Amanda Marcotte, the blogger who worked for John Edwards campaign before she fell victim to the "right wing noise machine", has an interesting take on abortion:
To see that abortion is moral, you just need to look at women as human beings with lives that have value. When a woman chooses abortion, she’s not indulging some guilty pleasure, like sneaking in a round of adultery at lunch, to bring up a genuinely immoral action that should not be criminal. She is probably thinking about her family’s well-being and yes, her own well-being. Taking your own well-being into consideration is called “selfish” by anti-choicers, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are female. In fact, especially if you are female, since you live in a world where having self-esteem can be an act of moral courage that requires some defiance. If I got pregnant, I wouldn’t even have to suffer much mental strain to realize that abortion would be the best choice for myself, my family, and my relationship. Abortion, not just the right to abortion but the actual procedure, is a moral good that helps women and families and should be honored as such. Women who get abortions should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.
In fairness, most abortion advocates are not as morally deranged as Marcotte. Some even consider abortion to be "morally questionable", a position Marcotte claims is a "huge insult":
Updated to add: Also, saying that abortion is morally questionable, even if you’re pro-choice, is a huge insult to the brave men and women who risk life and limb to perform them. Being an abortion doctor is a pretty thankless task, because a bunch of “Christian” men who have emasculation issues are gunning to kill you in hopes that brings their huevos back.
Again, let me be clear that I don't think Marcotte represents most pro-choicers. Marcotte is a special breed of crazy: a paranoid misandrist with a persecution complex and a broken moral compass. John Edwards must be thanking his lucky stars that this poor disturbed woman quit and skulked away before her extremist statements completely destroyed his already Quixotic campaign. (HT: Mirror of Justice)
I wouldn't call others morally deranged, especially given that you have equated dead people with living people.
I appreciate your presentation of Marcotte's writings here: she is quite able to defeat herself with her own misguided reasoning. Ad hominem attacks are unnecessary since she undermines herself.
I do think your diagnosis could be fine-tuned a bit. Marcotte (like too many on both sides of the debate) is more likely a successful narcissist. She does not necessarily feel paranoid or persecuted in the same way delusional people do: it is, rather, all enveloped within the self disorder. Paranoid people do not enjoy their paranoia; narcissistic people derive a sense of self-righteousness and justification from theirs.
If we don't understand the problem with such individuals as Marcotte, we will never be able to have any kind of meaningful dialogue with them. It is work, certainly, but caring about people is not always easy.
This illustrates well the reason some (e.g., Stand to Reason, Life Training Institute) say we shouldn't argue agaist abortion on the grounds that it's bad for women. As long as it's about the woman, you can always make it sound like abortion is a good idea -- at least for the moment. It has to be about whether or not the unborn child is an inherently valuable human being with his/her own inalienable right to life.
Dr. Mike:
I appreciate your sentiments and your reasonable approach. However, isn't it true that the only meaningful dialogue a narcissist like Marcotte can have is with herself?
And really, aren't you just trying to show the pagans who read this blog that evangelicals are so loving that they even care about the morally deranged? Admit it, Dr. Mike. You would like to see Amanda Marcotte sucked out of a womb-like jelly sack into a giant Shop-Vac and placed lovingly into a dumpster. She'd be messy and gooey, but still alive; unlike the aborted ones who were so "bravely" killed by a woman who made the "most moral" choice.
I mean really, Dr. Mike, what is the point of your post? That we should be nicer to the morally deranged? Dialoguing with someone like Marcotte is the realm of prison shrinks.
JD: Seems like Dr. Mike is thinking about how to get the gospel into Ms. Marcotte's life. Seems like you've determined she's hopeless.
Do you believe that the gospel has power even for a morally deranged person like Amanda Marcotte?
I know most evangelical Christians think that no matter how deranged you are, how vile your sins (excluding Bill Clinton--who is irredeemable), there is grace and mercy for those who repent and believe the gospel. Clearly, Ms. Marcotte is a mess, and she needs Jesus.
Other than sneering at her, what would you do to convince her that she is a sinner in a need of a savior? Or could you care less?
I am against abortion, however this posting is just partisan political hackery. What purpose does it serve?
Start speaking out against the deaths of innocent Iraqis, torture of detainees, against government policies that favor the rich to the detriment of the poor, and other issues related to the culture of life. Then you might have some credibility. Otherwise, you're just a "johnie one note" right-wing extremist.
JohnW,
Jim Wallis called. He wants his talking points back.
PS. Over a million babies die in America alone each year to abortion. It's quite the moral imperative that we do something about it, as opposed to, say, detainee underwear abuse.
It's telling, but in now way surprising, that there is not a word of substantive criticism of Amanda's position in all this name-calling and nervous hyperventilating.
In fact, her position is entirely correct and not really all that radical, though she's right that it hasn't been emphasized in the public debates over abortion rights. If you'd stop with the "deranged" and the "perverted" and the "broken moral compass" long enough to read the few sentences quoted above, you'll see she merely said that abortion can be a means of protecting a woman's "family’s well-being and yes, her own well-being", and that in that sense it "helps women and families". You don't have to agree that that is ever possible - denying obvious facts comes easy to the anti-choice wing and I don't expect that to end - but if it is ever possible that abortion could help women and their families, then it would of course be a moral good for that reason.
