Are You an MIE (Multi-Issue Evangelical)?
Tuesday December 2, 2008
Categories: Politics
I've never claimed to be an evangelical, which will make many evangelicals happy. However, others do pin that term on me, including my friend, Keith DeRose. Keith is a philosopher at Yale and a Class-A blog lurker and commenter (he...
Filed Under: abortion, evangelical, evangelical manifesto, homosexuality, keith derose, richard mouw
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
About The New Christians
Tony Jones is the author of many books, including The New Christians: Dispatches from the Emergent Frontier and The Sacred Way: Spiritual Practices for Everyday Life. He is a leader in the emergent church movement and a renowned expert on postmodern theology and the American church landscape.
Find out more about Tony, his books, and his speaking schedule at his website.
Subscribe
Tag Cloud
barack obama, bible, blogalogue, blogging, christian, christianity, christianity21, church, comment of the day, doctrine, emergent church, emerging church, gay issues, glbt, god, homosexuality, jesus, new testament, news, original sin, paul, politics, prayer, rod dreher, same sex marriage, scot mcknight, spirituality, theology, tony jones, transforming theology
This is a false either/or. Most pro-life people care about multiple issues. But it's a matter of rank.
The murder of upward of 35 million American babies dwarfs any other possible agenda item one could imagine. Hmmm...35 million slaughtered, or better recycling programs? Which issue needs my vote most? Who needs my vote most? It's a no-brainer.
Is it mass murder on an enormous scale? A million baby murders each year in the U.S. is the very definition of "mass murder on an enormous scale." (There's no other contender for that title.)
I think it's a grave mistake to be more concerned about what not-yet-is over real, current human beings who are suffering and being slaughtered.
No woman *desires* an abortion. It is neither *fun* nor *easy*. Those who support banning abortion by law should be ready to adopt by the thousands. Those who claim to be pro-life (in the anti-abortion sense) should also be ready to care for the tens of thousands of pre-embryos kept in frozen storage, left over from in-vitro fertilization.
My evangelical credentials at this point are debatable. But as a Christian who cares about the issue of abortion but votes primarily on other issues, I will say it is because I do not consider abortion (very early in a pregnancy) to be murder. I simply cannot believe that a small fetus with only a few cells and no brain function is morally equivalent to a fully-developed baby. They are not the same thing.
Potential human life is not the same thing as human life.
I would like to hear how someone can believe most-all abortion is murder yet vote for it (by way of candidate). This position has some serious ethical hurdles that I have a hard time jumping. The other positions that I see (first two comments) involves a certainty over when life begins that I am unable to come to. I wish it were that easy for me, because a position of certainty over this issue would make things easier. In addition to examining this issue theologically, in the early part of my twenties I spent a great deal of time researching SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) yet I am no closer to an answer to when life begins.
The position I take, being both pro-life + pro-choice, is best articulated by David Foster Wallace. This is not an easy position to explain but it is a position that is held.
"In this reviewer's opinion, the only really coherent position on the abortion issue is one that is both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.
Argument: As of 4 March 1999, the question of defining human life in utero is hopelessly vexed. That is, given our best present medical and philosophical understandings of what makes something not just a living organism but a person, there is no way to establish at just what point during gestation a fertilized ovum becomes a human being. This conundrum, together with the basically inarguable soundness of the principle "When in irresolvable doubt about whether something is a human being or not, it is better not to kill it," appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Life. At the same time, however, the principle "When in irresolvable doubt about something, I have neither the legal nor the moral right to tell another person what to do about it, especially if that person feels that s/he is not in doubt" is an unassailable part of the Democratic pact we Americans all make with one another, a pact in which each adult citizen gets to be an autonomous moral agent; and this principle appears to me to require any reasonable American to be Pro-Choice.
This reviewer is thus, as a private citizen and an autonomous agent, both Pro-Life and Pro-Choice. It is not an easy or comfortable position to maintain. Every time someone I know decides to terminate a pregnancy, I am required to believe simultaneously that she is doing the wrong thing and that she has every right to do it. Plus, of course, I have both to believe that a Pro-Life + Pro-Choice stance is the only really coherent one and to restrain myself from trying to force that position on other people whose ideological or religions convictions seem (to me) to override reason and yield a (in my opinion) wacko dogmatic position. This restraint has to be maintained even when somebody's (to me) wacko dogmatic position appears (to me) to reject the very Democratic tolerance that is keeping me from trying to force my position on him/her; it requires me not to press or argue or retaliate even when somebody calls me Satan's Minion or Just Another Shithead Male, which forbearance represents the really outer and tooth-grinding limits of my own personal Democratic Spirit."
