« Jessen v Obama | Main | We're All Omnipotent Now »
September 22, 2008
Arkes' Good Question
Hadley Arkes at The Catholic Thing addresses same question we've addressed before, how one's position on abortion on abortion is a standout, a priority, a foundational matter, not unlike slavery. A person's a person, no matter how small or the color of his skin.... I must be tired, this Monday morning, because I had to stop and reread his punchline in the old lawyer joke, sort of like the lawyer himself did "get it." Maybe I just didn't care what someone who so undervalued his soul thought about it, though I should.
Posted by James M. Kushiner at 11:02 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c5ee953ef010534bbae28970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Arkes' Good Question:
Comments
From the article: The late historian J.G. Randall of the University of Chicago once posed the question of why Lincoln was justified in forcing a political crisis over that vexing matter of slavery: ....
Let me adapt and modify:
Editor James Kushiner once posed the question of why Touchstone Christians (often labeled, derided, and mocked as "fundamentalists" or the "religious right") are justified in forcing a political, theological, and ecclesiastical crisis over that vexing matter of abortion.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 22, 2008 11:29:34 AM
As an abortion abolitionist myself, I find the comparison quite rich... yet I understand quite well how many good, sincere Christians differed on the slavery question. The slavery apologist had millenia of precedent, long-estabished legal and religious authority, and Scripture passages which were...arguable, at the very least. The abortion supporter has...nothing at all.
Slavery touches on the chief - perhaps the only -real taboo of our society; but the culture that conditions us to have such a visceral response to racism, falls badly short on the far MORE fundamental question of abortion. Or - worse than "falling short" - works hard to erase the natural and decent human response. Slaves were "chattel", but their descendents are "tissue masses" or "tumors"; the unborn child is legally nowhere near 3/5 of a person.
Posted by: Joe Long | Sep 22, 2008 2:53:56 PM
Actually, Joe, have you considered this passage in Exodus?
And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."
Exodus 21:22-25
This is not an explicit endorcement of abortion, of course, but it does place a hierarchy of value between life before and after the womb with the scales tipping in favor of life after the womb.
That being said, I respect the views and sentiments expressed on this website when it comes to defending life but I am a bit annoyed by the slavery comparison. Let's keep in mind that women who seek abortions are often in very desperate situations. They deserve our compassion and support to make the right decision rather than a punitive comparison to slave owners who weren't quite so desperate. With the above scripture passage in mind, is it right to place on equal footing the suffering caused by abortion and the suffering caused by slavery?
All of this talk of single-issue voting by conservative Christians leads to one conclusion: that I should vote for the Republican ticket or else my faith is deficient. I can only look at this with the utmost cynicism when looking at the Republican Party's record on life after the womb - and even their do-nothing approach to life before the womb for that matter. I will not support a party or a candidate that believes war is a first option while worshipping an unregulated "free" market system that trashes the environment.
Posted by: James | Sep 22, 2008 7:49:36 PM
James: "I will not support a party or a candidate that believes war is a first option while worshipping an unregulated "free" market system that trashes the environment."
A most unintelligent comment. A caricature.
I know of no party or candidate that believes war is a first option.
I know of no party or candidate that "worships" an unregulated "free" market system.
I know of no party or candidate that seeks to trash the environment in pursuit of an unregulated "free" market system.
Furthermore, I don't believe there's a regular Touchstone commenter who supports any of the caricatures that you list.
James, did you have fun creating and then burning down your strawman?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 22, 2008 10:28:54 PM
James' first point misses the difference that the punishment of Exodus 21:22 is in the judicial realm of level of punishment for intent, in this case, accidental injury to the woman causing a miscarriage, therefore being involuntary manslaughter rather than first degree homicide.
It is generally agreed that the frequently used "eye for eye..." meant that a punishment for an injury was NOT TO EXCEED the original injury, not that the punishment MUST be an equal injury.
I am sure we all agree that compassion for a woman who has made an unwise-for-her-circumstances choice to get pregnant is appropriate. It is true we are not her judge. However, she has also put any "judges" in the impossible position to decide if her child deserves the same compassion. I am certain God can forgive her...if she acknowledges this sin and repents...and "goes and sins no more" ---seventy times seven. Should she them presume on God's Grace the next time?
Suffering caused by abortion? The mother or the child? It is Jesus who suffers the most for all situations, including abortions of those He knows from before they were in their mother's womb, times the billions of us who sin.
I need to point out again that a fetus is not "a tissue" that is part of the woman's body. The extension of property rights law to decide Roe vs. Wade was 100% fallacious reasoning and was consciously brought to us by liberal judges. A fetus is only half genetically similar to the mother. If the fetus were actually part of the mother, it would be killed by the mother's immune system every time as a foreign body. This happens at times when the placenta is violated, as in a Rh negative mother with Rh positive child. The rest of the time the fetus is actually anatomically outside the woman's body in a cavity with double membranes from each individual that allows diffusion of oxygen, nutrition and chemicals, as in the mouth and intestines.
In addition, from birth until the child is 18, the mother has NO right to make final legal decisions for the child. This is usually left to the parents...if they are doing their parenting "rightly." If not, it is the State's right/responsibility to protect that child. The problem has been that liberals want to take up that right and transfer it to the State or schools all the time because of the few "bad apples." At any rate, during a person's entire life, the mother has the final right to make "a healthcare decision for her child" ONLY during the nine months in utero.
We are responsible to God for the use of our God-given free will, and depend on Jesus for Grace and forgiveness. We seem to have a responsibility to participate in doing our small part to help our fellow man. We are to be in this world...and voting in this country is a civil right, privilege and responsibility. We have never been given a perfect person to vote into office...to "represent" us. The Parties are imperfect. They promise one thing and do another. We always imperfectly vote with incomplete information for imperfect candidates. Should we then vote for them for what they promise or what they deliver?