Amanda did nothing more than assert that abortion does help women, and draw the almost tautological conclusion that it is morally good in such cases. She's right. And, unless you insist that all and every abortion under any circumstances whatsoever is morally unjustified, you have no choice but to agree with her. If you do not take that position, then you're just haggling over which and how many abortions fall into the category Amanda defines, but you have not attacked her basic point.
Then there's this:
we shouldn't argue agaist abortion on the grounds that it's bad for women. As long as it's about the woman, you can always make it sound like abortion is a good idea
Well, yes.
And you're blithely willing to endorse the universal tactic of leaving women entirely out of the question of abortion - not even because you really despise them that much, but because you find that dishonest approach to be a convenient way to achieve the policy solution you seek (finely adjusted to precisely match the level at which you do despise them). I would think this proves Amanda's second point, does it not? The anti-choice position really is an attack on women (and those who support thenm) more than it is any form of support for babies and families.
Terrence: clever. you must know that the when of "babies" [every zygote?, every fetus?] is a legitimate part of this dilemma. And "doing something about it" ? Criminalizing abortion, I assume? And then you can go back to tending your own house, instead of focussing on others?
Kevin,
So, in your mind, pro-lifers use abortion as a moral scapegoat to hide their true aim, that is, to attack women merely because they are women. The anti-life movement, keenly aware of the real pro-life motive, would seem to occupy the moral high ground if this were the case, and rightfully so.
Except that you have misjudged, or over judged, or simply blurred the debate because abortion is, to pro-lifers at least, a fight to save the lives of unborn children.
Translation of JohnW's comment:
I don't like abortion, but since the people who I agree with politically are all for it, it's not that big of a deal. Now let me get back to demonizing those I disagree with my sweet talking points that will expose their hypocrisy!
Terrence wrote: "Over a million babies die in America alone each year to abortion. It's quite the moral imperative that we do something about it, as opposed to, say, detainee underwear abuse."
Since those babies went straight to heaven, though, aren't they ultimately better off being aborted? Given the fact that they had mothers evil enough to abort them, the odds are great that they wouldn't have been raised as Christians and thus would have gone on to spend an eternity in hell. What a great sacrifice these women and the abortionists are making: giving up their own salvation in order to save so many people from hell.
Terrence,
Your Jim Wallis comment was funny. I've got one too.
Jesus called. He wants people like James Dobson and Tony Perkins to stop claiming to be his spokesperson, they are giving him a bad name and distorting his word.
Yes, I prefer the Jim Wallis talking points over the Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity ones, so here's another one: Something is seriously wrong the Gospel of Jesus Christ is associated with being pro-war, pro-big corporate interest, and against caring for God's creation.
Brian, I like my talking points, I'm going to stick with them. Here's another one: LIFE DOES NOT END AFTER BIRTH.
Kevin: I don't see how promoting abortion as a self-esteem issue, and morally courageous to boot, is defensible. It IS, at the very least, a selfish decision, although Amanda would like to play a semantic game here, equating selfishness with "valuing your self."
And even if you resolve in your own mind that life does not begin at conception, I don't see abortion being a moral good.
And then there's this: Being an abortion doctor is a pretty thankless task, because a bunch of “Christian” men who have emasculation issues are gunning to kill you in hopes that brings their huevos back.
How does that help anyone? If you're against abortion, you've got emasculation issues? Have mercy.
ex-preacher,
While you may have no compunction about setting yourself up as God, it should give most people a little pause. Of course you don't believe in Hell anyway so your argument doesn't have anything behind it.
JohnW,
Something is seriously wrong with the Gospel of Jesus Christ being associated with aborting unborn babies and destroying the God ordained covenant of marriage. So you can get off the I'm rubber you're glue non-sense that is more suited to a playground. We're all imperfect.
JohnW, you said:
I agree. Completely. My pastor said once, "Wouldn't it be great if Christians were known as the people who help people." Unfortunately, the Gospel has become associated with human (sinful) elements on both the right and the left.
Terrence,
I agree wholeheartedly with that. There is much room for improvement for both right and left leaning Christians. Were stuck with a democrat party that hates people of faith, and a republican party that often only pays lip service to issues we care about. It would be awesome to see Christians living out the gospel through their lives instead of political power.
Terrence,
I believe we have common ground.
Both Democrats and Republicans have been equally guilty of promoting their selfish interests along with the interest of American Global Hegemony. It would be wrong for me to say republicans/conservatives are always wrong and democrats/liberals are always peace loving and care for the interests of the common man. It's not just Bush who has been responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. President Clinton's policy of sanctions against Iraq was responsible for at least the same amount of needless death.
We have a non-partisan American Empire. Neither party has clean hands and christians shouldn't put their trust in any party. Jesus Christ lived in the Roman Empire. He did not embrace empire, but taught people how to live godly lives within it. I think your pastor is on to something: we should be known as the people who help people. I'd like to recommend a book I am reading: "Jesus and Empire-The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder" by Richard A. Horsley.
