In response to my post on anger management, an anonymous commenter has posted some quotes from Mt 5:22, Jn 13:34-35, 1 Cor 13:1-8, Col 3:8, 12-14, 2 Pet 1:5-9, and 1 Jn 4:20-21. There are several problems with this move:
1.As I said recently, if you want to see how the principles of Jesus or the apostles apply in general, then the obvious way of answering that question is to see how they themselves apply their principles in different settings.
What do they mean by “love, “gentleness,” and “respect”? If you want to see how they understood the scope of their own principles, then you need to see how they put their principles into practice.
How did they actually speak about their opponents? How did they actually treat their opponents? Watch them in action.
That’s my harmonistic principle. That’s a frame of reference I use for interpreting one set of passages in relation to another.
By contrast, the anonymous commenter simply opposes one set of passages to another. Of course, that proves nothing one way or the other.
2.Apropos (1), I regard inspired Biblical discourse as a model of Christian discourse. I don’t assume that Scripture teaches a two-tiered morality: one for apostles, prophets, and Bible writers, but another for garden-variety Christians like you and me.
Scripture doesn’t use the same language for everyone. It uses different types of language for different types of people, calibrated to their level of culpability.
3.Apropos (2), Scripture uses harsh language for false teachers. False teachers profess to be true believers. But their pious claims don’t insulate them from harsh criticism.
4.However, the most striking feature of this debate is the inversion of values we see on display. Remember the context: we’re talking about a blogger who supports a candidate who supports mass murder. If you support someone who supports mass murder, then you support mass murder. It’s not as if he has no alternative.
Now we have folks quoting Biblical injunctions about love and kindness and all that good stuff. And how are these being applied? Are they being applied to the fate of infants? Are folks quoting these passages to prove that we ought to show more love to infants by opposing those who support their mass murder?
Wouldn’t that be the logical application of these passages to the case in hand? In defense of babies, born and unborn?
But, instead, we see these passages cited in defense of those who support mass murder. Who is telling Reppert, “Victor, you should show your love for babies by opposing a man who supports the mass murder of babies. Victor, you’re being unkind to the victims of abortion and infanticide by plugging a candidate who supports the mass murder of infants”?
No, it’s all about how Reppert is being wronged, and not how he’s wronging the future victims of the candidate he’s plugging. He’s the injured party, not the baby in the dumpster.
These people have a lot to answer for. The moral inversion is almost surreal. It’s like walking into the living room of Ted Bundy while he’s in the process of murdering his latest victim and telling her that she ought to be nicer to Ted. Can’t we all sit down and have a civilized little chat with Ted Bundy about the pros and cons of serial murder?
Okay, let's start with the issue of civility.
ReplyDeleteI think the Bible quite obviously teaches two tiers of morals. Jesus went around absolving people of their sins. Maybe you think you can do that, but I'm sure I can't.
I do think some things are permissible for certain moral agents that aren't permissible for others. I can discipline my kids. My kids can't discipline me. The moral distance between myself and God is literally infinitely greater than the moral distance between me and my kids. Thus if I can do things my kids can't, it seems obvious that God can do things I can't. To use only the most obvious example, I would say it's in God's rights to take the life of anyone He wants, at anytime. This is a right He owns as Creator. Are you seriously going to argue that we all have the same right?
Thus, I don't try to treat my "opponents" the way Jesus treated His opponents in the Bible. I try (and often fail) to treat people the way God treats me. There have been times when God had to get wrathful with me, but that was only after He tried to deal with me in a more gentle way for a long, long time.
I believe the same thing is true with the way God treated Israel. God tried reaching His people in more gentle ways sometimes for decades before He began to even threaten them with wrath. I think that pattern is pretty consistent in the Bible, and is even true of Jesus's speech towards the Pharisees. Any time you see God speaking wrathfully to someone, He almost always mentions the exhaustive measures He used to try and reach them in other ways first. We don't know how hard, and for how long, God tried to reach the Pharisees through other means before Jesus was forced to speak to them wrathfully. But we all do know personally how patient God is with us, and how He doesn't treat us as harshly as we treat others, even when we've done things as bad or worse than the people we're condemning.
Now, as I said in another comment, it's possible you exhausted these options with Reppert, and only became insulting with him after you prayed about it and were lead by the Spirit to do so. In that case, ignore me and insult away. But I suggest to you that if you have not done that, and you're being insulting as a means of first resort, then you aren't behaving Biblically.
