A Split in Anti Abortion: Christians Who Want to Help Women
There are a couple of facts we all must face in the politics of abortion. One (A.) is that anti abortion politics are driven as much by the desire to punish women as it is about so called "life." The other (B.)is many decisions to get abortions have a large economic component. Many women terminate a pregnancy because giving birth present what they see as economic setbacks that are intolerable.
A Christian group has decided it should focus on (B.) instead of (A.). This is going to anger those whose main focus is sin and the punishment of women who sin by having sex.
This split among anti abortion people was highlighted in a great book about abortion, Her Body, Our Laws: The Front Lines of the Abortion War from El Salvador to Oklahoma. The author spent years traveling and listening to women in the most restrictive countries in the Americas and in States of the U.S. She spent considerable time with women who run homes for pregnant women in conservative states.
She found the women who run these institutions are largely hostile to men who work in anti abortion politics including some clergy. Because the women who run homes for pregnant young women live with them they hear first hand the stories first hand. These women are unable to muster anger at the pregnant women. They want to men in charge of churches and politics to help them navigate their expenses and child care. The men want to meteor out punishment.
Fortunately, there are liberal church groups doing this very thing. It is the only branch of anti abortion politics that makes any sense.
One has to be realistic here, however. A large swath of the anti abortion political community participates for only one reason: They enjoy passing judgement on sinful women. If the movement drops this from its reason for being its finances would be in tough shape.
Jon, there you go again. 10 percent true, 90 percent partisan BS. I never cease to marvel (and not in a positive way) at your constant repetition of the old canard about punishing women. don't you realize that you are not doing your "cause" any good when you dish out this crap. I hope, too, that you will follow up and do your assigned reading today.
ReplyDeletePlease point to the part or parts of anti abortion legislation that protects women from investigations of their miscarriages. On second thought, don't bother to look. There isn't anything of any kind protecting rights of pregnant women. Their rights are only taken away, never expanded. I hope, too, that you will follow up and do your assigned reading today.
Deleteyou see a right where there shouldn't be one. remember there are lot of things in this world that we don't have any "right" to. BTW, this nonsense about punishing women: for almost 50 years I have had contacts with pro-life people: Jews, Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Evangelicals, perhaps even some functional atheists. and never a word about punishing women (tho' for you, I suppose that any restriction on abortion is a "punishment"). the focus has been on the life of the unborn and on providing support for pregnant women. of course you dodge the real issue with a lot of sophistry about not knowing when individual human life begins, etc. and have you done your assigned reading today?
ReplyDelete"and never a word about punishing women." Of course not. There have always been orders not to discuss this dark and unpopular side of anti abortion. But, as I blogged about the other day, punishment of women has already started. It is an unstoppable force.
Delete"dark and unpopular side". sounding a bit conspiratorial there aren't you Jon. gotta watch out for those "dark unstoppable" forces: they like (name your dark force du jour) are lurking behind every tree and dark alleyway.
DeleteNice job avoiding the issue. I asked you earlier to find some example of anti abortion legislation that protected women's rights. Nothing. Now I'd like you to explain how, it abortion is murder, law enforcement will be stopped from prosecuting the very people who made the decision to murder. Anything you can actually contribute to the debate would be most appreciated. Since you have no argument to counter mine, best you keep the smart a$$ed banter on me being "conspiratorial".
DeleteThinking back. I can recall quite a few instances in which I have argued the pro-life case based on philosophical principles, empirical data, authoritative sources. either the arguments were disregarded, ridiculed or rejected tout court.
ReplyDelete"either the arguments were disregarded, ridiculed or rejected tout court." Yes, arguments that are unimportant, useless and not relevant will suffer that treatment. Over and over and over again I have challenged you to address the rights of women in the anti abortion. I have challenged other anti abortion people to do the same. Neither you nor others of the same ilk can address loss of rights for women because that is the objective. That it is the objective can be seen in the inability to even discuss the topic. I remember another anti abortion poster saying, "The rights of women will not be discussed until after abortion is prohibited." The time to address women's rights is before they vanish, not afterwards.
