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..
Ok, since this discussion is still going on, I would like to make one more point, concerning the original topic: Kerry the Catholic, being personally pro-life, publically pro-choice…
What is the job description of our senators? To represent the constituency, right? If our representatives were elected merely to represent themselves, to hell with what the people who elected them feel, what kind of representative would that person be?
It is not the job of a senator or congressman/woman to persue their own personal agenda, unless it happily, in a perfect world, coincides with that of their constituency.
It is the job of our representatives to represent US. Most Americans feel that abortion should be legal, regardless of their personal views on it’s morality. (I believe this is particularly true in MA, Kerry’s home state.) John Kerry is to be commended for doing the job for which he was elected, and not persuing his own personal agenda independently of those who elected him. End of story.
(On a similar note, I would like to point out the contrast of this work ethic, compared to that of our commander in chief, who swore to “uphold the laws of the country”…one of which, of course, was the decision stemming from Roe vs. Wade.)
Joe M:
Violence as expressed by abortion …
Abortion is not an expression of violence, it’s an expression of liberty.
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.
You’re not listening. As ampersand has already pointed out to you, Kerry has said that he does not find secular arguments for banning abortion to be persuasive. Your entire critique of Kerry’s position rests on your claim that there are compelling secular reasons for banning abortion that he must accept. But Kerry doesn’t believe there are any such arguments, and neither do I.
Where Kerry is being dishonest, as I said, is in claiming to believe in the Catholic Church’s moral teachings against abortion.
Perfectly said, Mythago.
It would be like a Mormon politician trying to outlaw coffee and alcohol. Sure there might be public-health reasons, but it’s obvious that those are more ‘excuses’ than reasons.
The same logic applies to a Jewish politician attempting to outlaw pork. After all, pork is bad for you, right?
Honestly, It’s not that hard to concoct some sort of secular reason if that’s all it takes to impose your religious will on those around you. For those unscrupulous enough to not mind pushing a theocratic agenda, 99% of any religious law can, I’m sure, be backed up by some transparent, publicly palatable, justification.
Luckily, normal people don’t do this. Normal people know how to mind their own business. Normal people tend to the state of their own soul and let other people tend to the state of theirs. Normal people aren’t concerned with auditing the piety of others.
Let’s all try to be normal, okay?
—Myca
There is no plausible reason why Kerry would claim to find the Catholic Church’s arguments against abortion persuasive in his private life, but still claim to find the secular arguments against abortion unpersuasive. Both arguments are literally the same: It is wrong to deliberately kill innocent human life. That’s it. The Catholic Church might add, as an addendum, that God thinks it is wrong too, but its reasons are fully compatible with *any* secular argument against *any* form of murder. (What’s the secular argument against murdering adults? That it is wrong to kill innocent human life. Well, that’s what the Catholic church says about abortion too.)
Plus, as Don P. would have known if he had read my earlier post, I already answered his point. What should a politician do as to tax reform if (a) lots of secular people are in favor of it for secular reasons; (b) he himself is convinced only by religious reasons; and (c) he doesn’t find the secular reasons persuasive. Is he somehow obligated to vote against tax reform?
In fact, there are religious politicians out there who believe that there are religious reasons for virtually every position they take. Right or wrong, that’s what they believe. So are they somehow obligated to vote the opposite of their beliefs on each and every occasion that they vote? What a bizarre position to take.
“Myca” — is there another human life that gets killed every time someone drinks coffee or eats pork? I didn’t think so. That’s why your argument never gets off the ground.
Don P.: Abortion is not an expression of violence, it’s an expression of liberty.
Huh. The whole point of abortion is to kill. If abortion isn’t violent, I wonder how these fetuses got chopped to shreds. Maybe they just suddenly fell apart on their own?
“Joe M” — Is the only time we pass laws in order to explicitly preserve human life? I didn’t think so. That’s why your argument never gets off the ground.
Furthermore, I’d like to add, good grief, chill out. Most people are perfectly fine with the idea of abortion. 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 an abortion, that would be fine, but your attitude is a little bizarre and extreme.
Really, man. Be normal.
—Myca
Joe M:
There is no plausible reason why Kerry would claim to find the Catholic Church’s arguments against abortion persuasive in his private life, but still claim to find the secular arguments against abortion unpersuasive.
Of course there is. The Catholic bishops and their minions would come down on him like a ton of bricks if he admitted to heresy on abortion. It’s a political tactic.
Both arguments are literally the same: It is wrong to deliberately kill innocent human life. That’s it.
Nonsense. The Catholic argument is rooted in a claim about the nature of God’s will that is meaningless in a secular context. The Catholic argument also rests on its religious claim that “human life” in the sense of personhood begins at fertilization, a claim that is obviously also subject to dispute on secular grounds.
What’s the secular argument against murdering adults?
That murder is a violation of an adult’s right to life.
Plus, as Don P. would have known if he had read my earlier post, I already answered his point.
No you didn’t.
What should a politician do as to tax reform if (a) lots of secular people are in favor of it for secular reasons; (b) he himself is convinced only by religious reasons; and (c) he doesn’t find the secular reasons persuasive. Is he somehow obligated to vote against tax reform?
