you're reading...
Christianity, Politics

Christians: Unethical Roe v Wade Assault

How do you go about making abortions impossible to get if you disagree with Roe v. Wade?  Here are a few ways:

  • Require women to receive “counselling” before receiving an abortion.  Then, make sure not to open any offices where they could receive their state-approved counselling.  That’s what North Dakota did.
  • Refuse to protect abortion providers.  That’s what Kansas is doing.  A judge refused to issue a restraining order against a woman who made death threats to the only doctor brave enough to provide legal abortions.
  • Pass illegal bans and dare anyone to do anything about it.  That’s what Minnesota did, banning abortions after 20 weeks and prohibiting public funding of abortion, even though the Supreme court ruled that such bans violate women’s right to equal treatment.
  • Make it about race.  Georgia made up a problem:  Legislators arbitrarily decided that black women are being pressured to have abortions by racism.  (How does that work, exactly?)  Luckily, the bill didn’t get passed, but they’re busy in the Capitol digging for another route.  Stay tuned…

Christians in these and other states are making their morals known.  Laws are only respected when they agree with religious mandates.  When they disagree, they are not to be obeyed.  This is the 21st Century Christian Ethic.  We get our way, even when it is unconstitutional or illegal.

Advertisements

Discussion

14 thoughts on “Christians: Unethical Roe v Wade Assault

  1. I think you know what I think about abortion, but I don’t think we should resort to dirty tricks.

    I like the North Dakota one, but you know….with the cavet that they actually get the counselling

    Unfortunatly the Pro-life movement has a lot of work to do.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 10, 2011, 10:14 pm
  2. I think you know what I think about abortion, but I don’t think we should resort to dirty tricks.

    I’m glad you have the decency to allow others their opinions. Maybe one day we’ll get at that Catholic upbringing of yours and see if it might have something to do with your rather conservative views on reproduction and sex. You are — as usual — something of an outlier in your opinions on this subject.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 6:30 am
  3. As long as that “counseling” consists of accurate medical information and not “you’re going to hell”/”an abortion will ruin your life”/”abortions are never the right answer” type of garbage.

    p.s. I’m personally against abortion, but more strongly against controlling other peoples personal freedoms.

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 11, 2011, 11:23 am
  4. As long as that “counseling” consists of accurate medical information and not “you’re going to hell”/”an abortion will ruin your life”/”abortions are never the right answer” type of garbage.

    Unlikely. To say the least.

    p.s. I’m personally against abortion, but more strongly against controlling other peoples personal freedoms.

    The thing is — and you know I’m a proponent of abortion — I understand the emotional reasons for not wanting to get an abortion. I get it. However, and this is pretty much the linchpin for my reasoning on abortion, the only arguments I hear against it are emotional. I don’t know of a reasonable argument for why it’s wrong, and I know of quite a few for why it’s often the best of several options.

    A fetus is not a human being. Not in any meaningful way, and the “This could be the next Einstein” is countered by “This could be the next Hitler.” By the same logic, every woman should have as much sex as possible every month while she’s fertile, else she’ll waste an egg that could be the next Martin Luther King.

    To say the damage caused to individuals and society by unwanted children is incalculable almost misses the point. Beyond the clear connection between abortion and reduced crime, there’s the indisputable connection between unwanted children and poverty, abuse, abandonment, murder, and a host of other ills: Nobody can make another person want an unwanted baby. This doesn’t even begin to address the personal loss of income for baby-daddies, the loss of careers for moms, the dropping out of school, etc… which is extremely difficult to quantify statistically but easy to recognize when it happens.

    I have said it before and I’ll say it again: I’d personally perform a hundred abortions if it would prevent one adult from being tortured.

    And like I said: I get the emotional argument. I really, really get it. But as skeptics, we’re supposed to try to divorce ourselves from emotion — ESPECIALLY when we feel so emotionally attached to an idea that we fear bias. So…. point being, with a mountain of evidence that abortion doesn’t destroy society, and pretty much the entire First World allowing it to some degree, and the complete freedom of religious or other objectors to abstain from abortion… the ONLY conscionable option is to allow women the choice and make it easy for them to make either choice. Coercion is for bullies.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 11:57 am
  5. The thing is — and you know I’m a proponent of abortion — I understand the emotional reasons for not wanting to get an abortion. I get it. However, and this is pretty much the linchpin for my reasoning on abortion, the only arguments I hear against it are emotional. I don’t know of a reasonable argument for why it’s wrong, and I know of quite a few for why it’s often the best of several options

    And this pretty much sums up why I can’t find any reason to stop, hinder, or demean anyone wanting/having had/considering an abortion and why I think it should {be} a simple medical procedure most certainly covered by health insurance.