I would vote for Ron Paul. He is geniune conservative christian who is on record speaking against the glorification of the Global American Empire.
JohnW,
Although I disagree with your characterization of America. Whose empire would you rather run the world, the Chinese? Compared to the alternatives, despite its flaws, American preeminence has provided more benefit to the world than harm. Do you not agree?
Brian writes: Although I disagree with your characterization of America. Whose empire would you rather run the world, the Chinese? Compared to the alternatives, despite its flaws, American preeminence has provided more benefit to the world than harm. Do you not agree?
No, Brian, I disagree and do not think American preeminence has provided more benefit to the world than harm. I would like to believe we are benevolent empire bringing peace, justice, and harmony to the world and God put us in this unique position to do all this for mankind, but that’s just no true.
We didn’t become the dominant global superpower by showing christian love and concern for other nations and peoples, did we? The policy of American Global Hegemony is completely at odds with the gospel of Jesus Christ. This is a pro-life issue.
ex preacher wrote: "Since those babies went straight to heaven, though, aren't they ultimately better off being aborted? Given the fact that they had mothers evil enough to abort them, the odds are great that they wouldn't have been raised as Christians and thus would have gone on to spend an eternity in hell. What a great sacrifice these women and the abortionists are making: giving up their own salvation in order to save so many people from hell."
Setting aside the extreme straw-man nature of your statement...If you believe that this life doesn't matter then yes, however, since the Bible CLEARLY states this life does matter then the murder of millions of babies is a profound tragedy!
Chris,
It's not a strawman argument since I am not saying that you actually hold this position.
Do you think that aborted fetuses go to heaven?
Do you think that unsaved people go to hell?
If yes on both of the above, then please explain how abortion followed by an eternity in heaven is a greater tragedy than being born, living to a ripe old age and burning in hell for eternity.
JohnW,
It is fascinating to read your comments. I am always curious about how others come to their opinions, especially when they look at the same set of facts.
You said "We didn’t become the dominant global superpower by showing christian love and concern for other nations and peoples, did we?" Let us examine how America came to be a super power. I would submit that American supremacy traces its roots directly to the JudeoChristian nature of our founding. Additionally, if one examines the motivations of many of the proponents of American power, we find a great number of Christians from Woodrow Wilson, to Harry Truman to Dwight Eisenhower. In fact in the last half of the 20th century as America ascended to the dominant super power, we faced-off against an atheistic, satanic system in the Soviet Union. I would submit that while not perfect, American idealism with regard to liberty, self determination, and human rights has made the world a better place.
ex-preacher,
Would it have been better if someone murdered you while you were still a believer?
SolaG:
I don't see how promoting abortion as a self-esteem issue, and morally courageous to boot, is defensible. It IS, at the very least, a selfish decision, although Amanda would like to play a semantic game here, equating selfishness with "valuing your self."
As for the courage that goes into making a decision to protect your own life and interests, it seemed clear enought to me. As Amanda said, choosing to have an abortion requires courage because there is so much social villification, often rising to violence, of it by religious right-wingers; that observation is especially true in the face of constant pressures on women not to value their own interests. She did not say abortion promotes self-esteem; she said the courage required for a woman in our society to insist on her own rights and interests requires self-esteem (and that recognizing the moral good in abortion would provide support in that regard). That was only a side point to her main theme, but like her main point it seems to me obviously true.
As for "selfishness", you simply don't seem to know what the word means. Abortion is certainly not selfish, in typical cases, at least, though it is certainly self-interested. How could it not be, and why should it not be? Almost every medical decision you make for yourself is self-interested. You're allowed and entitled to make self-interested decisions. In a free society, you are expected to look out for your own interests (though, as noted above, that is much harder than it should be for women in our society, who are under tremendous pressure not to).
Amanda is certainly right in saying abortion decisions partly arise from "valuing your self"; you are certainly wrong in saying that that is "selfish" or a "semantical game". In fact, "valuing yourself" is precisely the definition of "self-interested", which, again, a competent and independent adult is expected to be. (Arguably, abortion cannot be "selfish", in the sense of "inappropriately valuing one's own interests over those of others" - since there is no other person whose interests are at stake, it's perfectly appropriate to make the decision entirely as a matter of personal preference. But at any rate, the mere fact that one does have interests and dares to protect them is not selfish - it's being an adult.)
SolaG (again):
As for: a bunch of “Christian” men who have emasculation issues are gunning to kill you, it's pretty hard to overlook the overtly misogynist tone of much anti-choice rhetoric, and the laws that, in many cases, condemn women to much higher healthcare risks than they choose to run simply to satisfy someone else's choices for their lives. Look at this thread itself as evidence: Amanda is called "deranged", "perverted", "vile", "a mess", and belonging in prison. A self-described "doctor" declares she's mentally ill after reading 3 or 4 sentences from her, quoted out of context on a blog post (he must have gone to medical school with Bill Frist). Others speculate on whether her "illness" is treatable. One carefully explains that this is why we must not ever discuss women's interests in the context of abortion. And all this in response, not even to a general argument for abortion rights, but to the perfectly straightforward and incontrovertible observation that abortion can bring benefits and that should be acknowledged!
