Abortion and community

Beautiful. Indeed I want to argue that America is the only country that has the misfortune of being founded on a philosophical mistake--namely, the notion of inalienable rights. We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights. That is the false presumption of Enlightenment individualism, and it opposes everything that Christians believe about what it means to be a creature. Just beautiful: a repudiation of the founding principles of this country, of the self-evident truths proclaimed in our founding document. Larison would be proud of you, Rod, for approvingly posting that comment, but I doubt that this is quite what most people have in mind when told about a conservative counterculture and its return to roots. Who knew that the return to roots meant weeding out the Declaration of Independence?

I followed the link and read the Russell Arben Fox column, a task I don't advise for anyone who's less of a caffeine addict than I am. I have never, in my life, waded through such a tangled mess of verbiage designed to say nothing more, in effect, than that the author rejects the construct that abortion = murder. Fine, Mr. Fox. But what makes you think that what you say will have any relevance whatsoever to those of us who have NOT abandoned this construct, and indeed, who see it as the only framework for a rational opposition of abortion in the first place? To twist a well known Flannery O'Connor quote on a different subject, if abortion's not murder, then to hell with opposing it.

I want to go on record as being pro-life before posting this, because why I agree with what Prof. Hauerwas is saying morally/theologically, it doesn't really make much sense to me legally. Looking to religious traditions, you can say abortion is wrong, but as he says, when you bring up "inalienable rights," it becomes tricky. If we're talking about abortion as a legal issue, you have to separate it from religion to make a valid point.
And why I can also see his point about the concept of inalienable rights, it seems to have the same problem---yes, any religious believer should realize that he has no rights that supercede God's (something many don't seem to understand today), but it's a fairly sound legal system. Or at least it was when it was written, and the idea of doing something that would damage your family/community was more anathema than it is today. It's a good sermon, though, and really makes me think. God bless.

Erin, "I have never, in my life, waded through such a tangled mess of verbiage designed to say nothing more, in effect, than that the author rejects the construct that abortion = murder." That it was, by any considered judgment, and aside from whatever else might be said about it, really a tangled mess of verbiage I can't deny; I don't seem to have the ability to say anything succinctly. This is why I'm not as good a blogger as Rod. But I do think it's a little unfair to say the post had "nothing more" to say than just to reject that particular pro-life formulation; the fact that I was then beat up for 60 comments by pro-choicers who were incensed at my pointing out that abortion is part of a sexual ethic that is demeaning to women as well as socially destructive suggests otherwise. "But what makes you think that what you say will have any relevance whatsoever to those of us who have NOT abandoned this construct, and indeed, who see it as the only framework for a rational opposition of abortion in the first place?" It won't have any relevance, obviously. If you are logically or theologically convinced that the abortion = murder formulation holds perfectly well, more power to you. The post was explaining my own position on abortion, not attempting to wrestle with the whole "pro-life" construct. "To twist a well known Flannery O'Connor quote on a different subject, if abortion's not murder, then to hell with opposing it." Nice quote--though personally, I can think of a lot of (ethical, communal, social) reasons for opposing something even if it isn't, in some strict sense, always and in every case a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

"We Christians do not believe that we have inalienable rights." This is why "the church" should be separate from "the state". At least he is honest.

Bubba You re right. I was out of line with the "at least he's honest" part, that would imply all Christians. I have never, ever until now, heard so much as even one Christian argue against natural rights. Thanks for putting me in line. :)

"I, too, have a problem with the whole concept of "rights" whether they are called "natural" or "inalienable." To me, rights are an achievement, not an entitlement." That s kinda scary Alicia. Is there nothing that should be protected from mob rule? I kind of get what you are poking at with the whole achievement thing, but rights - natural rights being the conception, however they are manifest - either exist or they don't. Whether or not one must struggle to ensure they are not violated does not prove non-existence. You know what I am saying?