My perception of the Democrats more so than the Republicans is that the former are high idealists who seem to have good intentions, who don't understand the nature of man, and are so starry-eyed that they ignore the lessons of history and totally underestimate the unintended consequences of their idealism in action. And greed is a downfall common to all parties.
I believe our imperfect vote should be placed with the candidate who promises to appoint only judges who reject those who want to change founding documents (that understood man's imperfections and tried to check and balance them) into a "living" document that approves of the "changer's" base desires.
While on the subject of slavery, you should read "Unfounded Loyalty" by Wayne Perryman, a black, former Democrat community activist who, with complete voting records since the Civil War, demonstrates that the Democrats do not deserve the presumed African-American vote.
You conclude with stating you are a "two issue voter." This makes your faith sufficient?
Posted by: Ken | Sep 22, 2008 11:33:46 PM
Ken,
I agree with you that Democrats tend to be starry eyed idealists who see the world the way they want it to be first and then see what it is afterwards, but aren't Republicans also guilty of this error in judgement? I think those who take the absolutist position on abortion would fit this bill, as if making abortion illegal will change the culture's mind about it which will then lead to a dramatic decrease in abortions. Then of course there are the neo-conservatives and the war in Iraq - a totally starry-eyed affair.
As to my caricatured comment on the Republican party, that's a matter of interpretation. Of course Republicans don't see themselves as warmongering, greedy free-marketers who want to trash the environment. Like everyone else (or most everyone else) they have good intentions. Alright, I will admit the language I used was a little caricatured but the war in Iraq, de-regulatory policies that can be traced to the Reagan legacy and the mantra to "drill!drill!drill!" at the GOP convention support my conclusions about that party. I will try to write with kid gloves the next time.
As to me being a "two issue" voter, no it doesn't make my faith sufficient, but then again I don't know of anybody who has sufficient faith. Many of the choices I make - especially in the realm of politics - are imperfect, but so are your's, as you freely admit.I am merely attempting to explain my imperfect choice. Thank God that we are saved by his Grace, which is sufficient.
Posted by: James | Sep 23, 2008 10:31:22 AM
James,
Let us assume for the moment that I cannot prove that human life begins at conception, or that there is such a thing as a human soul. Let us now assume that you cannot prove that life does not begin at conception, or that there is no such thing as a human soul.
At least we cannot prove these by scientific means, since these are metaphysical issues.
But given our inescapable uncertainty in this area, does not moral prudence demand that we give preferential treatment to the fetus. based on nothing else than the relative consequences of each of us being mistaken in our suppositions?
For I am wrong, and a fetus is not human, and there is no soul, then the main consequence is a young woman is put through nine months of inconvenience, minor discomfort and perhaps some social embarrassment.
But if you are wrong, and a fetus is human, and there is a human soul, then the abortion you would allow is the destruction of innocent human life, which in most cultures would be called murder.
People who read science fiction are familiar with the problem: is the unknown entity encountered in deep space a sentient being or not? Should it be treated as human, or equivalent to human, or not? Bad things usually ensue from the wrong choice. Very bad things, indeed.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 23, 2008 11:52:08 AM
James,
The difference, to me, is between issues Christians might actually disagree on in good faith - for instance, which war is justified, and at what point - and those in which there is no room at all for reasonable disagreement - abortion, gay marriage. There is also the question of severity of harm...traditionally an evil which leaves lots and lots of people dead (abortion is an example) is the highest, most irreversible sort of harm. (There were slaves who were manumitted, slaves who escaped, even slaves who expressed entire contentment with their lot...there are very few abortion survivors.)
Personally, I hold with an earlier conclusion expressed by "Touchstone" editors (and forgive me if I oversimplity it as I recall it): with parties as presently constituted, a believing Christian need not be a Republican, but cannot be a Democrat. It would be refreshing to have an honorable opposition party on the American scene, perhaps something on the lines of the old Quakers - some sort of pacifist and socialist but non-babykilling party, with whom to have fine, important, respectable arguments.
BTW, abortion is not the ONLY issue on which I am convinced "there is no other hand" - making me perhaps a multiple-single-issue voter.
Posted by: Joe Long | Sep 23, 2008 1:23:40 PM
James: "I will not support a party or a candidate that believes war is a first option while worshipping an unregulated "free" market system that trashes the environment."
James: "Alright, I will admit the language I used was a little caricatured but the war in Iraq, de-regulatory policies that can be traced to the Reagan legacy and the mantra to "drill!drill!drill!" at the GOP convention support my conclusions about that party."
No, they most certainly do not.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 23, 2008 1:36:04 PM
Gee, James,
Do you get all of your information by reading bumper stickers in the NPR parking lot? Or perhaps you are aware that almost every word in your last several posts has been incorrect, including "and" and "the"?
N.B. Consider this the proverbial shot across your bow. Turn back now.
Or, as others might put it:
"Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!"
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 23, 2008 2:36:48 PM
>>>[I]s it right to place on equal footing the suffering caused by abortion and the suffering caused by slavery?<<<
Yes.
Murder is often the child of desperate situations; that does not justify it. Compassion is indeed in order for women who are in a position in which they would consider killing their unborn child as a "way out." Part of that compassion involves offering alternatives to these women. And part of that compassion involves warning them away from a soul-damning deed. Certainly, such a deed can be forgiven, but better to have never committed it.
Posted by: GL | Sep 23, 2008 3:08:33 PM
"But if you are wrong, and a fetus is human, and there is a human soul, then the abortion you would allow is the destruction of innocent human life, which in most cultures would be called murder."
But I never said that I didn't think the fetus was human, Stuart. In principle, I would agree with you that it is. Our main differences are in what to do about it and my belief that human life after the womb carries more weight than before. Like practically everyone on this blog, I want to see abortion come to an end. I don't think voting in Republicans will accomplish this goal, nor will making it illegal either. Like many on this blog I believe we as Christians need to foster a culture of life. You don't do this, however, by voting for a party that time and time again shows its disregard for life beyond the womb while doing nothing but pay lipservice for life before (sorry Truth Unites, you didn't provide any specific reasons why I should think differently).