Nuff said on the rudeness issue. Now, on the abortion issue, I would argue that it's possible to consider abortion morally wrong and yet not believe it's equivalent to murder. As I've said ad nauseum on Victor's blog, if you don't think women who have had abortions should be subject to the death penalty, then rhetoric aside, I'd argue you don't really think abortion and murder are equivalent either (assuming you support the death penalty, if not, substitute a life sentence for the death penalty).
In most cases, I don't think an abortion is taking a life, I think it's depriving a person of a natural right to life. (I would argue that late term and partial birth abortion, though, are actually infanticide.)
However, I agree with Reppert that simply mindlessly trying to end abortion by overturning Rowe vs Wade is a spectacularly stupid and utterly failed strategy. It would only turn matters over to the states, and most states outside of the South would keep the practice legal.
Besides that, according to a study done by the World Health Association, there are SCORES of countries where abortion is illegal where the abortion rate is higher than it is in the United States! (The rate in these countries is established by surveys and by records of women who come to hospitals to seek treatment for complications from illegal abortions.)
My interest is in reducing the number of abortions, and it's highly doubtful to me that overturning Roe vs Wade would reduce the US abortion rate at all. Even if it did, it will be decades before Wade has a realistic shot at being overturned, and what are we supposed to do about abortion until then?
The same WHO study I cited showed another interesting fact: most of the countries with lower abortion rates than the US also had large social safety nets. In fact, countries where abortion was legal, but where there was a large safety net consistently had lower abortion rates than societies where abortion was illegal and there was no safety net. (Canada being the only exception, IIRC. Canada was the only state with a large safety net that had an abortion rate slightly higher than ours.) The study showed that what actually prevents abortions is exactly what the Republican party here advocates against. Countries that have universal health care, generous maternity leave, broad social safety nets, and easy access to contraception, generally have lower abortion rates, regardless of the legal status of abortion.
So I've come to the conclusion that the legal status of abortion is irrelevant to the abortion rate, especially here in the US, where abortion will probably remain legal in most states even if Roe vs Wade is overturned. For this and many other reasons, I thus support the party that I think will do the most to actually lower the number of abortions. That would be the party that supports a broader safety net, and that would usually be a democrat. Now of course, I'd more willingly vote for a pro-Life Democrat given the chance, but I'll settle in a pinch.
Now, I agree with you that Obama's record on abortion is atrocious. But I think it is policies, not beliefs, that affect the abortion rate, and I'm positive that Obama's policies will lead to a lower abortion rate than McCain's, even if, per impossible, McCain managed to overturn Roe.
So you see, I have thought this through. I agree with you that abortion is wrong, I simply disagree with you on how best to address it. Thus, saying I support "mass murder" without even knowing my rationale is obviously illogical and unChristian. I think anytime you come to the conclusion, as you obviously have, that anybody who disagrees with you is utterly amoral, then assuming your name isn't Jesus Christ, you've gone wrong somewhere. Maybe I've assessed the situation incorrectly, but I think my heart is in the right place, and it's not fair or accurate to say I support mass murder for supporting Obama when in fact one of the main reasons I support Obama is that I believe his policies will reduce abortions.
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Okay, let's start with the issue of civility. __I think the Bible quite obviously teaches two tiers of morals. Jesus went around absolving people of their sins. Maybe you think you can do that, but I'm sure I can't. __I do think some things are permissible for certain moral agents that aren't permissible for others. I can discipline my kids. My kids can't discipline me. The moral distance between myself and God is literally infinitely greater than the moral distance between me and my kids. Thus if I can do things my kids can't, it seems obvious that God can do things I can't. To use only the most obvious example, I would say it's in God's rights to take the life of anyone He wants, at anytime. This is a right He owns as Creator. Are you seriously going to argue that we all have the same right?”
Several problems:
i) I see that you’re being very selective in your illustrations. I didn’t limit my examples to God/Christ, now did I? I also mentioned prophets and apostles (as well as the saints in heaven).
ii) Even at the level of God/Christ, there are some fundamental respects in which they set an example for humans to emulate (e.g. Lev 20:7; 1 Pet 2:21).
So even your selective illustrations fail to bear out your claim.
iii) On a related note, I see that you don’t hold yourself to the same standards you urge on others. When objecting to my position, you say things like “Can you be explicit about the criteria one has to meet,” and lean on the need to draw clear lines.
When, however, you introduce your own position, you make sweeping claims about how “the Bible quite obviously teaches two tiers of morals.”
So “nothing is off limits” for an apostles? You give an apostle “carte blanche”?