ReplyDeleteAnother question. you seem to be close to breaking a blood vessel re the issue of women's rights. hard to know what specific rights you have in mind. but does it have to do with any laws imposing criminal and or civil penalties that might be enacted if abortion is outlawed? BTW, I really admire your open minded response to arguments that you deem to be "unimportant, useless and irrelevant". and you hold a Phd. which among other things commits you to traditional academic principles. or are those, too, passe in today's ideological climate?
ReplyDelete"you hold a PhD with ...commits you to traditional academic principles..." When I'm discussing something and another person does not seem to grasp the most basic of simple ideas my PhD does not require me to waste my time. What rights would women lose if abortion were uniformly outlawed? Do you read or understand anything? How about the right to make a living? Or, the right to privacy of her visits with doctors or what she looks at on her computer. Or, the right of live as she chooses if not harming anyone else? All these would be at risk. The incident I wrote about a few days ago is a case in point. A woman who had been shot in the stomach by an angry male was charged with murdering her fetus. She was charged because, law enforcement said, she has no business getting in an argument with anyone when she was pregnant. In this case the charges were dropped but in other cases similar charges have resulted in conviction.
ReplyDeleteone can always make a big deal out of an anomalous case, can't one? anyway I suppose pregnant women could be tracked and fined if they took drugs or alcohol. I assume that sort of thing looms large in your mind.and what's the "right to make a living" got to do with anything? and how much privacy do any of us have now regarding doctor visits. it would seem that the insurance company and/or the government has a record of every pill that I ever took. and some of your leftist friends think it's OK (as in ObamaCare) to track health care consumers. and do you think that you have any privacy re what anyone views on the computer. poor naïve Jon. We have a big issue here bunky but you seem to want to focus on one sliver of it. also, sorry to hear that your PHD does not require you to suffer fools gladly. I would agree with that: the only problem is to define who is a fool and who is not.
ReplyDelete"and what's the 'right to make a living' got to do with anything?" Hmmm. Let's see here. Something like 99% of Catholics use birth control. That means 99% of women want the ability to time the births of babies. And, why might they want to time their babies? Did you know the majority of women now have careers and that family incomes depend on these careers? You seem to be saying the welfare of one fertilized cell is a bigger issue than whether there is money to pay for food and rent. I know yours is the view of many old white men but it's decades out of date.
ReplyDeleteis it your view that a woman up to the point of delivery can decide that she doesn't want the baby and, therefore, is "entitled" to an abortion? or maybe even after delivery? after all careers and economic considerations, etc. would trump, wouldn't they?
ReplyDelete"Is it your view...." I've address that question dozens of times. Apparently, you do not remember what I wrote. Is it your view a woman who commits murder, self aborts a pregnancy while it is a view cells, should go to prison?
ReplyDeleteas usual, you didn't address the question head on. obviously anyone who commits a homicide (manslaughter,second degree, whatever) should, in the absence of mitigating circumstances, go to prison. last time I heard, there are a lot of women in prison for doing just that (and other things as well). most certainly, the abortionist should be brought before the magistrate. interestingly you keep coming back to the woman in jail business. apparently, you think that it is a good emotional ploy.
ReplyDelete"interesting you keep coming back to the woman in jail business. apparently you think that is a good emotional ploy." Exactly. It is such a good emotional ploy over-the-top anti abortion advocates try to make certain it is never discussed. That is why I discuss it. That and the documented fact a significant part of anti abortion politics wants women to go to jail. It is happening at this moment. We are having this discussion because of you religious view that one fertilized egg is a human being. Without your belief in that religious dogma we would not be having this discussion.
ReplyDeleteemotions rather than rationality. typical pro-abortion way of weaseling out of a debate. don't you get tired of the "one fertilized egg" line. is a second term or third term baby merely a one celled fertilized egg. honestly, old chap, I don't know how you can continue to spout such nonsense and do it with any claim to intellectual integrity.