    {EDIT: Fixed quote and edited for grammar since I was in the neighborhood. -HD}

    Posted by Alex Hardman | May 11, 2011, 12:45 pm
  6. Thanks, Alex. That’s the crux of it…

    Tangentially, I found myself quite a few years ago having scotch and soda with Christopher Hitchens, and asked him pointedly about his rather hawkish approach to war in the Middle East. (When I err, it’s almost always on the side of pacifism.)

    Hitch laid out his opinion concisely, and with much historical detail. When he was done, I paid him what I think is one of the highest compliments I’ve ever paid:

    “The thing is, I disagree with you. I feel deep in my heart that being a war-monger is wrong. But I can’t argue against anything you’ve said. Your argument is solid. And I understand it. And I have not the knowledge nor the wisdom to refute you. But I disagree. And since I have no rebuttal, I must declare you the winner. But I disagree.”

    Actually, I’m sure it was much less coherent and eloquent. I was on my third or fourth scotch, and he was probably on his fifteenth. (Damn, that man can drink!) But that’s the gist of it, anyway. Sometimes we have harsh emotional reactions to something. And it’s ok to disagree. But it’s wrong to act on the disagreement when all we’ve got is emotion.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 1:04 pm
  7. Maybe one day we’ll get at that Catholic upbringing of yours and see if it might have something to do with your rather conservative views on reproduction and sex.

    I can’t wait.

    But as skeptics, we’re supposed to try to divorce ourselves from emotion — ESPECIALLY when we feel so emotionally attached to an idea that we fear bias

    Except you don’t. Every time we get into arguments of the atheist movement, you get emotional rather than rational.

    I’m not going to pretend that I don’t have an emotional stake in this, but I don’t think I’m too far off the deep end, since I think abortion should be allowed in certain circumstances.

    a simple medical procedure most certainly covered by health insurance.

    I think it should only be covered if it’s medically necessary such as the life of the mother is at risk or the fetus has some grave disorder.

    As for the agree/disagree thing, I think some things are up for subjective agreement such as what music to listen to or what toothpaste to use, however things like “when should we allow abortion” or “should we go to war” or something to that effect, shouldn’t be up to subjective agreement. Either we should or we shouldn’t.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 11, 2011, 2:30 pm
  8. Except you don’t. Every time we get into arguments of the atheist movement, you get emotional rather than rational.

    You say this all the time, but you have yet to demonstrate me wrong. Again, you’ve pointed out methodological concerns (not necessarily flaws… concerns!) with my general statement about the cause-effect nature of faith-based belief. You’ve proposed an alternate viewpoint which is incomprehensible to everyone who reads it. That hardly qualifies you as having the high ground from which to declare me an emotional mess with poor arguments.

    And you might be surprised… yes, I have emotional reactions to these topics, but for someone who only reads what I am intentionally passionate about, you might be shocked at how dispassionate I am about many issues outside of the blogosphere. This is my pulpit, and I communicate with emotion because… it works.

    As for the agree/disagree thing, I think some things are up for subjective agreement such as what music to listen to or what toothpaste to use, however things like “when should we allow abortion” or “should we go to war” or something to that effect, shouldn’t be up to subjective agreement. Either we should or we shouldn’t.

    I’m really sorry for what I’m about to say to you. I just wanted you to know that beforehand because it’s going to sound condescending, and there’s no way for me to avoid that.

    Alison, this is an extremely naive and immature belief. With any luck, and some “broadening” experiences over a couple of decades of genuine interaction with real people in the real world, you’re going to develop a much less rigid belief in absolutes. War and unwanted pregnancies are both complicated situations with multiple interests coming from multiple sides. And there’s almost never a clean yes or no answer. It’s almost always a trade-off. To make things worse, it’s damn near impossible to get all sides to agree on the most important criteria for judgement. So everybody believes their “objective” yes or no answer is correct — and they’re all correct, IF their criteria is used from their point of view.

    This is why it’s unconscionable to force women into a decision about abortion. I’m pro-abortion and will generally advise poor undereducated women to get to the clinic post-haste. But there are other sides to it, and I’ve seen babies bring great happiness to situations where I thought surely they would be disasters. I’ve also seen a baby tear apart a perfectly good relationship.

    The only reasonable position is to give women any and all information they need or want, and support them in whichever decision they make.