I have my differences with some of the views expressed at Touchstone, but let's put aside polemics and come up with real solutions that will help real women facing real problems on this matter.
Posted by: James | Sep 23, 2008 5:15:01 PM
James (and to anyone else),
Here's an excerpt to a link that you might find helpful:
"Recently a couple pursuing membership in our church wrote me a very thoughtful, humble letter with questions generated by the recent sermon “Don’t Waste Your Vote.” In particular, they took issue with the emphasis placed on the issue of abortion. While pro-life themselves, they felt that by highlighting abortion we were essentially endorsing a particular party. I wrote them back and sought to share the perspective of the pastoral team, why we did what we did and how we view this issue."
From: Correspondence on Abortion and Voting.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 23, 2008 5:30:56 PM
Okay, James, what are your proposals?
If you have been reading this site for awhile, you will know that I do not believe politics should be our focus on this issue, though I believe states should be permitted to regulate and restrict abortions, but I would like to see your ideas on what should be done to minimize the death of the unborn.
Posted by: GL | Sep 23, 2008 6:01:50 PM
Great question, GL. I hope that others on this thread can provide answers as well. I'll start out with answers on which we all can agree and then move to answers that are of a more partisan nature. Let's face it, there's no way to completely avoid politics on this issue.
The first thing we can do is show compassion towards women who are faced with this very difficult choice. How can we specifically do this? I have always supported the work of crisis pregnancy centers so long as they don't put the women they're trying to help through guilt trips or try to shove religion down their throats. It's a very sad fact that many of us probably know of women (and men for that matter. Let's not forget the men/potential fathers) who are considering having an abortion. I think we need to let them know that we love them and that we'll do whatever it takes for them to choose life. Since soaring health care costs often play a factor in this decision - not to mention soaring child care costs - churches can pool their resources together and provide the necessary funds for such costs to people facing poverty.
The second thing we can do is to show compassion towards the unborn. Once again, how specifically can this be done? Through adoption, primarily.
Third, and this is where we might part ways, I think we need to advocate for increased social services for children and families. Churches and private citizens can and must do their share to alleviate this problem, but it's too great for them to do it without the help of federal and state governments.
Fourth - and this is where you might start bringing out the tar and feathers and chase after me - we need to advocate for birth control and sex education. Let's face it, people like to have sex, especially teenagers. I think Touchstone's perspective on birth control is another prime example of conservatives not dealing with the world as it is and replacing it with a false 1950's world where everybody does the right thing - at least in Touchstone's eyes. We are living in a different world than the middle ages. it is no longer economically feasible to have large families. It is also no longer economically feasible to get married at 16 - usually when the hormones are raging the most and Joe and Jane are looking better than ever in each other's eyes. Do you, especially as Christians, really expect for most teens to wait until they're 25 and married to have sex? I think it was Chesterton who said that Christianity is proved right not when everything goes right but when everything goes wrong. It's time for a little bit of realism on this point.
Alright, can we still be friends after that last point?
Posted by: James | Sep 23, 2008 7:42:44 PM
James: I am fine with your first two points. I have issues with your third, but will leave it to others who are better qualified to discuss it. Your fourth point is seriously flawed, though.
In most cases, I don't think a lack of sex education causes pregnancy. I find it rather implausible that people engage in sex without understanding it causes babies. Lack of one possible aspect of sex education--instruction in birth control--of course could increase pregnancy. But if one thinks that using birth control is immoral, he runs straight into the problem that doing evil so that good may result is still evil.
As for the practical problems that come up: I don't think anyone here wants the 1950s back--after all, the 1960s wouldn't have happened unless the rot had started under the surface in the previous decade. Your economic arguments don't hold up either. It has never been particularly economically feasible to have a large family--but a surprising number of people have managed it anyway. And if it's not economically feasible for 16-year-olds to support themselves, perhaps the parents, who were already supporting them and so presumably can manage, can help out, while encouraging their lovebirds to start working in preparation for more mouths to feed.
I might also point out that true realism always begins with what God has said, since he is more real than anything else, and has a better idea of how the universe is designed.
Posted by: V-Dawg | Sep 23, 2008 9:17:27 PM
>>>But I never said that I didn't think the fetus was human, Stuart. In principle, I would agree with you that it is. Our main differences are in what to do about it and my belief that human life after the womb carries more weight than before. <<<
So, "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"? For someone who rejected the analogy between slavery and abortion, you don't help your argument, since it is identical to the one made by many who supported the institution of slavery (even of they didn't own slaves themselves and were 'personally opposed")--that while slaves might be human, they just didn't have the same value as free humans.
Do you have some rational basis on which to claim that life in the womb should carry less weight than life outside of it? Is it because the fetus is utterly dependent? What then, of the senile, the retarded, the comatose, the paralyzed? Basically, you're making the Nazi "some life is not worth living" argument, albeit with a smiley face.
>>>I want to see abortion come to an end. I don't think voting in Republicans will accomplish this goal, nor will making it illegal either. <<<
Another puerile argument (just like the old seamless garment arguments): you make perfect the enemy of the good. On the one hand, you have a political party that at least gives lip service to eliminating abortion, and on the other, a party that promotes it as a social good. I'll take half a loaf over no bread at all, any day. As for not making abortion illegal because that will not end it, well, that's just a stupid argument. There is no doubt that abortion was much more rare when it was illegal. But since there are really no crimes that have been eliminated by making them illegal, we should, following your logic, abolish all criminal laws as a waste of time.
The law exists because man is sinful and needs a fence to constrain his passions. When the parousia is here, then we can do without them. In the meantime, making certain things illegal draws a line in the sand that says society does not approve.