ReplyDelete"don't you get tired of the 'one fertilized egg' line." Yes I do. But I am forced to use it because it is the Catholic position on when a human being exists. If I am wrong, and the Catholic position is that the human being exists after "the second or third term" as you suggested above I stand corrected. Please explain the correct Catholic view as to when a human being exists.
ReplyDeleteDefending the odd notion that one fertilized cell is a human being is next to impossible unless it's done in the name of religion. If one says, "My church teaches me this is true" one can go on saying it is true even if it is not. Trying to convince the general public of an absurd notion is true is much harder.
ReplyDeletethe point here is not what I think but what you think. in your weird world, does a woman have the "right" to abort her baby up and to the point of delivery. apparently quite a few people of your ilk would reply in the affirmative. do you?
ReplyDelete"does a woman have the 'right' to abort her baby up to the point of delivery?" There you go not endorsing an important tenet of your Catholic Church. You suspect the one cell human being belief of your church is not defensible so you don't defend it. But you don't have another defensible definition either so you make a generic attack on people like me who believe in abortion rights. The old saying is a good offense is a good defense. But, in this case you are not getting away with it. Either provide us with a defense of your Catholic position of one cell is a human being or you are done. I will give you another option. It is to join me in attacking your church's position on the one cell is a human being dogma and then give us another definition of when a human being starts and defend that. Good luck, and probably good bye, with either choice.
ReplyDeletehave you ever thought of seeing a counselor. I can, and have, defended my position. now I am asking you to defend yours. rots of ruck. again, there must be a good counselor somewhere down there in Iowa. good bye (God be with thee).
ReplyDelete"have you ever thought of seeing a counselor. I can, and have, defended my position."
ReplyDeleteThat's hilarious. I told someone over coffee this morning about our exchanges. I said the next post will be a personal insult. I predicted that from past debates with zealous anti abortion people. When they are losing an argument they try to change the subject with insults. You have not defended your position. You have just assigned me positions in order to divert attention. Just justify why one fertilized cell is a human being. And, speaking of councilors, I must explain why it is not me who needs one. Anyone who is bothered by a blog but keeps on reading it is the one who needs help. (I'm guessing we will hear no more about why one cell is a human being.)
go back somewhere. there is a post in which, as I recall, I gave a detailed philosophical argument re my view(s). I could give it to you again but, as you did before, you would dismiss it out of hand. as to seeing a councilor, your posts have really gotten weird, confused. BTW, I think that I have, over time, pieced together your "philosophy" of abortion. I am fairly certain that you would defend a woman's choice to abort/kill a full term infant if she wished. if I recall correctly, you think that a baby has no right to life (or a right to anything) until it gets a birth certificate. moreover, it seems that you see no problem with that view of the matter. and you are right on one point: maybe I should see a shrink. maybe we could get a two for one deal. anyway, I am not really "bothered" by your ramblings: I just like to see how the other half thinks. and you have not disappointed me.
ReplyDeleteUnknown you wrote, “… there is a post in which, as I recall, I gave a detailed philosophical argument re my view(s).” If I may I would like to change the emphasis of the discussion. I read, “In nature, 50 percent of all fertilized eggs are lost before a woman's missed menses.”.(1) I assume many of these fertilized eggs are aborted because of defects. Who is the abortionist? The Catholic church teaches that each fertilized egg (zygote) is a human being. I assume in this view each zygote person also has a soul. Unknown, could you take a moment to comment on how these aborted human beings are accounted for theologically or philosophically by your faith. Do their souls migrate to purgatory prior to their remains being flushed to the sewer or buried in a landfill? If so do their souls receive a physical form which matures and eventually joins the others in the eternal praise of God? Your thoughts. Thanks.
