tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14428272381746037552024-03-06T23:27:01.310-08:00Life Training Institute BlogPersuasively Communicating the Pro-Life MessageSKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger1025125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-59268093648975304482019-02-02T10:15:00.000-08:002019-02-04T10:01:36.208-08:00Are Late-Term Abortions Ever Medically Indicated? [Clinton Wilcox]The state of New York recently passed a law that establishes the wording of <i>Roe</i> in its own state laws so that if <i>Roe</i>/<i>Casey</i> are ever overturned, abortion will remain legal up until the point of birth for any reason deemed relevant to the woman's life or health. I'll write more on this bill in the future, but right now I want to address some arguments that are going around on-line because pro-life and pro-choice advocates are really talking past each other here.<br />
<br />
Pro-life advocates, including pro-life OB/GYNs such as <a href="https://twitter.com/OmarHamada/status/1088136519146188800" target="_blank">Dr. Omar L. Hamada</a>, are arguing that abortion is never medically indicated in the late-term. Pro-choice advocates disagree, including one <a href="https://www.buzzfeed.com/kristatorres/this-gynecologist-took-to-twitter-talk-about-misconceptions?utm_source=dynamic&utm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeedvideo&ref=bffbbuzzfeedvideo&fbclid=IwAR1U4HVh4SglN78CJyXbZ4uSOfkSJt6TgtJ2xUCUq73pSUSeUiVDgivXfDI" target="_blank">Buzzfeed</a> blogger who has linked to several tweets from Dr. Jennifer Gunter, who asserts that these pro-life OB/GYNs are lying about late-term abortions never being medically indicated. (As an aside, don't read Buzzfeed. Just don't.)<br />
<br />
The most succinct definition of "medically indicated" I could find is <a href="https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=32544" target="_blank">this one</a>: "[T]o make a treatment or procedure advisable because of a particular condition or circumstance." So basically, if a particular condition or circumstance would warrant a late-term abortion, then it is medically indicated, whether or not any other treatments might be available or also advisable.<br />
<br />
Now, before I jump in to interact with Dr. Gunter's tweets, I want to explain the difference between types of disagreements one might have. This is information I teach to my intro to logic students but it's something that most people you see interacting on-line haven't had the benefit of. It's one of the reasons it's so difficult to have rational conversations with others. My reason for doing this is because both sides are arguing something about medically indicated procedures. Pro-life OB/GYNs assert that late-term abortion is never medically indicated and pro-choice OB/GYNs assert that it is in rare cases. The problem is that both sides are using a different definition of "medically indicated". Because pro-life people believe that human embryos and fetuses are persons, then late-term abortion is never medically indicated because once the fetus can survive outside the womb, you can simply deliver the fetus alive and work as best you can to save it. C-sections are a lot faster than late-term abortions and are also, in many cases, safer for the mother because you are able to get the fetus out relatively quickly. However, pro-choice doctors either don't believe fetuses are persons or they believe that a woman's right to bodily autonomy outweighs the fetus' right to life. So to a pro-choice doctor, abortion is medically indicated because there is nothing morally wrong with ending the life of the fetus for what they deem to be a sufficiently strong medical reason.<br />
<br />
So the three terms I'd like to introduce here are <i>real disagreement</i>, <i>apparent disagreement</i>, and <i>verbal disagreement</i>.<br />
<br />
A <i>real disagreement</i> is an actual inconsistency between two statements. The statements "The Dodgers won the 1981 World Series" and "The Yankees won the 1981 World Series" are statements in actual disagreement. It is not possible for both statements to be true, although it is possible for both statements to be false (perhaps I am misremembering and it was two different teams that went to the World Series in 1981). So they are not contradictory, but they are inconsistent. And since there is an actual fact of the matter, all it takes to resolve this inconsistency is to Google it or find a sports almanac somewhere.<br />
<br />
An <i>apparent disagreement</i> results from a difference in opinion or perception. So if someone makes the statement "Fifty degrees Fahrenheit is hot" and someone else makes the statement "Fifty degrees Fahrenheit is cold", these statements could actually both be true. Not because language is relative, but because terms sometimes are. Someone who is from Mojave, California might make the first claim, and someone who is from Anchorage, Alaska might make the second claim, because of the temperatures they've gotten used to in their respective locations.<br />
<br />
A <i>verbal disagreement</i> is a disagreement that occurs when different meanings are used for the same term. So if someone looks at a pine tree and says, "that tree is really tall", and someone else kind of scoffs and says, "it's not actually very tall at all," this, again, is not a real disagreement. It's a verbal disagreement. If we consider that the word "tall" is somewhat vague, and that the first statement might be made by a child in fifth grade and the second statement is made by someone who is used to seeing towering redwood trees, then we realize that there is really no disagreement here. The word "tall" is being used in two different ways by both speakers.<br />
<br />
So based on these three types of disagreements, it should be obvious that what is going on here is a verbal disagreement regarding the term "medically indicated". Because pro-life doctors have taken abortion off the table, they do not consider it medically indicated. And because pro-choice doctors have put abortion on the table as a viable medical procedure, they consider it medically indicated. Accusing the other side of lying isn't helpful, and it certainly isn't a result of critical thinking.<br />
<br />
Now with that out of the way, let's look at the tweets from Dr. Gunter.<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
I’ve done abortions after 24 weeks.<br />
For several years I lived in a state with no gestational age limit.<br />
I have never done one that was not medically indicated. <br />
I was never approached by any woman to do a non medically indicated abortion.</div>
— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/1089213147699830785?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
So spare me the lies. <br />
Abortion after 24 weeks is very rare.<br />
It is very expensive.<br />
These are not “whims” because a woman is tired of being pregnant.<br />
These are situations with tragic fetal anomalies, sometimes compounded by maternal health issues</div>
— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/1089213761083269120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
Doctor Gunter, unfortunately, seems to be a pretty extreme pro-choice advocate, unwilling to reasonably engage with those she disagrees with. As such, she starts her second tweet by asserting that pro-life doctors who disagree with her are lying. Of course, lying is not the only thing that might be going on here. As I have shown, what's really going on here is a difference in understanding of what procedures are medically indicated. I don't think Doctor Gunter is lying, and I don't think the pro-life doctors she's responding to are lying. But this is no way to make your disagreement known.<br />
<br />
And while it is true that late-term abortions are much more rare than early-term abortions, the fact of the matter is that they are not just situations with fetal abnormalities or situations in which the woman's life or health is in jeopardy. As <a href="http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/07/no-most-late-term-abortions-are-not_13.html" target="_blank">Secular Pro-Life</a> recorded, according to research done by Guttmacher Institute, which is Planned Parenthood's research organization, most late-term abortions are not done for medical reasons. The most common reasons for late-term abortion are having a baby would dramatically change her life, she can't afford a child now, and having relationship problems or doesn't want to be a single mother. Many late-term abortions are done for the same reasons as early-term abortions, just later for reasons such as she didn't know she was pregnant or had difficulty procuring an abortion earlier.<br />
<br />
The rest of her tweets outline situations in which abortion is medically indicated. Now, of course, that doesn't mean an abortion is necessary to resolve the situation. But abortion would be legally permissible in those cases. Taking a look through them will be instructive, not because they actually prove her case, but because they actually do show just how flimsy the "health" exception is regarding when a woman can procure a late-term abortion.<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
I know of one case after 24 weeks where there were no fetal anomalies. It took months to get the court order as the child’s parents would not consent. It was in the news, so not a HIPAA violation. She had raped by her brother if I remember correctly.</div>
— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/1089214413758853120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
Here's an example Dr. Gunter gives of a girl who was raped by her brother and couldn't get an abortion because her parents wouldn't consent. This is a situation in which it wasn't because of a fetal abnormality or because of a risk to the mother's life. It was because she was raped. A tragic situation, to be sure, but this abortion was done because the fetus was conceived in rape, not because the pregnancy posed a risk to her life.<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Here are some examples:<br />
25 weeks, severe growth restriction and fetus not expected to survive. Pregnant person has severe pre eclampsia, chooses abortion over c-section</div>
— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/1089215697580748800?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
Triploidy pregnancy. Had been planning to deliver at term and have hospice. At 36 weeks, transverse lie. Can’t be induced for this reason. Does not want a c-section. Chooses a dilation and extraction.</div>
— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/1089215711073816576?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2019</a> </blockquote>
Here are two different situations, one focusing on the pregnant woman and the other focusing on the fetus. According to <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/preeclampsia/symptoms-causes/syc-20355745" target="_blank">Mayo Clinic</a>, preeclampsia is a pregnancy complication characterized by high blood pressure and signs of damage to other organ systems. If left untreated, this complication can be fatal for the woman and the child. The most effective treatment if the child is viable is delivery of the baby.<br />
<br />
According to <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health/triploidy" target="_blank">Healthline</a>, the term "triploid" refers to the cells of the fetus, rather than the fetus, herself. A triploid fetus has one extra set of chromosomes in its cells. A haploid cell has one set of chromosomes, 23 -- sperm and ovum cells are haploid. A diploid cell has two sets of chromosomes, 46 -- typical cells are diploid cells, and once the sperm and ovum cells fuse together creating a zygote, this zygote consists of a diploid cell which soon starts to divide as the embryo grows. A triploid cell has three sets of chromosomes, 69, and this results in this condition. Triploidy occurs when the embryo inherits two sets of chromosomes from a parent, rather than just one from each parent. Fetuses with this condition rarely survive until birth, and those that do usually last only a short time afterward.<br />
<br />
So here we have two different conditions, one threatening the life of the mother and one threatening the life of the child. In both cases, the pregnant woman chose abortion over c-section. Now, Dr. Gunter will likely say these conditions were medically indicated, but again, that's because abortion was on the table. If abortion is immoral because it kills an innocent human child, then it can't be medically indicated. So if pro-life physicians are correct, then these conditions would not indicate abortion. The condition of preeclampsia would indicate a c-section to save the mother's life, whether or not she would prefer to have an abortion. And the condition of triploidy would indicate that the child be born normally, since no one has the right to decide for anyone else whether or not their life is worth living.<br />
<br />
In fact, these situations also count as a counterexample to a common pro-choice talking point. Pro-choice people often talk about how no one wants to abort a late-term fetus because these were wanted pregnancies, so late-term abortions are not done frivolously. But these conditions here show that even though these were late-term fetuses, the mothers preferred to kill the child than to undergo a c-section. That's not a loving act from someone who could never kill her own child because of the lateness of the pregnancy, especially since in the case of preeclampsia, according to Mayo Clinic, c-section is the most effective treatment.<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
<br />
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en">
<div dir="ltr" lang="en">
32 weeks, anencephalic fetus. Pregnant person just can’t take people touching her belly and asking about the baby. Chooses an early induction, which is technically an abortion.</div>
— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) <a href="https://twitter.com/DrJenGunter/status/1089215709840760832?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2019</a></blockquote>
Here we have a situation with an anencephalic fetus, which is a fetus where most of the brain has failed to develop. In this case, the pregnant mother asked to induce delivery early because she couldn't take people touching her belly or asking about the baby. She was allowed to deliver early because of this.<br />
<br />
These situations show just how pernicious the "health" exception is for abortion restrictions. They're so broad that there are really no legitimate restrictions on abortion in the United States. A woman was allowed to have a late-term abortion because she was distraught over people asking her about the pregnancy and touching her belly. Another girl was allowed to have a late-term abortion because she had been raped. Another was allowed an abortion because she didn't want to deliver her child via c-section. It is obscene that these situations are considered medically indicated, but they also show that pro-life doctors are on firm ground when they say that a woman never needs an abortion in the late-term.<br />
<br />
In fact, here is an article written by a <a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/1996/03/003-medicalizing-abortion-decisions?fbclid=IwAR2t0siTKB3jOqmXzjnpEKP2DaCt_pcpdEblVypknO5_IsnwxpJBGCs55Fk" target="_blank">pro-life doctor</a> which outlines several situations in which a doctor might prescribe abortion, but after giving these women more information they opted not to abort. These doctors seemed more interested in not being held liable for continuing the pregnancy than in actually saving the life of the unborn patient. On top of that, the author outlines two reasons that doctors prefer to refer for abortion rather than provide needed information to protect the life of the unborn child: "the transference of an ambivalent attitude toward the developing human" and "the unbalanced legal burden of informed consent".<br />
<br />
It takes three days for a late-term abortion because the doctor has to forcibly dilate the cervix. A c-section takes roughly 45 minutes. It's faster and it's safer for the mother. An abortion is never necessary in the late-term, and if it is indeed medically indicated, the medical field is in error.<br />
<script async="" charset="utf-8" src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js"></script>
Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-10058280446010707122018-12-16T20:12:00.000-08:002018-12-16T20:24:40.320-08:00Why We Should Not Honor Established Precedent<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The National Abortion Federation(NAF) has said that we need
Supreme Court justices who will honor established precedent meaning that the
abortion decision, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Roe v. Wade</i>, should
never be overturned. National Abortion Federation, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“We Need a Supreme Court Justice Who Will Honor Established Precedent.”</i>
July 9, 2018. NAF Blog, <a href="https://prochoice.org/need-supreme-court-justice-will-honor-established-precedent/">https://prochoice.org/need-supreme-court-justice-will-honor-established-precedent/</a>.
Those that espouse a duty to honor abortion precedent are mistaken and hypocritical.
When abortion was legalized, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Roe</i>
court abandoned long held legal precedent that protected unborn life to the
celebration of abortion advocates like NAF. What about honoring legal
precedent? I see a double standard. There is nothing wrong with upsetting
established precedent if the precedent is morally wrong. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
History is a great teacher, though very few pay attention to
the lessons that can and should be learned from it. The statement about
honoring precedent by NAF echoes a similar argument America heard back in the
1800s. When the moral issue of slavery was tearing apart our country, slavery
proponents argued that it needed to remain legal, honoring the precedent set in
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dredd Scott </i>decision. I doubt any
person in NAF today would say it was wrong for anti-slavery advocates to upset
established legal precedent founded in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dredd
Scott</i>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The laws back in the South effectively treated
African-Americans as subhuman. It was okay to abuse them, enslave them, deprive
them of their rights, and suppress their efforts for equality because after,
all, they were “lesser” than whites.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
We have a similar law today. The unborn are considered a subhuman
class. It is okay to abuse them, to murder them, and to take away their right
to live because, after all, they are “lesser” than born humans. This kind of
thinking and reasoning is wrong and evil. People that are different than us are
not subhuman. Just like skin color does not make someone less human, someone’s
size, level of development, environment, or degree of dependency also does not
make someone less human. The greatest injustices in history were considered by
many people at the time to be good, moral aspects of culture. But future
generations looked back and rightly found those social institutions like
slavery to be wrong. Likewise, future generations will look back and condemn
abortion as a gross moral evil that was permitted to flourish for far too long
because it was faithfully advocated as a cultural necessity. When are we going
to learn?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The argument that appeals to precedent being established is
a bad one. It doesn’t matter how established a law or Supreme Court decision
is. If it is a bad law that infringes on human rights, then it should be
overturned. Precedent has nothing to do with it. Slavery was precedent and was
established through many laws in the South. That in no way made it something
good that should have been protected and kept legal. When current laws support
injustice it is our moral obligation to stand against those laws. Let us do everything we
can to change them so that justice and goodness are promoted for every
person from the womb to the nursing home. </div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307738292814257779noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-89675742452043584682018-12-10T08:49:00.000-08:002018-12-10T09:04:16.452-08:00The Myth of Neutrality in the Abortion Debate<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
We live in time where human life is no longer valued. From
the womb to the death bed, evil worldviews are being implemented through
legislation and people are dying as a result. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Throughout history, there have always been
groups of people that have been wrongly marginalized and dehumanized so that
injustice can be perpetuated as if it’s a virtue. The most difficult and egregious
thing about this is that the injustice is always presented as something good, right,
and beneficial, when in fact the opposite it true. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Physician and anthropologist Dr. Paul Farmer has said that “The
idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the
world.” The issue of abortion perpetuates that idea-that some lives are not
worth protecting because they get “in the way” of someone else’s desire for
happiness or ease of living. Many people pretend that there is some middle
ground on this issue. They claim to be personally opposed to abortion but will
not lift a finger to rescue innocent victims that are being led away to a
literal slaughter. To paraphrase Desmond Tutu, confessing one’s alleged
neutrality on important moral matters places you on the side of the oppressor.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
When it comes to abortion, you are either for it or against
it. When people make the claim that they are personally against abortion but
say that some people have the right to make that decision for themselves, they
are, in effect, saying that there is nothing wrong with intentionally killing
an innocent human being if it feels right to someone else. Our value and right
to life does not emanate from the fickle feelings of another person. Human
value is rooted in something much deeper than that. It is grounded in the fact
that we are made after the likeness of God Himself. We have been given a
rational nature that is grounded throughout time. Of course, there are
developmental differences and many changes that occur during a human’s life,
but those alterations do not change the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">kind</i>
of being that exists. There are many human beings that function at different
levels rationally: the mentally handicapped, elderly people with Alzheimer’s,
the embryo, the fetus, those who are sleeping, and those temporarily in comas.
Yet all of these people with different rational capabilities still have a right
to life because of their inherent nature. Christopher Kaczor uses the example of the
reproductive organs in men and woman. The ovaries and testicles on men and
woman are not “potential” organs when they are not being used for sexual
reproduction. They remain reproductive organs whether or not they actually
function as such because that is what <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they
are</i>. Likewise, the rational human being may not function in the same way as
others, but from conception to natural death, human beings hold a value and dignity
in their very existence because <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">they are </i>human.