Yes. If he doesn’t believe that tax reform has a legitimate secular purpose, but only a religious one, then he should oppose it. That is the standard that the courts would apply also. Every religiously-motivated law must also have a valid secular purpose (as well as satisfying certain other conditions), or else it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In fact, there are religious politicians out there who believe that there are religious reasons for virtually every position they take. Right or wrong, that’s what they believe. So are they somehow obligated to vote the opposite of their beliefs on each and every occasion that they vote?
No. A law is not unconstitutional simply because there is a religious reason for it. A law is unconstitutional if it lacks a secular purpose.
Huh. The whole point of abortion is to kill.
No, the whole point of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy. The death of the fetus is an unavoidable effect of terminating a pregnancy, at least prior to viability, but that doesn’t mean it is the purpose of abortion.
Both arguments are literally the same: It is wrong to deliberately kill innocent human life.
What Don P. said. Catholic doctrine opposes capital punishment, which has zero to do with preserving “innocent” human life. And of course, there is no such thing as “innocent” human life when we’re talking about Original Sin.
Don P. Yes. If he doesn’t believe that tax reform has a legitimate secular purpose, but only a religious one, then he should oppose it. That is the standard that the courts would apply also.
No. No court anywhere would strike down a law just because one legislator said that while other people supported the law for secular reasons, his private motivation was religious.
I said: In fact, there are religious politicians out there who believe that there are religious reasons for virtually every position they take. Right or wrong, that’s what they believe. So are they somehow obligated to vote the opposite of their beliefs on each and every occasion that they vote?
Don P.: No. A law is not unconstitutional simply because there is a religious reason for it. A law is unconstitutional if it lacks a secular purpose.
Well, ok. But the test is not whether AN INDIVIDUAL politician doesn’t happen to agree with the secular purpose, but whether NO ONE agrees with the secular purpose. So you’re not doing anything to defend Kerry here.
I said: The whole point of abortion is to kill.
Don P. said: No, the whole point of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.
Semantics, as Don P. herself admits that all abortions end with a dead baby. Plus, “terminate a pregnancy” is just a euphemism, and an inaccurate one at that. If a woman ONLY wants to terminate a pregnancy WITHOUT killing the baby involved, there is a very simple solution: Wait until the earliest point of viability, and then induce labor. That will most definitely “terminate the pregnancy.” Indeed, all pregnancies will terminate naturally at about 9 months.
But the real objective is not to “terminate the pregnancy” while leaving a live baby. The real objective is to kill the fetus.
By the way, Ms. P., how did those fetuses get pulled to pieces? Do you really have some idea as to how that might have happened non-violently?
Plus, “terminate a pregnancy” is just a euphemism
No, it’s quite accurate. The fact that there are other ways to terminate a pregnancy (allowing it to proceed to labor) doesn’t change that. “Abortion” is accurate because one is aborting the progression of the pregnancy.
Semantics
So if the way abortion worked was to magically teleport the fetus from pregnant woman A (who didn’t want to be pregnant) to woman B (who did), you believe woman A would never agree to such a thing–because she hates fetuses and the goal of abortion is to kill them, with the not-being-pregnant part a side effect.
Wait until the earliest point of viability, and then induce labor
The survivability of fetuses at that point is very low, and those that do survive are at risk of having severe problems later in life. So explain to me why you think induction at 22 weeks is a good solution?
Joe M:
No. No court anywhere would strike down a law just because one legislator said that while other people supported the law for secular reasons, his private motivation was religious.
Of course not. How you think this fact conflicts with the statement of mine that you are responding to is beyond me. What is your point?
Well, ok. But the test is not whether AN INDIVIDUAL politician doesn’t happen to agree with the secular purpose, but whether NO ONE agrees with the secular purpose. So you’re not doing anything to defend Kerry here.
No, the test is whether the law has a legitimate secular purpose. If an individual politician, all of whom are sworn to uphold the Constitution when they take public office, finds a law to have only a religious purpose and not a secular one, then he is constitutionally obliged to vote against it. If a court finds the same thing, it is obliged to strike down the law.
Semantics, as Don P. herself admits that all abortions end with a dead baby.
It’s not “semantics.” Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as killing a fetus, as is obvious from the fact that a pregnancy may be terminated after viability without killing the fetus. Any woman who currently chooses to have a pre-viability abortion might choose instead to terminate her pregnancy in a way that preserved the life of the fetus if that option were available to her. But the option is not available.
Plus, “terminate a pregnancy” is just a euphemism, and an inaccurate one at that.
No it isn’t.
If a woman ONLY wants to terminate a pregnancy WITHOUT killing the baby involved, there is a very simple solution: Wait until the earliest point of viability, and then induce labor.
But that would require her to endure 6 months of unwanted pregnancy followed by childbirth. The whole point of having the abortion now rather than waiting until the fetus is viable is to avoid that unwanted burden.
Indeed, all pregnancies will terminate naturally at about 9 months.
Yes. Thank you for confirming in your own words that the termination of a pregnancy is not the same thing as the killing of a fetus.
Joe M:
But the real objective is not to “terminate the pregnancy” while leaving a live baby. The real objective is to kill the fetus.
You have no basis for that assumption. How do you know that a woman who currently has an abortion would not choose instead to terminate her pregnancy in a way that preserved the life of the fetus if that option were available?