>>>You don't do this, however, by voting for a party that time and time again shows its disregard for life beyond the womb while doing nothing but pay lipservice for life before (sorry Truth Unites, you didn't provide any specific reasons why I should think differently).<<<
As I said, you seem to get both your history and your political philosophy from reading bumper stickers in the NPR parking lot. When you can have a real, fact-based historical and philosophical debate, get back to me.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 24, 2008 5:54:44 AM
>>>The first thing we can do is show compassion towards women who are faced with this very difficult choice. How can we specifically do this? I have always supported the work of crisis pregnancy centers so long as they don't put the women they're trying to help through guilt trips or try to shove religion down their throats.<<<
You're very good with ambiguity--terms of art, in fact. So, what, in your mind, is putting a woman through a guilt trip? Is it showing her an ultrasound scan of her baby? is it telling her that a fetus is a human being? Or does that fall under the purview of cramming religion down her throat? Certainly, a lot of people on the pro-abortion side think that even suggesting that woman could carry her child to term, or just calling a fetus a baby does both. It would seem, if we go down your road, that such crisis pregnancy centers would have no real arguments to present in favor of a woman giving birth to the child in her womb. And, backed into a purely utilitarian mode of discourse, abortion wins hands down. "I had a problem, and now problem is gone".
Also, don't discount guilt. Guilt is good. it's the little internal alarm that tells us we are doing (or have done) something wrong. We internalize our morality. Try living in a shame-based culture, where appearance is everything, and anything is permitted provided you don't get caught or look bad.
>>.Let's not forget the men/potential fathers) who are considering having an abortion. I think we need to let them know that we love them and that we'll do whatever it takes for them to choose life. <<<
For starters, you seem really unaware of who gets abortions, or the kind of men who are involved in their procurement on the part of women. An alarmingly large percentage seem to be adult men who have impregnated underage girls; i.e., child abusers who use abortion to cover the evidence of their statutory rape. I doubt these will be swayed by your love offensive. In other cases, the woman just doesn't know who the father is. And in other cases still, the woman involved has no intention of settling down with the man who fathered her child. So get real, James.
>>>Since soaring health care costs often play a factor in this decision - not to mention soaring child care costs - churches can pool their resources together and provide the necessary funds for such costs to people facing poverty.<<<
This is just a load of crap, and you know it.
>>>Third, and this is where we might part ways, I think we need to advocate for increased social services for children and families. Churches and private citizens can and must do their share to alleviate this problem, but it's too great for them to do it without the help of federal and state governments.<<<
Um, abortion rates were much higher before welfare reform, as well rates of teenage illegitimate births. But don't let facts get in the way of your dogma.
>>.Fourth - and this is where you might start bringing out the tar and feathers and chase after me - we need to advocate for birth control and sex education. <<<
Oh, that works very well indeed. Just look at all the places where this has been done, and see the utopia that has emerged.
>>> Do you, especially as Christians, really expect for most teens to wait until they're 25 and married to have sex? <<<
I have no problem with teenagers having sex or having babies. I just want them to be married when they do.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 24, 2008 6:14:31 AM
James: "Great question, GL.
... Fourth - and this is where you might start bringing out the tar and feathers and chase after me - we need to advocate for birth control and sex education."
Heh.
GL: "If you have been reading this site for awhile, you will know that..."
James, unwittingly, you are like a matador waving a red cape at a bull. GL is the passionate expert, bar none, on the topic of the sin of contraception than anyone else who comments here. He has hi-jacked more threads to talk about the sin of contraception than I care to count. And if I recall correctly, there was even a time when James Kushiner asked in his blog article for the thread not to derail into a discussion of contraception.
James, do you want to learn about: Lambeth 1930, the Sin of Onan, the Early Church Fathers, church history all the way to Luther and Calvin and more up to the 19th century, and fertility rates as it relates to declining populations and systemic social and economic decline for countries because of the sin of contraception?
That being said, it is an informative, interesting and related side tour.
Lastly, Editor Kushiner had a previous blog article titled "Roe v. Wade Must Be Destroyed". If you look through the thread you will find that I made the comment that such an undertaking would probably require an incivil war within the Church.
And if war is the wrong metaphor, then let's use "confrontation" ala apostle Paul rebuking apostle Peter to his face.
James, what do you think of the German Christians who voted for Adolph Hitler and who rationalized their vote for Hitler despite being aware of the evils that he perpetuated or would perpetuate. Are they not accomplices and aiders-and-abetters to a great evil?
Similarly, if a self-identified Christian votes for a party or candidate who advocates the legality of murdering unborn babies, isn't that self-identified Christian an accomplice and an aider-and-abetter to a great evil, an evil that is a wicked abomination to God?
A self-identified Christian who votes to enable the legality of murdering unborn babies is not a good Christian.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 24, 2008 7:48:39 AM
A self-identified Christian who votes to enable the legality of murdering unborn babies is not a good Christian.
Alright, can we still be friends after that last point?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 24, 2008 7:57:46 AM
Mary Eberstadt has an excellent article on the overwhelming vindication -- by plenty of social scientists who otherwise despise the Catholic church, and of course by all that has happened to the family in the west since 1968 -- of Paul VI's Humanae Vitae. It's in this month's First Things.
On large families being beyond our economic means: This is a subject I've been thinking about for a long time, observing the two groups that I have most to do with, namely academics (and these do include Catholic professors who do not practice artificial contraception) and homeschoolers. Within these groups I see no clear connection between income and family size, but if there is a correlation, it is that, if we're still in the middle class, the richer you are, the (slightly) fewer children you are likely to have, because you have all kinds of economic expectations that determine for you what a good life looks like, and these things cost money. In other words, you price yourselves right out of a large family: you buy houses you can't afford, or can barely afford, to live in the "right" neighborhood and send your children to the "right" schools; you spend an inordinate amount of money in order to have two incomes; and you simply find that you don't have the time or the energy to have more kids. On the other hand, I know homeschooling families with five or six kids, or eight or nine, with incomes clear across the map; from the income of a local truck driver (with 6 kids, living in a rental house in a suburb), to that of a computer programmer and bookstore owner (with 6 kids, living in a fixer-upper in a country village), to that of a tech geek for a big company (with 9 kids, living in a shambling modern house in a 40 year old subdivision, out in the country). All these families are happy, and of course all of them have issues when it comes to that absurdly overpriced thing called a college execration.
