I've never thought the "you play, you pay" argument is very strong. In our male-dominant society men can push women into sex in various ways when they don't really want it, and then avoid responsibility. Some will object to this, but I'm convinced it hurt the pro-life cause to have a pro-life President who bragged about grabbing women by the you-know-what and has never officially repented of the sentiments he expressed on that tape. Whatever you think as a pro-lifer, you probably don't want to say that it is usually the woman's fault if she ends up with an unwanted pregnancy.
31 comments:
I wonder why you have to keep bringing up Trump if you don't have TDS.
Trump did apologize whether you believe him or not or care, but all of that is beside the point you're supposedly trying to make. Unless your only point is that you think that it's logical to reject the pro-life argument because some jerks are pro-life.
Is that the type of training in logic you give your students?
Some people have put forth the concept of not-pology, for supposed apologies that don't indicate any remorse. Trump's statement seems to qualify.
In our male-dominant society men can push women into sex in various ways when they don't really want it, and then avoid responsibility.
Women seem to do the exact same sorts of things to men, so it must be a female-dominated society.
Whatever you think as a pro-lifer, you probably don't want to say that it is usually the woman's fault if she ends up with an unwanted pregnancy.
It is usually at least 50 percent her fault.
I thought not long ago Victor wrote that he disliked political arguments devolving into debates about abortion. I'm guessing the support for abortion is gaining political momentum for Democrats as the country is beginning to turn against Biden/Harris. Perhaps this topic will help keep them in power. What an absolutely awful thing to grasp onto to hold power.
I think all important arguments are moral arguments. Victor is making the moral argument for his party.
I'm talking about it again because the issue is coming up in the class I'm teaching. I have plenty of problems with mainstream Democratic attitudes toward abortion--I think they react in knee-jerk ways which do a lot of harm. For political reasons, they are too tightly in the grip of Planned Parenthood. I take some comfort in thinking that my ideas about abortion won't satisfy much of anybody.
And what I am trying to do here is argue that one kind of pro-life argument is a bad one, and an insensitive one, and it is particularly insensitive in light of Trump's conduct. You might want to read all the things that Trump said about sex and women on Howard Stern, and ask what on earth Trump would have done if he had gotten someone pregnant. Maybe paid for the abortion and made the woman sign and NDA? Threatened her if she didn't comply, with a bunch of nasty lawyers?
There are two abortion struggles in America today. One if the political-legal battle. On that front Trump has helped the pro-life side. But if most people in America are pro-choice, and some of them are going on to becoming really pro-abortion (and yes, believe it or not, there is a difference) all this will do is make abortion a matter of democratic choice, and when it becomes that, I think the pro-choice position will end up winning, even in Texas. But women, along with their families, husbands, boyfriends, and doctors, are making tough decisions about abortions. In most of these cases, I happen to think that carrying the child to term is the morally best decision, but I think insensitive rhetoric on the pro-life side has the tendency to push women to the abortion clinic, not away from it. And making Trump the one who saves us all from the abortionists is, on my view, a short-sighted perspective. In the long run, we will not be able to force the right to life down people's throats, but we do a lot of things to keep women out of the situation where getting an abortion seems like the only choice.
But as I said, no one is going to like my views on this subject.
And yes, I think Trump was a disastrous President beyond any President in my lifetime. I find him to be a moral psychopath who uses the devotion and support of people for whom he has no respect for his own monetary ends. I also have Madoff Derangement Syndrome, Dillinger Derangement Syndrome, Putin Derangement Syndrome, Mao Derangement Syndrome, and Orban Derangement Syndrome. Some people are just plain evil. There are plenty of conservatives who agree with me on this.
Thanks Victor, I have my fair share of derangement syndrome as a Republican living in California with no political representation.
At least we have CS Lewis and the Christian faith and being fellow Americans in common. Thanks for your blog, I always find it interesting.
I take some comfort in thinking that my ideas about abortion won't satisfy much of anybody.
That's an interesting take. Pretty much no one is satisfied with me wearing my underwear on my head and I was always a little ashamed. Guess now I can take comfort in their dissatification ;-)
Victor,
Since you are preparing for a class that discusses abortion it would be interesting to find out how the class would respond to the questions of that poll I linked to:
Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
If 95% of biologists defined that new life begins at conception, would you change your view?
It could be anonymous. Would be interesting to see the results.
That abortion is demonstrably a grave moral abomination (no argument there), we nevertheless do not live in a theocracy. That does not mean that we are not ultimately doomed as a nation. Saint Faustina Kowalska believed that Poland was doomed (in 1938) because of the widespread practice of abortion in that country. Judah was likewise doomed because Manasseh (reigned 687-643 BC) practiced child sacrifice to Moloch and encouraged its practice throughout his realm.