It probably isn't clear from my comment, so I should come clean: I'm with "Danner": Abortion isn't THE dominant concern for me when it comes to voting, and that's in large part because I don't generally think that abortion is the moral equivalent of murder.
Going beyond that (& I make no presumption one way or the other whether "Danner" agrees with me here), I don't think the criminalization of abortion is the way to go, so not only isn't abortion the dominant concern for me, but insofar as it does enter in, I tend to, other things being equal, prefer pro-choice candidates. (I do think it would be very good for there to be fewer abortions, but also that we should not try to achieve this through criminalization.)
I can easily understand not only those who agree with me on all of the above, but also those who prefer pro-criminalization candidates, but for whom that's just one issue among many because they don't think abortion is the moral equivalent of murder. What I have a hard time understanding is someone who does believe abortion is, or is the moral equivalent of, murder, but who nonetheless just views it as one issue among many.
Society has no trouble handling babies coming into the world. Adoption is a great option. I know plenty of adopted friends who've had wonderful normal lives.
The question about whether babies are human persons while in the womb is settled. Science and photography have proven to all unbiased observers that we're killing our babies in horrific fashion. It's telling that women who have ultrasounds will rarely abort. Moreover, photos and movies of aborted babies are tragically eye-opening to all who dare look.
Society must not permit murder. The state has an obligation to defend the right of humans to have life.
There are two of us asking the same question:
How can one equate abortion with murder and yet view it as one issue among many? Can one maintain this position in good conscience?
Is TJ musing theoretically here or can someone articulate how they "think, quite confidently, that abortion in our land is mass-baby-murder, but think nonetheless that these other issues are so important as to compete with that problem."
Pink - You wrote: "The question about whether babies are human persons while in the womb is settled. Science and photography have proven to all unbiased observers that we're killing our babies in horrific fashion."
The logic seems flawed. How has science and photography done this? Adding the modifier "unbiased" to observer smells to me like there is lack of evidence behind your claim. I respect if you believe that abortion at stage x of development is murder, but to say that your belief has been proven, and to only those who, I infer, have already decided they believe that abortion at stage x of development is murder, is hard for me to follow. Could you please backup your claims of "proven."
Retraction: "Is TJ musing theoretically here..." (see my last post) I just noticed where the quotation came to a close on TJ post. This explains to me why Keith offered up some clarity on his position after my first post in this thread. Rereading TJ finale sentence it appears to me as though there are three of us asking the same question (see previous post).
Daniel,
The modifier "unbiased" was a nod to the politics of the issue, by which people will deny the facts so long as it fits their broader agenda. (At least feminist Camille Paglia is honest and admits that abortion is murder, but she favors the practice anyway.)
I have a niece who was born prematurely at 7 months (30 weeks), and no one in the hospital ever thought that she was anything less than fully human. In fact, had a doctor killed my niece even a few seconds out of the womb, he/she would be on trial for murder. And yet abortions are performed on such babies, even to the full 9 months where the baby is half out of the womb and half in the doctor's hands. You ought to watch a few such abortions or see the images of the slaughtered. Be informed.
No other issue can compare to the slaughter of a million Americans every year. The magnitude dwarfs any other issue.
Keith, no need to put my name inside quotes, it's my real name : ) And I agree with your "going beyond that" comments.
As for the commenter Pink who claims "science" has settled the matter of the personhood of fetuses... science has done no such thing. Most people would agree that a fetus in the eighth month of pregnancy is a person deserving of legal protection. But few people outside the sphere of conservative Christianity agree that a 1 week old, 100 cell blastocyst is a person deserving of legal protection. It can't think, feel pain, and has no heartbeat. To most reasonable people, that is not a human being. Only religious faith leads some people to believe killing a blastocyst qualifies as murder.
The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1980 formulated the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). It states that: "An individual who has sustained either
(1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or
(2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem is dead.