Posted by: Tony Esolen | Sep 24, 2008 8:48:07 AM
No, TUAD, I'll not raise contraception again, other that to say that it's been tried and failed as a solution to abortion; it has caused more abortions than it has prevented. The evidence is overwhelming on that point.
James,
Let me ask you some questions. How old are you? Are you married? Do you have children of your own? Have you read any history on this subject?
You solutions all sound good. (Indeed, some of them are, as I will elaborate below.) The problem is that they are the very solutions proposed in the past which have all failed miserably.
My solution is for Christians to live like Christians lived in the first three centuries of our faith. And yes, that means not restricting our family sizes. But it also means some of what James mentions, looking out after our own, picking them up when they fall, and sharing the burdens within the Christian community.
It most certainly does not mean looking to a hostile government and a hostile society to either help us make our case or carry that burden or to coerce the behavior we want. It isn't going to happen. Christendom is no more. The sooner we figure that out and begin looking to how Christians grew in influence in an extremely hostile environment during the first three centuries, the sooner we can again begin to grow, not shrink our influence. Only then can we expect to see attitudes change and only by changing attitudes will abortions decrease. It is a solution which will take decades, perhaps centuries to bear a large harvest, but we can see some improvement today and its the only realistic course we have.
Posted by: GL | Sep 24, 2008 8:48:18 AM
>>>That being said, it is an informative, interesting and related side tour.<<<
And one more point, TUAD, it is most decidedly not a a side tour. It is one of the primary contributors of our current moral decay, which has led to the number of abortions we have seen over the past 35 years. If Christians continue to refuse to face that fact, not much is going to change. If James wants to read about it, I can recommend some sources, but I'll not reopen the topic here.
And Tony is absolutely right on what he said. Recent census data shows that family size goes down with income. It isn't lack of money which explains smaller family sizes; it is lack of proper priorities.
Posted by: GL | Sep 24, 2008 9:04:07 AM
The old saw that "abortions would occur anyway" has never meant much to me. Every crime on the books will "happen anyway"; we do not, for that reason, agitate to do away with speed limits or the laws against shoplifting. Forcible rape would doubtless be safer for the perpetrator - and possibly even "safer" for the victims - were it legal; the perp would be less like to kill the victim to impede prosecution, at least. We do not, for that reason, lobby for the legalization of rape...possibly our "starry-eyed idealism" lead some folks to believe that the laws against this crime will make it vanish, but I think that's unlikely. Look for other reasons when your opponents seem all too credulous - you'll be embarrassed less frequently that way. I have come to suspect, for instance, that even leftists are sometimes shrewd.
To carry things back around to the original comparison: Lincoln banned slavery precisely where he could NOT enforce the ban. "In those territories currently in rebellion against the United States", if I remember correctly. (Delaware, Maryland, and other Unionist slave states were exempt.)
The Proclamation was a strategic move, military and political, whose immediate and primary intentions were not "starry-eyed" but immensely practical - it helped destroy the institution of slavery, as surely as if it actually HAD freed any slaves. I hope gradualist abortion restrictions may have the same eventual effect.
And I think it would be FAR easier and more defensible to claim to be an antislavery Democrat in 1860, than to pretend to antiabortion convictions but be a Democrat in 2008.
Posted by: Joe Long | Sep 24, 2008 9:37:34 AM
I was struggling to express my myriad dissatisfactions with James' "solutions" but, happily, GL crushed my writer's block and laid out the problem in the rather stark terms it deserves. The Kingdom of God advances only one person at a time and it always involves a struggle. Most Christians in the US aren't used to denying themselves much of anything (and I certainly count my lazy pop culture-saturated self in this group). It's so easy to buy into the assumptions (they're in the water) that our real goal is to earn lots of money so we can entertain ourselves to death. Most of the solutions the World offers (like birth control as a lifestyle and abortion) are more of the same--ways to try to get the pleasure without taking the responsibility and short cuts to "fix" the problems of other people so they don't spill over into my back yard. Re-reading Tony's article on The Dragon of Choice has shown me that the explosion in the variety of choices we have to entertain ourselves has a large downside in that it makes us assume that such things should be how we allocate the time we have not devoted to making a "living" instead of spreading the Kingdom of God by equipping ourselves for spiritual warfare, having and raising children, and helping other families. Spreading this Kingdom should be the overriding goal of every member of the Body of Jesus Christ.
(How this is done is going to differ by person, but I can guarantee it isn't going to be achieved by voting for folks who act as if murdering unborn children is an acceptable--even if they say it is a sad--practice.)
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Sep 24, 2008 10:05:02 AM
" Christendom is no more. The sooner we figure that out and begin looking to how Christians grew in influence in an extremely hostile environment during the first three centuries, the sooner we can again begin to grow, not shrink our influence. Only then can we expect to see attitudes change and only by changing attitudes will abortions decrease. It is a solution which will take decades, perhaps centuries to bear a large harvest, but we can see some improvement today and its the only realistic course we have."
You may be surprised, GL, but I agree with you on this one. I think it combines seeing the world for what it really is without forgetting about working to transform the world as it should be in the image of God. Let's just pray that we're on God's side and humbly realize that sometimes we are not, regardless of our politics.
I don't quite buy in as much to the us vs. them, the world vs. the church dichotomy, though. I tend to believe there's a little bit of good and evil in both camps just as there's a little bit of good and evil in all of us, but you and many on this blog are right: the "world" (and I mean this in the biblical sense) can be a messed-up, self-centered and dangerous place. Unfortunately, the church can be all of these things too.