When apostles preach sexual morality to Christians, are they exempt from their own prohibitions? After all, the Bible “quite obviously” teaches a two-tiered morality, right?
Here’s an idea: why don’t you shoulder your own burden of proof instead of shunting it to your opponent?
iv) Oh, and what about 1 Cor 4:16? To a great extent, apostolic example is an example for the rest of us.
“Any time you see God speaking wrathfully to someone, He almost always mentions the exhaustive measures He used to try and reach them in other ways first.”
i) Now you’re contradicting yourself. On the one hand, “The moral distance between myself and God is literally infinitely greater than the moral distance between me and my kids. Thus if I can do things my kids can't, it seems obvious that God can do things I can't.”
So there you’re arguing that God is so transcendent that he’s inimitable. But then you do an about-face and appeal to God’s conduct as a model for ours.
ii) I also don’t agree with your “last resort” criterion. Must I exhaust all other options before I can say that prosperity preachers like Benny Hinn, Creflo Dollar, Robert Tilton, Peter Popoff, and Paula White are charlatans and flimflam men?
As long as the accusation is true, there’s nothing wrong with calling people what they are.
“Nuff said on the rudeness issue. Now, on the abortion issue, I would argue that it's possible to consider abortion morally wrong and yet not believe it's equivalent to murder. As I've said ad nauseum on Victor's blog, if you don't think women who have had abortions should be subject to the death penalty, then rhetoric aside, I'd argue you don't really think abortion and murder are equivalent either (assuming you support the death penalty, if not, substitute a life sentence for the death penalty).”
Depends on the age of the mother. Are we talking about a 14-year-old girl or a 25-year-old woman. As a matter of fact, grown women, along with other complicit parties (e.g. the boyfriend, abortionist) should be executed for the crime of abortion.
However, that’s not politically feasible, so we settle for less.
“In most cases, I don't think an abortion is taking a life, I think it's depriving a person of a natural right to life.”
Which is incoherent.
“However, I agree with Reppert that simply mindlessly trying to end abortion by overturning Rowe vs Wade is a spectacularly stupid and utterly failed strategy. It would only turn matters over to the states, and most states outside of the South would keep the practice legal.”
i) During WWII, some brave Christians sheltered Jews from the Nazis. By your yardstick, that was a “spectacularly stupid and utterly failed strategy” since it only spared hundreds or thousands of Jews from the gas chambers.
Innocent human life is very cheap by your standards.
ii) In addition, it’s not as if prolifers don’t attempt to reduce abortion by other means. But the abortion lobby also tries to prevent prolifers from reducing abortion by other means.
For example, Eliot Spitzer, then attorney general of NY, tried to shut down crisis pregnancy centers.
Likewise, Christians are not allowed to introduce Christian ethics into the public school curriculum.
Likewise, there are attempts to criminalize prolife rhetoric as hate-speech.
People like you hypocritically rein in alternative efforts to reduce abortion, then bitch about single-issue voters.
iii) You’re also very selective in the statistics you choose to cite. For example:
http://www.frc.org/insight/focusing-on-foca-freedom-of-choice-act-would-harm-women-and-remove-protections
“So you see, I have thought this through.”
You’ve thought through your rationalization.
“Thus, saying I support ‘mass murder’ without even knowing my rationale is obviously illogical and unChristian.”
If you rationale amounts to special pleading, then it’s both logical and Christian to say you support mass murder.
i) I frankly don't see you have a leg to stand on on this issue. The Bible clearly teaches that apostles and teachers will be held to a different moral standards than lay people. The Bible very clearly teaches that leaders have different moral duties than lay people. The Bible teaches that husbands have different moral duties than wives. That parents have different moral duties than children. That bosses have different responsibilities than their workers. So in fact I erred when I said Biblical morality is two-tiered. It's multi-tiered.
ReplyDeleteii) Of course, God and Jesus do set the moral example for us. But that obviously doesn't mean we can do just anything we see them doing. We can't absolve sins. We can't decide to flood the world and start Creation over again.
iii) Just because I didn't mention a criteria doesn't mean I don't have one. That criteria is authority. When I see God or Christ or an apostle acting in a certain way, the relevant question is, do I have the authority to act in a similar way? Do I have the authority to decide who is and who is not a Christian? Do I have the authority to judge the heart of another follower of Jesus?