Read the really right-wing blogs when abortion comes up as a topic and see how much rank viciousness rises up almost immediately. Observe the almost universal maleness of the anti-choice movement, and the misogyny of their religious teachings that don't have to do with abortion. Observe the almost pathological response they have to any hint of women's sexuality. Observe also their total indifference to women's health needs outside the context of abortion, and their near-universal opposition to funding for pre-natal care programs, childcare, or maternity leave. Observe their howling panic over contraception, fact-based reeproductive health education, and now the HPV vaccine. Observe the climate of fear and violence the religious right created at women's-health clinics nationwide; observe the 7 murders, the literally thousands of bombings, arson attacks, acid and gas attacks, bomb threats and anthrax hoaxes, the death threats and personal harassment of healthcare workers.
It's no more than a plausible inference to the best explanation for observed phenomena to note that the anti-choice community is anti-woman on virtually every issue they encounter that affects women, and to suspect that that's not a coincidence.
ex-preacher,
Why defer to the vicitms any responsibility (even passively) for the wrongs perpetrated upon them.
BTW, how long have you been a nihilist?
Brian wrote: "ex-preacher, Would it have been better if someone murdered you while you were still a believer?"
Since heaven doesn't exist, the answer is no. (Sadly, some of my believing relatives would probably answer "yes" to your question.) If heaven did exist and believers and infants went there, then, of course, everyone would be better off to die while in that "saved" condition. If the Christian system were true, then the best thing would be for all infants to be killed from now on. That would insure that 100% of the people born from now on would go to heaven. Eventually, the now living population would die off.
Perhaps you are aware that every once in a while, a parent kills their children to save them from going to hell. I regard that as a type of sickness, but from the Christian worldview, it makes perfect sense. If "no greater love hath a man than to lay down his life for a friend," then how much greater is the love that lays down one's own eternal life to guarantee heaven for one's loved ones?
Kevin,
I really am struggling to understand your point. I'm also trying to understand if your view of Christians is anything other than a charicature. To take two of the items you mentioned in your comment. Could you please cite a misogynistic doctrine or teaching in Christianity? Could you also point me towards anything in christendom that seeks to deny women their sexuality?
ex-preacher,
I don't want you take this personally, but Satan himself couldn't have made your argument any more eloquently. I hope you take this in the spirit I intend, which is to point out to you that the destroyer and father of lies would use the exact same arguments. Perhaps this may help you with your perspective.
You were a believer once, you know how Christ would answer your challenge. You know your wisdom is foolishness!
Collin,
I don't understand your first question. With regard to your second question, I am not a nihilist.
Brian,
Does this mean you can't answer the questions I asked in post #23?
Brian,
While many share your view that America is righteous empire and Christian nation, I do not and furthermore, as a Christian, I believe this viewpoint is deception and idolatry. David Barton’s revisionist history of America is simply false. Take another look at American history and get your information from a variety of sources. I marvel at how some people look at the same set of facts and come to different conclusions too. I do not dispute the fact that Christianity is the dominant religion in our country, I just can not see how our nation state has been operating as a Christian nation. After all, a “Christian nation” would have policies that are Christ-like, right?
It would be comforting to think that our nation should be considered a kindly benevolent empire, but it has never been true. Our kindly Empire slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Pilipinos, killed approximately a million Vietnamese, millions of children died as a result of our sanctions against Iraq, and we have no problem supporting oppressive dictators such as Saddam when it’s in our interests,…are these the actions of Christian nation?
Joe, I don't know why you even enable comments on your blog. Perhaps it's to keep nutcases from doing any actual harm to someone in real life. If so, I applaud you.
Still, I've resolved once again to ignore all the print "below the fold".
Ex-,
I will answer you question. As a Christian, I cannot abide the idea that I have more wisom than an infinitely wise God. I do not have the right to decide that my plans take precedence over God's plan.
Two passages come to mind as I read what you have written. The first is God's response to Job at the end of that book. You seek to question God's wisdom, yet where were you when the foundations of the universe. God doesn't give Job an explaniation for His actions, and He doesn't owe ex-preacher or Brian one either.
The second is the serpents temptation of eve. In fact the tone and cadence of your post reads exactly like Satan proclaiming "Surely, you won't die" It's tempting for humans to put their own understanding above God's. But your lie about it being better for an aborted bay to go to heaven than be born and risk hell is an attempt to do just that.
JohnW,
Our nation kept half of Korea from descending into a Stalinist hell. Our nation kept half of Europe from becoming a Soviet satellite state. Our nation saved millions from starvation and provided relief after natural disasters the world over. Our nation leads the way in inventing technologies in medicine, agriculture and energy that have given millions of people elief from disease starvation and poverty. America has sent missionaries all over the globe to reach the unsaved.
I acknowledge that we are a sinful nation full of sinful people, but through God's grace we have achieved a great deal. If I do the math it seems that we've saved many more millions than we have harmed.