As to my views on abortion being utilitarian, allow me to be completely honest with you on this point. This bothers me more than it probably bothers you. I am generally not attracted to the utilitarian philosophy. In it I see shades of nazism, fascism and totalitarianism in general. In short, it's a way of looking at humanity as if it were a machine to be manipulated before it bites the dust rather than a living soul called to serve God and enjoy him forever.
And yet our electoral politics forces us to make such distinctions (to return to an earlier point, I don't think all Republicans are bad nasty people who completely disregard life after the womb. Nevertheless, its recent policies lead me to think that it's not quite the party of life that some make it out to be). Either way there will be blood on our hands, so I can't fault you too much for making the choices you make. Just don't fault me too much for the choices I make. This is not easy,straight forward stuff we're dealing with here.
And Truth Unites, yes, we still can be friends after that last point. There's nothing wrong with some good old fashioned sarcasm to lighten the mood. If I didn't have a tough skin, I wouldn't dare express my views on this site.
Posted by: James | Sep 24, 2008 11:27:27 AM
And Truth Unites, yes, we still can be friends after that last point.
Thanks James. Because as a friend I'm sharing with you that a self-identified Christian who votes to enable the legality of murdering unborn babies is not a good Christian.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 24, 2008 11:44:12 AM
"Thanks James. Because as a friend I'm sharing with you that a self-identified Christian who votes to enable the legality of murdering unborn babies is not a good Christian."
Thanks, Friend. Did you pray that you were on God's side before you wrote that, or did you automatically assume that you were and prayed that I would repent and see things completely from your perspective?
Posted by: James | Sep 24, 2008 11:49:18 AM
James,
Are you, as a self-identified Christian, explicitly declaring that you're going to vote to enable the continuing legality of murdering unborn babies by voting for pro-abortion Democrats and for the pro-abortion Democrat party in the 2008 elections?
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 24, 2008 11:57:57 AM
>>>I don't quite buy in as much to the us vs. them, the world vs. the church dichotomy, though. I tend to believe there's a little bit of good and evil in both camps just as there's a little bit of good and evil in all of us, but you and many on this blog are right: the "world" (and I mean this in the biblical sense) can be a messed-up, self-centered and dangerous place. Unfortunately, the church can be all of these things too.<<<
I don't disagree with any of that.
I vote pro-life, even while holding my nose over what I have to take with it. After nearly 30 years of doing it, however, I am becoming more and more convinced that Caesar will not help us solve the abortion problem -- and suspicious that he never intended to do so, but only held out the prospect to get our votes. Christians need to remember that Christ, not Caesar, is our Lord.
Posted by: GL | Sep 24, 2008 12:03:21 PM
"I am generally not attracted to the utilitarian philosophy. In it I see shades of nazism, fascism and totalitarianism in general. In short, it's a way of looking at humanity as if it were a machine to be manipulated before it bites the dust rather than a living soul called to serve God and enjoy him forever."
James, that's pretty much how I see the Left, and its Democratic Party: shades of all of those twentieth-century bogeys, and the necessary prerequisit to enormous state-sponsored horror. I mean the enormous hubris which believes not only that humanity is that big, manipulable thing you refer to, but that the government, controlled by the party, ought to be doing the manipulating.
The eugenics movement, which gave us Planned Parenthood in all its glory, is a prime example of such hubris.
Posted by: Joe Long | Sep 24, 2008 12:08:46 PM
Joshua Harris (and many other Christians, including myself): "I understand and can sympathize with your concern over the church being used as a pawn of right wing [secular] conservatives, and I don’t want any part of that."
--------
"...a self-identified Christian who votes to enable the legality of murdering unborn babies is not a good Christian."
Examples: Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, et al....
They are self-identified Christians or Catholic Christians who support continuing the legality of murdering unborn babies. They are not good Christians or not good Catholic Christians, as the case may be.
In fact, I believe some of the pro-abortionist Catholic politicians will have conversations with their bishop about them supporting abortion.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 24, 2008 12:31:47 PM
"In fact, I believe some of the pro-abortionist Catholic politicians will have conversations with their bishop about them supporting abortion."
If only. That, unfortunately, will never happen.
Posted by: Bob | Sep 24, 2008 12:39:51 PM
James,
Just to be clear here. If I get to the point that I can no longer vote for a pro-life candidate because of the garbage that comes with it, I most definitely will not vote for someone who advocates that government abdicates it primary responsibility, to secure the first listed and the most fundamental of the three rights explicitly mentioned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence for which purpose government is instituted. If you read that very short document, you will not that he adds, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . . [W]hen a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." (Emphasis added.)
We have a duty to throw off a government which refuses to secure the right to life . . . by our votes. If you cannot bring yourself to vote for a Republican because of other issues, then I urge you as a Christian to at least refrain from voting for someone who believes children may be murdered in the womb and be left to die by exposure should they happen to survive the attempt. There is a man who takes such positions who in running for President and his name is Barack Obama.
Posted by: GL | Sep 24, 2008 1:00:10 PM
"We have a duty to throw off a government which refuses to secure the right to life . . . by our votes. If you cannot bring yourself to vote for a Republican because of other issues, then I urge you as a Christian to at least refrain from voting for someone who believes children may be murdered in the womb and be left to die by exposure should they happen to survive the attempt. There is a man who takes such positions who in running for President and his name is Barack Obama."
Thank you kindly for your advice, GL, but I decline it, fully realizing the imperfections of my decision.
Mr. Long, you've pointed out an aspect of the left that I find distasteful. Nevertheless, I feel more at home in that family than the conservative one. Like the conservatives, liberalism is not a monolithic thing that can never be changed. I think it's up to people like me to convince my brothers, sisters, cousins, etc on the left where I think they fall short as they - as well as my conservative friends who live down the street from me - let me know where I fall short.