I think we always have the authority to be kind, and to stand up for what is right in a respectful manner. I simply reject your insinuation that we cannot stand up to the excesses of people like Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton without being angry, mean-spirited, and insulting. We can definitely challenge our fellow Christians when we think they're falling short of the bar of Christlike behavior. I'm doing that right now. I simply don't think we have the authority to decide that our first line of defense will be to be as rude, angry, and mean-spirited as we can.
That strategy has the potential to make enemies out of people who could have otherwise seen the light. Creflo Dollar, I think, would be open to sincere, thoughtful, Biblical correction brought to him in a respectful tone. I think if you start off calling him a snake, a viper, and a money-changer, then he'll turn a deaf ear. Now again, at some point some person in any of our lives might be led by the spirit to speak to us harshly. But that doesn't excuse the general, all-purpose use of this tactic as a means of first resort. It certainly doesn't establish that this approach is biblical.
iv) No argument. That doesn't in any way help your particular case, though.
Now on the abortion issue:
Re: putting women who have had abortions, their boyfriends, and the doctors to death.... wow.
i) That's a howler. Flat out. An absurd attempt at an analogy.
My position is not that the Supreme Court strategy only saves a few, while the social net strategy saves many. My position is that the Supreme Court strategy doesn't save ANY, while the social net strategy would save many. Can you name a single abortion that has been prevented by electing Republican presidents in the hopes that, some time during their term, they'll be able to appoint a conservative judge?
I believe that a social safety net can start saving lives NOW. I believe that universal health care can start saving lives NOW. I believe Barack Obama's health care plan will save more unborn children in his first year of office than McCain's supreme court strategy would save if he was president for 8 years.
ii) I'm ALL FOR trying to lower the number of abortions by other means. Believe it or not, I'm all for getting Roe vs Wade overturned. I'm simply against that being the ONLY political strategy for stopping abortions. I'm against people saying, as you have, that people who don't vote for pro-life candidates "support mass murder".
I support crisis pregnancy centers. I don't believe in criminalizing free speech. (I also don't believe that chanting "whore" to women going into abortion clinics does anything but hurt our cause.) I'm not for teaching Christian ethics in schools, at least not as a required course, but I think our schools can and should teach sexual ethics that people of all faiths and no faiths would generally agree on. And I think all Christians should fight like crazy to inform people of the superiority of the Christian ethic in the public square.
So, it seems to me that me, you and Victor Reppert have a lot of common ground. We can do a lot together to reduce the number of abortions. Why then do you think God would rather you be throwing insults at us, your fellow Christians, instead of trying to work together with us to save lives?
You are so quick, so all-fire eager to place people in to camps, so you can say "you people" this and "you people" that. You're smarter than that. You're better than that.
iii) That url got cut off. I'm open to any data on abortion, and I'm willing to adjust my strategy on the basis of new information. But from everything I've read to date, Republican policies across the board generally increase the number of women seeking abortions. When there's not access to contraception, there's little to no safety net, and poor people don't have access to absurdly expensive pre-natal and post-natal care, more women facing unexpected pregnancies will choose abortion. So again, I simply don't think it's a rational strategy towards ending abortion to continue to vote Republican and hope for the best.
Also, even if I am paying more attention to one study than another study, that wouldn't be special pleading. That's not what special pleading means.
Secondly, it wouldn't be Christian to say that someone supports mass murder if they're acting in a way that they sincerely believe will reduce abortions, even if they happen to be mistaken. Otherwise, if I'm right and pursuing the supreme court strategy is far less effective in saving lives than following the safety net strategy, then you would be open to the charge of "supporting mass murder", even though that's the opposite of your intention.
Beyond that, you seem to be fighting awfully hard to carve out some small space for yourself where it's okay for you to be mean-spirited and rude. Why? What's so important about keeping your right to turn people away from your cause and away from Christianity with insulting comments? Why is keeping that worth sacrificing the cooperation of people like myself and Reppert who would like to work with people like you to reduce the number of abortions?
I have a lot of problems with the anonymous poster's comments on abortion, but Steve and the sources he's cited (here and in more recent threads) have already addressed some of them. The anonymous poster still hasn't argued for his comment that "In most cases, I don't think an abortion is taking a life, I think it's depriving a person of a natural right to life." He doesn't explain why he keeps referring to "social safety nets" and "universal health care", which go far beyond providing for a mother to carry a child until the time of birth. He misrepresents the popular conservative view with comments like:
ReplyDelete"Can you name a single abortion that has been prevented by electing Republican presidents in the hopes that, some time during their term, they'll be able to appoint a conservative judge?"