Christopher Kaczor. (2011) <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Ethics of
Abortion: Women’s Rights, Human Life, and the Question of Justice</i>, Routledge,
New York and London. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Injustice and evil take so many forms and it is important to
be able to recognize them and expose them for what they really are. Abortion is
a serious battlefield that needs to be faithfully fought upon. The worst kind
of injustice takes place around us every single day as approximately three
thousand innocent babies lose their life in that span of time. Doing the right
thing and standing up for the voiceless have always been difficult tasks
because if you do that, you are in the minority. As I like to remind myself,
God has never worked with large numbers to accomplish amazing things. Press on
and keep fighting. Do not give up because in the end, we really do win. Life
will prevail. </div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307738292814257779noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-50312650356123256522018-12-07T15:56:00.004-08:002018-12-07T15:56:44.202-08:00Book Review: Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice by Rebecca Todd Peters [Clinton Wilcox]<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPxqzTdBqV3S0H-rrelW_V7emcHCqVhPCQ5_F2FxIzUxhfrgoqWdqCesPIROw9Aks9HvhHJRlk3JxNqYM-ebCF7LcBat4IQUZ4Gx9L-Ht7zfjyGhQIv2pHPl_6joiejuOsliZ_tiT0oz08/s1600/TW.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="333" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhPxqzTdBqV3S0H-rrelW_V7emcHCqVhPCQ5_F2FxIzUxhfrgoqWdqCesPIROw9Aks9HvhHJRlk3JxNqYM-ebCF7LcBat4IQUZ4Gx9L-Ht7zfjyGhQIv2pHPl_6joiejuOsliZ_tiT0oz08/s320/TW.jpg" width="213" /></a></div>
<i>Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice</i> by Rebecca Todd Peters is, unfortunately, another one of those dime-a-dozen pro-choice books that adds nothing of value to the conversation. Peters is a self-proclaimed feminist social ethicist, but her understanding of the abortion issue is shallow, at best, and she doesn't understand the arguments that pro-life people actually make. On top of that, she outright lies about the agenda of pro-life people. She talks a lot about the role of women in the abortion issue and doesn't give any good reasons to believe the unborn should not be considered in the abortion issue. She uses the word "moral" a lot, but every time she does, the immortal words of Inigo Montoya just echo through my head: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." I also doubt she's ever actually read any books written by pro-life people. I have at least two points of evidence for this claim: 1) She actually claims that "[t]here is an unexamined pronatalist bias in this country." She can only make this statement if she's never read any books or articles by pro-life thinkers. She may disagree, but to claim that our bias is unexamined, or that it really even is a bias, is ignorance of the highest degree. 2) Not only does she consistently misrepresent pro-life arguments and lie about pro-life activists, whenever she quotes a pro-life activist it's either from a news source, such as <i>New York Times</i>, or a staunchly pro-abortion website like <i>Mother Jones</i>. She also consistently shows a lack of knowledge of the abortion debate, in general. This is not acceptable behavior for someone who wants to be known as an ethicist.<br />
<br />
I hate having to be so harsh. I was pretty blunt when I reviewed Willie Parker's book because it was so awful (and dishonest), and unfortunately Peters' book is just more of the same feminist complaints about misogyny and how pro-life people just want to control the bodies of women. It really does just get old because so many pro-choice advocates are willing to fight dirty in their advocacy for abortion. I am willing to recommend pro-choice books that make meaningful contributions to the abortion debate, as I did with Kate Greasley's recent book. This is a book that will go unrecommended from me as a good contribution to the abortion debate.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, the book reads as if it was written by someone who is uneducated in logic, has never read Scripture, and has not read many books by people who aren't feminists. I'll just give three examples from chapter eight of the book, then I'll stop harping on her lack of qualifications as an ethicist and just respond to a couple of her arguments which are germane to her overall thesis.<br />
<br />
1. On page 170 of her book, she claims that in today's society, sex is not just for procreative purposes. People just tend to want to have sex for pleasure rather than to create a child. This doesn't mean that many people aren't willing to accept pregnancy resulting from sex, but "it challenges the long-held Christian narrative that the purpose of sex is procreation."<br />
<br />
But this is completely false. She acts as if no one in Christian history has ever had sex simply because they enjoy it. But one read through Song of Solomon will show that to those who take Scripture seriously, sex is also something that is immensely enjoyable. In fact, the Apostle Paul told fellow believers it is better to marry than to burn with lust and have sex in a sinful way (1 Corinthians 7:9). Christians have long held that sex is enjoyable and there is nothing wrong with having sex because you enjoy it. But none of this lends any sort of evidence for Peters' claim that sex is not for reproduction. The final end of the sexual organs is reproduction -- that's why we call them reproductive organs and not recreational organs. Sex is enjoyable, but it is not the purpose of sex. Just as eating is enjoyable but the purpose of eating is to nourish the body, not simply for enjoyment. A couple can have sex because they enjoy it, but all sex they have must be open to creation of new life to be ethical.<br />
<br />
2. On pages 170-171, she talks about cryogenically frozen embryos. Considering how many pro-life people in minority groups believe in adopting these embryos, she makes the following argument:<br />
"[C]oncern over the fate of these embryos pales in comparison to the outsized public interest in preventing pregnant woman from securing safe, legal abortions. This is further evidence that abortion politics are not about abortion, the status of prenatal life, or women's health, as much as they are about the social control of women."<br />
<br />
Her argument here doesn't even make any sense. Pro-life people, by definition, do not believe in "safe, legal abortions" because they kill innocent human beings. It's not very clear what she's arguing. Is she arguing that pro-life people care more about saving frozen embryos than in helping the women that can't abort because of pro-life laws? That, of course, would take some defense (which is not forthcoming), especially since there are numerous pro-life pregnancy care centers and churches who are able and willing to help. This is just a nonsensical argument.<br />
<br />
3. Finally, on pages 174ff., she quotes a theologian named Kendra Hotz who describes parenthood as "a calling that not everyone is called to fulfill." She continues, "the choice for parenthood is bigger than what pleases me; it is also about God's reconciliation of all things." She argues that parenthood is a sacred trust, a covenant relationship entered into in which parents care for and nurture their children.<br />
<br />
Of course, this is a mistaken view about parenthood; or at least, very simplistic. No one can be forced into a covenant -- covenants are agreements made between two or more parties. While parents could certainly enter into a covenant (and they do when they get married), having children cannot be considered a covenant because no one has a choice to be conceived. No child has a choice to be part of this covenant relationship. In fact, it's this natural neediness and the fact that they didn't choose to be conceived which is part of what grounds the parents' obligation to care for their children.<br />
<br />
The idea that not everyone is called to be a parent is simply absurd. If God didn't call all people, in general, to be parents, he wouldn't have made sex the way to conceive children and then give all people a sex drive. We have a sex drive, and reproduction happens through sex, because God wants us to populate the world and wants us to have families. Families are good things. People are made for community, which is why Paul exhorts us not to forsake assembling together with other believers. Friends come and go, but families give us a community of people who will always be there for each other when we need it most. In fact, I don't find anywhere in Scripture that only certain people are called to be parents. What I do find in Scripture is that certain people are called to be single. In fact, because our sex drive is so strong, it takes a special gift and a special calling to remain single and celibate. It is not for everyone. Again, this idea that one must be specially called into parenthood is absurd.<br />
<br />
The main argument of Peters' book is to shift the discussion away from what she calls "the justification framework" (i.e. the idea that women have to give reasons to justify their abortions) toward a framework of reproductive justice. She writes, "[Reproductive Justice] has three primary principles: the right <i>not</i> to have a child, the right to <i>have</i> a child, and the right to <i>parent</i> in safe and healthy environments" (p. 7, emphases hers). Trying to shift the conversation away from the nature of the unborn isn't exactly a new tactic -- many pro-choice people do that in their conversations, and occasionally a pro-choice author will try to do that in one of her books (e.g. Eileen McDonagh trying to shift the conversation from one of choice to one of consent). In fact, Judith Thomson's famous essay with the violinist tried to shift the conversation away from the nature of the unborn. Peters' new tactic is to frame the conversation away from what the unborn are and more toward the lives of women. She believes that the complex lives of women is the foundation that we must start from in the conversation on abortion.<br />
<br />
Peters is very much pro-abortion, believing that any restrictions on abortion are immoral and oppressive. How does she justify her pro-choice stance? She believes that the "prenate" (her term for the human embryo/fetus) only crosses the threshold of life by the physical experience of birth, becoming part of the human community (p. 5). She then claims that beginning with the premise that women should continue their pregnancies misidentifies the act of "terminating a pregnancy" as the starting point for our ethical conversation. She writes, <i>"It reduces the conversation to an abstract question of whether abortion is right or wrong, creating a binary framework woefully inadequate for the complexity of the moral questions surrounding abortion. Abortion, however, is never an abstract ethical question. It is, rather, a particular answer to a prior ethical question: 'What should I do when faced with an unplanned, unwanted, or medically compromised pregnancy?' This question can only be addressed within the life of a particular woman at a given moment in time"</i> (p. 6). Thus, by attempting to reframe the discussion of abortion, she can completely dismiss the question of whether or not the unborn are human beings with a wave of the hand and resort to telling stories about the difficult situations women find themselves in and justifying their decision to abort based on their considerations regarding that difficult decision (of course, she ignores the fact that abortion is only a difficult decision because there is a human child at stake in the decision). Plus, she doesn't really give us any reason for believing that we should reframe the discussion in such a way. One could just as easily support infanticide or toddlercide by arguing that we should reframe the discussion away from one of are infants and toddlers human persons and toward one of the complex lives of parents. However, if the unborn are persons, as pro-life advocates argue, then we can't just take them out of the equation. No matter how complex a woman's life is, it doesn't justify murder of an innocent human being. So unless she can make a compelling case that the unborn are not persons, then we are free to reject her suggestion that we move the conversation in a different direction.<br />
<br />
What are her arguments that the unborn aren't persons? She has a small section in chapter five dedicated to that question. Needless to say, she does not engage with the argument of pro-life thinkers but primarily repeats talking points you hear from lay level pro-choice advocates:<br /><br />1. Several times she declares that the belief that personhood is established at fertilization is a "theological belief". Of course this is plainly false (again lending credibility to my claim that she likely has never read any books or articles from pro-life thinkers).<br />
<br />
2. While "prenates" are human, they are not fully developed. They don't have a heart in the same sense that we do, even though it beats, because the prenate body is still in development. This argument always strikes me as bizarre. Do pro-choice people not understand how development works? Do they not realize that even infants and toddlers are not fully developed? She claims that birth is when we become persons, but if she is going to deny personhood rights to the unborn on the grounds that they are not fully developed, she is being inconsistent by not denying infants or toddlers personhood rights.<br />
<br />
3. Prenates cannot survive outside the womb before viability and are dependent on the woman's body. But of course, these things do not justify denying personhood rights to the unborn. After all, people in reversible comas cannot survive outside the hospital environment without their respirator. Diabetics cannot survive without insulin. Being dependent on someone or something else for your survival does not mean you have less rights. In fact, we often tend to think it grounds more of an obligation to help someone, if we can. Not less of an obligation.<br />
<br />
Those are the main arguments she gives, and needless to say they are not persuasive in the least. There are many problems with Peters' book, and I'd have to write a book myself to address all of them.<br />
<br />
One major issue is that she cites studies in support of many of her statements. The problem, though, is that almost always she quotes just one study that supports her position. However, one study is not evidence of your claim. The thing about studies is that they are easy to fudge the results of (and, in fact, it has been shown that many studies are unreliable because the sociologists were more interested in appeasing their donors than in getting to the truth -- and she even talks about one such study on p. 88, in which the sociologist was unaware of biases that tainted his studies). Results must be replicatable to be reliable, so pointing to one study does not support her position. And despite the fact she dismisses pro-life organizations as unreliable, she constantly relies on pro-abortion organizations, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who are also unreliable as organizations for the same reason (just reversed). In fact, I've written an article taking ACOG to task for being dishonest when asked a question about when human life begins.<br />
<br />
She also makes several dishonest claims about pro-life people. One of the most egregious is on p. 42, in which she references the Center for Medical Progress' videos showing Planned Parenthood selling fetal body parts for profit. She repeats the common claim that these videos were "heavily edited". Of course they were heavily edited. That's what you do when you want to shorten them for public consumption. What she probably means is that they were "deceptively edited", despite the fact that the full videos are available on-line for viewing<br />
<br />
It would take a book or several lengthy articles to pick out every error in reasoning or false claim made by Peters. But this should suffice to show that Peters' book, unfortunately, is not one that adds meaningfully to the discussion on abortion. Your time will be better spent reading something else.Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-10214095720014908772018-11-01T08:52:00.001-07:002018-11-01T08:52:39.474-07:00On Destiny's Unfortunate Support for Pro-Abortion Politicians [Clinton Wilcox]Yesterday, Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa, founder and president of <a href="https://www.newwavefeminists.com/" target="_blank">New Wave Feminists</a>, wrote an opinion piece for Dallas News entitled, "<a href="https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/10/31/pro-life-voted-beto-orourke-done-used-gop?fbclid=IwAR0Drab-6dzWdLhv9PE0HL1m5I0xLf-PEefXqZ5GynrZlQ7BOldhRU_UAek" target="_blank">I'm pro-life and I voted for Beto O'Rourke because I'm done being used by the GOP</a>". To put it mildly, Destiny's article is poorly reasoned. I would expect this kind of article from someone like Rachel Held Evans, not from someone who wants to be known as a pro-life leader. In short, "The GOP uses us, therefore we should support the pro-abortion Democrats" is, of course, a non-sequitur, mixed with a false dichotomy. There are more than two parties one can support, and there are other pro-life parties one can support if one is fed up with the GOP (rightly or wrongly; it's not my intention to enter into this debate here). Before I begin, I want to point out that I sympathize with Destiny's frustration at legalized abortion having gone on for so long. And I'm going to be a bit harsh in this article (and I'll try to do it as nicely as possible). But this must be done, since Destiny's article is likely to mislead a number of pro-life people into voting for a pro-abortion candidate for U.S. Senate.<br />
<br />
In case you aren't aware, Beto O'Rourke (D) is running against former presidential candidate and current senate incumbent Ted Cruz (R) for Texas U.S. senator. As you might imagine, Cruz is against abortion in all cases except when the mother's life is in danger, and believes in defunding Planned Parenthood. O'Rourke, on the other hand, is strongly pro-abortion. I tried looking for what his exact views on abortion are but have come up empty. My google-fu is apparently not strong enough. However, on his <a href="https://betofortexas.com/issue/womens-health/" target="_blank">campaign website</a>, under "women's health" in issues, it has the following: "Ensuring that a woman's right to choose is not compromised by limited access to safe and legal abortion services or family planning help." That, combined with the fact that in 2017, he voted against the 20-week abortion ban on the grounds that it would endanger the life and health of women (which, of course, is false since most late-term abortions done are <a href="http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/07/no-most-late-term-abortions-are-not_13.html" target="_blank">not medically necessary</a>), lead me to conclude that O'Rourke supports late-term abortion at least until the point of birth, since he opposes limiting access to "safe and legal abortion services". As such, if you are pro-life in Texas, it seems pretty clear which is the preferred candidate.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Destiny disagrees. So now let's dig into her article and see how her case for a pro-life vote for O'Rourke is so weak.<br />
<br />
She starts her article off with a pretty bizarre statement: she broke the "golden rule" of the pro-life movement, which is to vote Republican. Of course, this isn't the golden rule of the pro-life movement. If there is a golden rule, it's to vote pro-life, not vote Republican. Pro-life people are not tied to the Republican party. If the Democrat party had a pro-life platform and the Republicans ran on a pro-abortion platform, the pro-life movement would be voting Democrat. It's the pro-life platform pro-life people cling to, not the color red. Perhaps Destiny doesn't understand the pro-life movement as well as she thinks she does. But this alleged tie will be a recurring theme in Destiny's article.<br />
<br />
Next she talks about how she voted for people who had other views she found detestable, such as bombing other countries or taking children away from their families. Of course, these two statements are very much simplified and I'm not really interested in cashing them out. But needless to say, actions taken in wartime are not comparable to abortion (as war can be permissible but abortion is rarely permissible), and the situation of illegal immigration and taking children away from their parents is much more complicated than there being simply a nefarious mustache-twirling villain sitting in the Oval Office, wanting to tear children from the grasp of their parents.<br />
<br />
She states that she's a "consistent life ethicist", meaning that she opposes "all forms of violence against other human beings". Now, I've been a pretty vocal critic of the "consistent life ethic" for some time. It's really just a way for some pro-life people to feel morally superior to other pro-life people. It's just a more sophisticated form of saying "I'm more pro-life than you." Again, I'm not really intending to debate the merits or lack thereof of this idea. But it seems pretty hollow when we consider that she voted for O'Rourke. If she really opposes all forms of violence against other human beings, why would she vote for someone who openly opposes any restrictions on abortion instead of Ted Cruz, a man who actually has a pretty good track record of pro-life votes? Just this year, Ted Cruz backed an amendment which would have <a href="https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/Cruz-v-O-Rourke-Forget-the-hype-here-s-13244825.php" target="_blank">defunded Planned Parenthood</a> in Texas (the measure lost, unfortunately). In fact, political scientist <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/opinion/campaign-stops/what-about-ted-cruz.html" target="_blank">Alan Abramowitz</a> has said publicly that Cruz's positions are on the far right, even further to the right than conservative leaders like Reagan and Gingrich, and Cruz is among the 2 or 3 most consistently conservative voices in the senate. And Destiny, the "consistent life ethicist", thought O'Rourke would be a better choice.<br />
<br />