    Oh… and by the way… since you are in favor of forcing poor women to have children, even if they have to drop out of school or otherwise curtail their income potential, you must morally be in favor of public assistance to keep her and her children at a living wage. Anything else is hypocrisy.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 2:53 pm
  9. You say this all the time, but you have yet to demonstrate me wrong.

    And there it is. The emotional “prove me wrong” couple that with the emotional “do I have to prove that people at baseball games like to eat hotdogs?” and you have an unfalsifiable idea.

    The sad thing is that you can easily see it in other things [and have done so].

    I don’t have to provide an alternative point of view. I just have to show the evidence you present is inadequate to support your view.

    And you might be surprised… yes, I have emotional reactions to these topics, but for someone who only reads what I am intentionally passionate about, you might be shocked at how dispassionate I am about many issues outside of the blogosphere. This is my pulpit, and I communicate with emotion because… it works.

    There’s nothing wrong with doing something with a passion. Just don’t let that passion get in the way of actual truth.

    you’re going to develop a much less rigid belief in absolutes

    I can probably guess what Hitchen’s justification was for the war in the middle east. I can probably bet that Harris agrees with him.

    I think they’re wrong and quite frankly, dangerous.

    However I think that even Harris/Hitchens will agree that war isn’t always the best option.

    Just like I think that abortion isn’t always the best option.

    From what I can tell, you think abortion is always justified from to save the life of the mother, to the mother just doesn’t want to look fat when she gets months in.

    I think that abortion sometimes isn’t justified. I’m willing to look at the situation to see if abortion is justified. Which is why I support counseling. Without it, the mother may make a hasty rash decision, with the counseling, maybe something can be worked out.

    So who’s thinking in absolutes here?

    Oh… and by the way… since you are in favor of forcing poor women to have children, even if they have to drop out of school or otherwise curtail their income potential, you must morally be in favor of public assistance to keep her and her children at a living wage. Anything else is hypocrisy.

    I think proper birth control [condoms/pills etc..] should be readily available with the education of how to use them. That way we wouldn’t have to decide to abort it, keep it, or put it up for adoption.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 11, 2011, 4:01 pm
  10. I can probably guess what Hitchen’s justification was for the war in the middle east. I can probably bet that Harris agrees with him.

    From what I know of Harris, no… It’s not the same. Yeah, there is some overlap. But I honestly don’t know if they’d see eye to eye. Harris has waded in too deeply before, and it’s been well within my wheelhouse to oppose him confidently. (See his defense of torture, and head over to The Philosophical Primate to see my commentary.)

    Hitchens’ argument is more rooted in history and precedent than philosophy. And I am not in a position to dispute his formidable knowledge of Middle East history.

    However I think that even Harris/Hitchens will agree that war isn’t always the best option.

    Just like I think that abortion isn’t always the best option.

    You just shot yourself in the foot, kiddo. You’re right. Neither abortion nor war are always the best option. But neither are they always the worst, and who are you to dictate from your armchair the intricacies of anyone’s personal life or international politics?

    (The extension of that argument is that nobody is anybody to judge a woman’s individual situation and dictate any course of action.)

    From what I can tell, you think abortion is always justified from to save the life of the mother, to the mother just doesn’t want to look fat when she gets months in.

    I would never be so presumptuous. I believe that abortion is always justifiable in any pregnancy. That’s the end of it. I make no proclamations about any individual case or class of cases. That’s the point. The woman knows better than I do what she wants.

    I think that abortion sometimes isn’t justified. I’m willing to look at the situation to see if abortion is justified. Which is why I support counseling. Without it, the mother may make a hasty rash decision, with the counseling, maybe something can be worked out.

    So who’s thinking in absolutes here?

    You are, Alison. You’re assigning an inherent (read: absolute) value to an action. I’m saying there is no such value. The decision to end a pregnancy is subjective. That is the opposite of absolute.

    I think proper birth control [condoms/pills etc..] should be readily available with the education of how to use them. That way we wouldn’t have to decide to abort it, keep it, or put it up for adoption.

    All I can say to that is get out and meet some folks. Live some life. You honestly have no clue what you’re talking about, and I can’t help you with this one. You have to figure it out for yourself.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 4:44 pm
  11. From what I know of Harris, no… It’s not the same. Yeah, there is some overlap. But I honestly don’t know if they’d see eye to eye. Harris has waded in too deeply before, and it’s been well within my wheelhouse to oppose him confidently. (See his defense of torture, and head over to The Philosophical Primate to see my commentary.)