Delete(1) https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/conception_how_it_works/
thank you for your question: it seems to be a fair and honest question , requiring a considered answer. First, who is the abortionist? Is it nature? Or ultimately God? To that I would say nature. In our view, the creator has created an order which has a certain autonomy, a certain freedom but which is nonetheless sustained/governed by a cosmic intelligence. This, I think, is mixed up with the notion of free will: could there be any human free will if nature (as a monist materialist would say) is totally determined? You may, if you think about it a bit, smell a whiff of Deism here. And you would be right: there is an element of Deism in Christian theology, some just take it to the point of postulating an impersonal God, a kind of Final Cause, a Cosmic Mechanic. And with that, I must sign off for now. But I will be back tomorrow, or if not, at least soon. You have raised questions that are not easily answered. And the answers take time and thought, time which I don't have just now.
DeleteThank you Unknown for taking the time to reply. In an effort to catch up with Jon's daily topics. I notice 24 replies to this, his Independence Day subject. Discussions of abortion will usually be contentious. The assertion that human personhood begins at the moment of conception is potent but certainly not beyond question. In the Jewish tradition personhood occurs during birthing at the half-way point, I believe. A lot goes on biologically between those two loci of personhood. One being the potential to lose half of the fertilized eggs in the normal course of nature. Depending on the teachings of ones faith, that is a big loss of human persons to take into account. If I lapse deeply mystical I can picture the cherubim seen in the paintings of the old masters as a clue to the fate of the multitude of these hapless zygotes. To me that seems a desperate attempt on my part to resolve the dissonance I experience when I try to make sense of the personhood at conception teaching. Hence my question to you. Thanks.
DeleteArdy B--Beautiful post.
ReplyDeleteArdy--Another thought to add to yours. If half of the fertilized eggs end up in spontaneous abortions, miscarriages, how can anti abortion posters here say "God hate abortions." When unknown referred recently to "abortionists" he failed to mention this includes his God.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteArdy, as promised I will take a stab at responding to another of your questions. Philosophy deriving from the classical tradition would hold that a fertilized ovum (the beginning of all of us) takes on the form, substance, essence of a human being. And that subsequent development is, in fact, formed or directed by a formal cause. And that the form of a human being perdures through time and space. In other words we are what we are from the beginning. N.B. this is not a religious view as such, it is a philosophical view/explanation. Or, if you prefer a metaphysical view. (More on that later). Now, of course, we change over time: it is obvious that the material component of our being is changing constantly. But our essence or form (or "soul" if you want to call it that)is there all the time. The alternative take on the matter, as we know, is that pure chance: the chance interaction between particles of matter explains our development over time. Hence, there is no real continuity: a fetus is not human because it lacks certain features of an adult human (consciousness, size, etc.) This, obviously is a dangerous way of thinking. Human beings are not really human at certain stages or under certain conditions. And as we know, bad people have had a lot of "fun" with this notion. So what happens to a naturally aborted zygote. It would seem to follow that it goes to heaven and is reconstituted into what it was intended to be before nature destroyed it. This may seem farfetched (I am sure Jon will have his two cents worth to add) but it seems to follow from the classical view that I have just outlined. And do remember that miscarriages are not unique. Nature is very busy putting an end to all of us, one way other. You also mention the Jewish view of abortion, an issue that I am not qualified to discuss. I do know, however, that Orthodox Jews, by and large, are pro-life. In fact, a Orthodox Jewish man, a world renowned geneticist and Mayo Clinic professor was an outspoken pro-life champion. He no doubt took the classical view of the matter. Must quit for now. Hope this is what you wanted me to discuss. More later.