Once Beto O'Rourke entered the race, though, he apparently charmed her enough to win her support. He wanted to "work with Republicans and independents", and "find common-ground solutions" we can all get behind on nonpartisan issues. Of course, abortion being a partisan issue, one wonders why this would win Destiny's support, especially when friend after friend warned her about O'Rourke and his many attempts to stop common-sense restrictions on abortion, which she apparently turned a blind eye to. And her rationale for turning a blind eye to this? Because her organization, New Wave Feminists, is not just a pro-life organization, but a feminist one, and Trump has made public declarations that paint him as a pretty sexist guy. But again, one wonders why this would lead her to vote for O'Rourke. Cruz is not Trump. Cruz is Cruz. And even if Cruz was a sexist in the same vein as Trump allegedly is, this should lead someone concerned about such matters to not vote. Or apparently she believes that dehumanizing unborn children is more justifiable than dehumanizing women. Or perhaps it just hasn't exactly sunk in for Destiny that unborn children really are full persons deserving of full moral respect (I have spoken to pro-life people like this, who pay lip service to fetal personhood but don't act as if they really believe it). No matter which it is, her decision to vote for O'Rourke is disappointing.<br />
<br />
Destiny relies on a red herring in her article. She doesn't have any dirt on Cruz, so she spends an inordinate amount of time talking about Trump, which has nothing to do with whether or not Cruz will be a good conservative voice in the Senate. And while it's true that President Trump so far has not kept his campaign promise to defund Planned Parenthood, and Republicans have, in the past, failed pretty spectacularly to vote in a way consistent with their alleged pro-life views, what Destiny also fails to consider is that there are many pro-life laws that have been passed in many states, such as mandatory waiting periods and parental notification laws, which have been shown to reduce the incidences of abortion. Do you think someone like O'Rourke will support these laws? He doesn't believe in abortion restrictions, so it doesn't seem he would. With pro-life legislators, it is easier to pass these pro-life laws. Pro-choice legislators will make passing these laws extremely more difficult.<br />
<br />
Continuing her red herring, she moves on to Kavanaugh. Susan Collins, she reminds us, voted yes for Kavanaugh's confirmation because he assured her that <i>Roe</i> is "settled law". Whether or not this is true has no basis on whether or not she should vote for Cruz over O'Rourke.<br />
<br />
Destiny goes on to tell us that we have to create a post-<i>Roe</i> culture while <i>Roe</i> still stands in order to eradicate abortion from our culture. But this is simply a pipe dream. Abortion will never completely go away, even if it's made illegal. Again, one wonders just exactly what Destiny expects of the pro-life movement. With <a href="https://pregnancyhelpnews.com/phc-10-numbers" target="_blank">2,752 locations</a> across the U.S., pregnancy care centers significantly outnumber abortion businesses, to say nothing of the number of churches in the United States who would be willing to help a woman or couple in a crisis pregnancy. The resources are there for any pregnant woman who wants them. I don't know anyone who thinks that we should <i>only</i> make abortion illegal and stop there. Every pro-life advocate I know, including the leaders, agree that pregnancy care centers provide valuable services. But to claim that we should make a post-<i>Roe</i> culture before outlawing <i>Roe</i> is simply misguided and foolish. In fact, none other than moral reformer Martin Luther King, Jr., would disagree with her.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , "blinkmacsystemfont" , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">Now the other myth that gets around is the idea that legislation cannot really solve the problem and that it has no great role to play in this period of social change because you’ve got to change the heart and you can’t change the heart through legislation. You can’t legislate morals. The job must be done through education and religion. Well, there’s half-truth involved here. Certainly, if the problem is to be solved then in the final sense, hearts must be changed. Religion and education must play a great role in changing the heart. But we must go on to say that while it may be true that morality cannot be legislated, behavior can be regulated. It may be true that the law cannot change the heart but it can restrain the heartless. </span><span style="background-color: white; box-sizing: inherit; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , "blinkmacsystemfont" , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me but it can keep him from lynching me and I think that is pretty important, also.</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #222325; font-family: "gotham a" , "gotham b" , , , "blinkmacsystemfont" , "segoe ui" , "roboto" , "helvetica neue" , "arial" , sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"> So there is a need for executive orders. There is a need for judicial decrees. There is a need for civil rights legislation on the local scale within states and on the national scale from the federal government. [1]</span></blockquote>
In fact, New Wave Feminists does not have a monopoly on wanting to make abortion unthinkable. <a href="http://www.jfaweb.org/" target="_blank">Justice for All</a> was working toward making abortion unthinkable long before New Wave Feminists ever came around. One can work toward making abortion unthinkable while also working toward making it illegal, and we should because killing an innocent human being should be punished, and especially prevented.<br />
<br />
Destiny mentions that she does not believe O'Rourke, like most pro-choice people, is really "pro-abortion". He is "pro-choice" and just believes abortion to be a "necessary evil." This might make it easier for Destiny to sleep at night, but there is evidence that countermands her statements here. The majority of Americans, including pro-choice people, oppose late-term abortions as has been shown time and again by <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/235469/trimesters-key-abortion-views.aspx" target="_blank">Gallup polls</a>. O'Rourke doesn't believe in any restrictions on abortion, which means O'Rourke is out of touch with what the average American believes, even those on his side of the fence. If you believe in unrestricted abortion access for any reason, you are not simply pro-choice, you are pro-abortion. And while O'Rourke says he supports "safe and legal abortion access," he has dropped the word "rare" from that slogan, meaning that he doesn't even seem to have any moral qualms about abortion (why make it rare if there is nothing morally wrong with it?). Additionally, O'Rourke is not willing to work with the other side on this because he doesn't believe in any restrictions on abortion. Destiny's belief simply does not reflect reality.<br />
<br />
The first sentence of her article states that she may have ruined her career with her vote for O'Rourke. If Destiny refuses to admit that she was wrong and recant her support for O'Rourke, then this incident should end her career as a pro-life leader. We should not have pro-life leaders who compromise their pro-life views by voting into office those who are dedicated to fighting tooth and nail to provide unlimited abortion services for women. I would hope that Destiny realizes the egregious error she's made and does the right thing.<br />
<br />
[1] From Martin Luther King, Jr.'s address at Western Michigan University, December 18, 1963Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-76026307450737994762018-10-26T08:17:00.001-07:002018-10-26T08:17:47.535-07:00The Supreme Court’s Insidious History of Approving Injustice
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
The Supreme Court of the United States has an impressive
record of condoning injustice. It was the Supreme Court that claimed that
African Americans were not “persons”. It was the Supreme Court that affirmed
the “separate but equal” facilities to keep blacks and whites separate. It was
this court that declared that unborn human beings were not “persons” under the
law, condemning millions of little humans to death by poison, crushing,
burning, or dismembering. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
If you read the legal texts of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Roe v. Wade</i>, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Doe v. Bolton</i>,
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Planned Parenthood v. Casey</i>, etc.,
the reasons given for legalizing and justifying abortion hinge on an assumption
that the unborn are not human like us and, therefore, warrant no protection
under Constitutional law. In <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Planned Parenthood
v. Casey</i>, the court used language to denigrate the unborn to a subhuman,
“other” status. The legal opinions of these cases rendered by the justices
support a worldview that holds that all human beings are not equal. In effect,
the Court opinions say killing some people to achieve a selfish benefit is not always
morally problematic. One of the justifications for this was that because some
people disagree about when human life begins, the Court could not take a side
regarding the “mystery of human life”. This “mystery of human life” is really not
so much a mystery. The science of embryology is clear that the unborn are
living, distinct, and whole human beings from the moment of conception. As
Scott Klusendforf says, the absence of consensus does not mean that there is an
absence of truth. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine if these cases were decided to allow women to murder
their inconvenient toddlers using the language of “potential life” and “mystery
of human life” to relegate three year olds to a class of humans with no rights.
Comparing the toddler to the unborn is a very useful tactic because it reveals
a begging of the question. The immediate reaction from the pro-choice person is
to say how the toddler is very different from the unborn human being. In
response to that, ask the person what the relevant differences are between the
unborn and the toddler that justifies killing one but not the other. The
typical response is to point to the size, level of development, environment, or
the degree of dependency of the unborn baby. If human beings have equal value,
that worth must be grounded in something we all share equally. The value human
beings possess comes from the fact that we are made in God’s image. We have
been given a rational and relational nature that grounds our existence
throughout time. Though many changes occur throughout human development, none
of those developmental modifications increase the right to life. The basic
human right to live cannot be contingent upon alterable characteristics for
that would mean that the human right to live would vary from person to person. Our
moral intuitions reject that. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Planned Parenthood v.
Casey</i> acknowledged that some people find abortion offensive to their
morality but the Court concluded that that could not control their decision
because that view should not mandate moral code. But they did in fact mandate a
moral code-the very thing they claimed to avoid. The moral code they endorsed
was that it was permissible to kill little human beings in the womb if they are
unwanted. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Our laws in this country condemn and prevent people from
harming and killing their animals in horrible ways. While you cannot torture
your dog just because you don’t want him anymore nor can you kill an endangered
species without facing jail time, you can walk into an abortion clinic and have
your unborn baby torn apart in the name of “reproductive freedom”. Taking the
life of an innocent human is granted under our laws in this country. This evil
is so difficult to fight because you don’t see the dead babies and their body
parts when you walk out your front door. The apathy that surrounds this
injustice is appalling. Do not sit idly by while your unborn neighbor is being
taken to the slaughter. We have all been made for such a time as this. The
battle we face is one of life and death. Be on the side that chooses life.</div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307738292814257779noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-22547836906389807822018-10-10T13:19:00.001-07:002018-10-10T13:22:32.939-07:00“Vital” Health Services for Whom? Planned Parenthood Avoids the Only Question That Really Matters.<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Planned
Parenthood is responsible for over 300,000 abortions every year. That is a
third of the nation’s abortions. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Yet
you would never know this listening to Planned Parenthood or its apologists in
the main stream media. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Both would rather
change the subject and that is exactly what happens every time this issue is
brought up. You’ll get lectured about how poor people need Planned Parenthood's services and
that without them, poor women will have nowhere to go for health problems. You’ll
get lectured about the “many vital health services” Planned Parenthood offers
and how abortion is only 3% of its activity. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Do
not believe this red herring. That three percent figure is misleading. An
article in the abortion-sympathizing Washington Post doesn’t believe it either.
</span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.e95753146dc1" target="_blank"><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/08/12/for-planned-parenthood-abortion-stats-3-percent-and-94-percent-are-both-misleading/?utm_term=.e95753146dc1</span></a><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">) </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">But
suppose the 3% figure is true. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">What
would that matter? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Since
when do good deeds atone for bad ones? If the KKK provides free medical care to
non-white women, does that make it a benevolent organization? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">The
issue is not whether Planned Parenthood offers other services. They do. The
issue is whether abortion violently and intentionally kills an innocent human
being. Imagine a clinic that treated epilepsy and diabetes. In that same
clinic, there’s a room where parents could take burdensome toddlers and have
them euthanized. Suppose that clinic euthanized 300,000 children a year. Would
anyone with a functioning conscience justify the clinic’s murdering toddlers by
pointing to their “other services”?</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Of
course, Planned Parenthood and its defenders reply that toddlers and fetuses
are not the same. But that’s precisely the issue isn’t it? If abortion does not
intentionally kill an innocent human being, who cares if abortion is 3% or your
business or 100% of your business? If abortion does intentionally kill an
innocent human being, (and it does) then Planned Parenthood has got a lot of
explaining to do.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Justifying
abortion won’t be easy. The science of embryology confirms that you are
identical to the embryo you once were. You’re the same being now as you were then. But in Planned Parenthood’s worldview, being human isn’t enough. You
must also be a “person,” and embryos and fetuses fail the test. </span><span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">In
other words, there’s a class of humans we can’t kill who are persons and
another class we can kill who are not. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">There
is no significant difference between the embryo you once were and the adult you
are today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not okay to pick on
small humans who depend on us. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Planned
Parenthood does not and cannot provide a serious defense of its position. Its
apologists simply assume the unborn are not one of us. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But Planned Parenthood is not the arbiter of
who is valuable and who is not. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">We
have a long history of ignoring the humanity of those we wish to exploit for
our benefit. Slaves didn’t count because of their skin color. Women didn’t
count because of their gender. Embryos and fetuses don’t count because of their
size and dependency. Planned Parenthood and its supporters are just exchanging
one form of discrimination for another and it is costing millions of lives. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">When
people spoke up against the evil of slavery, defenders of that injustice changed
the subject and talked about how slavery “benefits society”, and assumed that
the slave was not one of them. When abortion is brought up, PP talks about how
women benefit from health services, that abortion is only “3%” of what it does,
and that women need it to flourish. They assume the unborn is not one of them. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Which
women need it to flourish? What about all the unborn women? What about their
rights? </span></div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307738292814257779noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-69489518900526426012018-09-06T14:10:00.000-07:002018-09-06T14:22:14.425-07:00Book Review: Arguments About Abortion by Kate Greasley [Clinton Wilcox]<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk-w163zUBwJzTTWBH-P3uj_AYP7cC5Y6rpyRfZ44RXZVUJt6nGU_SByoKcnj6gA4yi2wruZJG4nKwFJe3Qs8XWfEENESywlHYbH71C6NHT_KijECmkfXk3ON-LBMEq94tNeHQhWf0EIBJ/s1600/AAA.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="331" height="200" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhk-w163zUBwJzTTWBH-P3uj_AYP7cC5Y6rpyRfZ44RXZVUJt6nGU_SByoKcnj6gA4yi2wruZJG4nKwFJe3Qs8XWfEENESywlHYbH71C6NHT_KijECmkfXk3ON-LBMEq94tNeHQhWf0EIBJ/s200/AAA.jpg" width="132" /></a></div>
<i>Arguments About Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law</i> is a book published in 2017 by Kate Greasley, a British lawyer. This book took me by surprise as I didn't hear about it until earlier this year. It also seems to have slipped under the radar, having only one review at the time of this review's writing on Amazon and none on Goodreads. However, I would say, without exaggeration, that Greasley's book is an important contribution to the discussion on abortion and for anyone who wants to understand this issue, this book is required reading. I read a lot of books by pro-life and pro-choice advocates. It's not often that a good pro-choice book comes along, one that not only makes a compelling intellectual and articulate case for the pro-choice position, but also interacts with the best of the pro-life academic literature on the topic. The best book defending abortion before this one was David Boonin's 2002 book <i>A Defense of Abortion</i>. Now I can place this book alongside Boonin's as one that anyone who wants to educate themselves on the issue must read.<br />
<br />
Greasley's book is in three parts. In the first part, she examines arguments that try to show that the question of personhood is irrelevant to the abortion debate, including 1) Thomson's bodily autonomy argument justifies abortion whether or not the unborn are persons, 2) that abortion can be justified as an act of self-defense, and 3) Dworkin's "red herring" argument, that at the heart of the issue is not really personhood but that pro-life people believe that life is sacred and inviolable. Greasley interacts with these, and others, dispatching them, showing that these arguments do not justify abortion if the unborn are persons. So the personhood of the unborn is the central issue regarding whether or not abortion is moral. The second part of her book is where she makes her case that the unborn are not persons. The third part of her book talks about issues regarding abortion law and regulation.<br />
<br />
I will not look at her arguments in part one since I agree with her position. I also won't look at her arguments in part three because they really depend upon her arguments in part two succeeding. So I will leave that up to the reader to follow up there. I do want to look at her arguments regarding personhood. I don't believe her arguments succeed in justifying abortion for the reasons that I give below.<br />
<br />
While Greasley's case is intelligent and articulate, I believe that her case fails for one important reason: She interacts with some of the best pro-life thinkers, but she only interacts with two main views of personhood among pro-life advocates: substance dualism and animalism. She doesn't interact with hylemorphism, such as that held by Edward Feser. The reason that this is important is not just because she neglects to interact with a feasible account of personhood, so considering that she hasn't refuted it, her own argument that the unborn are not persons fails. But it's also important because the criticisms she raises against substance dualism and animalism are easily answered by hylemorphism. So it can give the impression that there are no good responses from pro-life advocates when in fact there are responses to these concerns already in the literature.<br />
<br />
That being said, I'll address two of her main contentions in the book: that the unborn do not count as persons, and that pro-life personhood accounts also suffer from various amounts of arbitrariness.<br />
<br />
Personhood<br />
<br />
Greasley takes the position that personhood is a gradual property, not an all-or-nothing one. Similar to Mary Anne Warren, she takes personhood attributes to be the fully realized, presently exercisable capacities that typical human adults exhibit. Human adults are our paradigm case for persons, and when you ask what capacities they possess that other creatures, which we don't consider persons, lack, these are things like rational thought, the ability to communicate, etc. These, of course, are gradually developing properties. But since early embryos lack these capacities, just like creatures who are non-persons lack them, they are not persons, either.<br />
<br />
However, while personhood develops gradually, there is a definite point at which we should establish legal personhood, even if the unborn are not yet persons in the moral sense. She thinks that the unborn don't become persons in the moral sense until sometime after birth, but that we should establish birth as the point at which we establish personhood legally. So she would take personhood not to arrive at a certain threshold, which someone like David Boonin would take to be a set point, Greasley takes personhood to be a ranged property. A ranged property, she explains, is some arbitrarily determined point at which we will establish that all who meet these qualifications will be considered persons (paraphrased, p. 183). Regarding the fact that not all human beings who are born lack these personal properties that adults exhibit, she further explains, "[a]lthough human beings in general meet the condition, there are of course some individuals who fail entirely to realize that capacity or who realize it only to a minimal degree, perhaps as a consequence of some unfortunate defect or deprivation" (p. 183). In other words, some human beings may fail to exhibit the properties that adult humans exhibit which make them persons. But as long as they fall under the legally recognized range of personhood, they are persons, no matter how closely they resemble adults, the paradigm case. To even further explain the concept of a range, you might think of the state of California. Fresno and Blythe are both cities in California. Fresno is further into California than Blythe is, Fresno being in the center and Blythe being near the border to Arizona. But even though one city is clearly further inside California than the other, both are considered California cities because they are inside the state boundary.<br />