By the way, Ms. P., how did those fetuses get pulled to pieces? Do you really have some idea as to how that might have happened non-violently?
The abortion procedure itself may be the proximate cause of the fetus’s death, but so what? Why is that morally relevant? Are you really suggesting that an abortion performed through the surgical removal of the living, intact fetus from the woman’s body, followed very shortly by the death of the fetus from hypothermia or lack of oxygen, would be acceptable to you?
Thank you for confirming in your own words that the termination of a pregnancy is not the same thing as the killing of a fetus.
Aha. Yes, indeed: “Terminating a pregnancy” is not the same thing as “killing a fetus.” That is exactly why “terminating a pregnancy” is not the same thing as “abortion,” because all abortions DO kill a fetus.
(Quick logic lesson: If A doesn’t equal B, and if B is equal to C, A can’t be equal to C either.)
No. No court anywhere would strike down a law just because one legislator said that while other people supported the law for secular reasons, his private motivation was religious. Don P:: Of course not. How you think this fact conflicts with the statement of mine that you are responding to is beyond me. What is your point?
Why are you even bringing up what courts might or might not do? That is what’s totally irrelevant. John Kerry isn’t saying, “Gee, I’d vote for abortion except for the fact that I can predict that a court would strike down such a law based on my own personal religious motivation.” No, courts don’t have anything to do with his argument. He is saying, “I’m against abortion, but by my own political morality I can’t vote that way because I can’t vote in agreement with my religious position.” I say his argument is absolute nonsense, because it implies that all religious politicians are somehow supposed to vote contrary to their own beliefs at every turn.
Joe M:
Aha. Yes, indeed: “Terminating a pregnancy” is not the same thing as “killing a fetus.” That is exactly why “terminating a pregnancy” is not the same thing as “abortion,”
I never said that terminating a pregnancy is the same thing as abortion.
(Quick logic lesson: If A doesn’t equal B, and if B is equal to C, A can’t be equal to C either.)
Quick reading lesson. Don’t assume that someone believes that A equals B if they haven’t said that A equals B.
Why are you even bringing up what courts might or might not do?
Because they define the meaning of the Constitution.
John Kerry isn’t saying, “Gee, I’d vote for abortion except for the fact that I can predict that a court would strike down such a law based on my own personal religious motivation.”
No, of course not. He’s saying that he doesn’t believe a ban on abortion would have a valid secular purpose, only a religious one, and that he therefore believes such a ban would be unconstitutional.
I say his argument is absolute nonsense, because it implies that all religious politicians are somehow supposed to vote contrary to their own beliefs at every turn.
No it doesn’t. How many times do we have to go over this? A law may serve a religious purpose, and still be constitutional as long as it also has a valid secular purpose (and satisfies certain other conditions.) Kerry is saying that he doesn’t believe a ban on abortion would have a valid secular purpose, only a religious one, and that it would therefore be unconstitutional.
Kerry is saying that he doesn’t believe a ban on abortion would have a valid secular purpose, only a religious one, and that it would therefore be unconstitutional.
And that is precisely what is nonsense. NO LAW ANYWHERE would be held unconstitutional just because ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON thought there wasn’t a valid secular purpose. That’s absurd.
Plus, if a law against abortion can’t have a secular reason, neither can ANY murder law. Every single secular reason that applies to murder laws applies to abortion as well. You can be pro-life without accepting any religious reasons whatsoever, purely based on secular reasons. Surely smart pro-choicers can recognize this, even if they don’t actually agree with the secular reasons themselves.
Oh, and this is just funny:
Don P., 12:26 pm: “the whole point of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.”
Don P., 1:35 pm: “I never said that terminating a pregnancy is the same thing as abortion.”
Joe M:
And that is precisely what is nonsense.
Why is it nonsense?
NO LAW ANYWHERE would be held unconstitutional just because ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON thought there wasn’t a valid secular purpose.
No kidding. And your point is…? Kerry isn’t saying that he believes a ban on abortion would be held unconstitutional “because ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON thought there wasn’t a valid secular purpose” for it. He’s saying that he believes a ban on abortion would be unconstitutional because he thinks there isn’t a valid secular purpose for it. That’s about four times I’ve said it now.
Oh, and this is just funny:
Don P., 12:26 pm: “the whole point of abortion is to terminate a pregnancy.”
Don P., 1:35 pm: “I never said that terminating a pregnancy is the same thing as abortion.”
I have no idea why you think it’s funny. Are you suggesting that doing A to achieve B means that A and B are the same thing? Or what? You seem very confused.
Don P said:
Kerry is saying that he doesn’t believe a ban on abortion would have a valid secular purpose, only a religious one, and that it would therefore be unconstitutional.
To which “Joe M” replied:
And that is precisely what is nonsense. NO LAW ANYWHERE would be held unconstitutional just because ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON thought there wasn’t a valid secular purpose. That’s absurd.