But... we live in a constitutional democracy, and our government is not allowed to make laws based solely on religious dogma. If you wish to outlaw abortion, you must first amend the Constitution to allow for a state religion.
I don't follow your logic SH. If abortion is demonstrably a grave moral abomination then surely the case for outlawing it makes itself. The case against it is not solely based on religious teaching. It's based on something substantially stronger.
David,
Gambling is a demonstrably grave moral abomination, as is divorce, adultery, pornography, and drunkenness (and many other things). But I don't see any great push to outlaw (as opposed to regulating) such activities.
As for the "substantially stronger" other cases, I'd be repeating myself if I said I'm not convinced. As for myself, I don't need a "stronger" argument to believe that abortion is a grave moral evil (which I do). The faith-based argument is sufficient.
It's almost like I didn't spend post after post providing an entirely secular argument against abortion. Could have sworn I did!
I'm afraid I don't see how there being no push to outlaw these other practices has any relevance to demonstrating their grave moral abominability. The push comes after the gravity and abominability are demonstrated, surely?
"Abominability?" I'm going to file that with kitchenalia" (i.e., things you find around the kitchen), which I heard a few days ago.
The extent of my literary creativity, I'm afraid! But you see my point, I hope?
In British English 'kitchenalia' goes back at least as far as the early 2000s.
I do see your point, and I pretty much agree with you. But... not everyone is of the same opinion, and I believe we need to respect that. Almost every poll taken in the US indicates that a clear majority of Americans do not want a law banning abortion. In a democracy, that counts for something. My fear is that banning the procedure will simply send it underground, with potentially horrific consequences - as well as being the best present ever to organized crime since Prohibition.
Of interest is that the above referenced poll results vary radically between regions. The old red and blue state thing. The USA is not really one country anymore - even today.
What bravery to defend abominability.
I am defending the Constitution, which I (twice) took a solemn oath to do so. Perhaps you take oaths lightly. I do not.
Nazis took a solemn oath too.
Wasn't it you who condemned "leftists" (whatever that means) for comparing right wingers to Nazis?
So you're comparing an oath to defend the US Constitution to an oath to Adolf Hitler. Good to know that.
I was the one that demonstrated that Nazis were socialists.
If you think you made an oath to defend abominability then you simply swore to do evil.
The Constitution does not preclude secular justifications against abortion. In this case it is being used to defend abortion against all arguments, since apparently any argument against abortion is religious according to the Constitution.
All laws are based on morality so all laws are religious in nature, at least to believers. So according to argument presented it would be instituting a state religion to pass laws to do such things as aid the poor or really any other law that sought to do a morally good thing.
It's interesting to see how absurd the arguments get for those who defend abominability. Today it's the Nuremburg defendent defense.
I don't think that we are obliged to modify our position solely because others take a different view. The constitution surely protects the views of religionists of various kinds and irreligionists equally. It's the job of politicians to take the distribution of expressed views and seek some sort of workable compromise, taking into account the probable effects of any legislation proposed. If we cannot achieve compromise we continue to live in strife. In theory, a federal system allows a degree of relief to such strife. Am I right in thinking that it currently looks as if the SC will return the issue to the States?
You are correct, David. If the SC overturns Roe, the issue goes to the states. This actually could have the unintended consequence of breaking up the United States.
By the way, I am not modifying my position because others take a differing view. I am respecting their differing view, and not imposing my beliefs on others.
Why will it lead to break up? I sincerely hope it will have the opposite effect. It will allow a Popperian experiment in government to take place. Too much one-size-fits-all law handed down from the EU motivated many a Brexit voter.
Surely you and I have no power to impose our beliefs on others? We merely have a vote like everybody else with which to express our view.
Kevin,
The Constitution does not preclude secular justifications against abortion.
What you don't have is a secular case that outweighs the woman's right to protect herself from the medical risks of a pregnancy, and full legal personhood for a fetus does not get you there.
What you don't have is a secular case that outweighs the woman's right to protect herself from the medical risks of a pregnancy, and full legal personhood for a fetus does not get you there.
I might or might not have such an argument, since there are extremely easy ways to avoid unwanted pregnancy and at some point personal responsibility has to become a thing.
But I'm not arguing for primacy of one value over another here. Simply pointing out that neither a state religion nor any other violation of the Constitution is required to overturn widespread access to abortion for convenience of the parents.
Post a Comment