<br />
Of course, Greasley recognizes that a possible retort is that this argument attempts to have it both ways, that personhood is binary (i.e. you're either a person or you're not) and that it supervenes upon properties which come in degrees. So the question is, why draw this line at birth instead of some other place? She offers the following as reasons that birth, rather than some other range, should be considered as the range property that establishes legal personhood. She considers an argument for legal or pragmatic interests, but considering that it has some unpalatable consequences (such as mentally handicapped people being legal persons only by "polite extension"), she presents arguments that this range is acceptable as morally necessary, as well.<br />
<br />
1) Opacity respect -- Greasley considers that her argument might appear circular because it claims that there is a moral interest driving the specification of "person" as a ranged property, yet this moral interest exists only if all individuals within the range actually are persons. But this is what personhood accounts grounded in gradual properties seem to deny. So she introduces the concept of "opacity respect" as a way to try and ground an independent moral reason for focusing on the ranged property, one that is independent from a prior commitment to equality. Opacity respect, borrowing from Ian Carter, is simply that a respect for human equality requires maintaining a sort of blindness toward their individual capacities. We treat them as equals regardless of how developed their capacities are.<br />
<br />
However, rather than avoiding the charge of circularity, this only pushes the problem back an extra step. As Calum Miller responds, either humans are morally equal or not. If they are not, then it is implausible that we are in any way required to treat them with respect. The only way we would need opacity respect is if they are already equal. (Calum Miller, "Arguments About Abortion: Personhood, Morality, and Law Book Review", The New Bioethics, Vol. 24 No. 2, 2018, 190-195). So the charge of circularity stands.<br />
<br />
2) Some arbitrariness in the law is unavoidable. Consider the seven month cut-off for prosecution of a serious criminal offense. This is an arbitrary limit set which permits some prosecutions which shouldn't be permitted and precludes some which ought to be permitted. Stipulating personhood at conception is unsatisfactory due to how far away those organisms are from the sorts of creature which exemplify personal properties, and putting the threshold at birth is not unacceptably arbitrary, as shown by the case of criminal prosecution. But the event of birth is favorable for several reasons: It is a highly visible event, it is not speculative, and it is an easy guideline with which to comply. By contrast, other milestones (those before and after birth) are less visible and easier to mistake or conflate with other events.<br />
<br />
Now while it's true that birth is a highly visible event, this is hardly grounds for favoring birth over conception. After all, even though it's not visible like birth is, every embryo that implants itself in her mother's womb was conceived. The fact that we couldn't see it doesn't mean the event isn't significant.<br />
<br />
Also, while birth is not speculative, it is not always safe for the unborn child. Unborn children should gestate for 40 weeks. A child born too prematurely faces developmental problems, if he even survives at all. Yet this argument seems to suggest that we can intentionally induce birth at any stage of development, and you haven't actually harmed the entity in question, despite now being born with developmental issues that you purposely caused. Additionally, while the date of conception may be speculative, the fact of conception is not. The fact that we can't accurately pinpoint the exact date of conception is not an argument against conception being the event that establishes personhood in an individual.<br />
<br />
Finally, the fact that it is an easy guideline with which to comply is not grounds for establishing birth as the event which establishes personhood either. How is the threshold of birth easier to comply with than the threshold of conception? And what if the law is wrong? You might be killing entities which are actually persons for a weak justification, that birth is easier to comply with than conception. And while it may be easier to determine the date of birth than the date of conception, it is not out of the question to approximate the date of conception. Just because one is easier does not make the other illegitimate.<br />
<br />
3) There are good reasons for favoring birth as the legal threshold for personhood over other thresholds. These reasons are: 1) Birth is a watershed event in the life of a human because "emergence into the world marks the beginning of a human's exposure to the objects of mental experience and enables the discriminations necessary for conscious self-awareness and the basic understanding of where we end and everything else begins" (Greasley, <i>Arguments About Abortion</i>, p. 194). 2) At the point of birth, the neonate attains separate embodiment in the world.<br />
<br />
Regarding her first point, it's really meant more as a response to pro-choice philosophers who argue that there's no significant difference between a late-term fetus and a newborn. Greasley's point is that there are significant differences that aren't usually mentioned by these philosophers that show that we can support late-term abortion but oppose infanticide because of these changes. Now, Greasley's discussion here is interesting but ultimately I think she misses the point of the arguments by these philosophers (and gets some facts about the late-term fetus wrong). These philosophers don't necessarily claim that there are no differences at all, but in the way that is morally relevant (such as needing to be self-aware to have a right to life), there is no significant difference between the two. However, there is no real need to belabor the point or offer much of a response, since this is a point toward these other philosophers and not a general defense of her position. All I need to say is that even though her argument here makes sense in the context of arguing for abortion rights at birth rather than later, she is still placing one's personhood in a developmental milestone, so her argument is no more successful than Sumner's argument that sentience is what matters morally, or Tooley's argument that self-awareness is what matters morally.<br />
<br />
Regarding Greasley's second point, it is still largely a response to the other pro-choice philosophers who might place personhood threshold in some other property (this is largely because she has dismissed the conception threshold out of hand with arguments that I will address below). In order to support her contention, she points to the existence of conjoined twins, using Abigail and Brittany Hensel, who are conjoined below the neck, as her example of such twins. She claims that despite there being two "separate and distinct little girls," each one having an independent mental life and personality, their connectedness diminishes their personhood because of things such as their inability to live the kind of life distinctive of persons.<br />
<br />
She goes on to say that the fetus' attachment to the woman is more extreme than that of the Hensel girls, but she asks us to consider another pair of conjoined twins. This time one twin is completely enclosed within the other but still is bodily sustained and possesses a mental life. She claims that many of us would doubt that it is still correct to call this individual a person. She claims this shows that there is a level of enmeshment beyond which much of the meaning of personhood is lost.<br />
<br />
The problem with Greasley's claim here is that she doesn't support it at all, merely pointing to what she thinks many of us would accept as a person. But why shouldn't we consider Greasley's second pair of twins both persons? I see no reason not to consider the enclosed twin a person, especially since my conception of person has to do with one's nature, not with the functions one can perform. Greasley offers no supporting arguments for her assertion besides the one I just addressed, so her argument is not a very strong one, especially considering how strong the arguments for personhood established at conception are.<br />
<br />
"Punctualism"<br />
<br />
Greasley refers to the idea that personhood comes into existence at one time "punctualism," as opposed to "gradualism," the idea that personhood is a property that comes on gradually through the development of some characteristic seen as morally relevant for personhood status. Greasley goes on later to critique arguments made by Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen in their book <i>Embryo: A Defense of Human Life</i>. I hold to a different account of personhood than George and Tollefsen do, and they can respond to Greasley's charges, if they wish to. I hold to hylemorphism, similar to that held by Ed Feser and David Oderberg, an idea that Greasley doesn't critique in her book. So I will respond to the arguments in her book which could be directed toward hylemorphism.<br />
<br />
She trots out a few <i>reductios</i> against the idea that personhood is established at conception. I'm not going to address them here because they are in the context of giving an overview of the discussion within the abortion topic. She also trots out some <i>reductios</i> against personhood being established at other points along human development. Additionally, I have responded to these <i>reductios</i> elsewhere, as have other pro-life writers.<br />
<br />
She then goes on to argue that the conception thesis is just as arbitrary as the other personhood criteria that pro-life people allege are arbitrary. She alleges there are three ways in which those who are punctualists are arbitrary: 1) In assigning our value in our species; 2) They don't treat like cases alike; and 3) <i>Sorites</i>-susceptibility.<br />
<br />
First, the charge is that by placing personhood in one's humanity, we are being arbitrary because species membership is irrelevant to one's moral status. One might consider it not seriously wrong to abort a cat fetus, but a human fetus is no more sentient or intelligent than the cat fetus. The only main difference is its species. This is to arbitrarily prefer one species over another without reference to morally differentiating characteristics.<br />
<br />
Now, Greasley does anticipate a possible objection to the arbitrariness charge. Biological humans <i>are</i> special because they possess the unique capacity for rationality and higher thinking, complex desires, etc., that are typical of adult human beings. However, Greasley says that this essentially just pushes the problem back a step. For the advocate of abortion rights can simply ask "Why is it that merely belonging to a biological species the <i>typical adult members of which</i> are capable of higher forms of thinking itself suffices for personhood status?" (emphasis hers)<br />
<br />
Greasley's pro-life formulation is true as far as it goes, but she doesn't give the full argument. It's not simply that human embryos and fetuses belong to a species the typical adult members of which are capable of higher forms of thinking. It's that human nature is a rational nature. The reason that human embryos will grow up to be self-aware, conscious, etc., is because they have a rational nature, which grounds all of their capacities. So it's not just simply that they possess these capacities that they will develop in time, it's that they have a rational nature which grounds these capacities. This rational nature is what grounds our personhood. Since all of the changes I eventually undergo are changes that are within my nature (or my internal programming) to undergo, I remain the same entity through all points in my life. There is no substantial change that happens, even though I get bigger, I develop a brain and get smarter, etc. None of these things changes me from one thing into a completely different thing. Since I am the same individual through all points in my life, if I have a right to life as an adult, I had one as an embryo because our rights are intrinsic to us; they are not established by anything outside us.<br />
<br />
Her second charge is that we are not treating like cases alike. If it is not seriously wrong to abort a cat fetus, then since human fetuses are like cat fetuses (in the sense given above), it is arbitrary, then, to claim that aborting human fetuses is seriously wrong. However, the response above will outline why this is not an adequate charge against punctualists. Cat fetuses and human fetuses are not alike. Cat fetuses lack a rational nature and human fetuses have a rational nature. It is the rational nature that makes it seriously wrong to kill you, not mere species membership. And as an aside, I don't think that necessarily justifies aborting cat fetuses, either, but that discussion is outside the scope of this review.<br />
<br />
Her third charge of arbitrariness is that of <i>sorites</i>-susceptibility. The <i>sorites</i> paradox has been around for a few thousand years. It basically asks the following: If I add one grain of sand to another, I will not have a heap of sand. But add enough grains of sand and a heap will eventually materialize. At what point did the sand particles become a heap? Was it when you added the 400th sand particle? The 399th? What is the relevant difference in sand particles between a heap and a non-heap? There is no single grain in which it could be plausibly argued that <i>that</i> was the grain of sand that turned it into a heap. Yet we definitely do have a heap at some point. The implications this has for abortion is that pro-life advocates sometimes argue that there is no real difference between a human at one point (say, birth) and a human a few moments before birth. Even worse, there is no way to distinguish a late-term fetus a few minutes before birth and a few hours before birth, and so on.<br />
<br />
Now, the problem with this kind of argument is that it does commit a logical fallacy -- the aptly named "fallacy of the heap". Just because we can't pinpoint when X occurs does not mean, necessarily, that X doesn't happen. This fallacy is also sometimes called the fallacy of the beard, because this example is used to illustrate it: We know what a clean-shaven face is and we know what a bearded face is. But just because we can't pinpoint how many hairs are necessary to be considered a beard (as opposed to merely stubble) does not mean we can't recognize a beard when we see it. So when we point to a personhood criterion, say sentience, just because we can't tell at exactly what point sentience arises, doesn't mean we can't know when something is sentient. So this is not an argument I would make, and I don't think any of the best Christian thinkers use that kind of argument, either (Greasley points to something Kaczor wrote in his book, but she's misunderstanding the point of Kaczor's argument).<br />
<br />
However, Greasley forgoes the route of accusing pro-life people of arguing fallaciously and instead decides to argue that pro-life people can't escape the charge of arbitrariness here. She claims that describing conception as a "discrete, identifiable 'moment' is considerably misleading," and then she points to various stages and events that happen during fertilization in order for conception to occur. She asks questions such as, ""If penetration of the egg is <i>the</i> moment, how far must the sperm penetrate before a person exists, and why is any one of those microscopically distinct advances more significant than the adjacent ones?" and so on (Greasley, p. 115). However, her various questions don't show that conception is an event that is susceptible to the <i>sorites</i> problem. When a pro-life person makes this argument, he is speaking of a human being that is <i>already in existence</i> and trying to show that placing personhood at one exact moment is arbitrary (e.g. if you need brain activity, how much brain activity is needed to be considered a person?). But in the case of fertilization, you are going from non-human entities to a human entity. Fertilization is a process, yes, but it is not a process of sperm and egg <i>becoming</i> human and then the human continues from there. In the process of fertilization, the sperm and the egg literally <i>cease to exist</i> and give rise to a new human being, and that event definitely has a point of occurrence. When the woman's ovum ceases to exist and the new human zygote comes into existence, that is when conception finishes.<br />
<br />
This review was rather long, but I felt it necessary to address several of the arguments Greasley made in her book. Again, Greasley's book is meticulously argued and is required reading for anyone who wants to keep up with the academic discussion on abortion. Her arguments don't succeed in justifying abortion, nor do her arguments show that a "punctualist" view of human personhood is mistaken.Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-51302029989879124172018-07-13T11:18:00.000-07:002018-07-13T11:29:43.481-07:00Tomi Lahren Begs the Question on Abortion<div dir="ltr" style="line-height: 1.38; margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;">
Opposing unwelcome government intrusion into our daily lives includes supporting legal abortion, according to conservative spokeswoman Tomi Lahren.<br />
<br />
Never a stranger to controversy, her recent comments <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hKnUyWaIXg&feature=youtu.be" target="_blank">defending her views about Roe vs. Wade and the legality of abortion in the United States</a> on Fox and Friends do deserve an adequate response, as opposed to much of the name calling and personal attacks that are all too typical of political or social discourse today.<br />
<br />
In a piece for her Fox News Column, “<a href="http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/07/06/tomi-lahren-pushing-new-scotus-justice-overturn-roe-v-wade-would-be-big-mistake" target="_blank">Final Thoughts</a>”, Tomi Lahren states the following:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“I’m saying this as someone who would personally choose life, but also feels it’s not the government’s place to dictate. This isn’t a black and white issue and I would never judge anyone in that position. I believe the way to encourage someone to choose life is to treat her with compassion, understanding and love, not government regulation. Let’s be honest - the federal government does few things well, and I believe regulating social issues is an area where it fails. Let the churches, the non-profits, and the community groups step in, not almighty Uncle Sam.”</blockquote>
<br />
Many may remember the brief firestorm she created among pro-life conservatives after she asserted her pro-choice position during <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/03/20/tomi-lahren-on-why-shes-pro-choice-stay-out-of-my-guns-and-you-can-stay-out-of-my-body-as-well/?utm_term=.9bbb92055637" target="_blank">an appearance </a> on the American talk show, “The View” in Spring 2017 to the glowing endorsement of the pro-choice Left, saying:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“You know what? I’m for limited government, so stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well,” Lahren said.”</blockquote>
<br />
And I absolutely agree with her. We shouldn’t push for government to intrude in people’s decisions. We should leave individual families alone to deal with making the decision to choose an abortion. We should keep the government from interfering with a woman’s body.<br />
I agree completely, if: The unborn are not human. If it so happens that the unborn are not human, then abortion is morally no big deal any more than plastic surgery is. Go ahead and have it.<br />
However, if the unborn are in fact human beings, then we shouldn’t simply excuse the intentional killing of them in our laws any more than we would the killing of a newborn or even a toddler. This is where Ms. Lahren makes her mistake. She simply bypasses the question, “What are the unborn?” and proceeds directly to talking points that can fit into a short sentence.<br />
<br />
For instance, would she say the same thing if the law allowed the killing of born children? Imagine a law was passed several decades ago that allowed parents to kill their unwanted children up to two years of age, and a Supreme Court Justice was nominated who expressly wanted to overturn such a law. Would Ms. Lahren object to this as well, saying that the question should be “left to the churches, community groups, and non-profits instead of the Almighty Uncle Sam”? I would hope that she had the moral clarity to say “no”.<br />
<br />
For another example, if her neighbors were planning to kill one of their toddlers, would Ms. Lahren feel compelled to call on government authorities in the form of law enforcement and Child Protective Services to stop the killing? Or would she leave it up to the churches and non-profits, because “Government does few things well”. I think everyone, politically Right or Left, would consider this horrendous, not to mention absurd.<br />
<br />
This raises a question: Then why not protect the unborn from being intentionally killed? Some might respond by saying that there is a significant difference, but ah! That is the question. What difference is there that makes them less worthy of our protection? She never offers an explanation, which means she has done what pro-life philosopher Francis Beckwith calls “Begging the Question”; that is, assuming one’s position is true while trying to prove it. She doesn’t offer any arguments for her statements that the government should leave her alone when considering abortion, or the more broad assertion that the government cannot legislate effectively on moral issues. Most people who make this claim have no problem with the government banning murder, or sexual violence, or spousal abuse. They only make this claim about abortion because they simply assume that the unborn are not human, when that is precisely the question that must be resolved in the abortion debate.<br />
<br />
