I am not sure where or when it began, but presidential candidates continued the tradition of illogical meandering around the topic of abortion. All the candidates were given the opportunity to say whether or not they would require Supreme Court Justices to be in favor of keeping abortion legal. Not surprisingly each candidate answered in turn to the affirmative. What continues to astonish me is the way in which the candidates discuss the issue.
First I found it interesting that none of the candidates wanted to say the word abortion. I would have to watch again, but I do not believe anyone actually said the word. The fact that none of the candidates wanted to say the word abortion was somewhat encouraging. Discussing the disposal of the weakest among us still seems to cause some uneasiness. The next bit of interest to me is the way the candidates did choose to talk about it. The common line was that they would require any Justice to uphold the "right to privacy" that they each found to be clearly articulated in the Constitution. They took turns adding to the basic argument that the right to privacy clearly should extend to this most private act that a woman can commit. The problem with this argument is that the answer to the question at issue is presupposed. The crux of the argument rests on whether or not unborn infants should be considered human. If they are not human then we do not need any of this "right to privacy" talk. Where did they get the idea that pro-lifers disagree on the grounds of privacy rights? Pro-lifers are on board with the idea that everyone has the right to do what they want with their own body when it does not harm anyone else.
If we decide that the unborn should be counted as human like those of us who had the privilege of being born, then we have a much different discussion. Clearly the "right to privacy" holds no weight here. Imagine if I made the argument that I should be able to have slaves and the government should stay out of it because what I do in the privacy of my own property is my business. I suspect responses to that argument would have something to do with the fact that the slaves are human and thus have rights. I trust we can all follow this argument the rest of the way.
So now we should be in agreement that the real issue is whether or not the unborn are human or not. This brings me to my final point on the issue. One of the most common lines I hear from politicians is that we should work to do all we can to reduce the number of abortions but still allow them to be legal. Why on earth should we work to reduce them if abortions are not wrong? If the unborn are living humans there should be no concern for reducing the number of abortions. If we are in agreement, however, that these young lives are human how can anyone settle for attempts at reduction. I apologize for using the same analogy, but it fits well here. This argument is remarkably similar to the arguments that kept blacks as slaves for years. We were too busy looking at the pragmatic difficulties that its elimination would cause rather than seeking justice.
There are those that do not believe the unborn are human and do not see anything wrong with abortion. I believe they are wrong and pray the Holy Spirit reveals that to them. What I find absolutely appalling, however, are those that think that abortion is wrong because it ends a life, but do not think that it should be illegal. The likes of Mitt Romney come to mind. He says he has changed his mind on the issue now, which is good, but the fact that he at any time believed that abortion was killing human life and did not think it worth working to make illegal is unconscionable. He is not alone in holding that position, it seems to be the default position of the left. The fact that he is sitting along with Giuliani at the top of the Republican heap makes it worth noting.
We need to get back to logical discussions about issues like abortion. We need not arrive at the same conclusion, but maybe we can at least begin with premises, form a sound argument, and then let that lead to our conclusions. I have no delusions that simple logic is all that will be required to come to a consensus. A return to logic will, however, help to highlight was is really at stake. It is not our privacy, it is not our freedom of choice, what is really at stake what kind of people we will be. How will we care for our orphans? I leave the last word to man that knew very well what was at stake.
"A nation that kills its own children has no future."
-Pope John Paul II
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Well you hit the ground running now didn't you?
It is always interesting to see dems (or anyone for that matter) so blatantly start their reasoning with a huge presumption. It's kind of the same thing with the whole AIDS epidemic. Liberals are handing out condoms and teaching "safe sex" even though these are not %100 effective and then sneer at anyone who suggests teaching abstinence (even though the only country in Africa with a declining number of AIDS infections is Uganda, which teaches strict abstinence outside of marriage). There is no way they can say that this course of action is based on anything that a bias against anything that even remotely looks like Christianity (or perhaps a fear that abstinence might work and serve as a feather in the cap of moral conservatives). If we were dealing with an outbreak small pox, we wouldn't be wasting out time relying on preventative measures that work sometimes if done properly, we would be carpeting infected areas with pamphlets on methods that work %100 and if people didn't want to listen to that they'd be quarantined.
So it seems not only does the right to privacy allow people to kill the unborn, but to infect those of us lucky enough to get past that gauntlet with an incurable disease. Go figure.
P.S. First!
Darn it, Dan got here before me.
SECOND!
Good points. I'd like to add that among the pro-choice people with which I've had conversations, the only ones who haven't believed that an unborn child is human are kind of stupid. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that intelligent pro-choicers aren't even BOTHERING to make the "it's not human" argument anymore. It seems like they know, but just don't care.
I might be wrong, I get all my information from Wikipedia. ;)
Jason,
Could you maybe touch upon the whole personhood debate? What is the reasoning behind called something human but not a person and how do you respond to that?