    Hitchens’ argument is more rooted in history and precedent than philosophy. And I am not in a position to dispute his formidable knowledge of Middle East history.

    TPP primate entry/comments tl;dr

    As for Hitchens/Harris I was going off Harris’ “Head in the Sand Liberals”

    And that I can only assume that Hitchen’s view is that “We need to use force because of that evil religion and they won’t listen to reason.”

    But that’s not the point. This isn’t about Hitchens/Harris. You brought Hitch up to illustrate a relevant point, I elaborated to prove another relevant point.

    The point I was trying to raise, is that if we disagree with somebody whether we should go to war what should we do? I don’t mean we disagree with our buddies at the bar, I mean a defense department general.

    Would we not have the moral obligation to try to stop it?

    Speaking of which, I hope you realize that I don’t think anybody but the woman should make the decision, regardless of what I think. But I just can’t sit around and pretend I like it, or that I think it’s the right decision.

    I don’t like this “The woman knows best” argument. Many women willingly stay in Christianity. Many women willingly put their children in beauty contests….etc…

    I don’t mean the counseler makes the decision, I mean they help with the decision.

    All I can say to that is get out and meet some folks. Live some life. You honestly have no clue what you’re talking about, and I can’t help you with this one. You have to figure it out for yourself.

    ah yes, ignore the 25 year old virgin.

    I understand people will make mistakes, and sexual urges will get the best of them and forget to wrap it up. [you don’t think I have sexual urges?]

    Think of my patience with these little quirks of my personal life as the virginity of the typical high school girl. They swore it would always be there, but one little comment about them later and it’s gone.

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 11, 2011, 5:43 pm
  12. The point I was trying to raise, is that if we disagree with somebody whether we should go to war what should we do? I don’t mean we disagree with our buddies at the bar, I mean a defense department general.

    Would we not have the moral obligation to try to stop it?

    This is a hell of a question, and I trust you have an inkling of the scope of it. Moral philosophers have been twisting themselves in knots for centuries trying to come up with an objective way to deal with this question. What is the relationship of a citizen to his government, and what moral obligations do each have towards the other? Just look around. There are almost as many answers as governments.

    I feel like I’m doing a disservice by trying to answer in a comment, but here’s my very general opinion: Ideally, war is a balance on the scale of fairness. That is, war is the counterbalance that will return a state of injustice to equilibrium. As such, it should only be used when the scale of the imbalance is so great that it is worth dying for. (When does that point come? Well… that’s kind of subjective, isn’t it?) It’s not a perfect answer, but had we only lived by that motto, we’d have avoided most of the military action for the last 30 years. And I’m something of a peace-monger… so there it is.

    I don’t like this “The woman knows best” argument. Many women willingly stay in Christianity. Many women willingly put their children in beauty contests….etc…

    But there is a real difference between the decision to abort and the decision to put a child in a beauty pageant. A fetus has no “wants” or “desires.” It is pre-human, and does not have moral goals against which a mother must weigh her wants and desires. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a quantitative difference, and cannot just be tossed aside.

    In general, the “live and let live” style of morality insists that when a person’s decision effects themselves (or themselves and other consenting adults) without putting undue stress or duress on non-willing participants, it is a private decision and morally neutral. I have mixed feelings about paternal obligations or rights in abortion, but in the best of all worlds, both the man and woman would agree. However, since a man’s decision to prevent an abortion would put undue stress and duress on an unwilling participant (the woman), he does not have the right to force her.

    I don’t mean the counseler makes the decision, I mean they help with the decision.

    I am only willing to advocate the following: Women have the option but not the obligation to speak to a trained medical professional who gives them any and all scientifically accurate and morally neutral information they want. Should they seek moral guidance, they should have the option but not the obligation to consult trained psychologists.

    And yes, I think insurance should pay for it all. Without question. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, it is orders of magnitude cheaper to pay for a psychologist and an abortion than a pregnancy, birth, childcare, food stamps, and incarceration.

    ah yes, ignore the 25 year old virgin.

    I understand people will make mistakes, and sexual urges will get the best of them and forget to wrap it up. [you don’t think I have sexual urges?]

    What you couldn’t possibly know is that I’ve got kind of an, “aww… isn’t that adorable” grin from reading this. The most awesome thing about virgins is how much they think they know about what they will know when they’re no longer virgins. And how they’re all mistaken.

    But… you’ll figure it out. I recommend accepting offers for dates with boys or girls… whichever you like. It’s the best way to get started.