If the unborn are human, just like the toddlers and newborns in the examples above, then they are just as worthy of protection from being intentionally killed as the toddler is. The question now becomes what relevant difference sets them apart from being protected in our society and legal system? As philosopher Stephen Schwarz points out in his book The Moral Question of Abortion, all of the differences between the born and the unborn fall into four categories that can be remembered with the "SLED" acronym:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Size: It’s true, the unborn are much smaller than the newborns or toddlers I mentioned in my hypothetical cases. But so what? How big does one have to be before they deserve to be protected from harm? As an adult man, I am bigger in my body size than many women, including Ms. Lahren, but it is odd to say that this grants me special protections from harm. If anything, it seems the smaller someone is, the more effort we should put towards protecting them.</li>
<li>Level of Development: Yes, the unborn are not as developed as the born are, and can’t do everything a born person can. But why does that determine whether we can kill someone or not? As another hypothetical, imagine I have two sisters, aged 6 and 18. They do have differences in their development. The older sister is more developed mentally, is more developed physically(she may play a college level sport) and is mature sexually. Her six year old sister possesses none of that, but it would be insane to assert that she is less deserving of our efforts to keep her safe. If level of development between two born humans doesn’t matter, why should it matter when protecting unborn humans?</li>
<li>Environment: During her appearance on “The View”, Tomi stated that the government needs to “stay out of her body”. This can be fairly reasonable; after all, who wants a nosy bureaucrat from Washington performing exploratory surgery against one’s will? However, this misses the point. Given that the unborn is located inside one’s body, does this really matter as to whether they can be killed whenever it suits our immediate needs? How does one's current environment determine the most basic protections from harm they are entitled to?</li>
<li>Degree of Dependency: Yes, it is true. The unborn are far more dependent on their mothers for their very lives before birth. Again, what exactly does this prove? Why should anyone accept that those who have reached a certain degree of physical independence from their mothers are the only ones deserving of legal protections from being killed? This raises another question: What degree of independence should we go with in attributing protections? As the Roe court ruled, before fetal viability(The time when an unborn human can live outside the womb) the government has no interests in protecting prenatal life. This may seem reasonable to some, but why is viability the marker of who can be protected or not? Why didn't the court rule that babies who need additional medical care after birth don't merit a "state interest"? Or how about children who can't walk without any assistance yet? Or children who cannot ride their bikes without "training wheels"? They are still remotely dependent on adult support, so why isn't that the degree of who deserves protection? It seems that dependency is a poor way of determining who gets to live and die.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Tomi Lahren's assuming of the unborn not being human needs to be called out, clearly and concisely. By asserting that conservatives need to move on past Roe vs. Wade so that the nation won't shift Left in it's politics, she is saying that millions of lives simply don't matter enough to warrant our protection. The American conservative wishes to protect the values that were put in place when the United States was being founded, not shift away from them when votes are on the line.<br />
That means the unborn are worth every ounce of our efforts to protect them in law, and conserve what the American founders saw as “...truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-27468940230509476222018-07-10T05:32:00.001-07:002018-07-10T07:31:24.826-07:00Responding to Back Alley Logic ButchersWe are living through a zombie apocalypse of sorts, rhetorically speaking. Old arguments that should have died long ago in light of solid responses keep finding new life in the "blogosphere" and on social media, especially with abortion finding its way back into the public dialogue due to recent events in Ireland and the United States.<br />
<br />
Common among these arguments is the claim that pro-life legislation will lead to scores of dead women. From "back alley butcher" statements to feminists protesters waving coat hangers at rallies, to claims that thousands of women will die if abortion is made illegal, the argument is, like a horror movie zombie, still coming around. Even some college professors(Who really ought to know better) have <a href="https://csusmchronicle.com/17073/news/students-for-life-presents-pro-life-talk/" target="_blank">repeated these sound bites</a>.<br />
<br />
Ironically absent these cries of supposed fear is any real rebuttal to the pro-life argument:<br />
<br />
Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.<br />
<br />
Premise 2: Abortion <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/scottklusendorf/2015/11/30/in-their-own-words-prolifers-arent-the-only-ones-who-call-abortion-killing-n2086417" target="_blank">intentionally kills</a> an innocent human being.<br />
<br />
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.<br />
<br />
As philosopher Chris Kaczor <a href="http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1079&context=phil_fac" target="_blank">points out</a>, questions about women's health and abortion are indeed important, but they still fail to settle the question of the moral admissibility of the act of abortion itself. Do we have any obligations to protect innocent human beings before birth in society and our law? Or can we dispose of them whenever their existence becomes a burden upon us? Philosopher Mary Anne Warren, herself an advocate of abortion, is in agreement; highlighting that murder is wrong regardless of the social consequences of prohibiting it.<br />
<br />
This raises a question: Should the law protect the innocent from being intentionally harmed, even though some may be unintentionally killed as a result? Consider that some have been killed accidentally by unsuspecting family members when entering their own residence late at night, being mistaken for a burglar. This is undoubtedly a major tragedy, especially for the family. But does it logically follow that the moral position a society should take is to legalize armed burglary so that no one accidentally dies in this manner?<br />
<br />
For another example, should armed robbery(stealing items off a person directly) be made legal so that no one gets accidentally shot by an overly nervous, trigger happy pedestrian walking through a high crime part of town? This is also a tragedy, but it is going to be really hard to argue that this is grounds for abolishing laws against robbery.<br />
<br />
Aside from the logical mistakes, there is an honesty question that needs to be asked of our critics: If pro-lifers were to propose a law that restricted abortion but also made sure that no woman had to seek out a "back alley butcher", would our critics then join us in opposing abortion? Some may say yes, but many will still retort that "Abortion is a fundamental right." Ah, but that is the question at hand. Abortion is only a fundamental right if it is a moral act, and it is only a moral act if the unborn are not human. That needs to be argued for, and not simply asserted. This goes for everyone, on Twitter and in the academy.<br />
<br />
One last point on the topic, those who raise the concern of women dying from illegal abortions do have some explaining to do. By what basis do we know that "[abolishing abortion] will be a death sentence for thousands of women", as the Women's March responded to the nomination of a pro-life Supreme Court Justice recently? Very often there is little to no support provided for the claim. As the late Dr. Bernard Nathanson(a former abortionist) points out, there is very little support to back up the claim:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "adelle"; font-size: 16px;">"How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In N.A.R.A.L., we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always "5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year." I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the "morality" of our revolution, it was a </span><em style="background-color: white; border: 0px; color: #666666; font-family: adelle; font-size: 16px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">useful</em><span style="background-color: white; color: #666666; font-family: "adelle"; font-size: 16px;"> figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible." (</span><span style="font-family: "adelle"; font-size: x-small;">Bernard N. Nathanson, M.D., Aborting America (New York: Pinnacle Books, 1979), 193)</span></blockquote>
While more can be said about the actual data on the number of deaths from illegal abortions in the pre-Roe years( Abort73 has a good list of sources, which can be found at http://www.abort73.com/end_abortion/what_about_illegal_abortions/. Also see Erika Bachiochi's <i>The Cost of Choice: Women Evaluate the Impact of Abortion)</i><br />
<br />
The purpose of the objection itself needs to be questioned. Are those who raise it doing so out of an emphasis on truth, or as a means of fear-mongering in an already tense political climate? With women dying even during the era of legal abortion in the United States at the hands of men like <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gosnell-Untold-Americas-Prolific-Serial/dp/1621574555/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1531225803&sr=8-1&keywords=gosnell+the+untold+story+of+america+s+most+prolific+serial+killer" target="_blank">Kermit Gosnell</a>, it should be obvious that those who truly care for the needs of American women would be willing to consider all the implications of legal abortion today, not just the immediate emotions that all too often drive cultural debates.Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-50275365046367659242018-07-03T15:59:00.003-07:002018-07-03T15:59:59.262-07:00The Definition That Just Won't DieThey are onto us. We've finally been made. People who oppose the intentional killing of innocent human beings in the womb are mean, nasty, rich, and don't give a rip about starving or homeless children. We aren't pro-life unless we feed starving kids or give them shelter.<br />
<br />
How do I know? Because a meme like this one said so.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikrSq7INrjDLP9b1v9SitG7_qvatb724egcBSL9YQLNNm9RN-UOxg0GEoeqPoUUhUrSQBlElvy8iPUEqVhFUDogIWtauyiG8Ao6Kg1c78wBPCdV5rJzndodd_h1fthtNS7aOGgk9t44qo/s1600/Prochoicememe.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="960" data-original-width="782" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikrSq7INrjDLP9b1v9SitG7_qvatb724egcBSL9YQLNNm9RN-UOxg0GEoeqPoUUhUrSQBlElvy8iPUEqVhFUDogIWtauyiG8Ao6Kg1c78wBPCdV5rJzndodd_h1fthtNS7aOGgk9t44qo/s320/Prochoicememe.png" width="260" /></a></div>
<br />
Question for Ms. Isabel: And the problem is what exactly? Let's suppose pro-life people are mean, nasty, fetus freaks who don't give a rip about starving kids like pictured above. How does that entail that the unborn are not human, and we may do with them as we please, including intentionally kill them?<br />
<br />
It doesn't follow logically at all. The pro-life movement is arguing that it is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being. Abortion does that. Therefore, abortion is wrong.<br />
<br />
An honesty question is in order when the assertion that pro-lifers only care about the unborn is made: If pro-lifers were to devote an equal amount of time to feeding and housing born children in a bad circumstance, would our opponents join us in opposing abortion? If they say no, then they have simply trotted out suffering children in order to score rhetorical points against their opponents. Chances are, if those opposed to abortion were to take responsibility for ending every social evil under the sun before focusing on abortion, our opponents would find another reason to excuse it.<br />
<br />
Setting aside the fact that pro-lifers do actually <a href="http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/01/2380/" target="_blank">care about the born and the unborn</a>, which becomes obvious if one is willing to take an honest look, the humanity of the unborn is a question that has to be resolved regardless of how nice pro-lifers are. Even if pro-life people were the meanest, cruelest, most fanatical people on the planet, it still would not follow that we could justifiably end the life of an unborn child. That has to be argued for, and not merely asserted.<br />
<br />
Saying that pro-lifers need to do more in order to be taken seriously is dishonest and a foolish attempt to change the subject. Until our opponents use the science of embryology to show that the unborn are not human, or moral reasoning to show that we have no duty as a society to value them, then nothing has been accomplished by pointing to other issues that are arguably not as urgent in scope or in nature.Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-18987092288290178802018-06-30T17:02:00.001-07:002018-06-30T17:02:33.223-07:00The Current Immigration Crisis and Abortion
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Imagine someone telling an anti-trafficking organization
that if they really cared for children, they would do more to address poverty
in India that harms large numbers of children every year. Imagine someone
telling a clinic engaging in cancer research that if they really cared about
healing people of sickness, they would also focus on research for diabetes and
Crohn’s disease. These are ridiculous accusations, yet pro-lifers get them very
often. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I have seen recent news headlines aimed at pro-lifers for
being silent on the issues surrounding immigrants at the border. It is being
said that if one is truly pro-life and pro-family, one must also care and be
involved in protecting children who are being brought into the country
illegally by their parents. Make no mistake, I believe that the lives of
immigrants and their children are valuable and important. They are made in the
image of God just like you and me. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
issues of immigrant children and abortion are not the same, yet the two are
being equated in such a way as to attack the motives and sincerity of pro-life
individuals. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The fact that there are very important issues regarding
immigrant children at the border is not comparable with intentionally
dismembering, poisoning, crushing, and burning a little human to death. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">If
the tables were turned, we might equate their seeming disregard for unborn
human beings with having no credibility when it comes to “caring” about immigrant
children. If this is really about consistency, wouldn’t it make sense </span>to
want to protect human beings in all stages of development whether they are at
the border or in the womb? Why do many people seem to only care about children
when it suits a political agenda they have? There have been cases in the news
where an illegal immigrant wished to receive an abortion while in detention at
the border. Many people showed support for her “right” to have an abortion. If
all the outrage over the border crisis was genuinely about caring for human
beings, why was the concern only shown for the born immigrant? What about the
unborn immigrant? It is wrong to mistreat an immigrant, legal or not legal. If
this issue were really about human rights, then where is all the outrage over
the 3,000 innocent human beings that get murdered in the womb every day by
poisoning, crushing and dismembering? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Suppose pro-lifers are terrible human beings who care
nothing about immigrant children. How does that justify ending the life of an
innocent human being? It doesn’t. The immigration issue being raised against
pro-lifers is a clever ad hominem that impugns the motives and sincerity of
pro-lifers. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The issues of abortion and immigrant children are both
important. Please don’t read this post and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>think I don’t care about the immigration
issue. I do care. We should be concerned about children and families coming
into this country, and the problems we face at the border. But we should also be
deeply concerned about living in a culture that dehumanizes a group of people
simply because they are unwanted and inconvenient: the unborn. I have chosen to
focus time and effort in fighting the particular evil of abortion. If a person tries
to attack every social ill in society, that person’s effectiveness will be
diminished. Do not impugn the motives or the operational objectives of
pro-lifers as they seek to create a culture that values human life from
conception to natural death. Our objection to the moral evil of abortion does
not make us responsible for the issues with children at the border. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307738292814257779noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-41318366696250598092018-05-11T17:07:00.004-07:002018-05-11T17:36:10.689-07:00How Consistent Do We Need To Be? <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc1CLG9wQ3OaLGgvZhjUYIxctRexr2ZPNDaghFW_YBAJJGS57Q1yiqHdv-HedIaMhIJEAzeiULSSpZq3c1joZd1LCR8n8UoEkq5v5Hl2meUo-2G6jmMo-JN-7R1c8UnPaeQ8nNFAw-IEI/s1600/nilsson_rm_photo_of_20_week_fetus.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="335" data-original-width="493" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjc1CLG9wQ3OaLGgvZhjUYIxctRexr2ZPNDaghFW_YBAJJGS57Q1yiqHdv-HedIaMhIJEAzeiULSSpZq3c1joZd1LCR8n8UoEkq5v5Hl2meUo-2G6jmMo-JN-7R1c8UnPaeQ8nNFAw-IEI/s200/nilsson_rm_photo_of_20_week_fetus.jpg" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Source: LiveAction https://www.liveaction.org/news/amazing-photos-of-preborn-babies-in-the-womb-show-that-life-begins-at-fertilization/</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
Pro-Lifers like me are inconsiderate, hypocritical jerks.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
That's what you will think if you spend enough time listening to those who criticize pro-life conservatives for their alleged inconsistency. Consider the words of Pastor John Pavlovitz during the 2016 Presidential Election, a writer, activist and so-called star of the religious left:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<span style="color: #444444; font-family: "lato" , sans-serif; font-size: x-small;"><b>"I actually don’t believe you’re pro-life, I believe you practice a far more selective and convenient defense of Humanity. From where I’m standing it seems as though “Life” for you, comprises a very narrow demographic—one that bears a striking resemblance to you. The unborn are easy to advocate for because you can idealize them into something palatable to you, something benign and comfortable, something in your own image.</b></span></div>
<div style="background-color: white; border: 0px; box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1.7em; outline: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">
<b style="color: #444444; font-family: Lato, sans-serif; font-size: small;">You see, it’s not that you’re really pro-life, you’re pro-straight, white, Christian fetuses."</b><span style="background-color: transparent;"> -John Pavlovitz, <a href="https://johnpavlovitz.com/2016/10/12/fellow-white-christian-friends-i-wish-you-really-were-pro-life/" target="_blank">"GOP-I Wish You Really Were "Pro-Life"</a></span></div>
</blockquote>
Pastor Pavlovitz then goes on a very emotional diatribe about the alleged inconsistencies of conservative pro-life advocates, highlighting how they are not really "Pro-Life" unless they take the time to address every other issue of controversy.<br />
<br />
Aside from not citing a single example of pro-lifers actually arguing that only "straight, white, Christian fetuses" should be spared from abortion, and also ignoring the work of pro-life advocates like Star Parker, Dr. Alveda King, Christina Marie Bennett, and many others, all of whom uniquely focus on the problem of abortion in minority communities, he doesn't provide a single explanation for why any of the issues he lists need to be addressed with the same seriousness as abortion. He simply assumes moral equivalency, without providing any arguments for that assumption whatsoever. He then goes on to ridicule his opponents for what he sees as selectively valuing only life until birth.<br />
<br />
Apart from these gross academic errors, I would raise a question for Pastor Pavlovitz: Let's assume that pro-lifers like myself actually did everything he was asking of us. We supported socialized medicine, ending capital punishment, gun control, police reform, and the military. Will Pavlovitz and those who make this kind of argument then join us in opposing abortion on demand? Chances are, they will say no, to which one should respond, "Then why bring up our supposed inconsistency in the first place? If you support abortion, then offer a defense of it, instead of attacking me personally."<br />
<br />
To cite another example, a few weeks ago I was helping put up a graphic abortion display at San Diego State University. A young woman, quite angrily, began asking me whether or not I opposed war, inhuman treatment of animals, or supported same-sex marriage. Stopping her so I could offer a response, I asked the following:<br />
<br />
"Tell me, if I were to join you in supporting all your views on those issues, would you then join us in opposing elective abortion?"<br />
"Of course not! I am solidly, 100% pro-choice!"<br />
To which I responded, "Then why did you highlight those other issues, which really have nothing to do with abortion, when you support any abortion for whatever reason? Why not offer a defense of that, instead of changing the subject?"<br />
<br />
Instead of refuting the pro-life argument, bringing up supposedly inconsistent beliefs does nothing to justify killing a preborn baby. It's simply a lazy way to change the subject and score cheap points by making people you disagree with look bad. Such a behavior is pretty unbecoming of anyone claiming to be educated, let alone claiming to support justice.<br />
<br />
Mr. Pavlovitz, I wish you really did care about social justice.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-87182634544041583052018-05-10T21:07:00.000-07:002018-05-10T21:07:19.821-07:00Personhood Theory: The False Dichotomy Between Humans and Persons
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
Surrounding the abortion debate, there is a distinction that
is made between being a human and being a person. Advocates for abortion argue
that just because someone is human does not necessarily mean they are a person.