Mr. Fox, I can't entirely plead innocent on the charge of occasionally, and for no entirely good reason save my own appreciation and admiration of an epistolary style of writing that died an ignominious death by either the beginning of the previous century, or possibly the end of the century before, inflicting tangled verbiage on the general public--or, in other words, sometimes I've got to force myself to be clear and concise, too. :) And I don't want you to think that I don't appreciate your points about the sexual ethic and the deleterious effect abortion on demand, and even the prevailing culture of the glorification of the woman of easy virtue, have on women in general; I do. But these, taken by themselves, are not sufficient reasons in my opinion to oppose abortion, which, if is to be opposed at all, must take the intrinsic value of the life of the unborn human present in the womb into the highest consideration.

It should also be said that, if the belief in inalienable rights meant what its critics think it means, the Founders would have been anarchists: we can't execute murderers or imprison other felons because doing so would trample on their inalienable rights. But, clearly, the Founders believed that the declaration that we have inalienable rights does allow the government to protect the rights of innocent by infringing upon the rights of those who do them harm. If that's so, it seems reasonable to me that the belief in inalienable human rights does not preclude the Christian opportunity to subordinate one's rights to the will of God and the common good of the church. Instead, it seems to be that, in order for the act of laying down my life and my rights in submission to Christ's Lordship to be meaningful, they must be truly mine in a sense that was not given full expression until the Enlightenment. And I believe the Bible is consistent with this idea of human liberty. John apparently stayed with Christ all of Good Friday, Peter denied Him, Judas betrayed Him; ten lepers were healed, but only one expressed gratitude; given the command to sell what he had, the rich man was still free to walk away. And long before that, the woman chose to listen to the snake, the man chose to listen to his wife, and Abraham chose to obey God's will regarding Isaac. These actions are arbitrary unless there is behind them true individual human liberty. Yes, individualism isn't God's ultimate goal: C.S. Lewis was right that a truly organic membership in the organism of Christ is the goal for mankind -- a goal that cuts through the dichotomy of individualism and totalitarianism -- but we enter that organism as individuals and choose to mature or stagnate as individuals. The ethicist writes: "We do not believe that we have a right to our bodies because when we are baptized we become members of one another; then we can tell one another what it is that we should, and should not, do with our bodies." But the command cannot be compelled: even Christ Himself makes obedience voluntary, compulsion rendering obedience meaningless in terms of growing spiritually and reciprocating love. The corporate body of the church can tell its members what to do, but how the individual ultimately responds is the result of his personal, individual decision.

Question for Hauerwas: What do we do with people who are *not* in the Body of Christ? Keep on letting them kill their children? I find H's argument quietist and disturbing. The utility of "inalienable rights" language is that it works in affecting the non- and anti-Christian world in a Christian direction. Example: slavery. Hauerwas's reflections are all well and good for those already in Christ, but I fail to see how it can be used to affect the world. I see it as another instance of pacificism in the face of objective evil.

Arben Fox -- whose post on why he's uncomfortable siding with either pro-choicers or pro-lifers is well worth a read Oh, right, if you find it thinkable that The Cider House Rules is anything but a pro-death screed and that George "Killer" Tiller is a more noble figure than Phil Kline. Rod, why don't you just say that you no longer oppose abortion? In fact, why not tell us it's a basic human right? I'm sure you will then fit in better with your colleagues. Why, I'll bet the Atlanta Journal-Constitution will put more of your musings on its op-ed pages!

*too

Bubba, Of course, freedom is a necessary element of love, and acceptance of Christ must be a voluntary act (which is why the Catholic Church, for example, prohibited forced baptism even in the Middle Ages). But what does that have to do with the Englightenment? (The funny thing is, I don't believe anybody really, truly denies the Enlightenment idea of individual liberty, at least when it comes to themselves. Or does Rod believe he has been truly compelled by some external force to cite that excerpt from the confused academian?) Bubba, are you suggesting that the Englightenment introduced the notion of free will?!?