    Think of my patience with these little quirks of my personal life as the virginity of the typical high school girl. They swore it would always be there, but one little comment about them later and it’s gone.

    I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, but I suspect that once… um… “it’s” gone… whatever you’re talking about… your virginity? naivety? … you won’t miss it nearly as much as you might think. Or something…

    Look, the point is sex and sexual relationships do change us. And I know it seems like a false premise to suggest that you can’t possibly have an informed opinion on sexual ethics as a virgin. But you can’t possibly have an informed opinion on sexual ethics as a virgin. So while I have no concern for when you decide to cross over, I can’t yet respect your pontifications on the subject. That’s just the way it is, and I’m sorry.

    But you’ll get it once you get it. (Yeah… it’s condescending and paternalistic. But it’s true.)

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 6:15 pm
  13. Actually… let me give you one clarification. I think YOU are justified in calling for war when YOU believe that YOUR death is better than no war. None of this bullshit “send the poor” crap. When you are willing to die for the cause of war, then you have reached a point of moral justification in calling for war. But only if you really would take a bullet if it started the war.

    Posted by Living Life Without a Net | May 11, 2011, 6:17 pm
  14. Look, the point is sex and sexual relationships do change us. And I know it seems like a false premise to suggest that you can’t possibly have an informed opinion on sexual ethics as a virgin. But you can’t possibly have an informed opinion on sexual ethics as a virgin. So while I have no concern for when you decide to cross over, I can’t yet respect your pontifications on the subject. That’s just the way it is, and I’m sorry.

    But you’ll get it once you get it. (Yeah… it’s condescending and paternalistic. But it’s true.)

    I remember back in the RRS days, you had a little argument about parenting. Parents jumped on you, because you yourself don’t have kids and never did.

    But that didn’t matter did it? Even though you never had kids, you can still speak about raising kids.

    Same with this. You ALWAYS do this. Dismiss me in an ad hom because I never had Y experience. I never had sex, what right do I have to speak on sex!

    I can turn this around:

    How dare you write articles on female sexuality if you’re not female! How could you possibly understand??!!

    If you keep going down this road, I shutter to ponder what you think is required for an ethologist to write about the sexual habits of the mountain goat.

    But anyway, I think you’re taking my war analogy too literally.

    The point is that “You see something you feel is immoral is being done and you have no executive power to stop it. Are you not obligated to speak out against it?”

    In other words, unnecessary abortions are happening, I have no legal right or power to stop it, should I not speak out against it?

    I am only willing to advocate the following: Women have the option but not the obligation to speak to a trained medical professional who gives them any and all scientifically accurate and morally neutral information they want. Should they seek moral guidance, they should have the option but not the obligation to consult trained psychologists.

    IIRC, women going into plastic surgery usually take a psycological consult, to make sure that the surgery isn’t just a hasty decision that they’re using to mask something else.

    And get this: The doctor has the right to refuse the surgery if the woman doesn’t get the counseling or that he doesn’t think the surgery will help.

    And yes, I think insurance should pay for it all. Without question. From a strictly utilitarian point of view, it is orders of magnitude cheaper to pay for a psychologist and an abortion than a pregnancy, birth, childcare, food stamps, and incarceration.

    When I was little I had to get braces. OHIP didn’t pay for them because they were not medically necessary. I went to the podatriast this month and same thing. I had to pay because it’s not medically necessary.

    Same thing with abortion. If it IS medically necessary, such as the mother’s life is in danger, than it’s a medical procedure like a required transplant and should be covered by insurance.

    If not, then it’s up to her, her boyfriend or family to pay, as it is not medically necessary.

    What you couldn’t possibly know is that I’ve got kind of an, “aww… isn’t that adorable” grin from reading this. The most awesome thing about virgins is how much they think they know about what they will know when they’re no longer virgins. And how they’re all mistaken.

    But… you’ll figure it out. I recommend accepting offers for dates with boys or girls… whichever you like. It’s the best way to get started.

    Sex is simple. I just raise my legs, close my eyes for twenty seconds, then go cry in the corner for an hour.

    I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, but I suspect that once… um… “it’s” gone… whatever you’re talking about… your virginity? naivety? … you won’t miss it nearly as much as you might think. Or something…

    That was a butchered Scrubs reference.

    While everyone is out having sex, I’m in my apartment watching Scrubs DVDs eating doritos in my underwear.

    But anyway, I would appreciate it if you laid off the “Find a guy/girl”

    Posted by cptpineapple | May 11, 2011, 7:28 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow Me On Twitter!

%d bloggers like this: