Why “Reducing the Number of Abortions” not Necessarily Prolife
…pro-life activists have worked tirelessly over the years to reduce the number of abortions, but a numerical reduction is not our only goal. The prolife position is that all members of the human community, including the unborn, have inestimable and equal worth and dignity and thus are entitled to the fundamental protection of the laws. “Reducing the number of abortions” could occur in a regime of law in which this principle of justice is denied, and that is the regime that President Obama wants to preserve and extend. It is a regime in which the continued existence of the unborn is always at the absolute discretion of others who happen to possess the power to decide to kill them or let them live. Reducing the number of these discretionary acts of killing simply by trying to pacify and/or accommodate the needs of those who want to procure or encourage abortions only reinforces the idea that the unborn are subhuman creatures whose value depends exclusively on someone else’s wanting them or deciding that they are worthy of being permitted to live. So, in theory at least, there could be fewer abortions while the culture drifts further away from the prolife perspective and the law becomes increasingly unjust.
Consider this illustration. Imagine if someone told you in 19th century America that he was not interested in giving slaves full citizenship, but merely reducing the number of people brought to this country to be slaves. But suppose another person told you that he too wanted to reduce the number of slaves, but proposed to do it by granting them the full citizenship to which they are entitled as a matter of natural justice. Which of the two is really “against slavery” in a full-orbed principled sense? The first wants to reduce the number of slaves, but only while retaining a regime of law that treats an entire class of human beings as subhuman property. The second believes that the juridical infrastructure should reflect the moral truth about enslaved people, namely, that they are in fact human beings made in the image of their Maker who by being held in bondage are denied their fundamental rights.
Just as calling for the reduction of the slave population is not the same as believing that slaves are full members of the moral community and are entitled to protection by the state, calling for a reduction in the number of abortions is not the same as calling for the state to reflect in its laws and policies the true inclusiveness of the human family, that it consists of all those who share the same nature regardless of size, level of development, environment or dependency.
Yep. Francis Beckwith says it exactly right.
The argument that “Obama’s policies will reduce the number of abortions because people will feel they have other alternatives” is very, very ugly under the surface. Yet, exactly that was the position of many Christians who voted for Obama. They need to reconsider, repent, and re-engage with the real pro-life movement.
I wonder if they’d have thought a good solution to slavery was to leave it legal, but give away farming machinery to plantation owners, hoping they’d release their slaves?
October 4th, 2009 6:20 pm
Jong Eun,
The main point of this comment: I am not trying to convince YOU of anything, because your thoughts are locked in concrete, it seems. (A question: do YOU have a history of having one perspective that you were sure of, and then, in the face of new evidence, changing it? I DO. If you do, perhaps I still have hope for you… but if not, I won’t try. I will say this: I once believed approximately as you do… and then I learned more about theology, church history, world history, economics, political science and philosophy… which more than changed my mind, though it took about 15 years for the process to complete.) But I am trying to convince other readers that your perspective, well-intentioned though it may be, is simply deeply in error, and leads to evil results when believers in it prevail in society.
Why should I trust a man who says what Rev. Wallis says:
but then always goes LEFT when it really matters, at election time when candidates are seeking his endorsement? His little saying is clearly only a rhetorical device to allow him the pretense of balance and objectivity. You don’t hear people on the Right saying such things very much… that’s because they know it is inherently a dishonest tactic.
You’re attachment to Marxist thought is SO wrong that it, almost more than the abortion issue, gives me real pause about your understanding of your Christian commitment. Abortion in the USA has killed 50 million in the last 45 years or so. Marxism has killed over 100 million… and if you add in other flavors of socialism, many of which have Marxist roots, we’re up to 150 million, at least.
How many have been killed by capitalism?
Your willingness to use violence to enforce the theft of money from those who work, to give it those who don’t, is very disturbing to me. You characterized it as “urging the rich with taxes.” It is far more than “urging.” It is legalized theft backed up by the threat of violence. And the fact is that enormous amounts are confiscated from the merely middle class to pay for those who choose not to work, or to pursue destructive lifestyles that make it impossible for them to work, or who, knowing all along that the government would take care of them, did not or do not make adequate provision for themselves, and those for whom they are responsible.
You ask the wrong question about the rich/poor issue. The question is not, “Why are there so many poor?” The question is, “How did the rich get rich, and what can we do to help others do the same?”
The biblical rich were uniformly very powerful politically. The modern rich, in western society, may or may not be politically powerful. More often than not, the rich in modern western nations are simply people who live in nicer homes, drive nicer cars, wear better clothes, eat nicer food, etc., but who do NOT abuse some kind of power over “the poor” in the way that Jesus warned against in the Gospels.
Jesus over-riding concern was abuse of power, not economic distribution.
By the way, I have read Campolo, Wallis, etc. I’ve been around awhile…
But I have to wonder about the motives of a person who is willing to hold a gun to someone’s head (or have someone else do it for them) in order to extract property which is to be given to someone else, just a straight transfer of property, no exchange, no common interest, just Robin Hood ethics in full flower.
That is an INTENSELY unBiblical view. You can’t find any significant support for it in scripture… which leaves me wondering why people believe it as a Christian teaching, and why they haven’t learned from the tragic history of the last century.
Jong Eun, I hope you’ll continue to read my blog, and feel free to comment as you see fit. I am sure you mean well. I have written at considerable length about most of these matters elsewhere in the blog, which you can find, if you’re interested, by searching in the black title bar at the top.
October 7th, 2009 8:54 pm
(I wasn’t sure where I can put my post so I put it right here),
I thought by now you would have had time to read the e-mail from my friend Katherine Harris.