[ http://dying.about.com/od/glossary/g/legaldeath.htm ]
Thus, our laws determine that a human being is legally dead if he has no brain function. That seems like a reasonable line to draw at the beginning of life as well. A fetus should not legally be considered a living person until it has brain activity.
"A fetus should not legally be considered a living person until it has brain activity."
Realize that there seems to be a confusion of terms here. As I see it, "personhood" is a legal status conferred by the laws of our nation. It was withheld from African slaves and their descendants until a series of Constitutional amendments and related laws were passed by the people and their Congress. It was withheld from women until similar events happened. And at this point it is withheld from unborn children.
Humanity is a scientifically defined status based on the genetic makeup of the individual in question. In this case the unborn child is human from the moment of conception, just as the unborn dog is canine from conception, the unborn cat a feline, etc.
Science can certainly validate the humanity of an unborn child, and any unbiased observer of an unborn child after, say, 2 or 3 months of gestation would say that the unborn child is certainly human. Science cannot grant personhood under the law. No observation of the child can be made to determine personhood. Just as one could look at a black slave in 1830 and say with certainty that he/she was human, one could look at the same slave and say with certainty that he/she was not a person under our laws.
Rights, under our governmental system, are granted to persons, not humans. It may seem like pure semantics, but a study of history will prove this. Pro-life advocates arguing that the unborn child has rights because it is human are barking up the wrong tree. Personhood, not humanity, is the determinant that should be discussed.
Here in Colorado, the abortion issue came up on the ballot, with an amendment that would define personhood as beginning at birth. One of my friends became completely livid with me after I told him that I didn't see pro-choice/pro-life as being the dominant political issue facing Christians in America, and that, while I saw abortion as a problem, I wasn't going to vote for the amendment.
MIEs are difficult for other evangelicals to understand, it seems, for exactly the reason mentioned: We sound awfully coldhearted when we put recycling on par with state-sanctioned genocide.
I think, though, that it is a lot more complicated than any of us want to admit. And, ultimately, I don't really think that government is going to give us any solutions to abortion, to the environment, or to anything else. Morality starts with each one of us, individually, and not with legislature. So, for me, I don't see abortion as a huge issue, personally, because it doesn't directly effect my day-to-day life. For me, I will continue to live my life quietly, minding my own business, and continuing the creating work of God in my own small sphere of influence.
I think that's all any of us can do. Live quietly and walk humbly and work individually and non-intrusively.
The genes plus growth-engine is in place and active at conception. Moreover, these windows into the womb (http://www.lifeissues.org/windows.html) show that we're talking about human beings at the earliest stages of the pregnancy. These babies are you and me and our close family and friends. Humans have no right to take away the right of these people to live.
Next, the term "MIE" is a funny semantics play, as *everyone* has multiple issues they wish to vote for. The problem is that liberal evangelicals seem to have a ranking-of-issues impairment. Specifically, anyone that equates recycling and health care on par with the slaughter of 35 million Americans has some mental block or a conscience of ice. Reason dictates that we must be advocates for these children.
The abortion homicide debate is not a "religious" issue. It's a human rights issue.
While I appreciate the discussion and the focus on babies, how is it that MIEs refuse to take into the account the issue of equality and womanhood along side that of unborn children. I think it is a false mandate to say that we must vote on the issue of unborn children but that we have no problem propagating the oppression on women in this issue.
I don't like abortion at all but does that mean that the state or a religion have the right to say to a woman that you do not have full control over your body. Instead of living out the reality of Gal 3:28 - that there is neither male nor female - we celebrate making women less than whole by mandating that they can not choose what is best for them. We enhance patriarchy to the point that women can't be seen as equal in society, much less in evangelicalism, when we deem them too irresponsible to make their own decisions.
Education is a much better way to deal with this issue. We don't talk about or train Christians in evangelical churches on how to reach out to someone making this kind of decision. If we would talk to people about the impacts of abortion, why it is detrimental to the mental and physical well being of the mother, and the long term effects on the woman, we would meet the need of helping people be an integrated whole.
We have to realize that when we refuse to let a woman choose, we take away her voice. A voice that she can never fully share with that new born baby because the church has taken it away instead of meeting her at her point of need and walking along side her through a difficult journey.