I'll stick to rooting for the home team if you don't mind. If it offends you so much, maybe it's time to switch sides, or at least leave the stadium.
Kevin:
Thanks for the explanation. Unstated assumptions got me in trouble here.
Of course, if another human life is not involved in the decision to abort, we are merely talking about a medical procedure that has no moral implications. If my tooth aches, I can choose to see a dentist or I can choose to live with the pain. The choice is not a moral choice--it has more to do with my toleration for a certain level of pain and whether I can afford to see the dentist.
Thus, if I choose to abort the fetus in a world where feti (?) are not human beings, nothing intrinsically moral has occurred. So I'd disagree with Amanda and with you that there is anything moral about the medical procedure itself or the decision to have that procedure.
I'd agree, however, that such a decision, when we're merely dealing with a conglomeration of cells that we'd rather be rid of, is not necessarily selfish because it does not prefer one life over another.
I can also see where that assertion would not hold true, once the fetus is viable. At that point, a moral choice is presented, whether you think the fetus has a soul or not. But that raises other issues that Amanda's post doesn't really address.
As for Amanda's theory about Christian men with emasculation issues, I can only say that assuming everything you say on that score is true, it still does her no good to use that kind of language to describe her opponenets anymore than it does the evangelical right any good when they use rank visciousness in the service of their argument. Christians shouldn't do it, and she shouldn't do it.
I think Amanda is wrong about abortion because I believe we're talking about another human life. Abortion no doubt brings benefits, the most important of which is avoiding burdensome responsibilities. But I don't have emasculation issues, I don't bomb abortion clinics, and I'm not in a howling panic over contraception. Whatever we think about the issue, these kinds of generalizations both sides sometimes use to describe the other aren't helpful. As you rightly note, they don't address the argument at all and add nothing but rancor and ill-will to the discussion. And then there's no discussion.
Cheers.
SolaG:
It IS, at the very least, a selfish decision
How so? I would think that virtually everyone would agree that if you are unwilling and/or unable to properly care for a baby, then the morally correct thing to do is not to have a baby. Now, we might prefer that such people not get pregnant in the first place, but assuming they do become pregnant, I fail to see how this substantially shifts the moral equation.
(Once a baby is born, the moral equation shifts, because the responsibility can be shifted to someone else. But before the baby is born, and especially in the very early term, there's no way to transfer the responsibility.)
Brian,
I appreciate your honesty. I hope you understand that I am not actually advocating for the death of either the unborn or infants. I'm trying to point out the absurdity of the Evangelical position. I have yet to find any pro-life Evangelical who can explain why a baby is better off alive than dead if one accepts the suppositions I named. I actually oppose abortion after the first 10 weeks of gestation.
I understand what you are saying about challenging God. Trust me, I'll back down if I have an encounter with God as the character Job supposedly did. Do you understand that your argument falls apart if the Bible is a man-made book? Do you believe it is acceptable to ask whether your faith makes sense, or is that heresy in itself?
Although I am anti-abortion, I don't think the question is quite so black & white. Are there times that an abortion can be a moral good? What about to save the life of the mother? Or a twin? In the first case, would it be morally wrong not to save the life of the mother at the expense of the baby? Or the other way around?
Ex,
Hey man, you can ask whatever question you'd like. I have come to the conclusion that nothing makes MORE sense than the Bible. If I'm wrong in my conclusion and the Bible is just a book, as you have apparently come to believe, then I am pretty big fool. But if it's true then you are going to feel pretty foolish, and have a much more grave consequence to face.
Anyway, you can't shake my faith, so I don't mind the questions.
Brian:
Could you please cite a misogynistic doctrine or teaching in Christianity?
Start with the epistles. "Women be quiet in your churches," and all that. And, of course, the explicit instruction that women must be submissive to their husbands. There's plenty there. You might not view these as misogynistic, but many of us do.
And that doesn't even get into the Old Testament stuff, which is probably for the best, since Christians tend to selectively accept or ignore various passages there. (The New Testament invalidates/supersedes/fulfills the Old, which is why we get to eat shrimp now, yet somehow the "God hates fags" part is still 100% valid...)
As a Christian, I cannot abide the idea that I have more wisom than an infinitely wise God. I do not have the right to decide that my plans take precedence over God's plan.
Excellent. Now all an unscrupulous preacher needs to do is to convince you that his idea of "God's plan" is the correct one, and you've essentially relegated yourself to being his pawn. Not the pawn of God, mind you, but the pawn of a flawed, fallen, decidedly-not-infinitely-wise human preacher.
SolaG:
I can also see where that assertion would not hold true, once the fetus is viable. At that point, a moral choice is presented, whether you think the fetus has a soul or not.
I actually mostly agree with you here. I think Sagan had probably the best take on this. Google up "Sagan Abortion" and read.
Abortion no doubt brings benefits, the most important of which is avoiding burdensome responsibilities.