Thank you Unknown for your studied response. It sent me quickly to the dictionary and Wikipedia. The latter source with its potential for spurious content. You wrote, “Philosophy deriving from the classical tradition would hold that a fertilized ovum (the beginning of all of us) takes on the form, substance, essence of a human being.”. I assume you are not asserting the homunculus of Prefomationism. An alchemist you are not although I do suspect there is some theological alchemy in most religious traditions. Looking up the definition of ‘formal cause’ spawned the metaphor of an Aristotelian cookie cutter. A used car salesman once contrasted two of his vehicles to me by stating, “they are the same but different”. You wrote, “It would seem to follow that it [an aborted zygote] goes to heaven and is reconstituted into what it was intended to be before nature destroyed it.” That reconstitution or resurrection of the aborted does provide poetic consolation to the faithful for Nature “putting an end to all of us”. Is Nature at odds with God such that God must redeem the products of Nature’s deadly work? My comment on the Jewish faith referred to the moment when personhood is assigned in that tradition not it’s views on abortion. Many thanks once again Unknown for your reply. Thank you Jon for continuing to accept posts on your Independence Day topic. Unknown hinted that there is more to come on the subject. For my part I would like to continue.
DeleteArdy B, well done. Interesting guy or gal this God is. Kills the fetus and reconstitutes it into what it was intended to be before he destroyed it. While it makes no sense whatsoever, to Unknown it qualifies as an explanation for God killing millions of "babies" each year using not science or rational thinking but "philosophy." Along with you I look forward to more use of "philosophy" to justify the absurd.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteArdy, here are a few quotes from a real philosopher (which I am not, only an amateur) in a book that I have just read: "...…..The form of a rock isn't a complete substance. Only the form of the rock and the matter of the rock together constitute a thing or a substance. Similarly the soul of a man isn't a complete substance;......only the soul and body (i.e. the form and matter) together constitute a thing or substance, that is a man. It isn't the soul that thinks when a man uses his intellect; it is the man himself who thinks , just as it is the man …..and not the soul who grows taller...………..the soul is the form of the body, including the brain...…...Then there is the fact that even though the intellect itself operates without any bodily organ, it does depend indirectly on the senses for the raw material from which it abstracts universals or essences...…..When does the rational soul's presence begin? At conception. For a soul is just the form----the essence, nature, organizational structure....of a living thing...…..Of course the features essential to a human beings as rational animals...….are not fully developed until well after conception. But that doesn't mean that they are not there. ...Rationality...and the like are present "in potency"...……….It means potential in the sense of a capacity that an entity has within by virtue of its nature or essence...……….a zygote is not a "potential" human being...…..it is an actual human being...……….Far from any of this being undermined by modern science, it is confirmed by it...……" Even as later of the 1960s, Planned Parenthood held to this view (or at least pretended to do so). But enough. hope that you don't find any major typos.
ReplyDeletePlease provide us the name of the book and the author. I would like to learn the credentials of the author.
DeleteAlso, please provide a reference establishing that as late as the 1960's Planned Parenthood believed the zygote is an actual human being. You may be right, but I cannot find any such statement.
Deleteunknown, the reason I want you to provide the name of the author of the book you quoted from is that it sounds much more like a theologian. It does not sound like someone with credentials and third party reviewed publications in the field of philosophy. Please provide us with that author so we can judge for ourselves whether you are reading a book of philosophy or one about religion.
DeleteAs to the book. you have already dismissed it, so what is the point. yes it is written by a philosopher of some note. Edward Feser by name. he writes in the classical tradition, something which alone, would damn him in your site. that said, the book's name is The Last Superstition. he has written others on Philosophy of Mind, Scholastic Metaphysics, etc. you might want to read Superstition (I know you won't). you might learn something if you did. As to theology, philosophical and theological issues do overlap, but they are most certainly not identical fields of study. As to the PP quote, I don't have a reference: it's been a long time since I read it. anyway, the gist of it that abortion kills a baby after it like has begun. unlike contraception. remember even your friend Sanger was at least "politically" prudently opposed to abortion.
Deletea post script. you might want to look into the so-called Cartesian take on the matter of human knowing. Rene Descartes (sixteenth century) didn't trust the senses (after all, as we all know they can deceive us). So he started his search for truth and certainty in his mind. He decided that the only certain thing was his thought of his own being. I think, therefore I am. All I can know for sure is that I am sitting here thinking. Now, without going into another long discussion, suffice to say that this approach ended up by radically splitting the mind from the body and from the external world. And no one, including Descartes, was able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. We ended up with the so-called ghost in the machine idea. And eventually the view that there was no ghost at all, just matter. Thus what we call monist materialism. Anyway, thanks you for your interest. If nothing else I hope that I given you some food for thought.