Okay, Dan just informed me that there's a difference between being a "human" and being a "person." So maybe I meant "person" when I said "human."
hey jason--i'm a friend of sara's and she blogged that you blog. first, welcome to the blogosphere! second, i think the comparison of slavery to abortion is a good one; the first time i saw it was in a leaflet (which i usually hate, too "propaganda-ish"). On the outside was a picture of an elderly african-american man, sitting on some concrete steps, and there was a list of text that said things like "If you don't like one don't have one" and "It's my property, my business" and "No government interference." 21st century americans against slavery would agree with this logic. then you open the leaflet, and there's a picture of an unborn baby, with the same text same list. very powerful because it created an argument not in your head but in your spirit/gut whatever... made you go "huh."
ok just read my post and it didn't make sense "21st century americans would agree with that logic." what i mean by that, is that we 21st century americans would agree with the logic behind this leaflet: what silly arguments back then to justify horrible behavior! that's what then makes this leaflet so powerful, when you open it up and realize we as a society still make silly arguments to justify bad behavior...
To Jenny's comments-
It is astounding how willing many people are to set aside logic when is strikes against what they want to be true. What is even worse is when they try what I call reverse logic. For example, pro-choice politicians have been attempting to prevent the passing of laws (or reverse laws where they have already been passed) that charge murders with double homicide when they murder a pregnant woman. They oppose the laws not because they think they are unjust. If pressed they will acknowledge that the murderer does deserve both charges. They oppose the laws because they worry that if will help future pro-life legislation. That kind of reverse logic is dangerous, and frustrating to argue with. You attempt to make an argument and your opponent refuses to acknowledge a premise, not because it is not true, but because they don't like the conclusion that will follow.
To Dan and Sara's comments-
You both mention the person/human distinction which is an argument that some have grasped onto in order to avoid the inevitable dichotomy that I outlined. There are enough proponents of that view, that I think it warrants another post. Tune in:)
Yay!
Dan, the disdain for abstinence education comes much more from the low quality and ineffectiveness of said programs than from the Christian ties. Congressional studies have shown both a great deal of inaccurate information in the programs as well as no difference in the sexual activity and number of partners in children who have and have not participated. Yet despite these fairly clear studies, Congress has continued to extend funding.
Uganda's success has more to do with their long-standing (since 1986) governmental response to AIDS, which is largely based on the ABCD model (abstinence, be faithful, condoms, death). The abstinence-only strategy, which was introduced by the US post-2000, has been said by the UN AIDS-in-Africa envoy to have HARMED the Ugandan government's efforts.
I think one of the main issues with the pro-choice argument, besides that the right to privacy shouldn't cover killing a living person, is that there isn't a right to privacy. The 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, said that it was implied in multiple amendments and used it to stop states from outlawing birth control. From there it extended to several issues such as abortion. While I support most of the changes this "right" has made (excluding life issues), I certainly wish they would have occurred legislatively or even through a constitutional amendment instead of through a poorly justified court decision.
Brian,
Whether or not current abstinence programs are effective is not my point. What I am saying is that abstinence is the only 100% sure way to prevent AIDS (at least from being transmitted sexually) and should be the primary focus of any AIDS program if their focus is prevention and only prevention. If the bias against abstinence was only because current programs don't work then why is there not major research being done to create a program that does?
Doctors know that eating horrible foods and not exercising cause heart disease and most people effected by the disease will not change their lifestyle, that doesn't mean that doctors stop advocating a lifestyle change or that society won't work to eliminate factors that contribute to this unhealthy lifestyle (i.e. holding fast food accountable). Why should abstinence be any different? It seems that there is something else at play here.
As far as Uganda goes, you have to admit that the inclusion of abstinence in their program seems to be a major contributing factor. Looking at the things that President Museveni and his wife have said it is pretty clear that abstinence is the primary focus of their approach.
Also, Uganda has not taken an abstinence only approach. People got all bent out of shape because they had billboards focusing on abstinence and faithfulness that made no mention of condoms and westerners got all up in arms. But the government has stated that their approach is the same. And, as far as I have seen, there has only been predictions that focusing more on abstinence would hurt the AIDS efforts and there has yet to be any actual data showing that to be the case.
Do you really believe we can convince kids not to have sex? I don't. Come on, even virginity pledges amongst religious kids have been found to be counter-effective. Also, you act as if these programs do not promote abstinence. They do: that's why the 'A' is first in the 'ABCD' program. I'm not saying to not promote abstinence. I just think kids should be prepared for the case that they're stupid and horny enough to not abstain. Which most of them are.
No, I don't have to admit that. 'ABCD' has been Uganda's main concentration since the 80s (leading to major drops in HIV cases in the 90s). The UN reported that a US-backed campaign focusing solely on abstinence was recently added and lead to a recent drop in condom use. The response by the president and the US was saying that they haven't been doing any abstinence-only programs, not that they have always been doing them.
Post a Comment