Incorrect. Suppose that person, instead of aborting to "avoid burdensome responsibilities" instead gave birth and then avoided those responsibilities anyway. What you have then is an unquestionably alive, unquestionably sentient, unquestionably human being who will suffer through neglect, probably malnutrition, and worse. No, not every aborted fetus would face this fate if they were carried to term, but many of them would. Preventing this fate is, in my opinion, a much greater benefit, and not in the least bit selfish.
I have to repeat what I wrote above: Caring for a child is a tremendous responsibility, that requires a lot of time, attention, and resources. If you're not willing to do this properly, then you should not have a child. The preferred option is to simply not get pregnant in the first place, which to me means we ought to be encouraging pretty much everyone to use effective birth control, unless actively trying for a child. And if someone who isn't able or willing to properly care for a child (or, to properly care for their self while pregnant), then it is good and proper to abort, the sooner the better, when there can be no question about suffering and sentience and moral personhood.
tgrish,
You wrote, "Start with the epistles. "Women be quiet in your churches," and all that. And, of course, the explicit instruction that women must be submissive to their husbands. There's plenty there. You might not view these as misogynistic, but many of us do."
This is such a misunderstanding and misinterptretation of those passages that I am embarrased you would try to cite them. It's not like the people here don't know these passages backwards and forwards. Especially the wives submit to your husbands passage. Do you know the context? Sometimes I forget that people like yourself are so poorly informed about what is actually in the Bible. I'm sure you fancy yourself as intellectually rigorous, but that is some weak stuff you are bringing. It certainly makes me wonder about the value of your contribution here.
Anyway, here is a little Christianity 101 regarding the submission passage. First, lets take a look at the whole passge. (As an aside you may not know this but the original text doesn't have chapter and verse numbers, they were meant to be read as a whole)
"Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26to make her holy, cleansing[b] her by the washing with water through the word, 27and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30for we are members of his body. 31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."[c] 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.
Please explan to me how that text is anything but a radical affirmation of the worth of women and their equality as partners in the context of marriage. If anything, to a first century mindset this is truly a revolutionary idea. I am supposed to sacrifice everything for my wife.
As to your second point about being duped by a preacher. If the church was a institution created by humans and with human authority, I might have to worry about that. However since I can rely on prayer, the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the scriptures to inform me of God's will, I can be discerning when it comes to the opinions of another human being. My pastor is not Christ.
Brian,
Regarding your post no. 36.
If you were living in Vietnam in the 1960's or currently living in Iraq, you would more than likely have a different perspective on the benevolence of the American empire.
As for missionaries and the spreading of the gospel. The policies of our so-called evangelical born-again president are helping the spread of the gospel?What self-respecting Iraqi would want to become a christian, if George Bush represents what it means to be a christian?
Are you an american first or a christian?
You know what John, if everything good about America is now ruined because of George Bush, than you aren't even worth arguing with. Name a country that has lived up to Christian ideals any better?
Finally, how dare you question my priorities when it comes to my faith? What gives you the right to judge me? Have I ever impugned your Christianity even though I disagree with your politics. There is no excuse for being such a small person.
Incorrect. Suppose that person, instead of aborting to "avoid burdensome responsibilities" instead gave birth and then avoided those responsibilities anyway. What you have then is an unquestionably alive, unquestionably sentient, unquestionably human being who will suffer through neglect, probably malnutrition, and worse. No, not every aborted fetus would face this fate if they were carried to term, but many of them would. Preventing this fate is, in my opinion, a much greater benefit, and not in the least bit selfish.
Tgirsch: You've made the mistake of inserting a concern for what's best for the conglomeration of cells into the decision to abort when that concern isn't a factor in Amanda's view. There is nothing in existence at that point for which she has any moral concern.
Amanda doesn't want a kid b/c she doesn't want to take care of it. Or maybe she'd rather not go through the painful process of childbirth. Maybe there's some other reaons. But I think it's safe to say that it's the burden of responsibility for another human being that is the prime motivator in most abortions. Remember, we're tallking about her choice in light of her own best interests. The welfare of the cells, as I understand Amanda's post, is irrelevant.
Like I said above, it's just a medical procedure, devoid of moral content. The "benefits" of abortion never have anything to do with the cell mass. Once you start talking about that, you've injected a truly moral concern into the mix at the time of the decision to abort. And that's just illegitimate in Amanda' view.
So, again, the decision isn't selfish. Neither is it moral. And the benefits of the decision can only refer to those benefits derived by the one choosing to abort, not by the unborn fetus.
Otherwise, the assertion that the decision is unselfish would be undermined. As Kevin observed upthread (where'd he go, btw?): "Arguably, abortion cannot be "selfish", in the sense of "inappropriately valuing one's own interests over those of others" - since there is no other person whose interests are at stake."
That's a chilling statement to me, but perfectly defensible and rational when we're talking about what to do with nothing more than a growing mass of cells.
Brian,
If you read what I said you'll note I specifically did not blame Bush for all America's problems.
Also, you wrap yourself in the flag and seem to merge american exceptionalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. My question is fair.
John
Marcotte = classic feminatzi
However, isn't it true that the only meaningful dialogue a narcissist like Marcotte can have is with herself?
