sadly Joe will never be able to put his body where his mouth is. Although in the future I can still wait and hope for women like Phyllis Schlaffly and Ann Coulter to offer fetus transplants to “troubled” youths who will obviously go for the coathanger as soon as they are left unsupervised.
Besides, it’s much more fun to belittle women for daring to be individuals with differing opinions on how a biological process he isn’t cursed with should be valued.
Yes, I said cursed. Are you REALLY going to tell me with a straight face that pregnancy is a wonderful and fair system? It’s not my fault nature is too cruel for your genteel conception of moral reality.
Joe M says:
“If you just didn’t happen to want milk, that would be fine, but your attitude is a little bizarre and extreme.”
Comparing the dislike of milk with the fear of pregnancy is absurd and insultingly reductive. Milk never tortured the mind and body of anyone for nine months (maybe for one night if you drank too much of it). Getting back to why I brought up severe fear of pregnancy in the first place, would you consider it sufficient grounds to allow an abortion? It could certainly be argued that psychological damage would be a result.
Comparing the dislike of milk with the fear of pregnancy is absurd and insultingly reductive.
Right. It’s almost as bad as comparing fear of pregnancy with physical assault on a pregnant woman, which he also did.
The thing is, even if we take his ‘dislike of milk’ example at face value, it STILL fails. The fact is, if someone said to me, “I hate the very idea of milk. It fills me with disgust. The idea of drinking some leprousy, white emission from a cow is terrifying, like drinking pus or urine, my likely response would be, “oh, so would you care for some tea then?” Taking the time to excoriate the non-milk drinker for their preference would be rude and pointless.
It’s also worth pointing out that a sizable majority of traditional cultures in the world do not drink milk, including most African, Asian, and Native American populations. Milk drinkers are mostly Europeans, and their American descendants. So, no, although it’s utterly pointless in terms of the matter at hand, “most people” are not fine with drinking milk.
—Myca
The normal reaction from normal women is wonder and awe.
Do you know any normal women? Because, I gotta tell you, there’s nothing about morning sickness, hemorrhoids, lochia, incontinence, sore breasts, maternity clothes, or Braxton-Hicks that inspires any emotion within ten kilometers of EITHER wonder or awe.
Wonder and awe at the idea of a new life? Sure. But I have to tell you that the mystery wears off pretty fast, especially after the first one. Being pregnant made me more pro-choice, not less. I cannot imagine subjecting a woman to that if she didn’t genuinely, wholeheartedly want to be pregnant and have the child. And I didn’t even have difficult pregnancies.
I guess the “wonder and awe” is much easier to experience when your most stressful physical contribution to the process is running out for Haagen-Dasz at 2 a.m.
Most people drink milk at some time. They see this as perfectly normal, even if a given person doesn’t happen to want a drink of milk right now.
Interesting choice. Many adults are lactose intolerant and cannot drink milk. These people literally feel sick and naseous if they drink milk. It’s not a matter of simply not wanting to drink milk NOW. They get sick every time!
OK, “milk” isn’t a perfect analogy. But guess what: No analogy is perfect. That’s why it is an analogy, rather than the same thing. (I.e, the only perfect analogy to pregnancy would be . . . pregnancy, which wouldn’t be an analogy at all.)
So big deal. Just think of something that is perfectly natural and that affects every person on earth. Say, puberty. Suppose someone is disgusted by the idea of puberty, and comes up with all sorts of words to describe how loathsome people are when they go through puberty. But we all go through puberty, just as we all originated as fetuses. It’s just kind of weird to be all freaked out by something that happens to everyone.
And “Myca” said this:
Woman doesn’t like the idea of pregnancy and expresses it in words.
Man beats woman bloody with his fists.
They’re comparable. Right, Joe?
Well, not when you put it that way. Let’s put it this way:
Woman doesn’t like fetuses, and defends having the fetus’s limbs and skull ripped off in an abortion.
Man doesn’t like fetuses, and expresses his anger by punching the woman once.
Frankly, I don’t see much difference there, at least as far as their mental state is concerned. Both dislike pregnancy, and both are willing to defend or resort to violence to express their dislike. Maybe you could distinguish the two cases by saying that abortion involves a victim that is relatively undeveloped, whereas the man’s victim is full-grown. But abortion also involves a victim that is definitely dead after being ripped to shreds, while the victim *in the example* is merely bruised a bit. So weigh a dead undeveloped victim versus a bruised full-grown victim.
I guess people will come out differently, but they should be aware that I condemn all forms of violence, whereas they are the ones who are defending at least some uses of violence.
Joe M.: I guess people will come out differently, but they should be aware that I condemn all forms of violence…
Are you a vegetarian?
Joe M says:
“(I.e, the only perfect analogy to pregnancy would be . . . pregnancy, which wouldn’t be an analogy at all.)”
Exactly. Pregnancy is an especially unique and sensitive situation, and no comparison will ever adequately simulate its complexity.