Republican presidents do more on this issue than appoint Supreme Court justices. They lead their party on the issue of abortion, influence elections further down the ballot, sign or veto legislation, set an example for others to follow in how they handle the issue, persuade people by means of speaking on the issue, etc. Robert George recently noted:
"We know that the federal and state pro-life laws and policies that Obama has promised to sweep away (and that John McCain would protect) save thousands of lives every year. Studies conducted by Professor Michael New and other social scientists have removed any doubt. Often enough, the abortion lobby itself confirms the truth of what these scholars have determined. Tom McClusky has observed that Planned Parenthood's own statistics show that in each of the seven states that have FOCA-type legislation on the books, 'abortion rates have increased while the national rate has decreased.' In Maryland, where a bill similar to the one favored by Obama was enacted in 1991, he notes that 'abortion rates have increased by 8 percent while the overall national abortion rate decreased by 9 percent.'...But for a moment let's suppose, against all the evidence, that Obama's proposals would reduce the number of abortions, even while subsidizing the killing with taxpayer dollars. Even so, many more unborn human beings would likely be killed under Obama than under McCain. A Congress controlled by strong Democratic majorities under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi would enact the bill authorizing the mass industrial production of human embryos by cloning for research in which they are killed. As president, Obama would sign it. The number of tiny humans created and killed under this legislation (assuming that an efficient human cloning technique is soon perfected) could dwarf the number of lives saved as a result of the reduced demand for abortion-even if we take a delusionally optimistic view of what that number would be."
As Francis Beckwith notes in Steve's citation of him, we wouldn't pay men who abuse their wives to stop beating their wives in an attempt to reduce spousal abuse. You have to take into account the financial and other burdens placed on society by such government programs, the moral messages that are conveyed by them, etc. If a pregnant woman is so evil as to have her child aborted if the government or somebody else doesn't pay for her to carry the child, it doesn't make sense for society to accommodate that evil. What if she threatens to harm the child after his birth if more funding isn't provided?
The anonymous poster still hasn't argued for his comment that "In most cases, I don't think an abortion is taking a life, I think it's depriving a person of a natural right to life."
ReplyDeleteDo I really owe anyone an explanation on this? It doesn't materially affect the case I've been making, that the safety net strategy is at least as effective in reducing the number of abortions as is the supreme court strategy. If you can tell me how an explanation of my position affects the argument, I'll give one.
He doesn't explain why he keeps referring to "social safety nets" and "universal health care", which go far beyond providing for a mother to carry a child until the time of birth.
Because it's not just prenatal and postnatal costs that contribute to the decision to have an abortion. It's the overall cost of raising a child. That price is offset by programs that insure an income, housing, childcare, health care, etc.
Republican presidents do more on this issue than appoint Supreme Court justices. They lead their party on the issue of abortion, influence elections further down the ballot, sign or veto legislation, set an example for others to follow in how they handle the issue, persuade people by means of speaking on the issue, etc
Okay, so give me some examples of what Bush has done in these areas. What has he done to reduce abortions in the past 8 years? About the only thing he has done is to include fetuses under the Children's Health Insurance program. But in that, he pursued the safety net strategy.
A lot of the things in your Robert George quote are simply false. It's just not true that the FOCA would do away with a partial birth abortion ban. From the govtrack.us summary of the bill:
"Freedom of Choice Act - Declares that it is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health."
So as you can see, the FOCA would not prevent a partial birth abortion ban, so long as it had a provision for the health of the mother. Obama has said he would sign such a ban.
Further, I think the methodology behind some of the claims about FOCA are misleading. In almost all the states which have a FOCA law on the books, the FOCA law doesn't reflect a change in policy, since there were no previously existing law the FOCA overturned. All the FOCA did was prevent such laws from being enacted. Thus, since there was no policy change in these states, it seems dubious to attribute
Other studies I've read suggest that the increase in the number of abortions in FOCA states result more from people, particularly young children, from non-FOCA states traveling to FOCA states to have abortions. Some of those studies suggest that some part of the statewide reduction in abortion rates for many non-FOCA states is simply a result of essentially exporting women seeking abortions to neighboring FOCA states. When this phenomenon is selected for, the abortion rate in general areas (say, the Northeast, instead of a particular state in the Northeast) remains the same.
So, suffice it to say, I'm against FOCA, but I'm not convinced the passing of FOCA will really increase the abortion rate. The science, as it were, doesn't seem as reliable as the science that says that safety nets decrease abortions.