Banning abortion may be the easy way out for MIEs. Helping women become whole beings, as they were created to be, and helping them choose how they would live as daughters of God is a much higher calling.
But J,
The state already prevents people from murdering, so it is a state issue. Abortion takes a baby's life away, not some piece of the mother's body, like a fingernail or something.
A woman has control over her body, but the baby in the womb isn't "her body." The baby is a separate being. Moreover, even non-pregnant women have limits on what they can do with their bodies (no suicide, self-starvation, self-mutilation, and certain other things the law prevents).
Next, Galatians does not mandate that women can choose to murder if they feel it is what's best for them. Every person's choices are limited by the rights of others. (Also, men aren't allowed to murder the baby in the womb either [by punching, beating, or whatever]. So, we do have equality here.)
A baby is not a life or death issue for a mother and father. Women have been carrying babies since the beginning of time. It's not something anyone would need to kill over.
Last, banning abortion is necessary because murder is one of those things which must be banned.
Not to be overly snotty.....is there an Emergent dictionary somewhere out there with all the labels, new terms, and intitial titles that have been created? It's getting hard to keep up. Or would such a book admit that labels are more inportant within the Emergent conversation than one wishes to admit?
Pink,
It is far from scientific (and/or theological, philosophical, medical) fact that zygotes are persons (speaking metaphysically, not legally). Perhaps at another time we can discuss the problems with specifying a zygote as a person. I want to focus on something else:
Let's assume that 1 million persons (including both zygotes and fetuses) are murdered before birth every year. You've argued that this is the reason it's your #1 voting issue, and should be for everyone (especially, presumably, for Christians).
I'm curious, however, about how consistent you are in your utilitarian ethics. Are you only utilitarian on this issue, or with all moral questions? If a new horror (let's call it "Issue X") was invented which killed 2M persons/year vs. the 1M persons/year that abortion does, would you vote for a candidate who was Pro-Choice but Anti-Issue X? Furthermore, why does the actual death of a person determine its moral significance? What if we determined moral significance in ways other than 1 death = 1 moral point (where the more moral pts. means more significance)? Perhaps more fundamentally, why are we ranking evils in the first place? If the Nazis only slaughtered 600,000 Jews instead of 6 million, would the horror be any less? Would the moral significance be any less? Do you believe abortionists are more evil than Nazis? Why & how do you make such macabre moral calculations?
I ask these questions sincerely.
"I ask these questions sincerely."
Kevin, have you looked at the photos of early development of babies in the womb? (http://www.lifeissues.org/windows.html). People who take time to look at those images (and also photos of aborted babies) know that abortion is an intrinsic evil. It's not like a century ago when the public wasn't clear on what was going on in the womb.
As to your hypothetical: yes, we have to rank issues, and we often have to decide based on "the lesser of evils." I suppose if we had only a two party system in which *both* parties were championing institutionalized mass murder, good people everywhere would have to revolt together as one collective to overthrow the entire system. Good people would have no other choice, as the state would be trampling on the foundational rights of individuals to exist and not be killed by others. The issue is fundamental.
Finally, Nazis killed 6 million. Abortion doctors have killed 35 million and made a fortune doing so. Both are horrors, though the magnitude of the American abortion industry is many times that of the Germans of WWII.
Can I ask a question here? I have heard the "abortion is holocaust," "abortion is the only issue because it is mass murder,"... and other similar statements. I heard this a lot during the election from my family and friends. So my question for all of you who take this stance is, what are you doing about it? Why are you going about your normal daily life, watching the game, shopping, sleeping in on Saturday, eating out, sipping tea, going to Starbucks, buying Christmas presents, meeting friends... whatever it is that you are spending your days doing, how can you go about with your nice little comfy life when a holocaust is happening all around you? You mean to tell me that you felt better once you voted your values? People went to war to stop the Hitler - war was justified, right? What are you doing to sacrifice your life for the many supposed innocents who are being killed every day? Praying about it? I'm talking about real sacrifice here, not the write a letter to your politician kind of sacrifice. I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I really do want to hear. I want to know why I don't see people living out their deepest held convictions in even small ways. Isn't the person who takes out the abortion clinic truly living his/her convictions? They might in fact discourage many from having an abortion and save lives, even while having to sacrifice their own life by going to prison, right? All I see is an intellectual debate about mass murder going on. I want to hear the stories of how pro-lifers are giving up all their financial resources, comfort, and time to support real efforts that are saving lives. The law isn't going to change anytime soon, and babies are dying, so what are you doing? If it is worth sacrificing a person's life while going to war with another country, why is this situation any different? Where are the stories? My family and friends who voted for McCain because abortion to them was the only issue... they have no story beyond their vote. Granted, maybe they are donating some money, but they are all pretty well off, so it doesn't appear to be too important to them. Everyone's convictions about this issue sounds really noble. Please, tell us your stories of real sacrifice to save the unborn.
