Conservative Christian Politics is Rife With Cost/Benefit of Life
On some issues, conservative Christians are very self righteous about human life. They consider one fertilized cell to be a human being and all manner of laws must be passed to prevent a woman from having the cell or several cells destroyed. The value of one cell is greater than any cost incurred by the mother. Even her own life is less valuable according to some in anti abortion political circles.
The cost/benefit calculation by religious conservatives is different for all other issues. We are seeing that clearly at the moment. Contracting the Coronavirus causes many deaths. Often those deaths are the result of carelessness and precautions we all know about like distancing, canceling church services and mask wearing. Many members of the anti abortion politics oppose these precautions. The value of lives lost is smaller than the loss of freedom to not mask up, hold church services and all the other precautions. Conservative are clever in that they never say explicitly, "This is a cost/benefit calculation. The value of lost freedoms is greater than the value of lives lost."
Once in a while there is a slip up, however. A conservative columnist wrote about the right's favorite whipping boy for decades, Ralph Nader. Nader, now 87, recently talked with optimism about the future of transportation. He pointed to driver assists that eliminate driver errors and public transportation advances that will make moving around on land almost completely free of deaths. Electric vehicles will also eliminate many deaths from air pollution. The critical columnist specifically used the term "cost/benefit" to imply the value of lives lost from out current vehicles is smaller than to cost of Nader's endorsements.
I wish it were possible for conservative Christians to be rational about abortion. Allowing women to make cost/benefit calculations about tissue in their bodies is to be prohibited. I know from experience anti abortion citizens can be rational when the cost of an unwanted pregnancy is imposed on themselves or their own families. My late brother, a psychiatrist, used to chuckle when pro life doctor friends asked him to sign off on the need for teen aged daughters mental need for abortions. This was a requirement for a while in the state where he practiced. "I'm strongly opposed to abortion," these doctor dads would say. "It's just that Becky wants go to medical school and I can leave my practice to her."
The refusal of Christian conservatives to allow women the same cost/benefit calculations Christians use everywhere else in their lives reflects what has been said all along. To be anti abortion is to be a hypocrite.
The Great Jon hath spoken. to be anti-abortion is to be a hypocrite. to bad, tho' that he hath mixed all kinds of irrelevant points to come to his demeaning crescendo.
ReplyDeleteJon quite likely will not publish this. OK. but hear is a sample of the logic in this post: P. all pigs can fly; MT. I am an aardvark, C. therefore I can fly.
ReplyDeleteonce again allow me to expand my remarks. as usual you open with the premise that pro-life people are fools, a premise that you seemingly take to be self evident. then you go on to make the gratuitous, far fetched claim, that because some pro-life people have concerns about the efficacy of electric cars and the other sacred cows of today's environmentalists, that all pro-life people are hypocrites (which is to say that they are not consistently pro-life). that, my friend, is not even good sophistry. it is, rather, nothing more than an obvious way of demeaning people with whom you happen to disagree. in fine, does it ever occur to you that this sort of rhetoric does more to demean yourself than to demean your hated pro-lifers.
Deletetsm --"that all pro life people are hypocrites.."
DeleteInstead of always complaining about what I wrote, how about explaining what you write. That is, explain why making a cost/benefit calculation justifying deaths when the benefit is driving faster or opening bars and school but NEVER justifying abortions because women make their own cost/benefit decisions based on their own understanding of religion. Engaging in some rational instead of religious thinking will not hurt you. Wait, it will hurt you huge ego.
you run a blog in which you make hateful and frequently nonsensical claims (eg. as in the foregoing post). do you think, then, that your views are, then, above scrutiny, criticism? I certainly don't think so: you put it out there, you are asking for whatever disapproving feedback that you get. BTW calling me arrogant and addicted to "religious" thinking (whatever that is?) does not get you off the hook. no does it in anyway excuse your own arrogance. all you do is dig yourself into a deeper hole. BTW I am sure that there are many atheists who have reasonable concerns re electric cars and such. but they don't try to link their views with an irrelevant attack on the pro-life movement.
Deletetsm All I'm saying you have not pointed out that I am wrong. You just claim I'm wrong but never, or almost never, put up any argument. Apparently you think we are supposed to simply conclude that since tsm says Jon is wrong, Jon is wrong. That is way I labeled you arrogant. For a change, explain why it is consistent to be against all deaths of fetuses but not against preventable deaths of children and adults.
DeleteJon, “The refusal of Christian conservatives to allow women the same cost/benefit calculations Christians use everywhere else in their lives reflects what has been said all along.”
ReplyDeleteWe read and hear extensive arguments about the sins of moral relativism. The arguments often mention the “unholy” trinity of abortion, same sex marriage, and gender identity.
One is hard put to find a better example of moral relativism than in the Christian conservative cost/benefit calculation justifying their support for a serial divorcee, adulterer, unethical businessman, and habitual liar for the highest office in the land because he baited them with some disingenuous anti-abortion rhetoric. That charlatan could give a rat’s ass about the ethical dilemmas involved. But he loves them he said. “Be Mine” read the candy heart and oh how they swooned, spun their moral compasses, and fell — hard.
Ardy B Where I live there are tremendous problems with the vaccinations. Lowest among the states in amount of vaccine and slowest getting it done. There are things that can be done. But the legislature seems to be spending most of its time on trans rest room use and a measure sure to be tossed out in court about abortion. Deaths from the virus is of no concern.
ReplyDeleteI think that the main point of this discussion can be put to bed with a rather simple comment: there is an obvious categorical difference between direct, negligent and intentional killing of the innocent and indirect and unintentional killing (as in most traffic accidents). to mix the two, as you have done repeatedly, is to commit a serious logical fallacy. don't you remember that this issue has been hashed over several times in the past? yet you keep coming back to it, apparently in an attempt to discredit the pro-life movement.
ReplyDeletetsm "a serious logical fallacy" You are unable to see the logical fallacy in your own reasoning. Because religious indoctrination has such a lock on your mind you are unable to see your church's position that one fertilized cell is a human being is false. If you had the ability to see that your church's position as the propaganda it is you might spend your time in more useful ways rather than repeating it.
Delete