I am sure she explained to you well that I grew up in a conservative Christian school and tirelessly stood up for my beleif against the crowd of conservatives! I have stood up for my belief in God, Church, and progressivism, for the past 12 years and of course as a child it was a learning experience, growing stronger in my faith. Just as you walked to the Right, I walked to the Left in my spiritual journey.
Katherine said you were very concerned about me, and I am grateful yet…I smiled. There was a time when a nice elder at my church exclaimed, “How did a fiathful young christian like you got infected with communism!!” If that is your sentiment, relax!! I am not mad communist fanatic under the thrall of a sinister puppet master!! I am a friendly, born-again, passionate young Christian you meet in your campus, just with a “little peculiar beliefs”. 🙂
Oh of course, I changed my views over time! I used to be an anti-communist until I was 11 years old, I was a 6-day creationist until I was 14, I supported racial purity until I was 18,
I flirted with liberation theology when I was in high school, I supported mercy killing/euthanasia when I was a high school senior, I hated Japan for what it did to Korea and wanted it to be punished…. And I changed!! I was wrong about some of my values and I discarded so I could grow stronger in my faith and values as a christian! My gosh,…did you…did you think I was a dogmatic person?? Would I even have read your post if I was such an obstinate leftist? 🙂
In fact, I have continued to reach out to conservativs. I attended Conservative Political Action conference (CPAC)4 times, Family Research Council Values Voter Summit 3 times, said hello to Phyillis Schlafly, shook hand with RNC chair Michael Steele, said thank you to Sen. Sam Brownback for his work, honored the 911 memorial on campus, wrote against same-sex marriage on my campus newspaper editorial, was praised by my campus COLELGE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT FOR BEING THE REPUBLICAN’S FAVORITE DEMOCRAT!!
Find me another liberal who tried this hard to communicate with those on the Right, Mr. Harmonminer. And you know what, I “pandered to the right”(as my liberal friends complain) not because I was confused, but because I was confident about my faith in progressivism to walk into the “den of conservatives and stay true to my values.”
Oh I read your recommended reading, Liberal Fascism. Quite entertaining. But Mr. Harmonicminer…..sigh….did you think that book will somehow scare me to abandon my values?
I am not a fascist, Mr. Harmonicminer. Goldberg’s definition of fascism, well its his opinion only. Fascism and Socialism were two competing ideology of the 20th century, and sure we shared similarities but our goals were different (they were masculine, we were feminine to use Goldberg’s definition). And socialims too has many forms, some more vibrant than others. American lbieralism is mixture of capitalism and socialism, so really a mild dose designed to reform the market system. One point I did agree with Goldberg is that American conservatism oriented from classic liberalism, and not related to fascism. But see again? Most liberals would have simply ignored that book, but I, taking your advice at least read it two time(more thoroughly the 2nd time), and repsectfully disagreed with most of its analysis.
The point of my “outcry”(?) is because I am concerned that you might perceive me as some sort of deluded puppet of liberal professor! I was a progressive when I was in same school at Katherine Harris, and throughout my life I have explored my values while communicating with those on the Right. And I assure that I am not the only evanglical leftist who is like this.
Our disagreements…are unfortunate. I am sorry you “betrayed”(?) us, but accept your conversion to the Right. All I ask…. Mr. Harmonicminer, as fellow brother in Christ, is that you accept the commitment of your Leftist Brethens as genuine/acceptable and seek harmony (and respectful debates) with us. Or, as Wesley said, “In Essentials, Unity, In non-Essentials, Diversity. In All Things, Charity”
Amen.
October 7th, 2009 10:31 pm
Jong… you are VERY young, if you are in the cohort of our mutual friend. You haven’t had time yet to “change your mind” from a position you held with adult understanding for, say, ten straight years… if I understand your situation, at least. I’ll be very interested to see if you still have the same positions in ten more years, or fifteen.
Again: if you are for socialism, you CAN’T be for non-violence, because the very essence of socialism is coersion to make people do what they would not otherwise do, in order to benefit someone else. Socialism HAS to have the threat behind it in order to “work,” to the limited extent that it does work.
On the other hand, classical liberalism, promoting maximum freedom, has very little in the way of coersion to make people DO things for others people, and uses coersion primarily to prevent people FROM DIRECTLY HURTING other people.
Both sides use power… but one is trying to make people DO good, the other merely tries to prevent people from doing evil. So that, in socialism, EVERYONE feels the power, coersion, and threat of violence from the government pressing down on them, whereas in classical liberalism, only people who desire to do ill to others feel the power of government restricting them.
That’s why with the best of intentions, socialists are dangerous people… precisely because they may decide to use even more power tomorrow, on everyone in the society.
October 7th, 2009 11:09 pm
Jong Eun, I’m sure you’re a very nice person. I “respect” you, not least because our mutual friend does.
But I do think you’re deeply conflicted in your commitments, and that you have embraced conflicting imperatives, and so are forced to harbor positions that simply contradict each other… for example, on the matter of “non-violent” socialism.
You seem to want me to accept you as a “Christian brother” who is “just as right” as I am. I accept you as a Christian brother… but I cannot agree that you are “as correct” about that means as I believe myself to be. Not that I’m some paragon of understanding and wisdom, but of course I think my positions are closer to the truth than yours.
So, again, I accept that you mean well. But it seems to me that your priorities are very far away from those I see in the New Testament, and that the methods you espouse for achieving those priorities are disastrously dangerous for society to embrace. I assume you believe the same about me… and so we discuss.
November 7th, 2009 11:24 am
[…] on another comment thread, I had some comments to make about the origin of the verb “to diss” That’s because it comes from the ancient Hebrew word “dissohnia†which means, roughly (go […]