It’s not about the courts holding it to be unconstitutional, it’s about Kerry believing it to be unconstitutional, and thus, because HE BELIEVES IN THE CONSTITUTION, not voting for it. Nobody is arguing that a law would be struck down because one person claims it’s unconstitutional, however, when that person is a US Senator, it’s his DUTY to vote against laws he feels conflict with the constitution. His belief (one person’s belief) determines his actions (one person’s actions). This is incredibly easy to understand, and the fact that you seem unable to do so is precisely why your position is nonsense.
—Myca
I say his argument is absolute nonsense, because it implies that all religious politicians are somehow supposed to vote contrary to their own beliefs at every turn.
No, you infer that, but it is not implied.
His argument is that on this particular issue–abortion–voting according to Church doctrine would constitute imposition of his religion on those who do not share it.
Joe M says:
“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.”
Forced pregnancy IS violence against women. Abortion is violence against no one.
Joe M says:
“Not killing innocent life at any age”
You’d better not be a masturbator then Joe.
Joe M says:
“What’s the secular argument against murdering adults? That it is wrong to kill innocent human life.”
No, the purely secular argument against murdering adults is that any society that permits it will soon degenerate into law-of-the-jungle anarchy, thereby blocking the individual pursuit of happiness that the society was designed to facilitate.
Joe M says:
“But the real objective is not to “terminate the pregnancy” while leaving a live baby. The real objective is to kill the fetus.”
Wow, that makes the 40% of western women who will have an abortion at some point in their lives card carrying monsters in the strongest sense of the word! They must get pregnant just for the thrill of killing the fetus! I can see why Joe advocates punishing half the country’s women with the death penalty… or does he? I can’t remember if he ever made a clear statement about how these dangerous women should be punished, if at all.
Joe M says:
“If a woman ONLY wants to terminate a pregnancy WITHOUT killing the baby involved, there is a very simple solution: Wait until the earliest point of viability, and then induce labor. That will most definitely “terminate the pregnancy.” Indeed, all pregnancies will terminate naturally at about 9 months.”
I would love to live in Joe’s fantasy world, where pregnancy is a mere piffle with no impact on quality of life, health, career, psychology or comfort. Apparently he’s a reptile and all the females he knows lay eggs.
(On a bizarre side note, imagine how much of a non-issue this would be if we did lay eggs. Any woman who didn’t want a child in a society that banned abortion could just “accidentally” break, lose, or underheat the egg, and there’s no way law enforcement would waste time with the millions of such cases that would result)
Don P says:
“It’s not “semantics.” Terminating a pregnancy is not the same thing as killing a fetus, as is obvious from the fact that a pregnancy may be terminated after viability without killing the fetus. Any woman who currently chooses to have a pre-viability abortion might choose instead to terminate her pregnancy in a way that preserved the life of the fetus if that option were available to her. But the option is not available.”
This bears repeating, as it is a very important distinction.
Pay very close attention to the highlighted words, and you may start to gain the glimmerings of an understanding here:
He’s saying that he believes a ban on abortion would be unconstitutional because he thinks there isn’t a valid secular purpose for it.
Only HE — Kerry — thinks (or claims to think) that there aren’t any conceivable secular purposes for banning abortion. But there ARE secular reasons that many people agree with. The point is NOT whether you or Kerry agree with those secular reasons, the point is that SOME PEOPLE DO agree with them.
So do you want a court to throw out murder laws just because one or two people pretend to think that opposing murder is purely religious?
So do you want a court to throw out murder laws just because one or two people pretend to think that opposing murder is purely religious?
Please stop stuffing this particular strawman. You’re not fooling anyone here.
IF one or two people believe that religion is the only way their moral system can oppose murder,
AND those one or two people have heard the secular arguments against murder,
AND those one or two people have found those secular arguments wanting,
AND if they believe in and support the constitution
THEN those one or two people, who are probably idiots, should vote against murder laws.
HOWEVER, even in this bizarrely twisted hypothetical, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the courts throwing laws out.
People must vote according to their own beliefs and a belief in the constitution. That implies nothing about the courts.
I believe our current campaign finance laws are unconstitutional. The courts disagree. That doesn’t mean I don’t still have the same moral burden. I’ll vote for the way I see things, and, should I run for office, people who agree with my viewpoint will vote for me
—Myca
Joe M:
Only HE — Kerry — thinks (or claims to think) that there aren’t any conceivable secular purposes for banning abortion.
I seriously doubt that Kerry thinks there aren’t any “conceivable” secular purposes for a ban on abortion. But he has concluded that there aren’t any valid ones, that there aren’t any that hold up under scrutiny.
But there ARE secular reasons that many people agree with.
Another nonsequitur. The fact that other people may believe that there is a valid secular purpose for a ban on abortion obviously doesn’t mean that Kerry must share that belief.
The point is NOT whether you or Kerry agree with those secular reasons, the point is that SOME PEOPLE DO agree with them.
Why is that the point? Why should Kerry believe that an abortion ban would serve a valid secular purpose just people some other people believe that?
Joe M:
I’m still waiting for you to explain how you know that a woman who currently has an abortion would not choose instead to terminate her pregnancy in a way that preserved the life of the fetus if that option were available.
For instance, if it were possible to transfer the live fetus from her uterus to an “artificial womb” or to another woman’s uterus where it could complete its gestation, how do you know she wouldn’t choose that option instead of abortion?
I’m still waiting for even one person to explain
(1) The Catholic church’s position on abortion, and its stated reasons; and
(2) How number 1 differs from the reasons that the Catholic church says that murder is wrong;
(3) How any of the above contradicts any of the SECULAR reasons that support being against abortion or murder.
Note: It is NOT RELEVANT to keep reminding the world that you don’t agree with the secular reasons against abortion, or that you don’t think the secular reasons against murder are the same as the secular reasons against abortion, or whatever. Who cares? This is a factual question: does the Catholic church give purely religious reasons for why abortion is wrong? Does it give reasons that are any different from its position on other forms of murder? Does it give reasons that any non-Catholic might agree with on secular grounds?
You see, if it makes any sense whatsoever for Kerry (or his defenders) to claim that there is some distinction between “religious” reasons and “secular” reasons, all of the above might help in seeing whether such a distinction even exists.
Joe M:
We’ve already been over this. The Catholic position is based on beliefs about the nature of God’s will, held as a matter of religious faith, that are meaningless in a secular context.
This is a factual question: does the Catholic church give purely religious reasons for why abortion is wrong?
I’m not sure. It may give what it considers to be secular reasons as well as religious ones. But, as we’ve already established, John Kerry doesn’t find the secular arguments for a ban on abortion persuasive, so whether the Catholic Church offers such reasons or not is irrelevant.
Does it give reasons that are any different from its position on other forms of murder?
Again, I’m not sure. Why is this relevant?
Aha. Here is the Catholic church’s Catechism:
On Abortion
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.
[What of the above is religious at all, let alone Catholic? Many secularists talk about human rights, etc.]
2271 Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the new-born to perish . . .
[The first sentence includes a specifically Catholic reason: The Catholic church has always taught that abortion is wrong. But this can’t be the ONLY reason that Kerry is claiming to rely on in his personal life. It makes very little sense to say, “I’m against abortion for NO OTHER REASON than that the Catholic church opposes it, but I don’t agree with even a single one of the reasons that the Catholic church opposes it.” There must be something else going on here.]
2272 Formal co-operation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life… the Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.[That merely describes the church’s punishment. It is not a reason for opposing abortion oneself.] Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
[Note the many secular reasons listed here: Harm to the fetus, harm to the parents, harm to the whole of society. IT IS NOT RELEVANT that you don’t agree with those reasons. Who cares? That’s not the point. The point is that THESE ARE SECULAR REASONS THAT ANY NON-CATHOLIC MIGHT HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH.]
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: [Note all this talk about human rights in a civil society. Again, a secular reason that any non-Catholic might happen to agree with.]
‘The inalienable rights of the person must be recognised and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death… When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined… As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.
OK. What reasons listed above are secular? Just about every single one. Human rights, importance of preserving civil society, not doing harm to others. These are all essentially secular reasons. The only purely religious reason listed above is “The church has always opposed abortion,” but that occurs only in the context of explaining WHY the church opposes abortion, which is for secular reasons.
Not that these reasons are PURELY secular. Religious people can believe in human rights for religious reasons, for example.
But it makes no sense — no sense at all — for Kerry to say, in effect, “Religiously, I agree with the church’s teaching that abortion harms human rights and undermines civil society; but as a secular matter, I don’t believe that abortion harms human rights and undermines civil society.”
Who honestly thinks like that?
Joe M:
You still seem hopelessly confused. Are you seriously suggesting that a religious purpose and a secular purpose are the same thing? How is a purpose based on one’s understanding of the will of God a secular purpose?
But it makes no sense — no sense at all — for Kerry to say, in effect, “Religiously, I agree with the church’s teaching that abortion harms human rights and undermines civil society; but as a secular matter, I don’t believe that abortion harms human rights and undermines civil society.”
Kerry hasn’t said that. I don’t know what that made-up statement is even supposed to mean.
Interesting selective quote of the catechism, Joe. If you check the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’s site, the chapter on abortion gives specifically Christian reasons for holding that abortion is wrong. Did you really not notice the surrounding context?
The fake quote from Kerry you give makes perfect sense. Religiously, one can believe that abortion constitutes a great spiritual harm to society. One can simultaneously believe that to impose this religious view through the law on those who do not share it is a worse harm.
Do you believe adultery is wrong and damaging to the family and to society? Most people do, whether for religious reasons, secular reasons, or both. Do you believe it should therefore be outlawed? Most people don’t, as state laws criminalizing it have slowly been repealed. Most people probably believe, as with abortion, that it’s not really a matter for the State to interfere with.
Joe M says the Catechism says:
“2271 Since the first century the church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.”
Actually, the church is lying here. To quote from Sagan (one of many to have noticed this):
“The Old and New Testaments–rich in astonishingly detailed prohibitions on dress, diet, and permissible words–contain not a word specifically prohibiting abortion. The only passage that’s remotely relevant (Exodus 21:22) decrees that if there’s a fight and a woman bystander should accidentally be injured and made to miscarry, the assailant must pay a fine.
Neither St. Augustine nor St. Thomas Aquinas considered early-term abortion to be homicide (the latter on the grounds that the embryo doesn’t look human). This view was embraced by the Church in the Council of Vienne in 1312, and has never been repudiated. The Catholic Church’s first and long-standing collection of canon law (according to the leading historian of the Church’s teaching on abortion, John Connery, S.J.) held that abortion was homicide only after the fetus was already “formed”–roughly, the end of the first trimester.
But when sperm cells were examined in the seventeenth century by the first microscopes, they were thought to show a fully formed human being. An old idea of the homunculus was resuscitated–in which within each sperm cell was a fully formed tiny human, within whose testes were innumerable other homunculi, etc., ad infinitum. In part through this misinterpretation of scientific data, in 1869 abortion at any time for any reason became grounds for excommunication. It is surprising to most Catholics and others to discover that the date was not much earlier.”
The Church’s reasons, as quoted, are not arguments – they are statements made from a position of authority. For instance: “From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognised as having the rights of a person.”
That could be the conclusion of a secular pro-life argument, but in this context it is not. There are no arguments given explaining why from conception on a human being “must” have “the rights of a person.” That’s because it’s not an argument; it’s a statement based on the Vatican’s religious authority. They don’t have to make a logical, coherant case for why an embryo must have “the rights of a person” because they’re making a statement of religious fact. But that makes what they’re doing a religious statement, not a secular argument.
Kerry hasn’t said that. I don’t know what that made-up statement is even supposed to mean.
That’s the point. Kerry’s distinction makes no sense. Let me spell it out, since you seem confused.
The Catholic church’s reasons for being against abortion are all reasons that a secular person could accept on secular grounds. Human rights, right of the innocent to live, not harming innocent persons, not undermining civil society — these are all values that a secular person could accept. (I know, YOU don’t accept them here, but that’s not the point, now is it?)
So what is Kerry saying when he says that he agrees with the Catholic church’s position on abortion? All he could mean is something like this: “I agree with the Catholic church’s belief that abortion is a violation of human rights, or that it undermines civil society, or that it violates our duty not to harm the innocent.”
But if he says that he disagrees with the secular reasons for the pro-life position, well, what would those secular reasons be? Probably something a lot like valuing human rights, the life of the innocent, civil society, etc. Those are what the “secular” reasons would be TOO.
So what could Kerry possibly mean if he really means that he is against abortion for “religious” reasons but for it when it comes to “secular” reasons? As I’ve pointed out, those reasons are almost entirely the same.
Thus, what Kerry would really be saying is this: “I believe for religious reasons that abortion undermines civil society and human rights; but when it comes to secular reasons, I don’t believe that abortion undermines civil society and human rights.”
Again, what sense does that make?
The Catholic church’s reasons for being against abortion are all reasons that a secular person could accept on secular grounds.
Joe, go back and read the entire chapter, not just a few selected sentences, and you’ll see that sentence isn’t true.
What you’re saying is like claiming it’s OK for Jews to vote to ban pork, because secular vegetarians also think we shouldn’t eat pigs.
I’m no expert, but I wouldn’t look to Carl Sagan, of all people, for a history of the Catholic church’s doctrine. Try this site or this site if you want a more complete picture.
Joe, both of those sites are clearly biased on this question.
If Jews had reasoned from the beginning that eating pork was forbidden by God because of how hogs are mistreated on factory farms, and if the mistreatment of hogs was the THE VERY SAME REASON that vegetarians now accept, then yes, I’d say it’s fine for Jews to vote to ban pork. Why the heck not?
If Jews are 5% of the legislature, and vegetarians made up 40% of the legislature, and other people sympathetic to animal rights made up 6% of the legislature, and ALL OF THEM agreed that banning pork was a good thing because of how hogs are mistreated on factory farms, then why should a Jewish legislator vote against banning pork just to spite his own personal feelings? What’s wrong with that coalition of 51%, just because a few members think that they have a religious reason somewhere in the mix?
“Clearly biased” — by what? By reporting what Catholic teachers actually said? I mean, they obviously agree with what those Catholic authorities said, but there is absolutely no reason to think that they are misreporting anything, and they are far more credible than Sagan.
If Jews had reasoned from the beginning that eating pork was forbidden by God because of how hogs are mistreated on factory farms, …
But Joe… what if the Jew doesn’t believe hogs are mistreated? And that’s NOT the reason the Bible bans pork.
The Jew could perfectly well say he agrees with pork ban on religious grounds, but doesn’t think he should deprive the minority who wishes to eat pork from eating it.
There is nothing inconsistent with that. There is nothing inconsistent with Kerry’s position — one is not required to impose their religious beliefs on others.
Joe M:
The Catholic church’s reasons for being against abortion are all reasons that a secular person could accept on secular grounds.
Nonsense. First, the issue is not being “for” or “against” abortion. The issue is whether abortion should be banned in civil law. For the umpteenth time, the belief that abortion is wrong does not imply the belief that abortion should be a crime.
Second, the Catholic Church’s purpose in seeking to ban abortion is to satisfy its understanding of God’s will. When the Catechism claims that abortion is “gravely contrary to moral law,” whose “moral law” do you think it’s referring to, Joe?
And third, any secular purposes for a ban that the Church may offer are simply irrelevant, because we have already established that Kerry does not find the arguments for a secular purpose persuasive.
So what is Kerry saying when he says that he agrees with the Catholic church’s position on abortion?