Joey wrote -- "I think part of the problem here is that it is implied that religious people do not believe in the normal constitutional rights. Perhaps a better way to phrase this religiously is to talk about the BLESSINGS of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
God did not have to give us these things. But He did, so the state should to." Perhaps a better way to phrase it would be "He did, so the state should _recognize_ them." The theory of inalienable rights under the Declaration (and under the Bill of Rights) is _not_ that the government is giving us rights, but that there is an explicit declaration that the government does not have the power to infringe on those rights with which we are endowed by our Creator (what the Creator may or may not do about them is outside the purview of government).

" (The funny thing is, I don't believe anybody really, truly denies the Enlightenment idea of individual liberty," See Martin Luther's BONDAGE OF THE WILL. Biblically, as Christians, our will is bound in obedience. The will of the lost is bound in Sin. If you prefer the writings of Jefferson to the writings of the Godhead, your Americanism has become an idol.

Used as a reference, bubba. A Biblically sound reference.

Ron, Stanley Hauerwas rejects Catholic and all traditional natural law arguments, which is part of his problem IMHO.
In any case, to equate opposition to abortion with a specifically Christian point of view hardly helps the cause.

We know where you live, Kim, and we're coming to get you! I wouldn't sleep so easy if I were you. We're hiding under your bed, we're in your cupboards, we're perched on the eaves of your house...watching...waiting...bwahahahahahahahaha!

Wish I had you all back in U.S. History I when I instructed my high school juniors on the Declaration of Independence. First, Jefferson sort of plagiarized John Locke, the English philosopher. These guys believed that there were such things as natural law and human nature and natural rights. There's a lot of weeping in the Catholic Church nowadays that people no longer believe in natural law. And now we are supposed to be dissing natural rights, the corollary of natural law? Natural rights are part and parcel of human nature. It is precisely that which makes them inalienable. They cannot be taken away nor can they be given away. If I could turn you into a frog, voila, there go your natural human rights because you are no longer human. An obvious impossibility. Slavery was wrong because it was a violation of the inalienable right of the man enslaved to be free. If he could have given away that right or if it could have been taken away from, then there would have been nothing wrong with slavery. Deprivation of the use of a right is not the same as taking the right away. Deprivation of something a person has a right to is precisely what makes deprivation wrong. Same applies to abortion and capital punishment.
And the inalienable rights are prioritized. First life, then liberty, then property as Locke put it. How much property and held under what circumstances becomes the problem in the social compact. But without the right to property, no one could be free but only in practice a slave of another and no one could maintain life very long without starving or freezing to death. The rights are inalienable because they inhere in human nature itself. If you want to toss out the idea that there is even such a thing as human nature distinct from cat or dog or tiger nature, then toss out the inalienable natural rights and see how much Christianity or Catholicism is left. Someone above was confused about the distinction between civil rights and natural rights. Natural rights are conferred by the Creator of all nature. Civil rights are conferred by human beings in civil society. They ought to be in step with natural rights but sometimes they are not--for example slavery was constitutional, legal, in the USA in certain states until the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Supreme Law of the Land, the Constitution.

When Dreher published his book, Jonah Goldberg predicted that Dreher would be a full-fledged liberal within a few years. Dreher hotly denied this. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that Dreher will be "personally opposed" to abortion within a year or two but pro-choice. This sudden interest in arguments that fudge the abortion question is alarming.

And sorry I forgot to close the italics. Annoying.

Hauwerwas conveniently forgets that the fundamental reason for the Enlightenment was the corruption of Christian philosophical and moral ideas as the result of established churches in Europe becoming incestuously involved with the crowns of their respective countries. That corruption led to nearly a century of sectarian bloodshed. In the process came the idea that religious "tolerance" (as expressed by the Edict of Nantes) was a right granted exclusively by the crown. The great blessing of the Founding Fathers was that they rejected that nonsense, asserting instead that "inalienable rights" come from God and that no government can either grant them or take them away. None of this is to suggest that the Founding Fathers would tolerate (let alone support) legalized abortion. But people like Hauwerwas want to throw out the baby with the dirty bath water -- and, in doing so, risk destroying the fundamental values upon which this nation was based and in which millions of people from around the world have found hope.