Posted by: James | Sep 24, 2008 3:17:24 PM
James, I fear I have not pointed out "an aspect" of the Left, but its essence. I no longer refer to the Other Side of the great American political divide as "liberalism", for the movement is deeply, and I think irredeemably, illiberal. I would love to see the day when it is replaced by some recognizable old-fashioned liberalism. If that is your project, I wish you well. You have a hard row to hoe.
Conservatism covers a wide spectrum today - wider than ever before, as we take in refugees from the Left because it IS so monolithic. Differ on one point, and you're suddenly...well, you're Joe Lieberman, for instance. That's why all of the interesting arguments today are between factions of the right - the left has only a harsh orthodoxy, of which a "woman's right to choose (abortion)" seems a critical element.
Posted by: Joe Long | Sep 24, 2008 3:31:05 PM
I think the issue of abortion could destroy the Democratic Party. Then the Republicans will split (maybe into religious and irreligious factions, I dunno) to soak up the survivors. Of course the Party survived being wrong on slavery so maybe they'll get through this, too.
I think Joe's right about the diversity of opinions within the GOP vs the Democrats. One couldn't conceive of a figure like Giuliani (that is, a heretic on the abortion question) having any level of popular support among the Democrats. Of course, he didn't get very far in the GOP primaries either, but that doesn't mean members of the party who differed with him on the abortion question didn't have a great deal of respect/affection for him on other grounds.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Sep 24, 2008 3:42:40 PM
James,
You have made me very sad. Not because your vote may help make President a man who believes children may be murdered in the womb and be left to die by exposure should they happen to survive the attempt, but because of what your casting such a vote will do to you. For you will be embracing evil in hopes that good may come of it.
It is the same sad lie that the Evil One has told from the beginning, the same one he told to our first mother, that we can be like God, deciding for ourselves what is good and evil. And each time we do it (and we all do), it further separates us from the One who loved us so much that He sent His only begotten Son to live among us, to suffer and die for us and to rise again, to give to us a renewed life.
You may certainly decide that voting Republican would be doing the same thing. Perhaps it is. But you must know in your heart that voting for a man who believes children may be murdered in the womb and be left to die by exposure should they happen to survive the attempt certainly is such an act.
I have said a prayer for you.
Posted by: GL | Sep 24, 2008 3:48:10 PM
"James, I fear I have not pointed out "an aspect" of the Left, but its essence. I no longer refer to the Other Side of the great American political divide as "liberalism", for the movement is deeply, and I think irredeemably, illiberal."
Joe, I understand and I sadly agree with you. Except that I still refer to them as liberal.
GL, your last comment to James was good.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 24, 2008 5:17:43 PM
I'm not a politically correct nice Christian.
Liberal Christians voting for Barack Obama and who know full well of Barack Obama's militant pro-abortion position and voting record are ....
not good Christians on this morally transcendent issue.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 24, 2008 6:10:08 PM
"I no longer refer to the Other Side of the great American political divide as "liberalism", for the movement is deeply, and I think irredeemably, illiberal."
Wow, this is rich, Joe. I'll admit that I"m not as read up on philosophy as I'd like - I work for a living as they say (I know, how elitist of me) - but my personal experience of liberalism doesn't match with this experience. I remember the days when I was volunteering with the Green Party (one of my many youthful indiscretions) and flatly told them that I didn't agree or like their position on abortion and thought it was inconsistent with everything else they stood for. They didn't tar and feather me. They didn't call me a deficient liberal. They didn't kick me out of the party and call me an apostate. Some of them nodded and said they could understand why I felt that way.
My experience on this blog has taught me that conservatives are the illiberal ones. Not once did I question anybody's Christianity on this blog and there were several times when I admitted the possibility that I could be wrong. I, on the other hand, have had the quality of my Christian faith called into question because I take a different view on an admittedly important matter. Who's the illiberal one in this discussion?
To extend this conversation to theological perspectives, you don't get liberal Methodists or Episcopalians running around and saying that they are the only true church, but you certainly get Conservative Orthodox and Roman Catholics saying such nonsense. In my own Episcopal Church, we are currently praying for the ministry of the dioceses of Renk in Africa, which takes drastically different perspectives on us when it comes to social issues, yet we still call them brothers and sisters in Christ and pray for them, not in the condescending way that GL is praying for me but as equals who realize that nobody has a corner on the truth. Where do you see such a thing happening in a conservative denomination?
A conservative saying that liberals are illiberals? Wow.
Posted by: James | Sep 24, 2008 6:58:34 PM
James,
I am sorry if you found my sincere prayer for you condescending, but abortion and infanticide are gravely evil and against the teaching of our Lord, pure and simple. None of us are perfect in our understanding of His will, but all of us should know that abortion and infanticide violate it.
Do you support Obama's positions on these issues?
Posted by: GL | Sep 24, 2008 7:15:56 PM
>>>My experience on this blog has taught me that conservatives are the illiberal ones. <<<
Don't feed the troll anymore.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 24, 2008 7:27:45 PM
"I have had the quality of my Christian faith called into question because I take a different view on an admittedly important matter."
D'ya think it might be because you're rejecting the universal teaching of the entire Christian church since the first century and replacing it with a relativist sociopolitical/ethical view of the thing that's only 40 years old or so?
Nah, couldn't be that!
Posted by: Rob G | Sep 25, 2008 6:21:38 AM
>>>D'ya think it might be because you're rejecting the universal teaching of the entire Christian church since the first century and replacing it with a relativist sociopolitical/ethical view of the thing that's only 40 years old or so?<<<
That's so hateful, Rob! Don't you know that creeds are an authoritarian, patriarchal straight jacket intended to shackle our minds and prevent us from finding a God who is meaningful to us? Everybody has a right to make a god in his own image.
Posted by: Stuart Koehl | Sep 25, 2008 6:33:25 AM
Not once did I question anybody's Christianity on this blog and there were several times when I admitted the possibility that I could be wrong.