Thanks for replying, though you did not answer a single question. How, for example, do you reconcile your utilitarian ethics with Christian belief? Do you likewise condone murdering abortion doctors? Your ethic says moral weight is attached, via one-to-one correspondence, to body-count. Not murdering an abortionist saves 1 life and costs 1,000, whereas murdering the abortionist saves 1,000 and costs 1.
Secondly, yes of course I've seen beautiful photos of fetuses and horrible photos of aborted fetuses. What I want to know, is how come they don't show any horrible photos of a zygote being aborted? Where are the devastating images of a blastocyst being murdered?
But fundamentally, I reject the implicit argument in your post. It goes something like:
P1. All things that are emotionally repulsive are also morally repulsive.
P2. An abortion is emotionally repulsive.
-----
C3. An abortion is also morally repulsive.
The argument is valid, but unsound considering (P1) is highly suspect. There are many things in this world that gross me out, that I don't enjoy viewing photos of, and yet are not intrinsically morally evil.
Kevin, I did answer.
You asked what a principled person should do if two mass-death-related issues were held by two differing parties. I answered that we would have to go for the lesser of evils, even if it meant voting for "a candidate who was Pro-Choice but Anti-Issue X." I also added that if so much intrinsic evil was institutionalized in both parties, good people would have to figure out how to revolt.
Next, you asked why death of a person was a measure of moral significance, and essentially asked "what's another few million?" when it comes to mass killing. I may be missing what you're getting at, but my answer is that magnitude and volume do factor into any analysis of evil. I concluded that abortion doctors had outdone the Nazis in terms of the number of dead, and both are horrifically evil.
I don't condone murdering abortion doctors. The solution has to be political/legal, not anarchy.
Say what you want about zygotes, I showed you pictures of that same cell just 8, 12, and 16 weeks later, and it is obviously a human baby (with adorable feet, we might add).
Finally, my argument goes like this:
P1. Murdering human beings is wrong and must be made illegal
P2. Babies in the womb are human beings
-----------
C. Murdering babies in the womb is wrong and must be made illegal
I do not allow one issue to sway me in my voting.
Really, of late, what have either pro-choice and pro-life candidates done for their own side concerning abortion? NOTHING! NADA! NIL! So what is the BIG deal here?
Abortions go down under democrat presidents and up during republican presidents. WHY? Dems have a more holistic approach to sex ed and care more for the middle class. Repubs want to teach abstinence only and give money to the rich. POVERTY is a big issue with regards to abortion.
i do not understand people who will vote against a great candidate just because he is pro-choice. There are MANY issues that are important, like genocide, human trafficking, AIDS, poverty, global warming, health care, defense. A holistic pro-life approach sees these as equally important.
Again, it's like the gay debate, the abortion topic becomes circular, everyone is firm in his/her beliefs and facts, and we get nowhere.
1. WHY don't you support murdering abortion doctors? Why are you utilitarian when it comes to killing the unborn, but non-utilitarian when it comes to killing the born? Doesn't this gross inconsistency reveal something significant? (see also: Cereal Man's post)
2. On what basis (whether philosophical, biblical, and/or theological) have you determined that killing x is less evil than killing x+1?
3. Why is body-count your ultimate standard of moral significance? How did you arrive at this standard, considering Scripture is silent on this method of moral calculation?
3. What makes a zygote a metaphysical person? What features do the zygote, embryo, fetus, and newborn all share?
Addendum: your argument as re-created in your last post is not the one you've previously appealed to (which was: here are pictures, ergo abortion is wrong). Photos of living fetuses and photos of aborted fetuses neither refute nor prove either P1 or P2.