Joe M says:
“But we all go through puberty, just as we all originated as fetuses. It’s just kind of weird to be all freaked out by something that happens to everyone.”
“Everyone”? For your comparison to work you have to assume that getting pregnant is inevitable in everone’s life. Believe it or not some perfectly healthy women see motherhood has an option they choose not to pursue rather than a destiny they must reluctantly accept. In any case, pain and death happen to everyone and people still freak out about them.
Joe M says:
“Frankly, I don’t see much difference there, at least as far as their mental state is concerned. Both dislike pregnancy, and both are willing to defend or resort to violence to express their dislike. Maybe you could distinguish the two cases by saying that abortion involves a victim that is relatively undeveloped, whereas the man’s victim is full-grown. But abortion also involves a victim that is definitely dead after being ripped to shreds, while the victim *in the example* is merely bruised a bit. So weigh a dead undeveloped victim versus a bruised full-grown victim.”
You distinguish the two by the fact that a fetus is not a person since it has no true mind, identity or perception of existence. It cannot therefore be a victim. Case solved deputy dawg.
Joe M says:
“I guess people will come out differently, but they should be aware that I condemn all forms of violence, whereas they are the ones who are defending at least some uses of violence. ”
So I take it you oppose president Bush’s war in Iraq, the death penalty, child spanking and unrestricted gun ownership right?
Woman doesn’t like fetuses
Oh, c’mon, Joe. We’re not talking about a phobia of fetuses. Woman isn’t going around to pregnant women and telling them they’re disgusting and ought to have abortions, because woman is creeped out by the mental picture of pregnancy.
And don’t you people call them “babies”? You’re slipping.
Say, puberty. Suppose someone is disgusted by the idea of puberty, and comes up with all sorts of words to describe how loathsome people are when they go through puberty.
Well, we aren’t talking about being disgusted by what is happening to other people, are we? We are discussing how scary and awful it can be to go through big changes to your body that you can’t control. If you look at it that way, I know plenty of folks who were terrified of puberty, and would rather have stayed a child. Puberty isn’t all fun and games, either. Ever been the first in your class to wear a bra or have to shave?
Man doesn’t like fetuses, and expresses his anger by punching the woman once.
Not even getting into the notion that fetuses are not yet self aware (something I am not completely convinced of, but will assume for now), I think that a man punching a woman because he doesn’t like fetuses is also worse because she isn’t even the object of his hate, just the inconvenient carrier. I am not sure if this is coming out right, but it is like cutting down a tree because you don’t like the squirrels that live in it.
The point is, Joe M., that you stepped in it. You might want to take a moment to clean your shoes.
-L
Violence as expressed by abortion is no better than violence expressed as to other victims. That’s what I think. If you agreed, you’d be on my side. So agree to disagree here.
Back to the subject of the original post — is no one able to defend the original post’s attempt to claim that Kerry is making a coherent point by claiming that opposition to abortion is theological?
I can’t repeat my post from above, because Amp doesn’t like that. But let me summarize:
1) Some people’s opposition to OTHER forms of murder is theological too, in that they value the human soul or think that God has forbidden murder. Does that mean that they now have to vote to repeal murder laws?
2) Of course not. Regardless of whether their PERSONAL belief is rooted in religion, there are plenty of secular reasons to oppose murder. Plus, lots of religions oppose murder. So it’s not an imposition of any one religion to ban murder.
3) Same for abortion. Regardless of whether one person thinks that his own belief is theological, there are plenty of secular reasons to oppose abortion. (Not killing innocent life at any age — a perfectly secular principle.) Plus, lots of religions, as well as some atheists, oppose abortion. So it is utterly silly to claim that Kerry has to vote for abortion FOR NO OTHER REASON than that he thinks that his own personal opposition is somehow religious.
4) Kerry’s purported distinction would make sense only if the question was PURELY religious. If he wanted to mandate going to confession, or if a Muslim wanted to mandate praying 5 times per day, that would be religious, because if you’re not part of that religion, you have literally no conceivable reason to go along. But as stated above, it is absolutely false that unless you are personally Catholic, you have no reason to be against abortion. There are plenty of non-Catholics and non-religious people who are pro-life, and plenty of support from non-religious reasoning as well.
Conclusion: Kerry’s position is nonsensical.
Regardless of whether their PERSONAL belief is rooted in religion, there are plenty of secular reasons to oppose murder
The fact that there are secular motivations does not mean religious motivations are nonexistent or unimportant.
Imagine A wants to pass a law repealing the vote for women because A’s religion holds that it is sinful for women to vote. B, on the other hand, believes that men are superior to women as a result of evolutionary biology, and that women are inherently unfit to vote. B’s secular motivation does not cancel out A’s religious motivation.
Going back to the original post, the fact that one can be secular and anti-abortion does not cancel out Kerry’s position. He may well believe that for a Catholic to outlaw abortion would be like a Jew outlawing pork, or a Muslim mandating five-times daily prayer.