The argument is no longer about whether or not the unborn are human. That is
clearly established through the science of embryology. Personhood is now the
benchmark of determining value and worth as a human being. The problem is that
no one agrees when personhood begins. Some say it is ability to feel pain, others
say it is cognitive awareness, while others argue it is the ability to exercise
rational thought. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Dichotomizing the human and the person provides the pathway
for egregious injustice. We are not the first people in history to apply this
theory and use language in a way that denies an entire group of people their
rights as human beings. Hitler used dehumanizing language against the Jews and
they were not seen as persons. Americans used dehumanizing language against
blacks, and they were not viewed as persons. Now we use dehumanizing language
against the unborn claiming they are not “persons” like us until they can meet
some arbitrary standard. We are familiar with the saying that those who don’t
know history are bound to repeat it, but even those who do know history still
allow evils to repeat themselves. They come back to us in different forms with
different groups of people being targeted. Every time the injustice is
vehemently defended so that people can feel moral and pious in their advocating
for evil. This is what has happened with abortion. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Abortion rights hide behind a selfish façade of human
rights, women’s rights, and personal freedom. We do not have the right to do
what is wrong. Our human rights should never trample on someone else’s right to
life. The personhood theory places value on a human being based on what they can
do for society. A short story by Philip Dick called “The Pre-Persons” written
in 1974 illustrates the slippery slope that personhood theory places on
society. In that world, no one was a person until they were twelve years old
and capable of doing algebra. This standard was enforced by a totalitarian
state. The personhood theory now pushed in America has not reached that extreme
but who’s to say it won’t in the future? Many bio-ethicists already support
infanticide and euthanasia based on the personhood theory. When our value as human
beings is based on what we do, no one is safe. Right now, people attribute
personhood to an ability to feel pain, a capacity for cortical brain
functioning, reasoning, viability or consciousness. Everyone exercises these
things in varying degrees in their life. Who’s to say that these give us value
and magically make us persons? Arbitrary standards for being persons need to be
resisted. We are valuable simply because we are human. If personhood theory is
correct, equal human rights are non-existent. Be on your guard against the
dichotomy of humans and persons. One day, the state might decide you are not a
person based on some arbitrary function you cannot adequately exercise.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307738292814257779noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-41809207045963614332018-05-07T11:05:00.000-07:002018-05-07T11:05:06.707-07:00Why The Church Must View Abortion ImagesIn the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus Christ gives a powerful message to His audience on the dangers of focusing so hard on being religious that we overlook those most in need of our help. (Luke 10:25-37). Using as examples a Jewish Priest and Levite who simply passed on by a man who had fallen prey to a group of robbers while traveling to Jericho, he highlights that it was a Samaritan, a class hated by the first century Jewish community, who best exemplified the commandment to "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."<br />
<br />
Today, the danger of passing by those in need on the issue of abortion has to be continually emphasized in the church. Consider the following data, collected and <a href="https://www.care-net.org/churches-blog/new-survey-women-go-silently-from-church-to-abortion-clinic" target="_blank">published</a> by CareNet:<br />
<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>4 in 10 women who had an abortion were churchgoers at the time of their decision</li>
<li>Only 7% of women discussed their abortion with anyone at church</li>
<li>Two-thirds (65 percent) say church members judge single women who are pregnant.</li>
</ul>
<br />
<ul>
<li></li>
<li>A majority (54 percent) thinks churches oversimplify decisions about pregnancy options.</li>
<li>Fewer than half (41 percent) believe churches are prepared to help with decisions about unwanted pregnancies.</li>
<li>Only 3 in 10 think churches give accurate advice about pregnancy options</li>
</ul>
<br /><div>
Clearly, abortion happens far more within church congregations than many are comfortable admitting. However, there are many within the church today who think that this issue is <i>overly </i>discussed, and needs to be talked about less in contrast with other issues. Consider the following comments from Pastor <a href="https://churchleaders.com/news/323779-a-new-fissure-in-the-evangelical-movement.html?fb_action_ids=10155200859855940&fb_action_types=og.comments" target="_blank">A.R. Bernard</a>. He asserts that the church should focus less on "personal sins" like abortion and same-sex marriage, because black evangelicals like himself are more concerned with other issues, like police shootings and "income inequality". </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Aside from the debates over whether those are major problems today(For more on these topics, see Walter E. Williams "Race and Economics" and Thomas Sowell's "Discrimination and Disparities") the moral problem of abortion still remains for the church: If 900,000 women are having abortions in America per year, and 4 in 10 women who have abortions were attending church at the time, then 225,000 or more abortion minded women were sitting in church pews across our nation in one year's time. That is not a small number. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What leads many church leaders to shy away from discussing abortion? I'm convinced it's because the church doesn't want to talk about the act of abortion itself. Many will talk about it in terms of an abstract, political issue(And many then go on to add "But we don't talk about politics here") But most will never show their congregations just what an abortion does. In fact, I am convinced that many leaders aren't aware of the horrific nature of the abortion act itself.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This is a wrong approach, I think. If congregations and church members are not aware of just what abortion does to the unborn child(And to her mother) then if follows that they won't stop to consider the ramifications of that decision, both morally and spiritually. This is why I think, now more than ever, congregations must compassionately address the issue today by showing abortion, exactly as it is, through pictures of what it actually does. If 225,000 preborn children a year are at risk of being killed, then to not address this issue is to pass by on the "other side of the road" when our neighbors are in the most need. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I think the method of showing abortion imagery that is used by pro-life speakers at LTI and elsewhere, such as <a href="https://youtu.be/E00DWvhlGE4?t=52m25s" target="_blank">Scott Klusendorf</a>, Greg Koukl, and <a href="https://youtu.be/1pQblj3arB0?t=14m58s" target="_blank">Dr. Mike Adams</a>, among others, is the best method for doing this. They will give the context for showing the images, and will make the viewing optional by dimming lights or cutting out the sound from the video. Children who are under the age of 13 are sometimes encouraged to leave the room, but parents can make the decision to let them watch if they so choose. If in front of a church audience, they will show how the Gospel of Jesus Christ gives the best answer and hope to those in the congregation who have experienced abortion, or know someone who has. Even more so, having a post-abortion healing ministry present at the church or resources on hand can help those who most need help. Groups like <a href="http://www.silentnomoreawareness.org/" target="_blank">Silent No More</a> and <a href="http://surrenderingthesecret.com/" target="_blank">Surrendering the Secret</a> are phenomenal in helping post-abortive men and women find the hope and forgiveness that is offered by Jesus Christ.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Unfortunately, there are some pro-life speakers who have sprung the images on audiences without warning; however, if appropriate warning is given, congregations will not only know the need for engaging on the abortion issue, they will know what exactly is at stake with abortion itself: The intentional killing of an innocent human being.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Some may object and will raise the concern that this will cause guilt for those who have experienced abortion, which is a valid concern. However, I think the better question to be asked is: Are we really helping anyone by not addressing the issue? You may remember several years ago when <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-right-to-be-spared-from-guilt/2016/12/02/2d5adc2c-b7ed-11e6-959c-172c82123976_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.5dad852cf6dc" target="_blank">a French Court</a> banned a video of Down's Syndrome children because it may unintentionally cause guilt for women who had made the decision to abort their child because he or she had been diagnosed with the disorder. That should raise a question: How far are we willing to go to spare someone guilt? Should we hide the truth so as to ensure that no one experiences pain? Or should we show the truth in a manner that will obviously raise pain, but in such a way that can help bring those in pain to find healing? And if showing that truth can help others avoid the future pain of a bad decision, is it worth the risk? I think the answer is obvious.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jesus called out those who pass by on the other side of the road when their neighbors are in the most need of their life. When our neighbors' lives are at stake, avoiding truth is not an option.</div>
Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-14815173601970136062018-03-31T01:54:00.000-07:002018-03-31T01:54:32.347-07:00Answering the "Women's Perspective" Argument for AbortionIn continuing my posts looking at the effects of post-modernism on the abortion debate (You can access <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2018/02/cultural-relativism-makes-social.html" target="_blank">part one</a> and <a href="http://lti-blog.blogspot.com/2018/03/another-fatal-flaw-in-post-modern.html" target="_blank">part two</a> here). I would like to highlight another way that the postmodern worldview has influenced the way members of our society view the pro-life argument, and give some practical tips for engaging this view. Since I have already addressed several of the fatal flaws in relativism, I will focus more specifically on how relativism manifests itself in the most common slogan of the pro-choice movement in the West today.<br />
<br />
Many pro-life men(myself included) have had the slogan repeated to us that since we cannot get pregnant, we should remain silent on the issue of abortion. To put it another way, since men cannot experience the troubles that come with pregnancy, it is assumed (On this view) that they have nothing of importance to add to the discussion on abortion.<br />
<br />
It is definitely true that men canUsually, at this point, pro-lifers will correctly point out that Roe V Wade was decided by men who could not experience pregnancy. However, this misses the point that the critic of the pro-life view is making: Pro-Choice advocates in this case are not saying that any view on abortion is nullified because it is held by a man(Though some do believe this). Instead, it is the ability to experience pregnancy itself that is the deciding factor in whether or not a woman can choose to end her pregnancy.<br />
<br />
While this may seem sound to some, I think it falls apart under closer scrutiny.<br />
<br />
First off, why should anyone accept the claim that the ethics of any action taken is solely up to how a person may feel when faced with that dilemma? Should only parents have a say in whether or not it is wrong to abuse a born child? I personally do not have children, but it would be crazy to assert that because I don't have kids, I cannot therefore step in to stop someone from abusing their own children.<br />
<br />
Second, the pro-life argument does not rest on anyone's experience. Suppose every single person who opposes elective abortion was a male. What logically follows? Not much. Sure, pro-life men may not be able to sympathize with the emotional turmoil that a woman in a crisis pregnancy may be experiencing, but that proves little. The pro-life argument is that abortion is wrong because it intentionally ends the life of an innocent human being. If it does not intentionally end the life of an innocent human being, then it is not wrong. No experience with pregnancy is needed in order to understand this.<br />
<br />
As I stated above, there is a subtle form of relativism that does creep into the argument as well, especially when gender politics is raised. When many feminist groups(Not all) bring up the issue of men not being able to engage on the abortion issue, they are assuming a form of cultural relativism, that relegates values to distinct cultures and sub cultural categories. Since men and women would generally qualify as two sub categorical groups, they may end up viewing an issue such as abortion differently, and thus, one group does not have a view superior to another.<br />
<br />
Now, aside from overstating one's case drastically (It's simply not true that all men oppose abortion while all women support it; in fact, many men support it for what they can gain, which is easy sex.) The idea also still assumes that the pro-life argument is completely subjective, and is true for some people but not others. The assumption is that since pregnancy primarily affects women, they should decide the morality of killing the child whom they are pregnant with.<br />
<br />
However, that isn't the way that rights(Including abortion rights, if they exist) end up working. To say that a right or a wrong only exists if someone or some people personally choose to accept it would completely undermine any claim to legitimacy for any right, including abortion. The abortion supporter is thus stuck asserting that the right to abortion only exists for her personally if she feels like it does, but if others feel like it doesn't, then she is out of luck.<br />
<br />
It seems odd to think of a notion like intrinsic rights being something as superfluous as a desire for spicy food or chocolate ice cream, which means that any right that human beings have for simply being human is not merely a preference for a particular individual or group. Thus, a right that exists across individuals and groups is capable of being recognized by everyone. If that right extends to the unborn as well, then both men and women are capable of recognizing that right, and the injustice of when that right is taken away. Therefore, the assertion that the abortion debate depends solely on women's perspectives fails in this regard as well.Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-90289707668352862182018-03-25T14:01:00.000-07:002018-03-25T14:01:49.016-07:00The Social Parallels of the America that Enslaved Blacks and the America that Kills Unborn Babies.
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
There is truly nothing new under the sun. I have been taking
some time to study the social parallels between the America that enslaved
people based on the color of their skin and the America today that kills unborn
humans based on their size and whether or not they are wanted. The parallels
are thoroughly depressing. We have not changed or progressed at all as a nation. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"></span>The south in the antebellum
period of American history defended slavery by arguing that it was essential to
social progress and economic success. Abortion is similarly defended as being a
crucial right women have so that they can pursue their dreams and benefit their
own social standing emotionally and economically. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>During the
antebellum period, an entire group of people were not considered equal to other
people. Current America would not dare utter the words, but our actions and
laws show that we also view an entire class of people unequally. We have placed
an entire group in a dehumanized category so that some individuals can make “progress”
in their lives at the expense of someone else’s life. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It helps to
dull the conscience so that evil can be perversely twisted into something that
is seen as “beneficial for society” by so many people. Slaveholders argued that
the institution of slavery benefited the slave because it spared him from
something worse. They masked their evil by saying they wanted to prevent the
slave from possessing something he/she was not equipped to handle: freedom. I’m
sure you have heard the statement, “Every child a wanted child”. Abortion
advocates claim that we need to spare children from pain, poverty, and medical
challenges in the future so we should end their lives by abortion. They say we
should not allow an “unwanted” child to be born. Ending their lives is “benefiting”
the children, women, and society, because it is supposedly preventing harm in
the future that would be too difficult and burdensome to bear. History has
repeated itself. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Slavery
advocates argued that blacks were intellectually and physically inferior to
whites. Now some argue that the fetus is not valuable because it cannot
function intellectually/mentally on the same level as another human. As for the
physical aspect, if you are small, dependent, and less developed, then you are
inferior in this country. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the
America that enslaved blacks, it was simply assumed that they were inferior and
not part of society like the whites were. It is also assumed that the unborn are
not one of us and not part of society as born people are. They are unjustly
excluded from the protections that grant rights to all “persons” in this
country. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Many
Southerners saw the institution of slavery as the basis for freedom. In the
same way, many people view abortion as essential to the freedom of women. To
which I add the question, which women? <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>These parallels
are paradoxically depressing yet encouraging in a way. It is encouraging in
that now, the vast majority of Americans look back on the race-based slavery
that existed and are appalled that that happened in this country. We rightly
look back in horror at the injustice that took place. In the same way, one day
abortion will be unthinkable. People will look back on this time and wonder how
anyone could have ever allowed that to happen. They will wonder how we ever
justified the evil of abortion and how we let it go on for so long. But as we
understand that the nature of human beings have not changed, when that time
comes and people look back on abortion in horror, they will have their own
social injustice right under their noses that they justify. History indeed
repeats itself. There is nothing new under the sun.</div>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style><style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073786111 1 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
-->
</style>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02307738292814257779noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-44619518818291043792018-03-24T19:58:00.000-07:002018-03-24T19:58:15.107-07:00Hard Cases Make Bad Law [Clinton Wilcox]Over at the Seattle Times, Bettina Paek, a maternal fetal medicine physician in Kirkland, wrote an opinion article called "<a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/abort-a-baby-to-save-twin-painful-choice-that-is-a-mothers-to-make/" target="_blank">Abort a baby to save twin: Painful choice that is a mother's to make</a>." She recounts a difficult story about Lisa and Nick, a couple having twins who shared a placenta and the same amniotic sac. Lisa experienced complications in the pregnancy. As Dr. Paek explains, it is uncommon for both twins to share the same amniotic sac, and when they do, they share the same blood vessels. As can happen, the twins' umbilical cords can get tangled up, cutting off blood flow. Since both babies share the same blood vessels, if one twin dies, the other soon follows. This was Lisa and Nick's situation, as described by Dr. Paek.<br />
<br />
Lisa and Nick's twins had their umbilical cords wrapped around each other. One twin was alive and vigorous, the other one was dying, his heart rate decelerating rapidly. Once the dying twin's heart stopped pumping completely, the resulting change in blood pressure would cause the other twin to pump all of his blood into his dying brother. It was a tragic, difficult situation. The only solution was to close off the umbilical cord of the dying baby and cut through it. This would sever the vascular connection between the two brothers, which would result in the dying twin's death almost immediately. However, it would save the healthy twin. If Dr. Paek had waited for nature to take its course, it would be too late to save the healthy child.<br />
<br />
This seems almost like a textbook example of a triage case: both patients are in mortal danger (even though the second twin was still healthy and vibrant at the time, he was in mortal danger because of his dying twin), and you can only save one. Which one do you save? In this case, it was only possible to save one child.<br />
<br />
I don't fault Dr. Paek for her decision. She clearly considers this to be a tragic case and would have preferred both twins to survive. In fact, I agree that Dr. Paek did the right thing, and that the parents did the right thing by requesting the surgery. Not only could this be justified as a case of triage (act to save one patient or end up losing them both), but it could also be justified by double-effect reasoning: one twin was already dying, so the death of that twin was not aimed for -- the immediate death of the twin was foreseen, but not intended. If it was medically possible, the doctor would have saved them both (which seems clear from the context of the article). And while the doctor says her severing of the umbilical cord "killed" the dying twin almost immediately, she is not making a distinction between a direct and indirect killing. In this case, the death of the fetus was not caused by a <i>direct</i> action from Dr. Paek, but from an indirect action on her part, the severing of the umbilical cord.<br />
<br />
Now here's the rub: this is clearly a medical emergency. But Dr. Paek wants to argue that the bill the Senate was going to vote on, outlawing abortion after 20 weeks (which, we know now, failed to pass a Senate vote) would criminalize surgeries like the one she performs. It would also criminalize, she claims, other "hard case" surgeries like abortions in the case of fetal abnormalities incompatible with life which, Dr. Paek asserts, make up the vast majority of terminations after 20 weeks. But as <a href="http://blog.secularprolife.org/2016/07/no-most-late-term-abortions-are-not_13.html" target="_blank">Secular Pro-Life</a> has reported, it's simply not true that the vast majority of late-term terminations are due to fetal abnormalities. Women abort in the late term for socioeconomic reasons, just like they do in the early term, mixed with the fact that she either didn't know she was pregnant or was unable to secure an earlier term abortion.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, abortion-rights advocates tend to resort to the extreme difficult cases in order to justify all abortions remaining legal. But as has been rightly said, hard cases make bad law. Saying that we should legalize all abortions because there are extreme rare cases where it may be needed is like saying we should legalize speeding because there may come a day someone may have to rush a loved one to the hospital. Doctor Paek saved a baby's life in this surgery, but with abortion, the end result, and the aim, is a dead baby.Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-25286859315832829132018-03-10T09:03:00.001-08:002018-03-10T09:03:32.909-08:00Love For Innocent Children and Guilty Adults [Mike Spencer]<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">When it comes to speaking up for preborn children targeted by abortion, the vast majority of churches choose silence over faithfulness. Although many churches have eloquent pro-life statements in their by-laws, few do anything to stop the killing even within their own four walls. The church’s refusal to blow Ezekiel’s trumpet for the preborn has become our great scandal. Could the heroes of Hebrews 11 whose faith compelled them to “</span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">shut the mouths of lions</span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">, </span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">quench the fury of flames</span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">, </span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">route foreign armies</span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">” and “a</span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">dminister justice</span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">” have imagined a day when shepherds who are called by God to protect the flock would instead surrender precious children from their own flock to the abortionist’s knife without so much as a whimper from their pulpits? God help us. God help the preborn.</span></div>