ReplyDeleteIn all due respect, when you say you have studied philosophy, and urge me to do the same, you have not really studied philosophy. You have read material by authors with a background in philosophy but are actually Christian apologists. Other authors call Feser a Christian apologist. If you want to "study philosophy" you need to read not only him but his critics. They will help you find the flaws you cannot find by yourself. Richard Carrier critiqued Feser's book Proofs of God last year and his critique might help you understand Feser's weaknesses. You often mention Aquinas as one who offered ancient and sustained logic for the existence of a god. I have pointed out before to you that Aquinas thought there was a need for a god and therefore there had to be one. He was the master of circular reasoning. I did not find publications by Feser in academic journals but instead were books on apologetics. Your reference to him as "a philosopher of some note" I noted the only reference to him as an important philosopher came from Catholic websites. Carry on.
DeleteUnknown--You are being scammed intellectually the same way I witnessed it happen in anti gay Christianity. I've mentioned the debate I had in Fargo with a gentleman named Ryan T. Anderson. His book, "What is Marriage?" was billed as an absolute slam dunk against the idea that anti gay marriage is a religious issue. When Anderson and I did a presentation someone pointed out to him the Bible condemns homosexuality. He quickly cut off the person because he wanted his case not to be about religion. Anderson tried to make a case based on social science research. But, he cherry picked and was caught. I don't hear much about this book today. It is a common strategy for believers to try to make a case their view is not religious. Your hero, Fessor, tries to make a non religious case for a god and a human at conception. His flaws have been pointed out. I'd suggest a little more skepticism on your part of this fellow.
DeleteI could have written that one for you. as to Aquinas if his reasoning is circular so is yours. you start out with your non-god and then attempt to justify what you already assume. as to who I have read: how about Nietzsche, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Hobbes, Locke, etc. Please, if you insist on demeaning me, at least don't assume that you know about what I have read and haven't read. And while I'm at it, I'll wager that your reading list is rather "specialized".
DeleteP.S. I am also wondering why you decided to insert yourself into this discussion, I was only responding to Ardy's request. Perhaps you felt a bit threatened. Just maybe.
Deleteah yes, I have heard about Anderson. looked him up. seems to have good academic credentials. and I am sure that one can make a case against same sex marriage on purely sociological grounds. And one can make purely natural arguments for the existence of God, natural law morality and the like. are you too boneheaded not to see the point? As to skepticism, I think that it is you who could use a good dose of it. BTW I noticed that you didn't post my remark about your demeaning attitude. Maybe you missed: I'll repeat it then. It seems that anyone who doesn't cotton to your dogmatic atheism is a fool. Leaves me wondering as just who the fool is. BTW if you want some really rockin' good atheism, I suggest that you sit down with the works of Nietzsche. He makes your buddies like Dennet and Dawkins look like snot nosed grammar school kids.
Delete"Please, if you insist on demeaning me don't assume you know what I have read and haven't read." Yes I need to stick with what you say you are reading. I did that with my post. I suggested that you read more broadly including critics of your favorite apologists. That would better qualify you as one who has "studied philosophy." As to demeaning, do you recall post saying I am mentally ill? There is that saying you and I are old enough to both know, if you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen.
ReplyDeletestop whining. you well deserve the demeaning label: typically condescending, self righteous as you are. if I recall correctly you were quite comfortable with calling Noah a worm, a label that I can envision a Nazi pasting on a Jew. and yes, I don't know for sure what you read; all I have to go on is the stuff you mention in your posts. as to your mental state. well???? with your religion hang ups and all. anyway, I think that I am quite familiar with the atheistic way of thinking about the world.
ReplyDelete