As I said, I may not be right, but I'm trying to do what the light of my conscience has shown me is the best way to decrease the number of abortions. I don't think it's fair for Republicans to say that I support mass murder if I don't agree with them on how to end abortion. I think Pro-Life Democrats and Pro-Life Republicans can learn things from each other.
The Francis Beckwith analogy is silly. I don't think there's any analogy between the temptation of a woman facing serious economic hardship to have an abortion to avoid that hardship, and a man tempted to beat his wife. If the woman doesn't have the abortion, she faces the real threat of having a child she flat out can't support. For that reason, I reject most of your following case. I don't think a woman in Newark who is facing the prospect of caring for an additional child with only 100 a month to pay for it has to be "evil" to choose an abortion. She may honestly feel like the abortion is the best way to protect the well-being of the child she already has.
You say we have to pay attention to more than just a reduction in abortions, we have to worry about the moral message laws send. I agree. But which is more important? I think it's obvious that reducing abortions is more important. Thus I think it's obvious that a safety net strategy is more pressing than a Supreme Court strategy. But I allow that I could be wrong, thus I don't say that everyone who disagrees with me "supports mass murder".
An anonymous poster writes:
ReplyDelete"Do I really owe anyone an explanation on this? It doesn't materially affect the case I've been making, that the safety net strategy is at least as effective in reducing the number of abortions as is the supreme court strategy."
You've been commenting on more than one subject. You told us that in most cases you "don't think an abortion is taking a life". I was asking you to justify that position. Since such a position would have significant implications, it makes sense to ask a person who states that position in a public forum to offer a justification for it.
You write:
"Because it's not just prenatal and postnatal costs that contribute to the decision to have an abortion. It's the overall cost of raising a child. That price is offset by programs that insure an income, housing, childcare, health care, etc."
Abortion isn't the only alternative to raising a child. And "social safety nets" and "universal health care" involve more than poor pregnant women or pregnant women in general. Your proposed solution goes far beyond the problem you claim to be addressing.
You write:
"Okay, so give me some examples of what Bush has done in these areas. What has he done to reduce abortions in the past 8 years? About the only thing he has done is to include fetuses under the Children's Health Insurance program."
Some of the categories I listed were "lead their party on the issue of abortion" and "set an example for others to follow in how they handle the issue". You need me to give examples of how Bush has done such things? What about the many occasions when he's spoken against abortion or has spoken in support of pro-life organizations, for example? You were unfamiliar with all of those? National Right To Life has a page addressing presidential records on abortion, including George Bush's.
You write:
"A lot of the things in your Robert George quote are simply false. It's just not true that the FOCA would do away with a partial birth abortion ban."
My quote from Robert George doesn't discuss whether "FOCA would do away with a partial birth abortion ban". You're misrepresenting what I quoted. And the comments you go on to make ignore much of what I did quote from George.
You write:
"Other studies I've read suggest that the increase in the number of abortions in FOCA states result more from people, particularly young children, from non-FOCA states traveling to FOCA states to have abortions. Some of those studies suggest that some part of the statewide reduction in abortion rates for many non-FOCA states is simply a result of essentially exporting women seeking abortions to neighboring FOCA states. When this phenomenon is selected for, the abortion rate in general areas (say, the Northeast, instead of a particular state in the Northeast) remains the same."
You keep making assertions without offering documentation. You refer to factors that are "more" responsible or have "some part", and you go on to tell us that you oppose FOCA, yet you argue that it's not as bad as some people think. How are we supposed to interpret all of that? You support Obama. He would do more than give us a larger safety net, to use your term. He would also do many things that are harmful even by your standards.
You write:
"The Francis Beckwith analogy is silly. I don't think there's any analogy between the temptation of a woman facing serious economic hardship to have an abortion to avoid that hardship, and a man tempted to beat his wife. If the woman doesn't have the abortion, she faces the real threat of having a child she flat out can't support."
The point of the analogy isn't to equate the degree to which each act is wrong. The point is that paying a man to not beat his wife doesn't make sense as a governmental policy, just as paying a woman not to have an abortion doesn't make sense.
And, again, abortion isn't the only alternative to supporting a child.
You write:
"I don't think a woman in Newark who is facing the prospect of caring for an additional child with only 100 a month to pay for it has to be 'evil' to choose an abortion. She may honestly feel like the abortion is the best way to protect the well-being of the child she already has."
The child she already has wouldn't be harmed as much by having a living sibling as that sibling would be harmed by an abortion. What if the woman strangles to death a ten-year-old child she has, since she "honestly feels like the strangulation is the best way to protect the well-being of the other child she has"?What if a man "honestly feels like the shooting of his wife is the best way to protect the well-being of the child he has"? You wouldn't consider such actions evil? You'd try to persuade us to not think of such behavior so negatively?