<div class="15">
<br /></div>
<div class="15">
<span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">There are many reasons for the church’s silence, but none of them are good ones, given the fact that Proverbs 31:8 clearly commands us to “speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” One excuse that is particularly troubling is when pastors spiritualize their disobedience with comments like, “Preaching against abortion will distract me from the gospel” - as if speaking up for helpless children and sharing the gospel of Christ are competing interests. Notice that no one in the Body of Christ ever argues this way with respect to victims of sex trafficking or the homeless. Only the preborn are treated with such contempt. And only in hell could one consider rescuing children from the abortionist’s knife a </span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">“distraction.” </span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">Jesus rebuked His disciples for this pernicious thinking when He told them, “</span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">Suffer the children to come to me.”</span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';"> Far from a “</span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">distraction” </span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">from the gospel,</span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">rescuing</span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">helpless</span><i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;"> </span></i><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">children from abortion is the gospel in action. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="15">
<br /></div>
<div class="15">
<span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">Preaching against the sin of abortion, or against any sin for that matter, does not turn people off from the gospel; it turns them on to it. As Jesus taught, “</span><span style="background: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11pt;">It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:19). I was reminded of this truth several times in the months of January & February as I had opportunity to speak in 5 churches and at several other events in Washington, Oregon, Indiana, Michigan and Ohio. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">In each church I spoke plainly and boldly of the evil injustice of abortion. I also spoke plainly and boldly of God’s grace, pointing those who’ve had abortions to the One who died to forgive them. I explained that Jesus not only offers forgiveness from the sin of abortion, but the Holy Spirit also promises to begin </span><span style="background: rgb(255,255,255); font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-shading: rgb(255,255,255); mso-spacerun: 'yes';">a sanctifying work that He will carry on “to completion until the day of Christ Jesus”, (Philippians 1:3). In other words, God not only forgives, he heals and restores. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">I pleaded with those who had abortions not to leave without speaking to me or to their pastor. I was approached several times by both men and women. Far from being turned off from the gospel, preaching against abortion led these dear ones to recognize their need for the gospel. It was my joy to direct them to verses like Isaiah 53:5 and John 8:36 and to pray with them. In addition, I was able to connect one woman to a post-abortion Bible study through her local pregnancy care center. </span><span style="font-size: 9pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="15">
<br /></div>
<div class="15">
<span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">Abortion is evil because it kills innocent children, but the gospel of Christ is beautiful because it provides forgiveness for guilty adults. Faithful shepherds do not hide such hope from those who’ve had abortions. Christ calls pastors to thunder from their pulpits both the evil of abortion and the grace of God. The church that fails to fulfill either of these obligations fails to love as Christ has called her to love. </span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 11.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="15">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS 明朝'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">In short, we’re never forced to choose between speaking up for innocent children and pointing guilty adults to the gospel of Christ. Instead, by “</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS 明朝'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';">speaking the truth in love,”</span><span style="font-family: Cambria; font-size: 12.0000pt; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-fareast-font-family: 'MS 明朝'; mso-spacerun: 'yes';"> we do both (Ephesians 4:5). </span></div>
Clinton Wilcoxhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018335374680419858noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-6690786532856937662018-03-04T22:25:00.001-08:002018-03-04T22:25:20.645-08:00Another Fatal Flaw in Post-Modern Thinking<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"Who are you, a straight, white, male, to tell me what to do?"</blockquote>
<br />
A common objection that is often raised on the college campuses in America today is often leveled at male pro-life advocates as a way to simply silence the pro-lifer into submission. I was listening to a presentation by Gregory Koukl recently, on the material in his book <i>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, </i>when this realization came to me. When this objection(which isn't even a legitimate response to the argument being made against elective abortion) is raised, it is simply a way to silence any disagreement. (I also recommend Douglas Groothius' excellent book <i>Truth Decay, </i>as a tool for critiquing relativism and postmodern thought)<br />
<br />
One other example of this happening, during a college campus outreach in the San Diego area a couple of years ago, a similar response was raised when I was speaking to a crowd of students who had come to our display to hear what we had to say. After laying out a brief case for the pro-life view, one student simply said, "Well, that's a male's view, let's get a woman's view on the issue." I was dumbfounded.<br />
<br />
How is one to respond? The best way I can think of is to simply turn the question around: "Who are you to tell me I can't?" Or more along the lines of "So what if it's a male's point of view? How exactly does that undermine everything I just said?" Wait and see what the response is; I can guarantee it isn't something most people have though much about. Let me explain.<br />
<br />
First, what does one's racial, sexual, or any other characteristic have to do with whether or not their point of view on a particular matter is correct? The statement is based on the worldview of postmodernism, and it's descendent, cultural relativism. A cultural relativist holds to the view that all moral, social, religious, or other views are relative to the culture that produces them. With this in mind, it is helpful to see where the postmodern mindset leads to this type of thinking. As a variation of the "Who are you to say?" answer of the relativist, this one puts values as relative to the members of a particular community group, whether they be racial minorities, gender minorities, or anything else. So, many times, when a feminist group at the local college is putting on an event with the title of "A Feminist Perspective on (Fill in the social issue here)" this is precisely what we are seeing happen. "Why is a man telling me what to do?" is as similar a response as the rhetorical question "Says who?"<br />
<br />
The biggest problem with this line of reasoning, based on truth claims and values claims being relative to particular communities, is that it also undermines anything any particular group has to say. After all, if it is all just perspectives and opinions based upon the socio-environmental experiences of the members of a particular group, then no one has anything remotely useful to add to any discussion whatsoever(Including the correction of run-on sentences). There is no real difference then between a women's rights group and their views and any other group. The mantra "You're just a white male!" can be equally applied to the person making the statement "And you are just a female." Why is one perspective automatically superior to another? The postmodern worldview can't pass it's own test. This ends up meaning that no one is obligated to take a feminist perspective on anything seriously to begin with, up to and including abortion.<br />
<br />
Some might say, "Wait a minute, women are human beings to, and deserve to be listened to!" Precisely. To acknowledge this statement as true is to reject the relativism that leads to a valuing of a view on the basis of which community it comes from, as opposed to the reasons for that view. It is because women(and minorities) are equally as human as everyone else is what grounds out obligations to respect them as persons, not necessarily as a way of thinking. A man can be just as mistaken as a woman, and vice versa.<br />
<br />
This leads us back to the conclusion that there are some objectively true ideas that can be held independently of community experiences. Questions like, "Are all human beings fundamentally equal?" "Do all human beings deserve equal rights?" and "Are human rights worth striving for and upholding?" Don't seem to be questions that should be left up to the individual or the group to decide how to answer. In fact, we can take this a step further: Do human beings cease to be worthy of justice and protection when we leave earth? If we were on another planet, like Mars, Pluto, Vulcan, or Tatooine, would the statement "All human beings have inherent worth and dignity" suddenly cease to be true? What about a mathematical claim, like 2+2=4; would that suddenly cease to be the proper formula if we left our own solar system, or traveled to another country? Thinking this way gets pretty goofy upon further reflection.<br />
<br />
So, now that we've arrived at the conclusion that there are indeed objective, universal truths that transcend cultural and subcultural experiences(To deny this is to admit there is one objective, universal truth that transcends cultural and subcultural experience. There is no escaping this conclusion. It cannot be done), how does this correspond to the issue at hand, the morality of abortion?<br />
<br />
The argument against abortion, as laid out in logical form below, is either valid or invalid; sound or unsound:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1. It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2: Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Conclusion: Therefore, abortion is wrong.</blockquote>
<br />
This argument is no more undermined or refuted if presented by a straight, wealthy, Republican, Christian, white biological male than if it was articulated by a talking parrot. Anyone who objects to the pro-life position needs to show how the syllogism fails, not merely get angry that someone who has a characteristic they happen to dislike is arguing it. Anything less is an insulting way to say "Just shut up" when there is a needed dialogue to be had.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-6919389868465592862018-02-25T01:49:00.000-08:002018-02-25T01:49:11.517-08:00"Inconsistency" Does Not Kill The Pro-Life ArgumentWith all the ongoing debate unfolding over the issue of firearm ownership in America today, it is necessary to respond to a very common objection that is usually leveled at pro-life advocates who happen to be on the Right side of the political spectrum. <br />
<br />
The common objection leveled at pro-life advocates who happen to support legally owning firearms might make for a snarky meme or Tweet, but it is often ill-reasoned(if reasoned at all).<br />
<br />
The objection goes something like, "Oh, you call yourself pro-life? Yet you own a gun, which is designed to take human life. You aren't really 'pro-life' in any meaningful sense, but pro-fetus."<br />
<br />
Let's review the pro-life argument, for clarity:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Premise 1: It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Premise 2: Elective Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Conclusion: Therefore, Elective abortion is wrong.</blockquote>
<br />
Setting aside for the moment that the word "fetus" is often thrown out lazily as an emotional ploy to dehumanize the unborn without any further comment(and nevermind that the term is a clinical one meaning "little one" or little child in Latin to describe the entity within the womb), the assertion turns out to simply be a very lazy slander of the pro-lifer's viewpoint, as well as a misunderstanding of their viewpoint on gun ownership as well.<br />
<br />
To illustrate this, suppose instead of killing the unborn, we were discussing the killing of newborns. This is not as far fetched as it seems, since some pro-choice philosophers like Peter Singer, Michael Tooley, and others have suggested this as the logically consistent position to take if one defends abortion on demand. Ancient Rome also used to practice abandoning newborns(often baby girls) and leaving them to die.<br />
<br />
Now, imagine the gall of saying to someone who thinks this to be evil, "Well, you aren't pro-life if you own a gun, which is used to take human life, or oppose government funded healthcare, or stopping police brutality. In fact, you're just pro-neonate." The objection, even if true, is worthless in a discussion over what <i>should </i>be done to stop the intentional killing of newborns. It's simply a red herring that adds nothing of value to the discussion.<br />
<br />
I have addressed the question on the blog in past posts as to whether those who oppose government funded solutions to social problems are inconsistent(And, as I have pointed out, this simply assumes that policies at the federal level are the only option that is worthy of consideration, when that is precisely what needs to be argued). <br />
<br />
However, what about owning a firearm? Does that make the fatal flaw in the pro-life view?<br />
<br />
Nope. Again, going back to our syllogism, we see that abortion is wrong because it <i>intentionally </i>ends the life of an <i>innocent </i>human being. Contrast this with the vast majority of legal gun owners: Is anyone really going to suggest that there is a morally relevant comparison between a young woman using a firearm to protect herself from a rapist or mugger, for example, and an abortionist killing an unborn human via suction or dismemberment? Or if a man buys a handgun in order to protect his wife and kids if a person with evil intent enters his home, why should we assume that this is morally equivalent to elective abortion? Unless someone has completely bought into the notion taught in some women's studies courses that an action is evil if it is somehow comparable to rape, the comparison is ridiculous on the face of it. <br />
<br />
While we may continue to debate the finer points of gun ownership(And we should, because this is how a healthy and free society is supposed to function) throwing out slanders and personal attacks against an opponent's position on other issues does absolutely nothing to aid needed discourse. It only serves to make tempers flare more than necessary, and turn arguments into fights at every turn. <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<br /></blockquote>
Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-60359714769528488712018-02-08T18:13:00.000-08:002018-02-11T05:46:58.302-08:00Cultural Relativism Makes Social Justice MeaninglessTake any college social science class today, whether it be anthropology, sociology, criminology, or others, and you will be introduced to the worldview of postmodernism, especially it's ethical theory: Relativism. Given how deeply entrenched the worldview has become in the study of human behavior, it's no surprise that many college students today will respond to pro-life arguments in ways that reflect their post-modern education. Since many college students, high school students, and even middle school students have adopted this line of thinking(With or without knowing it) it is vitally important that the flaws associated with this worldview be addressed. I intend to do so below.<br />
<br />
One very common way this manifests itself is the all-to-common response, "Well, you're a white male!" This is a response that is becoming much more frequent, in discussions of a whole host of social issues. However, it has deeply flawed presuppositions, given that it stems from a relativistic mode of thinking. The way it does so is that it emphasizes the role that subcultures play in our day to day interactions. Since one subculture(White, heterosexual men) may have differing values than another group(White women, for instance) the values are relative to those groups, and the individuals within them. Hence, we have culturally relative values.<br />
<br />
Cultural relativism, known also as "Society Does Relativism"(A term coined by Greg Koukl and Francis J Beckwith; <i>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air) </i>is probably the most common ethical theory taught in sociology courses today, right after Marxism and Utilitarianism. The theory goes like this: "Since different societies have differing standards of what is right and what is wrong, one society has no say over the ethical issues involved in another society."<br />
<br />
This view is very popular among intellectuals today, and is the basis for much of sociological and anthropological study. One college textbook, <i>A New History of Asian America, </i>is a prime example, since it assumes this view outright, by critiquing the practices of European colonial powers, from the beginnings of the modern West, all the way to the present age, while holding the position that since the European Empires tried to influence cultural and ethical customs in different cultures, various human rights abuses were bound to be the result. (Note: the book was very well-researched and argued it's case persuasively; I do recommend it for aiding further study)<br />
<br />
It is easy to see why, today, many social issues where questions of race and gender are going to be raised, tempers will flare. I have personally been told while doing pro-life outreach on the campus that since I am a white male, my point of view is no more valid than someone of another race or gender. This is one big reason why colleges tend to set up ethnic and gender based resource centers. College students are taught to assume that varying life experience's, based on race, gender, and other factors, all hold equal weight in the major issues of today. This, again, is an example of how cultural relativism has influenced ethical though within our society.<br />
<br />
<u style="font-weight: bold;">Several Key Flaws:</u><br />
<br />
There are several key flaws in this line of thinking, that I think if they are addressed, can make discourse on controversial topics much more successful in the long run. For those who wish to learn more, I highly recommend Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith's book, <i>Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air. </i>I will be using many of the concepts from this work through the rest of this piece. Since the idea behind cultural relativism is that moral values are relative to the cultures they originate in, I will specifically be addressing this claim here. However, many of the same flaws also apply to individual relativism, given it's similar philosophy. "Says Who?" is the common slogan of the relativist, but if we take this line of thinking to where it will logically lead us, we will see that it is ultimately bankrupt.(As Greg Koukl has said elsewhere, we "Take The Roof Off" of the idea, and see what is left standing)<br />
<br />
<u style="font-weight: bold;">Flaw #1: Cultural Relativists cannot accuse other cultures of wrongdoing:</u><br />
<br />
While this is a common objection that is raised by cultural relativists when they are examining the actions of other people groups, many times they fail to see that their line of reasoning also nullifies their own critique. For example, in my class on Asian American and Pacific Islander Communities last fall, the professor criticized the notion of Christian missionaries "imposing" their religious view on the people's in Asia and the Pacific they were encountering. The professor had remarked "Who were they to impose their cultural values on someone else?" Unfortunately, this also ends up being an example of "imposing" ones own cultural values. If a student had raised her hand and said "Professor, who are you to say that they cannot do that? Aren't you imposing <i>your cultural values </i>on them?" I have a hard time seeing how one can respond to this while still maintaining their relativism. If the professor had said "Well, obviously it was evil." Then she has rejected the notion that cultural values are relative, and has embraced the idea that there is at least one moral rule that transcends culture. The only consistent answer would be "Well, these are my culture's own moral preferences, but we shouldn't ask others to embrace them in place of their own values."<br />
<br />
<b><u>Flaw #2: Cultural Relativists cannot complain about social injustice: </u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
Since a relativist, in order to be consistent with their own view, can't accuse others of wrongdoing, they also lack the foundation by which to object to obvious acts of evil. When relativists object to the practice of colonialism, slavery, and exploitation, are they implying that these are always unjust and wrong, for all peoples, in all times and places? Was it wrong for European powers to subjugate the less powerful and enslave them? Who is the relativist to say that was wrong? Is their cultural value of diversity and respect any better? "Says Who?" As soon as they object to an obvious injustice, they are no longer immune from having their cultural values critiqued by those who hold different values, including the European cultures that college professors loathe so much<br />
<br />
Or, more recently, in modern issues like race relations, sociologists are very quick to object when a member of a racial or gender majority seeks to encourage a minority group to adhere to the same standards as the majority. As Thomas Sowell highlights in his book, <i>Intellectuals and Race, </i>cultural relativists will object very quickly when minority students are held to the same standards, whether they be legal, educational, or cultural. But, yet again, "Says Who?" Who is the relativist to apply their own cultural standards(In this case, sub-cultural) of cultural relativism, and say that this is wrong to do? The majority group is just following their cultural values, so what of it? The problem should be becoming much more clear.<br />
<br />
<b><u>Flaw #3: No Group's Experience is any more valid than another </u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>One of the first soundbites to be stated on the campus today is that we must "Listen to and value other groups experiences the same as our own." Now, I completely agree, we shouldn't ignore someone simply because they are different than us, but why? Some cultures or subcultures do indeed have different experiences. So what? If all groups of people have their own values, who's to say when it's wrong for one group to ignore another? "Says Who?" raises it's ugly head again. To object to this outcome is to assume that maybe there are some objective moral rules that transcend culture and experience after all...<br />
<br />
<b><u>Flaw #4: The Good Guys of History Will Uphold the Status Quo, Not Challenge It</u></b><br />
<b><u><br /></u></b>
My good friend and Christian apologist Steve Bruecker hit the nail on the head in an article he wrote a few years ago, <a href="http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/hero-of-moral-relativism-the-joker/" target="_blank">"The Joker Is The Hero of Moral Relativism"</a>. He points out that the logical outworking of the sort of relativism that leaves values up to the individual is that there is no more basis to call a sadistic killer(Like the Joker) immoral and evil. It's simply a matter of preference.<br />
<br />
In a similar manner, when a culture begins to decide it's own values for itself, what are we left with? Anyone who attempts to change those values would be immoral, according to that culture's standards. This may sound great on paper, but the logical conclusion ends up being ghastly. Think of someone like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, William Wilberforce, or Dr. Martin L. King. When these individuals challenged their societies to respect their fellow human beings, regardless of any differences, what should the cultural relativist make of this? Did these men try to change the values that were relative to those cultures? We praise them(and should) for their courage, but the relativist is left with nothing to praise them or curse them with, other than the cultural norms he happens to agree with. If he is from a tolerant, just, and inclusive society, he may adore these men, but if he is from a racist, oppressive, and exclusive society, the relativist is no different morally(According to relativism). <br />