He’s not saying he agrees with the Catholic Church’s position on abortion. He explicitly rejects the church’s position on abortion. What he has said is that he agrees with the church’s religious teachings that abortion is profoundly immoral. But it’s probably safe to conclude from the weakness and infrequency of Kerry’s public statements of moral disapproval for abortion that he doesn’t really believe the church’s moral teachings, either.
So what could Kerry possibly mean if he really means that he is against abortion for “religious” reasons but for it when it comes to “secular” reasons?
Kerry hasn’t said that he’s “for abortion” at all. He’s said the opposite.
For goodness sake, stick to what the man has actually said, and stop attributing to him statements he has not made.
one is not required to impose their religious beliefs on others.
God, the fact that you even have to make this argument is so depressing to me.
Silly me, I’d always taken it as assumed.
—Myca
Joe M:
If Jews had reasoned from the beginning that eating pork was forbidden by God because of how hogs are mistreated on factory farms, and if the mistreatment of hogs was the THE VERY SAME REASON that vegetarians now accept, then yes, I’d say it’s fine for Jews to vote to ban pork. Why the heck not?
Because “God forbids it” is not a secular purpose. (But since factory farms are a modern invention, it’s probably safe to assume that Jews did not reason this way “from the beginning.”)
If Jews are 5% of the legislature, and vegetarians made up 40% of the legislature, and other people sympathetic to animal rights made up 6% of the legislature, and ALL OF THEM agreed that banning pork was a good thing because of how hogs are mistreated on factory farms, then why should a Jewish legislator vote against banning pork just to spite his own personal feelings?
He shouldn’t, if he believes that banning pork serves a valid secular purpose. But enforcing a religious belief that eating pork is “forbidden by God” is not a secular purpose, it’s a religious purpose.
Look, the analogy to eating pork is somewhat strained, I know.
Abortion is different. If you’re really against abortion AT ALL, you must in fact be accepting reasons that would equally apply to the secular world. It’s possible for people to say, “I’m against eating pork; not for any good reason, but ONLY because my religion says so; it’s arbitrary, I know, but that’s what I believe.” It’s really not believable for a person to say, “I’m against abortion; but I don’t have any good reason, it’s just because my religion says so in a completely arbitrary fashion.”
No: Being against abortion is not just a rule that the Catholic church arbitrarily invented for no particular reason. Its reasons are all the sort of thing that, if true, would equally apply in the secular world too: Protecting innocent life, protecting civil society, protecting human rights. I know, some people can’t get beyond the fact that they don’t personally accept those reasons. But if you DO claim to agree with those secular reasons when they are presented by a religious authority, why would you exclude them from the public realm?
If you’re really against abortion AT ALL, you must in fact be accepting reasons that would equally apply to the secular world.
Oh really?
“I’m against abortion because my faith claims that a soul enters the fetus at the moment of conception, and thus, at the moment of conception, the fetus should be considered a full-fledged person.”
That statement has no application whatsoever in the secular world.
Period.
—Myca
Joe, your premise is flawed. Here is one example of a religious reason to be opposed to abortion that would not “equally apply in the secular world:”
I am against abortion because I believe that a human soul is present from the moment of conception.
Would you care to restate your position on the matter?
But I was too late. Myca had beaten me to the point. Great minds and all that….
It’s really not believable for a person to say, “I’m against abortion; but I don’t have any good reason, it’s just because my religion says so in a completely arbitrary fashion.”
Huh? Sure it is.
Ah, nicely done, my many-tentacled friend. Nicely done indeed.
Joe M:
If you’re really against abortion AT ALL, you must in fact be accepting reasons that would equally apply to the secular world.
More nonsense. “I’m against abortion because God forbids it” is meaningless as a secular justification for opposing abortion.
It’s possible for people to say, “I’m against eating pork; not for any good reason, but ONLY because my religion says so; it’s arbitrary, I know, but that’s what I believe.” It’s really not believable for a person to say, “I’m against abortion; but I don’t have any good reason, it’s just because my religion says so in a completely arbitrary fashion.”
Rubbish. Why is it believable that a person can be against eating pork because of a religious conviction that God forbids eating pork, but not believable that a person can be against abortion because of a religious conviction that God forbids abortion?
No: Being against abortion is not just a rule that the Catholic church arbitrarily invented for no particular reason.
Right. It’s a component of the whole wacky Catholic theology regarding marriage, sex and reproduction.
Its reasons are all the sort of thing that, if true, would equally apply in the secular world too
No, they don’t apply. “God forbids it” or “It’s contrary to God’s moral law” is not a secular reason at all. How many times do we have to go over this?
Alright, if Sagan isn’t good enough, try these sources:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/nobandwidth/English/cathwomen/abortiondecision.htm
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/abortionalternatives.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/abortion.html
http://www.bartleby.com/65/ab/abortion.html
http://wiccanhistorian.home.att.net/histories/abortion.htm
http://www.emedicine.com/med/byname/therapeutic-abortion.htm
http://www.flutterby.com/danlyke/religion/abortion.html
http://home.earthlink.net/~davidlperry/abortion.htm
and there are many many more
Shoot Joe M. In my life I’ve met a variety of people with a variety of reasons to be against or for abortion.