Here's why I'm a multi-issue voter who follows Christ...
1. No matter what you think about abortion, it's not going away.
Even if Roe v. Wade was repealed, it would then go to the states, where many states would still have abortion, and if your state didn't you could just go there.
2. This is a wedge issue that I have watched the Republicans and conservatives use to get out the vote around election time and then do NOTHING about once in office (see Existential Punk above). And if people really believed it's murder there should be rioting in the streets! It's obvious from conservative evangelicals and others actions (on the whole, not really doing anything until it's time to vote), that people just believe in this as an IDEA to feed the dying culture wars...
3. There are several other important issues that we CAN actually do something about. Poverty, environment, education, ending unnecessary wars... these are all PRO-LIFE issues.
4. The guy I voted for for prez will not end abortion, but WILL do what it takes to help create a cultural environment where abortion is seen as less and less necessary... poverty is a huge factor here folks!
I have been following along and I just thought I'd throw out two thoughts.
- First, Kevin, on your last round of questions....... I think you are taking a turn in your talk with Pink that is a little unfair. I think you guys were having a good talk for people to consider and now the questions are starting to turn on pin heads trying to disprove her belief. Just a thought....
- Second, and maybe this is for another post, but MattR brings up an interesting part to the discussion. Pro-life is bigger than the abortion issue. It continues after the child is born as well. I actually just talked about this in church last Sunday.
I will say I do not agree that "some things will never change so let's focus on other things that can do". One of these is the poor. Even Jesus says we will always have the poor among us but that does not mean we don't address what we can to make a difference for others.
Random thoughts...
Cereal Man,
People who oppose abortion are working through the legal and political system to end it. Collective action is the solution, not individualist anarchy, and Christians are so focused on legislative and legal remedies that they are accused of being "one-issue" voters here at this blog.
Coalitions have been established. Huge money is being donated to the cause. The rights of babies to live are being advocated for every day. Noble stands are being taken to not allow abortion at our Christian hospitals (1/3 of the hospitals in the country).
Wait until you see what happens when Barack passes FOCA and tries to force a shut down one third of the hospitals in the country that refuse to comply with his federal mandate. You will witness the imprisonment of pro-life people everywhere for refusing to participate in the horror of abortion. Will you stand with those who keep the murder of babies "safe and legal," or will you stand for the babies whom God has given the right to life. For the children of this country, and for your own soul's sake, I pray you will do the right thing when push comes to shove.
My good friend, Peter Walker, has a great blog post about abortion HERE:
http://www.emergingchristian.com/2008/11/i-love-abortion.html
i have one entitled "I Love Abortion" HERE: http://existentialpunk.com/
With a followup post called "I Love Abortion Part Deux" from all the pro-life comments and a horrific article i found about rape in Bosnia HERE:http://existentialpunk.com/
For some reason on my blog, the direct links to the posts are not working so, just look on the side bar and click on the title of the posts.
Existential Punk,
You said "Really, of late, what have either pro-choice and pro-life candidates done for their own side concerning abortion? NOTHING! NADA! NIL!"
You couldn't be more wrong. The Pro-Life side has passed common-sense laws such as parental notification/parental consent in dozens of states; we are working to install Supreme Court Justices who will interpret the constitution as it is written (there's no right to abortion in the constitution, so if a state restricts it, that's the end of abortion in that state); we are promoting new developments in obstetrics that allow the public to see into the womb and see babies at the earliest stages of development; we are preparing a resistance movement to FOCA-related mandates that our christian hospitals perform abortions. All of these efforts are underway to save babies. And the fight is just beginning.
We all agree that genocide, human trafficking, AIDS, poverty, global warming, health care, defense, etc. are important. But they are not all of the same importance. And abortion, which is the slaughter of one million Americans each year, dwarfs all of those issues, as it is the largest genocide anywhere.
By the way, Democrats are the party of big money and big government welfare. Dems control all the major cities across the nation and have done so for 50 years. So, if you want to talk about the lasting poverty in this nation, the bulk of it exists and grows under democratic leadership and policies.