I'm sorry if I missed this, what makes Marcotte a narcissist again?
Keith
It's quite easy for the sane readers on this list to see this. Just assume for a moment that pro-lifers are wrong and abortion is not killing a human beign. It would be pretty hard to argue with Marcotte's writing then wouldn't it?
Terrence
Kevin,
So, in your mind, pro-lifers use abortion as a moral scapegoat to hide their true aim, that is, to attack women merely because they are women. The anti-life movement, keenly aware of the real pro-life motive, would seem to occupy the moral high ground if this were the case, and rightfully so.
I don't think that attacking women is the pro-life movement's true aim but it has become their primary tactic. Listening to most pro-life speakers one clearly comes away with the impression that their opinion of women (those who aren't ardent pro-lifers at least) is that they are helpless sluts whose primary concern is keeping as many legal loopholes open so they can have an abortion on Friday afternoon and be ready to hit the clubs again Friday night into the weekend.
Brian
ex-preacher,
Would it have been better if someone murdered you while you were still a believer?
Ex has a good point. If what orthodox Chritians say is true then the answer has to be yes. It would have been better if someone had snuck up on ex and killed him while he was a true believer. Now there is a huge chance ex may die unsaved. Not considering the soul of the person doing the killing, it would seem ex would have been better off!
Two passages come to mind as I read what you have written. The first is God's response to Job at the end of that book. You seek to question God's wisdom, yet where were you when the foundations of the universe. God doesn't give Job an explaniation for His actions, and He doesn't owe ex-preacher or Brian one either.
The second is the serpents temptation of eve. In fact the tone and cadence of your post reads exactly like Satan proclaiming "Surely, you won't die" It's tempting for humans to put their own understanding above God's. But your lie about it being better for an aborted bay to go to heaven than be born and risk hell is an attempt to do just that.
Actually I think the solution to ex's question is even easier for a Christian. Sure if Brian killed Ex when he was a 'true believer' things would be perfectly fine for Ex...but they wouldn't be for Brian who committed a grave sin. If we don't care about Brian's soul, only Ex's then yea he did Ex a favor.
On the other hand, if Brian's soul is equally worthy as Ex's then having one kill the other is a zero sum game. Brian loses his soul while saving Ex's? Doesn't quite work correctly. If you think about it, pro-lifers don't argue (for the most part) that stopping abortion will save the souls of the unborn babies. They argue that it will save their lives.*
* As a side note here, there are still Christian denominations that believe that unbaptized babies go to hell. For those who believe that abortion is a loss because even though many of those babies would have grown up to have gotten themselves dammed anyway they would have at least had a shot at salvation.
Solag
As for Amanda's theory about Christian men with emasculation issues, I can only say that assuming everything you say on that score is true, it still does her no good to use that kind of language to describe her opponenets anymore than it does the evangelical right any good when they use rank visciousness in the service of their argument. Christians shouldn't do it, and she shouldn't do it.
Well what's a blog for if not ranting? However harsh her words were they are pretty soft when compared with some of what has been written here about pro-choicers....let alone the numerous other sites on the Internet that are much less diplomatic in challenging the views of pro-choicers. I would have expressed it differently but I do think she has a point. There is a serious anti-woman POV running thru much of the pro-life movement which has alienated many women who might have otherwise found some common ground with it.
Amanda doesn't want a kid b/c she doesn't want to take care of it. Or maybe she'd rather not go through the painful process of childbirth. Maybe there's some other reaons. But I think it's safe to say that it's the burden of responsibility for another human being that is the prime motivator in most abortions. Remember, we're tallking about her choice in light of her own best interests. The welfare of the cells, as I understand Amanda's post, is irrelevant.
You forgot to address the possibility that Amanda may feel that to go through with childbirth may leave her unable to meet other burdens of responsibility she might have either physically, emotionally, financially or whatnot.
A while ago Joe posted about an exercise where women who had abortions were asked to write letters to their aborted children. Joe, being obviously nearly perfectly tonedeaf where women are concerned, rattled on about the women being selfish. Yet if you actually read what many had written their motivations were along the lines of "I'm sorry, I just couldn't do it for you at this time. It is too much for me." Now you could argue that maybe those women could have overcame whatever burdens they thought were preventing them from going thru with childbirth. You could also argue that a better policy would have been to have offered such women help beforehand so they wouldn't have choose abortion (or felt abortion was the only real choice). But I don't think selfish properly describes what happens here.
Brian:
I'm well aware of the passage in question. It has been used for centuries by Christians -- and continues to be so used -- to reinforce the idea that women should be submissive to their husband in particular (and men in general). Who am I to tell them that they're wrong about their own faith? Why is it that Baptists and Catholics -- the two largest denominations in the US -- allow only male pastors? Are they un-Christian?
And I'm sorry, but even divorced from that history, I fail to see how telling a woman that she should submit to her husband's will as though he himself were God on Earth is the same thing as telling her that she's some sort of "equal partner."
SolaG:
You've made the mistake of inserting a concern for what's best for the conglomeration of cells into the decision to abort when that concern isn't a factor in Amanda's view.