<br />
To paraphrase the Christian pastor and Theologian Tim Keller, if your worldview's premise leads to the conclusion that you know just isn't true, maybe it's time to change the premise?( Tim Keller, <i>The Reason for God)</i><br />
<br />
<b><u>Flaw 5: Social Justice Becomes Meaningless</u></b><br />
<div>
<b><u><br /></u></b></div>
<div>
As I have titled this piece, Cultural Relativism makes the very notion of justice within society a concept with no meaning whatsoever behind it. "Social Justice" is often defended with relativism. However, when "Says Who?" is the only logical response to a complaint about a very obvious injustice, we've got a very big problem with our logic.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Historian H.W. Crocker gives a good <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSnJSUU_7q0" target="_blank">example</a> of this concept, in highlighting the British Empire's outlawing of the burning of widows on their husband's funeral pyres in 19th century India. When the British acknowledged that it was a traditional Indian custom, they simply pointed out that Britain had a custom of punishing men who would do such a thing to women. Somehow the cultural relativists in the Women's Studies departments of the modern university don't have a problem with this form of "imposing one's cultural values on others". Again, it may be simply because there are, in fact, moral rules and obligations that transcend societies., such as the rule that you don't treat women in that sort of manner.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
So, if cultural relativism is the correct way to think of ethics and morals(Another oxymoron if relativism is true) then we are left with the conclusion that there is no standard of justice that a society must adhere to. There is no real basis for determining whether or not a particular action or law is inherently good or evil. This is outrageous. When the culturally relative sociology student loudly insists that "I have a right to abortion" or "I have a right to marry whomever I love", they might as well be having a sneezing attack. Under relativism, you can insist on being granted certain rights as loudly as you want. All it will take is for someone else to come along and insist louder than you that those rights don't exist, or that they can be revoked for whatever reason the society deems fit.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
In conclusion, it seems that cultural relativism, while making for a good classroom discussion, is not of any good for any discussion on ethics, and what truly matters in life. In fact, when life, liberty and what it means to be human are at stake, we should do better than saying "That's just your view."</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-76734580696794455942018-02-01T16:09:00.000-08:002018-02-01T16:09:16.078-08:00Yes, American Conservatives Can Be Pro-LifeA common objection that is heard both among street-level pro-choice advocates, and even among the intellectual elites within academia is that the average pro-life advocate isn't really "pro-life" in their defense of human life, from conception until natural death. The accusation has become incredibly popular in recent years, taking on new life in the realm of political discourse. In criticisms of President of the United States, Donald Trump, many left of center commentators are quick to point out what they see as flaws in the modern pro-life conservative. They will say, "If you were really pro-life, you would work to end poverty, end police brutality, stop pollution, help refugees of foreign wars, and work to end military involvement in foreign countries...etc."<br />
<br />
While this may make for a snarky meme or Tweet or post on Facebook, it is a statement with little substance, or intellectual support.<br />
<br />
In a recent <a href="https://townhall.com/columnists/scottklusendorf/2018/01/22/the-essential-prolife-argument-keep-the-main-thing-the-main-thing-n2437702" target="_blank">column at TownHall</a>, LTI President Scott Klusendorf responds to an article written during the presidential election by an American Pastor who leveled these accusations at pro-life Christians who were voting for Donald Trump.<br />
<br />
Political issues aside, as Scott points out, many of these criticisms miss the main point that pro-lifers are making in regards to abortion. We aren't arguing that society should be radically reworked to alleviate every social ill imaginable. Such a goal, while worthy, is impractical and impossible to achieve. To show this, let's review the pro-life argument:<br />
<br />
Premise 1: It is a moral wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.<br />
Premise 2: Elective abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.<br />
Conclusion: Therefore, elective abortion is a moral wrong.<br />
<br />
If both premises are true, then the conclusion necessarily follows from the two premises(For a more academic articulation of this argument, see Francis Beckwith's <i>Defending Life, </i>2007). Any rebuttal of the argument that pro-life advocates are making needs to address one or both of these premises. If it doesn't, then the objection has failed, and the pro-life position still stands. <br />
<br />
Aside from this, the objection that in order to be "consistently pro-life", one has to embrace other forms of social justice has a deep flaw in another way: It assumes the validity of it's own position, without actually making the case that these positions are true to begin with.<br />
<br />
Take the objection, "If you were really pro-life, you wouldn't want any child to be born into poverty." While no one, whether politically conservative or liberal, should be accepting of poverty, these objections tend to ignore the different ways in which conservatives or liberals approach poverty to begin with. Most conservatives do, in fact, care about poverty, but fail to support government action to alleviate the problem. As economist Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute points out in a video for the think tank Prager University, poverty has been on the decline, primarily because <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY&index=7&list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1w_5qAEs5cSUJ5Bk0R8QLaY" target="_blank">capitalism is increasing</a>. Simply asserting that pro-life conservatives are inconsistent in their stance on poverty because they support free-enterprise capitalism is lazy thinking.<br />
<br />
Or consider the issue of police use of force. Many pro-life conservatives aren't skeptical of the Black Lives Matter movement because they value the lives of racial minorities less(That needs to be established as being the case, and not merely asserted). Rather, many are skeptical of the claims that police racism is a significant problem today. As thinkers like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQCQFH5wOJo&index=2&list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1w6yO4w6l6uevneVX9qDh7_&t=4s" target="_blank">Heather MacDonald</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThRb9x-RieI&list=PLIBtb_NuIJ1w6yO4w6l6uevneVX9qDh7_&index=4&t=6s" target="_blank">columnist Larry Elder</a>(Among many others) have highlighted, this argument fails to take certain data on violent crime within society into account, let alone the notion of policing and enforcement of law. Again, this is to simply assume one's case to be true, without even bothering to argue it in the first place. <br />
<br />
Even so, assuming that pro-life advocates are in fact, inconsistent, what does this prove? Not much, actually. The argument that is being made is that abortion is a moral wrong, because it intentionally ends the life of an innocent human being. Pro-lifers appeal to science and philosophy to establish this, not appeals to one's character or behavior. The argument being made does not, in any way, rest on the moral character of the people making it. If pro-lifers were truly inconsistent in how they lived their ethic, that is a character flaw, not a flaw in reasoning. <br />
<br />
One other point on this, the assertion makes one more major mistake: It assumes the unborn are not human. Let me explain:<br />
<br />
Imagine someone said that unless you cared for the homeless, the impoverished, and others who are suffering, you could not oppose the killing of infants up to two years of age. Is that an outrageous standard? Of course it is. Would we say that this is not even remotely relevant as to whether we <i>should </i>be working to end this form of killing? Of course we would. So, if the unborn are human, just like those infants, why do we say this about them? Isn't it because we are simply assuming that they aren't fully human, like the rest of us? That is the question that must first be resolved: What are the unborn? We only apply this double standard to the unborn, because it is merely assumed that the unborn are not human.<br />
<br />
In conclusion, the idea that pro-lifers must be politically and socially left of center in order to be consistent with their opposition to abortion in order to claim the title "pro-life" is just laziness; it isn't based on the sort of rigorous argumentation that is needed to establish that viewpoint in the first place.<br />
<br />
Until this is realized, the statement will continue to rear it's ugly head, and will continue to be answered, honestly and truthfully.<br />
<br />Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-39216231635963216212018-01-27T15:55:00.001-08:002018-01-27T15:55:37.659-08:00Why Gender Justice Does Not Justify Abortion<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p> </o:p> It seems to
me that the main justification for the pro-choice position is from the need for
gender justice. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains, “Also in
the balance is a woman’s autonomous charge of her full life’s course… her
ability to stand in relation to man, society, and the state as an independent,
self-sustaining, equal citizen” [“Some Thoughts on Autonomy and Equality in
Relation to Roe v. Wade,” in <i>The Abortion Controversy: A Reader</i>, ed.
Louis P. Pojman and Francis J. Beckwith (Boston: Jones and Bartlett Publishers,
1994), 124]. She holds that the Court ought to have included in Roe an argument
concerning gender-based classification, for it, along with reproductive
autonomy, “influences the opportunity women will have to participate as men’s
full partners in the nation’s social, political, and economic life” (Ibid.,
119). Many defenders of the pro-choice position reason this way, including Justice
Harry Blackmun, Alison M. Jaggar, Catherine MacKinnon, Virginia Ramey Mollenkott,
and Kate Michelman.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Philosophically,
the argument is not difficult to refute. Would pursuing an economic or
political opportunity justify killing one’s two year old daughter? Of course
not, pro-choice people would surely agree. S/he thinks this is a bad analogy
because the unborn are not fully human persons. But that is the very question
at issue in the abortion debate. The pro-choicer is begging the question rather
than making an argument that the unborn are not human persons. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But if the
argument is that easy to refute logically, why is it so influential today? Understanding
the theory behind it may help answer this question. The ethical theory is act-utilitarianism,
which says that a person’s action is justified by its bringing about greater
happiness, in this case by providing her with equal access to socio-economic
and political opportunities. The end justifies the means. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
This reasoning has fatal flaws. You
cannot know your or your offspring’s future, whether actual or possible. History
is replete with examples of people who regretted past decisions or who were
relieved that they did not do something they had considered doing. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Also, David DeGrazia, Thomas
Mappes, and Jeffrey Brand-Ballard point out that act-utilitarianism seems
unable to coexist with the notion of human rights [<i>Biomedical Ethics</i>,
7th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2010), 12]. One of the common
arguments for enhanced interrogation at Guantanamo Bay was that these methods
used on high-level terrorists could potentially save many lives by finding out
about planned terrorist attacks. This is a utilitarian argument that many,
especially on the liberal end of the political spectrum, rejected, for the
prisoners have rights as human beings. By the same reasoning, one could justify
killing an older, unhappy couple to relieve them of their unhappiness. Or one could frame an innocent person on a
capital offense to avoid deadly rioting. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Robert George and Christopher
Tollefsen explain why it is that rights cannot coexist with any utilitarian or
consequentialist ethic. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: .5in;">
Within any such ethic, there will
always be human beings who are dispensable, who must be sacrificed for the
greater good. Utilitarianism fails in a radical way to respect the dignity and
rights of individual human beings. For it treats the greater good, a mere
aggregate of all the interests or pleasures or preferences of individuals, as
the good of supreme worth and value, and it demands that nothing stand in the
way of its pursuit. The utilitarian thus cannot believe, except as a convenient
fiction, in human rights or in actions that may never be done to people, regardless
of the consequences [<i>Embryo: A Defense of Human Life</i>, 2nd edition.
Kindle version (New York: Doubleday, 2011), loc. 1420].<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
Michael Tooley, Alison Jaggar’s
colleague at the University of Colorado, who also defends abortion, sees the
problem. “It seems to me very doubtful that the broadly consequentialist
considerations that Alison advances would suffice to show that legal protection
of that right [i.e., the unborn right to life] is not justified” [<!--[if supportFields]><span
style='mso-element:field-begin'></span> ADDIN ZOTERO_ITEM CSL_CITATION
{"citationID":"gD5AXjHi","properties":{"formattedCitation":"{\\rtf
Michael Tooley et al., \\i Abortion: Three Perspectives\\i0{} (New York: Oxford
University Press, 2009), 184.}","plainCitation":"Michael
Tooley et al., Abortion: Three Perspectives (New York: Oxford University Press,
2009), 184."},"citationItems":[{"id":255,"uris":["http://zotero.org/users/1522620/items/ZMB7EJ7U"],"uri":["http://zotero.org/users/1522620/items/ZMB7EJ7U"],"itemData":{"id":255,"type":"book","title":"Abortion:
Three Perspectives","publisher":"Oxford University Press","publisher-place":"New
York","number-of-pages":"276","source":"Google
Books","event-place":"New
York","abstract":"The newest addition to the
Point/Counterpoint Series, Abortion: Three Perspectives features a debate
between four noted philosophers - Michael Tooley, Celia Wolf-Devine, Philip E.
Devine, and Alison M. Jaggar - with three different perspectives on abortion:
the \"liberal\" pro-choice approach, the \"communitarian\"
pro-life approach, and the \"gender justice\" approach. Each of the
authors takes a controversial position, and all push their philosophical
opinions to their logical limits. All ofthe views presented are radical, both
in the sense of exploring fundamental assumptions and in the sense of diverging
from mainstream opinion in America. They do not rely on religious authority;
therefore their arguments address all citizens regardless of their religious
beliefs. The first \"liberal\" pro-choice approach is Michael
Tooley's. After examining, analyzing, and challenging the most important
arguments for a right to life before birth, he holds that abortion is always
morally permissible in itself. He argues that it is unreasonable to claim that
human embryos/fetuses either have or develop a right to life before birth.
Celia Wolf-Devine and Philip E. Devine, however, take a
\"communitarian\" pro-life position, arguing that the human organism
is a person from the point at which it first came to be. They also argue that,
because its creators are responsible for its existence, the prospective parents
have a moral obligation to care for its life. Finally, Alison Jaggar explores
abortion in light of political philosophy and social justice. She argues that
women everywhere have a human right to abortion, that abortion rights are
necessary for gender equality, and that the availability of abortion is
indispensable for pubic health and social development. As philosophers, the
authors have special skills in critical analysis and thinking systematically
about values. Because they do not rely on religious authority, their arguments
address all citizens regardless of their religious beliefs. By drawing examples
from real life, employing logic, philosophy, and empirical data, and addressing
views of abortion from across other disciplines, the authors present a
well-informed and up-to-date discussion. Advanced courses in ethics,
contemporary moral problems, sex and gender, and bioethics will find this text
useful and
relevant.","ISBN":"9780195308952","shortTitle":"Abortion","language":"en","author":[{"family":"Tooley","given":"Michael"},{"family":"Celia
Wolf-Devine","given":""},{"family":"Philip
Wolf-Devine","given":""},{"family":"Alison
M.
Jaggar","given":""}],"issued":{"date-parts":[["2009"]]}},"locator":"184","label":"page"}],"schema":"https://github.com/citation-style-language/schema/raw/master/csl-citation.json"}
<span style='mso-element:field-separator'></span><![endif]-->Michael Tooley et
al., <i>Abortion: Three Perspectives</i> (New York: Oxford University Press,
2009), 184].<!--[if supportFields]><span style='mso-element:field-end'></span><![endif]--><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
But
pro-choice people who use the utilitarian gender justice argument base their
demand for such justice on the human rights of women. Thus, they have a
contradiction right at the heart of their thinking on abortion. You can either
embrace utilitarianism or human rights, not both. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
I doubt
that the persistence of the gender justice argument is animated by loyalty to utilitarian
theory. Rather, the utilitarian gender justice argument is a species of Marxist
proletarian morality, the notion that whatever helps the oppressed (the
proletariat) in their class struggle against the oppressors (the bourgeoisie)
is right. Abortion helps women in their struggle against a male-dominated
society and thus must be allowed by law, otherwise the legal system stands against
equality. Deleonist socialists make just that argument (see “The Abortion
Issue: A Socialist View,” accessed January 18, 2018, <a href="http://www.deleonism.org/text/a-76.htm">http://www.deleonism.org/text/a-76.htm</a>.).
<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: .5in;">
My oldest daughter just received a
significant scholarship to attend Northwest University, a conservative
Christian school. I am profoundly grateful that Northwest judged her on her
merits as a student and did not discriminate against her based on gender. I
know that many women around the world do not enjoy such treatment. There is
much to be done to secure the rights of women and girls worldwide. But there
are right and wrong ways to do so, and zeal must not continue to lead us to
oppress one group of people for the sake of another, which is exactly what is
happening if pro-lifers are correct that the unborn are distinct, living, whole
human persons. Everything we have argued against utilitarianism stands against
proletarian morality. And Marxism’s history is stained with the blood of over
one hundred million people whose deaths were justified by the ends. With 60
million unborn Americans and 1.4 billion people worldwide having been
exterminated through abortion, the unjust history of Marxist utilitarianism
continues. People deserve better because all of us, regardless of size, level
of development, environment, and degree of dependency, have an unalienable
right to life. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07891578145435554050noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-40907934631004652732018-01-12T09:17:00.000-08:002018-01-12T09:17:34.544-08:00How To Get Away With Murder (By Holding The Poor Hostage)Today I would like to briefly address one of the worst defenses of abortion that is given, and of Planned Parenthood more specifically. It is a common talking point by celebrities and lay-persons alike, but it is one with virtually no substance. In fact, it is really a barbaric statement when it is reasoned to it's logical implications.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwey39u3bl4nfQd6pCS9jkow2HSi8tJWx-Gr7AZvB4FH_glX-nhPvPqUWwo3I1n2RlEolXXvaO5PvSMSwzPKQxvcokUtJuyQWlOuOqFSkb0h2w-R9yPyjUPjcDmTXQ4l7sbIQDvP-K-04/s1600/26230846_401606453609901_8780370344392974206_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="501" data-original-width="375" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwey39u3bl4nfQd6pCS9jkow2HSi8tJWx-Gr7AZvB4FH_glX-nhPvPqUWwo3I1n2RlEolXXvaO5PvSMSwzPKQxvcokUtJuyQWlOuOqFSkb0h2w-R9yPyjUPjcDmTXQ4l7sbIQDvP-K-04/s320/26230846_401606453609901_8780370344392974206_n.jpg" width="239" /></a></div>
(Photo Credit: Dank Pro-life Memes)<br />
<br />
The claim goes like this: "Planned Parenthood should continue to get federal funding, since they provide a lot of services for poor Americans, especially women and minorities, that they wouldn't get elsewhere. Plus, abortion is only three percent of what they do!"<br />
<br />
I had this stated to me repeatedly(and quite loudly) by a student during a pro-life outreach with Students for Life of America in the San Diego area late last year. She was outraged at the material on the display, which quoted the statistics found in the Planned Parenthood annual report. <br />
<br />
Now, aside from the dispute over where lower-income Americans can go to get quality healthcare(It's a flat out lie that PP is the only organization in the nation that does provide these services, or will provide them in the future. A quick google search of local health care centers will prove that), the assertion also makes a fatal flaw: It "begs the question"; that is, it simply assumes that abortion is not the intentional killing of an innocent human being.<br />
<br />
To show how this mistake happens, let's pretend for a moment that a local hospital purposely killed a certain percentage of it's patients in the pediatrics ward. If parents decide that their toddler is too much of a burden for them to take care of, they can have their toddler killed by the hospital staff, with no risk to the parents, whether medically, financially, or legally. To take this thought experiment a step further, suppose the hospital staff is caught dismembering the toddlers, and selling their body parts for profit to medical and research firms.<br />
<br />
Would there be outrage? You'd better hope there would be. <br />
<br />
Now imagine that after all of this outrage, the hospital's PR department states that since the facility provides free, life-saving healthcare for the poor members of the community, then the state health department would essentially be "killing the poor" by shutting down the hospital in order to end the killing of toddlers(Which seems to be the hospital's primary mission.) <br />
<br />
In this case, the hospital PR department has essentially tried to get away with murder by holding the poor hostage. It's like a criminal telling a victim of his crime, "Don't go to the police, or else your loved ones will die." Should any reasonable person go on to defend such an action? Not if they were committed to protecting the most vulnerable among us.<br />
<br />
It should be obvious that Planned Parenthood doesn't even care about the poor, no matter how emotional they are in the media. Especially when President Donald Trump <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/06/trump-offers-planned-parenthood-funds-if-it-halts-abortions.html" target="_blank">offered to continue</a> federal funding to them if they stopped their abortion "services", they refused.(This is not a post to defend President Trump; it is merely to make a point). It should be plainly obvious to anyone who values truth over easy to get sex: An organization that supposedly cares for the "poor and downtrodden" will only do so if it gives them leverage in the public square. No one committed to justice should support such a behavior. <br />
<br />
In conclusion, the arguments given in favor of Planned Parenthood can only be morally justified if the unborn are not human. Because if the unborn are in fact human(And the evidence shows they are), then we have a literal case of an organization that is getting away with murder, by attempting to hold large numbers of the population hostage. It's amazing that anyone who is firmly committed to justice would be even remotely open to the idea that the poor and underserved could be used as a bargaining tool for political gain.<br />
<br />Nathan Apodacahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16598525848949945495noreply@blogger.com0