Dear Pink,
Thank you so much for your thoughts. I do agree - there are some people doing something. I doubt that is the case for many who feel strongly about this issue (like I said, I don't see my family and friends doing anything beyond voting, despite their strong words). Again, please consider the strong rhetoric being used (words like "holocaust"). Does this not justify some type of anarchy (or at the very least non-violent resistance) to stop what many here consider unspeakable violence and death? I stand by my premise, that while I appreciate the many "legal" efforts people are making, and whole-heartedly agree with these efforts, it does not come close to matching the rhetoric, and among people around me with these convictions I see absolutely no type of real personal sacrifice that would give testimony to their convictions.
Kevin: WHY don't you support murdering abortion doctors?
Pink: Because murder is intrinsically evil, whether acted out on babies or abortion doctors.
Kevin: Why are you utilitarian when it comes to killing the unborn, but non-utilitarian when it comes to killing the born?
Pink: Both babies and abortion doctors have a right to life. I don't advocate murder, which is an intrinsic evil. I think you are hung up on the word "utilitarian"-- I'm not trying to apply a John Stuart Mill solution.
Kevin: On what basis (whether philosophical, biblical, and/or theological) have you determined that killing x is less evil than killing x+1?
Pink: On the basis that 2 is greater than 1. Less is less. More is more.
Kevin: Why is body-count your ultimate standard of moral significance?
Pink: Magnitude, frequency, and quantity are measures we use to evaluate a problem and propose solutions.
Kevin: What makes a zygote a metaphysical person?
Pink: A zygote is a human being rapidly forming its body. Killing human life is murder.
Cereal Man,
I don't know your family and friends, but by voting and giving to coalitions and church-based pro-life institutions they are doing everything an average citizen can do. Now, if some of your friends are doctors or in the health care profession, they will soon be facing the loss of their jobs over the issue, assuming they refuse to participate in the evil of abortion. FOCA is going to mandate that doctors and hospitals *must* provide abortions to those who seek them. This will result in the imprisonment of many christians and the shutdown of up to one third of U.S. hospitals which are run by christians.
I don't know why you object to "holocaust," when abortions are the systematic government-sponsored mass killing of human beings. If you are unsure in your own mind as to the evil of abortion, I would encourage you to watch some of the videotaped live abortions that can be viewed on the Internet. It's depressing and chilling to watch a doctor murder babies, and to make a very good living from it. But for those who are unclear in their own minds, it's an invaluable educational lesson.
Perhaps you'll feel better, Cereal Man, when you see christians thrown in jail or blacklisted or forced to quit their jobs. Until then, you're going to have to accept that the political/legal solution is the just and moral solution, not individualist anarchy.
Dear Matt R,
Abortion will mostly go away once it's illegal. Some small black-market abortions will continue, but nothing like the Wal-Mart-style Planned Parenthood industry that makes billions off of killing humans.
Repealing Roe is huge progress, for it allows entire states to ban or severely restrict abortions. You need to think incrementally here. Abortion won't be done away with by any ONE move. It will be done away incrementally, step by step.
You said Repubs/conservatives are doing nothing, but that's just nonsense. Whether you like Bush or not, he appointed two Supreme Court Justices who are pro-life. That's huge, as now the pro-abortion groups are not going to take their cases to the Supreme Court so long as they fear a pro-LIFE decision will become final.
Moreover, conservatives have legislated restrictions on abortions in dozens of states. The progress is so substantial that Barack wants to repeal all of these restrictions with his FOCA mandate, which will substantially grow abortion statistics to ever higher numbers.
Next, rioting in the streets does nothing. Passing legislation does everything.
Lastly, you said that "there are several other important issues that we CAN actually do something about...poverty, environment, education, ending unnecessary wars." Those issues are already front and center and being addressed in public policy all the time. It's not an either/or here when it comes to political efforts; some people can walk and chew gum at the same time.
CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS. Everyone is saying the same things over and over again ad nauseum! STOP the insanity! :)
If you oppose abortion because murder is an intrinsic evil, then you've forfeited your right to call abortion the most pressing moral concern for the voter. For bombing innocent Iraqi civilians is also murder, US homicide levels are still disturbingly high, the international sex trade often results in murder, gang violence often leads to murder, etc -- you've suddenly become a MIE, which I thought was exactly what you weren't advocating.