I wasn't addressing Amanda's view. I was addressing your view, namely that abortion is somehow a "selfish" choice, and that the primary benefit of abortion is "avoidance of responsibility."
Even if we were to concede that "avoidance of responsibility" is the primary benefit to the person having the abortion, that doesn't make this the primary benefit of abortion in the aggregate. (And I don't concede that anyway: in many circumstances, choosing to abort is taking responsibility, not avoiding it -- giving birth to a child you are unwilling or unable to properly care is supremely irresponsible, but I digress...)
But I think it's safe to say that it's the burden of responsibility for another human being that is the prime motivator in most abortions.
So what? By aborting now, when it's just a lump of cells with no moral standing, you're benefiting not just yourself, but society. Because if you don't abort, then what you wind up with is not just a lump of cells, but a living person who can suffer in very real ways (and whose suffering has larger societal impacts).
In any case, you could extend your logic to argue that the decision not to have children at all -- i.e., to not even get pregnant in the first place -- is every bit as "selfish" a decision, with the same "prime motivator." What you've built is a position where if having an abortion is a selfish, immoral decision, then choosing not to have children is equally selfish and equally immoral. I'm not entirely sure that's where you wanted to go.
So, again, the decision isn't selfish. Neither is it moral. And the benefits of the decision can only refer to those benefits derived by the one choosing to abort, not by the unborn fetus.
Again, your take on this is too simplistic. You're looking at the decision to abort in a vacuum, rather than comparing it against its alternatives. You correctly state that there's no moral "cost" to the aborted fetus, so that the decision to abort impacts no one other than the woman who does it. But you have to take it a step further, to what happens if she doesn't abort, and who is impacted by that decision. Whether she keeps the baby or puts it up for adoption, there are very real impacts, moral and otherwise, to others apart from the woman.
I forgot to mention that you misrepresent Marcott's position here: She doesn't say that abortion is a moral good because it helps women; she says this is so because it helps women and families. So much for her arguing from a totally selfish perspective.
I wasn't addressing Amanda's view. I was addressing your view, namely that abortion is somehow a "selfish" choice, and that the primary benefit of abortion is "avoidance of responsibility."
Tgirsch: I guess sloppy on my part. First part is my view, based on belief that the fetus is a human being whose right to life must be protected. Decision to abort necessarily places the welfare of the mother above the life of the child. So abortion is necessarily selfish, assuming the fetus is a human being.
Second part is based on Amanda's view, not mine. "Benefits" is an easy answer when there's no life involved. So i conceded that answer, until the point where the fetus is viable. Then I think all bets are off and moral concerns enter the picture. At that point, society has something to say about the decision.
I forgot to mention that you misrepresent Marcott's position here: She doesn't say that abortion is a moral good because it helps women; she says this is so because it helps women and families. So much for her arguing from a totally selfish perspective.
No, not really. She argues that the decision to abort is a moral good. I respond that the decision to abort has nothing to do with morality, whether or not it "helps" women and their families. If you take Amanda's view that the conglomeration of cells she wants to be rid of is not a human life, it is neither selfish nor moral to terminate the pregnancy. So I accept her view that it isn't a selfish decision; I reject her view that it is moral--again based on her own assumptions. She can't talk about morality when she's talking about the equivalent of tending to a toothache.
Finally, there are many ways to think about an unwanted child and the impact it has on other people, as you acknowledge. I didn't really address this in my post. There's too much to discuss. I'll just say that it raises the issue of the meaning of suffering in human life. That's a big topic that maybe we can discuss another day.
Blessings.
SolaG
SolaG:
If you take Amanda's view that the conglomeration of cells she wants to be rid of is not a human life, it is neither selfish nor moral to terminate the pregnancy.
I don't know how else I can say this, but your reasoning here is flawed because it ignores the consequences of not choosing to abort. It's not a human life, but if you don't abort, it most likely will become one, and that outcome absolutely has moral ramifications. In a nutshell: abort reasonably early, or be prepared to deal with the consequences of giving birth. To argue that there are no moral ramifications whatsoever seems simplistic to me.
Even setting aside the potential person in question, your line of reasoning seems to assume that exclusively personal decisions have no moral ramifications. If a decision I make affects me and only me, is that decision automatically morally neutral? I don't think so. Again, I don't agree with your hypothetical case where an abortion of a not-yet-moral-person fetus constitutes a decision that affects no one but the person having the abortion, but even if I did, your logic wouldn't hold.
Amanda Marcotte is repellent, as is her friend Jill Filipovic, whose ambition is to export abortion to South American countries via legal bullying.
c615t
c802t
c802t
DON'T GET AN ABORTION!!! YOU ARE KILLING A CHILD!!!
SHE HAD THEM APPLE BOTTOM JEANS, BOOTS WIT THE FUR, THE WHOLE CLUB WAS LOOKING AT HER, SHE HIT HTE FLOOR, NEXT THING YOU KNOW SHE GOT PREGNAT,
SO DON'T HAVE A BAB, BAB, BAB, BBBBBBBBBAAAAAABBBBBBBBYYYYYYYYY