My mother in law is against abortion because she thinks unplanned pregnancy is the just reward for promiscuity! I had friend insist *no one* really thought that, and I said: Yep, she does! That’s her reason.
I shared an office in grad school with a guy who believed human life began at conception and abortion should be legal until the moment the baby was born. He was all for protecting human society, civil rights and human rights. That lead him to a vastly different conclusion from yours.
More than likely, you think making abortion illegal protects human society because you believe abortion is immoral based on religious principles, and your religioius principles tell you immoral things should be illegal. I’ll admit I’m guessing.
Lucia — did you mean to put a comma after the first word in your post?
* **
Re: the “soul enters at conception” argument. Funny, I rarely ever hear that argument from pro-lifers. That argument, in my experience, comes up about ten times as often from pro-choicers who are ridiculing what they imagine to be the sole basis of the pro-life position.
Anyway, so there is ONE religious reason to oppose abortion that would be purely religious. But it most certainly is not the sole or even the primary reason that the Catholic church gives. In fact, I didn’t even see anything in the Catechism mentioning the time that a soul enters a human life.
So how is that belief relevant here? Putting words in Kerry’s mouth, are you imagining that he said this: “I am personally against abortion for the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE reason that a soul enters the body at conception; but I don’t believe any of the many other reasons that my religion teaches, such as the health of society, the value of human rights, and so forth.”
Joe M:
So how is that belief relevant here? Putting words in Kerry’s mouth, are you imagining that he said this: “I am personally against abortion for the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE reason that a soul enters the body at conception; but I don’t believe any of the many other reasons that my religion teaches, such as the health of society, the value of human rights, and so forth.”
Since Kerry favors the right to abortion, he is unlikely to believe that legal abortion is a violation of human rights. He may believe that some or many abortions are bad for “the health of a society,” but he also presumably believes that a ban on abortion would be even worse for the health of society.
Next?
All snarkiness aside Joe, just for the record and ease of access, what is your exact stance on abortion and related issues? Specifically:
What are your top five (not necessarily ordered) reasons for opposing it, religious or otherwise. On a related note, what is your religious inclination?
up to when it should be legal?
If it shouldn’t be generally legal, what special circumstances could it be legal under, such as rape, incest, and protection of the mother’s health?
How central an issue should it be in political life? For instance, more or less important that programs for the poor? More or less important that jobs? More or less important than AIDS? More or less important than the death penalty? Can it be justified as one of the only issues that some people ever consider? Would you vote for someone you dissagree with on everything except abortion?
What penalties would you impose, and on whom? Mother, doctor, accomplices, people who give out information about it?
What do you believe will happen when Roe Vs. Wade is overturned? Do you think it will be a serious priority for law enforcement and state budgets? How do you think such trials will play out in courts?
Do you believe in contraception?
Do you believe in pre-marital sex?
Do you believe in sex education? Population control?
Do you believe in complete separation of church and state, a complete combination of the two, or partial overlap?
What are the opinions of women around you on such matters? How many pregnant women have you directly and honestly interacted with? How many women who have had or are planning to have an abortion have you directly and honestly interacted with? Do you believe it is possible that some of the women in your life have had an abortion without informing you of it?
That will do for now I think.
Ooops, just one more:
What’s the first mental picture that jumps into your head when you are asked to visualize a woman who has had an abortion? What do you believe she feels? Does she have a husband or children? What ethnicity is she? What religion do you believe her to be? What economic bracket do you believe she fits in
So how is that belief relevant here?
Jeez, I dunno, man. I mean, you’re the one who was spouting things like “If you oppose abortion at all, you MUST, 100% of the time, be accepting reasons that would equally apply to the secular world.” We were just pointing out that that’s a load of crap.
Anyway, so there is ONE religious reason to oppose abortion that would be purely religious.
If you want more examples of purely religious reasons to oppose abortion, though, you can have them.
“God told us to go forth and multiply, so ending a pregnancy is a sin.”
“Nobody has the authority to end a life but God, therefore abortion is a sin.”
“Abortion kills a child before it’s had a chance to be baptized, sending the child to purgatory, therefore it’s a sin.”
“The pain of pregnancy is woman’s punishment for original sin, so to abort a baby rather than suffering through childbirth is to countermand God’s will . . . and thus, a sin.”
“The law in the Bible from early on said that abortion is a sin, and thus it’s a sin.”
“God says abortion is a sin, so it’s a sin.”
“The pope says abortion is a sin, so it’s a sin.”
“My pastor says abortion is a sin, so it’s a sin.”
“The church says that life begins at conception, therefore it must.”
“The church says that abortion is bad for human rights, and since it also tells me that fetuses are the same thing as humans, I guess they are.”
“The church says that abortion is bad for the health of society, so I guess it must be.”
The point, “Joe M” is that any reason, taken as fiat from the church is a religious reason. Secular reasons are arrived at through logic and reasoning.
If John Kerry is told something by the church and he says to himself “Well, that doesn’t seem to make much sense to me, but okay . . .,” then it’s a religious reason, and he’s got no business spreading that craptacular Catholic anti-logic around to the rest of us.
Thank God he’s bright enough to realize that.
—Myca
Lucia — did you mean to put a comma after the first word in your post?
Yes… indeed I did! :)