I never said you were trying to emulate J.S. Mill -- he is not the only utilitarian to have walked this earth. You have repeatedly articulated utilitarian ethics in your posts here, but only (curiously) in regards to abortion. You do it later in your post still, arguing that evil is measured by number of people -- something you "defend" by simply re-stating my question. If you think murder is intrinsically evil, then you forfeit the right to speak in terms of "War's only killed ___, abortion's killed ___, therefore abortion ought to be our #1 priority." If you're going to stick with macabre utilitarian math, then you need to justify this either theologically or philosophically. You note that "magnitude, frequency, and quantity are measures we use to evaluate a problem," seemingly oblivious to the other ways of evaluating a problem. I'm asking you defend why quantity (and not, say, quality) is your #1 indicator of moral evil.
Again: what do you believe the zygote, fetus, embyro, and newborn all share in common?
a) According to science, they only share the same genetic information.
b) According to traditional Christianity, they also share a soul.
You are welcome to follow Christian materialists toward (a), but I think it's safe to assume you believe in souls. If so, how do you know God imparts a soul at conception? How exactly does He do this? In the case of monozygotic twins, does God wait a while before ensoulment occurs?
P.S. -- Just read your response to Cereal Man... why do you continue to encourage people to watch grisly abortion videos in order to help settle their opinion? I thought you believe abortion, as murder, was intrinsically evil? So shouldn't you be defending that thesis to help others make up their mind instead of making emotional appeals? As I've repeatedly pointed out, by saying these sorts of things you're implicitly arguing that whatever is repulsive is also immoral. Given that this argument is terrible, it ought to be dropped -- nobody thinks abortions are pretty, clean affairs and it's hard to reconcile these abortion videos w/ Philippians 4:8. In case it's not clear: I'm a Pro-life Christian too, I just think most Christians (with all due respect, including you) have very, very bad arguments.
Tom,
You are probably correct. I remain convinced that there are much better ways to think & frame this issue than what's been proposed in this thread, but I will step out and gladly let Pink have the last word.
Cheers.
Kevin: If you oppose abortion because murder is an intrinsic evil, then you've forfeited your right to call abortion the most pressing moral concern for the voter. For bombing innocent Iraqi civilians is also murder, US homicide levels are still disturbingly high, the international sex trade often results in murder, gang violence often leads to murder,
Pink: That's an illogical statement, for homicide, sex trafficking, and gang violence are *already illegal* and thus punishable offenses. (Good thing.) We pro-lifers are simply lobbying to make sure that baby murder also becomes illegal and punishable, for right now abortion is as legal and moral in the eyes of the law as buying a pack of gum. The injustice will end. We will not stop until the right of every human to live is won.
Kevin: I'm asking you defend why quantity (and not, say, quality) is your #1 indicator of moral evil.
Pink: State-sanctioned state-protected murder is moral evil and must be opposed.
Kevin: what do you believe the zygote, fetus, embyro, and newborn all share in common?
Pink: They are all the same human being in different growth phases. We might add "infant," "teether," toddler," "talker," "pre-schooler," pre-teen, tween, young adult, etc. Human beings have a right to live--at all phases of their growth and development.
Kevin: why do you continue to encourage people to watch grisly abortion videos in order to help settle their opinion
Pink: For greater education on the subject. Education is very important when discussing any topic. People ought to know what abortion is and does--what it looks like and smells like so to speak--so that they can have rational enlightened discourse. In this age of new media, there is no excuse for people who debate this topic to not have seen the murdered babies and/or even watch a live abortion. Just google it, and watch. Ignorance about any topic of vital national interest is inexcusable in this day and age.
i think there is way too much mental masturbation going on here. These arguments are all the same. i have personally heard so much of the same that i mentally cannot listen and take in anymore on this topic. It's overkill and we are never going to agree. Let's agree to disagree and move on, ok?!
We've got more pressing issues to talk about, like Memphis BBQ! LOL!!!
Existential Punk,
Do babies have a right to live and not be killed?
(Y/N?)
Kevin,
I know how it is when you try to take the high road and let something rest. Someone will say something that you just have to respond to. =)
Don't be afraid to post if you feel led to but I admire your move to let someone else have the last word. Like Exestential Punk, I think things are going in a circle (maybe I used different wording than EP though? =)
Blessings all!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.