You write:
"You say we have to pay attention to more than just a reduction in abortions, we have to worry about the moral message laws send. I agree. But which is more important? I think it's obvious that reducing abortions is more important."
Moral messages are part of the process of reducing abortion. Would you argue that "reducing spousal abuse is more important" than "the moral messages laws send", so we should pay husbands not to beat their wives?
"You've been commenting on more than one subject. You told us that in most cases you "don't think an abortion is taking a life". I was asking you to justify that position. Since such a position would have significant implications, it makes sense to ask a person who states that position in a public forum to offer a justification for it."
ReplyDeleteI don't see those implications. I'm asking you to tell me what they are. At any rate, I've addressed the issue in another response.
"Abortion isn't the only alternative to raising a child."
True enough, but I think many women find the prospect of bearing a child that they won't raise to be more traumatic than an abortion. I'm not saying that's right, or a justification for abortion, I'm just saying that if you limit a woman who can't afford another child to abortion or carrying a baby to term and then giving it up, many will opt for the path of least resistance. I'm admittedly not as interested as some of you in making everyone into a tiny replica of myself, in terms of my view of morality. I just want to save the lives of unborn children. I'm for whatever works, within reason.
"And "social safety nets" and "universal health care" involve more than poor pregnant women or pregnant women in general. Your proposed solution goes far beyond the problem you claim to be addressing."
Without question, I support universal health care for more reasons than simply abortion. But I do think that for most women, the choice is between an abortion and raising the child. Very few women are up for going through a pregnancy, giving up that child, and knowing they have a son or daughter somewhere out there in the world without them. Thus I believe that helping these women feel like they can raise the child themselves, with some government assistance, will prevent more abortions than simply the promise to simply pay for the cost of pregnancy.
If we're talking about saving lives, this is no time to be counting pennies, is it? Surely the priority of saving children trumps the priority of keeping one's tax dollars. Or at least, it should.
"You need me to give examples of how Bush has done such things? What about the many occasions when he's spoken against abortion or has spoken in support of pro-life organizations, for example? You were unfamiliar with all of those?"
Great. How many abortions did those speeches prevent? By all means, let's elect John McCain so we can hear more speeches, and not even consider a strategy that could be more effective.
"You keep making assertions without offering documentation. You refer to factors that are "more" responsible or have "some part", and you go on to tell us that you oppose FOCA, yet you argue that it's not as bad as some people think. How are we supposed to interpret all of that? You support Obama. He would do more than give us a larger safety net, to use your term. He would also do many things that are harmful even by your standards."
Here's the interpretation that jumps right out at me as being the most glaringly obvious: I've weighed the fact that Obama supports FOCA against the fact that he supports a social safety net, and concluded that FOCA's potential harm is less than the social safety net's potential good. Thus, given I support him on almost every other issue, his support of FOCA doesn't prevent me from voting for him.
All I can tell you is that I don't think FOCA will raise abortion rates, according to my study of the data. Thus, I think voting for McCain on the abortion issue will accomplish absolutely nothing, except allow him to give some speeches as President that he could just as easily and effectively give as a Senator.
"The point is that paying a man to not beat his wife doesn't make sense as a governmental policy, just as paying a woman not to have an abortion doesn't make sense."
One of my biggest problem with the Supreme Court strategists is their need to paint sensible policies in the most extreme and misleading ways. What you describe as "paying a woman not to have an abortion" could just as easily, and much more accurately, be described as helping a woman support her children.
Your quite frankly silly way of framing the situation makes it sound like the women in question will be making a profit. Even in the countries where the benefits I support are offered, a woman (or a couple) would be better off financially, by far, without a baby.
"The child she already has wouldn't be harmed as much by having a living sibling as that sibling would be harmed by an abortion."
You have no way of knowing that. Shouldering the financial burden of another child could put the women in a position where the life of both her children are in danger. It may force her to move to worse neighborhood, for example.
At any rate, I wasn't offering this possibility as something which morally justifies the woman. I'm just saying the woman need not be, as you put it, "evil" to choose to have an abortion in that situation. She might be doing what she thinks best, thus even if she's mistaken, it's not right to call her "evil".
"What if the woman strangles to death a ten-year-old child she has, since she "honestly feels like the strangulation is the best way to protect the well-being of the other child she has"?"