(1) Admonishment, reproof, rebuke, correct are all biblical behaviors. (2 Tim. 3:16)
(2) Don't conflate the admission that you could possibly be wrong with the actual humility in saying that you are wrong.
I, on the other hand, have had the quality of my Christian faith called into question because I take a different view on an admittedly important matter.
(1) Me. You're welcome.
(2) More than an "admittedly important matter." A morally transcendent issue.
Who's the illiberal one in this discussion?
You. A liberal should tolerate being rebuked, admonished, and reproved.
To extend this conversation to theological perspectives, you don't get liberal Methodists or Episcopalians running around and saying that they are the only true church, but you certainly get Conservative Orthodox and Roman Catholics saying such nonsense.
Did I not warn you before about waving a red cape in front of a bull?
In my own Episcopal Church,
(Are you in The Episcopal Church, the one with Presiding Bishopess Kate Jefferts-Schori?)
If you're in TEc, that explains much, if not everything.
we are currently praying for the ministry of the dioceses of Renk in Africa, which takes drastically different perspectives on us when it comes to social issues, yet we still call them brothers and sisters in Christ and pray for them,
So?
not in the condescending way that GL is praying for me
Perhaps the folks in the dioceses of Renk in Africa think you're being condescending in the way that you pray for them.
but as equals who realize that nobody has a corner on the truth.
"Nobody has a corner on truth" is the disturbingly standard bovine flatulence of pomo, relativist liberals that, if you can think long and deep enough, is ...
self-refuting.
Where do you see such a thing happening in a conservative denomination?
You mean, are there conservative denominations and churches who are genuinely ministering BOTH the Gospel AND deeds of mercy to other places?
Of course! There are lots of them.
Posted by: Truth Unites... and Divides | Sep 25, 2008 7:18:20 AM
"You mean, are there conservative denominations and churches who are genuinely ministering BOTH the Gospel AND deeds of mercy to other places?"
My medium-sized Orthodox parish (about 220 adult members) is involved in support of, among other things, a local food bank, a local homeless shelter, and the crisis pregnancy centers of our county. We also support national and international evangelism and charity efforts.
Numerous conservative churches of all denominations do these types of things as well. The Assemblies of God church I grew up in ran both a food bank and a CPC.
Posted by: Rob G | Sep 25, 2008 7:34:23 AM
"A conservative saying that liberals are illiberals? Wow."
No, James, I said leftists are illiberal. "Liberals are illiberal" would be self-contradictory, which is why I no longer use the world "liberal" for "leftist".
Dictionary.com: "Illiberal."
1. narrowminded; bigoted.
2. Archaic. a. not generous in giving; miserly; niggardly; stingy.
b. Chiefly Literary. without culture or refinement; unscholarly; vulgar.
Point-by-point:
1. Reverend Wright. Attitudes towards Clarence Thomas, and Condi Rice. (Google some cartoons of them.) The "doctrinaire" enforcement of the Party line I referred to. Dismissal of all opposition as stupid or irrational ("clinging bitterly to faith or guns"). Treating conservative blacks or women as "identity politics" traitors, instead of people free to come to different conclusions.
2.a. "Niggardly" is of Scandinavian derivation and means, well, illiberal. Under line "1", however, a councilman in Baltimore was run out of office for using the word - properly and in an appropriate context.
But never mind that...Joe Biden's personal charities, or those of his partner (discounting, as I think we ought to, gifts to Rev. Wright's "church"), fall right in line with numerous studies proving leftists "illiberal" in sense 2a, with their own money (although not with that taken from their neighbors by the taxman, of course).
2b. Saturday Night Live. Michael Moore. The Vagina Monologues. The Emmys and Oscars. Have I put Rev. Wright anywhere on this list, yet...?
I do not find you particularly vulgar or bigoted, and although "narrow-minded" seems to fit so far from your comments, you did come to a conservative blog and you are reading, at least, enough to react to our points. You are not entirely in the grip of the leftists - but if you aspire to liberalism, you won't attain it in their company.
Posted by: Joe Long | Sep 25, 2008 8:24:15 AM
Yes, James. I spent several years in the city from which I just moved, one of the poorest in America, going to a homeless shelter, serving food, bringing in needed supplies, giving money, visiting with the men, speaking at the worship service and praying with men as they confessed their sins, repented and asked forgiveness. On more than one occasion, I took my family with me, including my small children, so that they could begin to develop a servant's heart, even though some questioned my taking them into the neighborhood where the shelter was located. I also helped, along with my family, in efforts to repair homes for the poor in one of the poorest and most crime-ridden neighborhoods in that city, again, despite concerns expressed by others regarding my taking my children with me into such an environment. That is to say, I don't just pray with my mind for folks on another continent, I pray with folks in need in my own city and I also pray for them with my hands and feet.
I don't normally talk about what I do. The glory all is God's. However, liberals think that all orthodox Christians do is preach the Law; we are well aware of the Gospel (which is meaningless without the Law -- read St. Paul) and that we are saved unto good works. One of works to which we are called is to give voice to the voiceless victims of abortion and infanticide by neglect and exposure when the abortion fails in its goal. It is murder plain and simple and Christians must do what we can to prevent those murders.
I'm sure many others who regularly post here are involved in similar works to those I described. Please stop stereotyping orthodox Christians. You may be surprised to learn that we are every bit as involved in good works as our those in the TEC.
Posted by: GL | Sep 25, 2008 9:07:02 AM
Joe didn't even mention how leftists treat non-dissenting Catholics are treated--condescended to on the basis of their opposition to the self-evident good of contraception--by all good "liberals". This is obvious to anyone, even Protestants like me. I find it particularly odious how the left misuses science (I'm a biochemist/cell biologist/microbiologist) to try to bolster its antihuman convictions about human offspring.
Posted by: W.E.D. Godbold | Sep 25, 2008 9:16:12 AM