I can't think of a situation in which a rational person could think this was the case, can you? There's always the option of giving the child over to a family member or the state. And sure, there's always the option of carrying a child to term and then giving them to a family member or the state. I'm just saying is, that's an enormously difficult thing to do, and I don't think a woman who decides she can't physically or emotionally endure such a decision is "evil". I think she's done something immoral, but I don't see how it's productive or accurate to call her "evil". I see this as symptomatic of a tendency of people on extreme ends of the political spectrum, to decide that anyone who holds different beliefs than they do are "evil". It's dehumanizing, in my view, both for the target of such language and for the people who use such language.
On the other hand, can't you see how a woman raising one child in inner-city Newark might feel like having to move to a worse neighborhood, or having to rely on the support of men of dubious character, might put her and her child in more danger than having an abortion would?
"What if a man "honestly feels like the shooting of his wife is the best way to protect the well-being of the child he has"?"
It would depend on whether the honest feeling was rational. If he has no evidence that this belief is true, of course not. If his wife is mentally ill, and is attacking their child with a knife? Different story. Even if the belief wasn't rational, that wouldn't make the person "evil" it would just make the person insane. In my view, the woman's feeling that having a second child would seriously diminish her ability to take care of her existing child is rational, even if it isn't perfectly moral.
I'm sorry, I just think that you're bringing up remarkably bad analogies. Across the board.
"Moral messages are part of the process of reducing abortion. Would you argue that "reducing spousal abuse is more important" than "the moral messages laws send", so we should pay husbands not to beat their wives?"
I agree that moral messages should be a part of reducing abortions. I'm just saying if we have a choice to send a message or reduce the number of abortions, we should reduce the number of abortions.
Again, Beckwith's analogy is absurd. We have better, more effective options at reducing spousal abuse. Tell me something that's more effective at preventing abortion than access to contraception, high incomes, and free health and child care? We know that simply making abortion illegal doesn't stop it. Again, there are countries where abortion is illegal where abortion rates are higher than in the US, where abortion is available on demand.
Again, I have no beef with anybody who wants to overturn Roe. I want to overturn Roe. My beef is with people who think that will be sufficient.
An anonymous poster wrote:
ReplyDelete"I don't see those implications."
You don't see any added implications if an abortion is the taking of life? Then why did you distinguish between abortions that take a life and those that don't? Why make such a distinction if it has no significance?
You write:
"True enough, but I think many women find the prospect of bearing a child that they won't raise to be more traumatic than an abortion. I'm not saying that's right, or a justification for abortion, I'm just saying that if you limit a woman who can't afford another child to abortion or carrying a baby to term and then giving it up, many will opt for the path of least resistance."
That's a qualifier you didn't include earlier. We're no longer discussing the category you initially mentioned. You were trying to justify your references to a "social safety net" and "universal health care" by referring to the costs of raising a child. Now you're saying that some women wouldn't want the trauma of giving a child up after birth. You've shifted to a subset of these women and a motivation from trauma rather than money.
You write:
"Thus I believe that helping these women feel like they can raise the child themselves, with some government assistance, will prevent more abortions than simply the promise to simply pay for the cost of pregnancy."
And we could reduce spousal abuse by paying men not to beat their wives, reduce the murder of children after birth by having the government fund the costs involved in raising those children, etc. Yes, many people do evil things for the sake of money, so giving them money can be effective in preventing them from doing those evil things. But we don't make a government policy of paying off such people.
You write:
"If we're talking about saving lives, this is no time to be counting pennies, is it?"
When the pennies are limited, you have to count them. And as I said before, the moral message sent by paying these people to refrain from evil contributes to that evil, and there's increased potential for other people to try to get paid off in the future.
You write:
"How many abortions did those speeches prevent?"
Probably more than your posts in this forum are preventing. Yet, you see some value in posting here.
But you're changing the subject. You didn't initially object to the categories I listed, such as speaking against abortion. Rather, you asked for examples from those categories. Now that I've given examples, you're objecting to the categories. You keep moving the goal posts.
You write:
"By all means, let's elect John McCain so we can hear more speeches, and not even consider a strategy that could be more effective."
You know that I mentioned more than speeches. I gave you a link to a page from the National Right To Life web site, which lists examples of what Bush has done. He's done more than give speeches. And McCain would do more than give speeches. I've told you that I believe in more than giving speeches. For you to ignore all of that, and respond as you did above, doesn't make sense.
You write:
"Here's the interpretation that jumps right out at me as being the most glaringly obvious: I've weighed the fact that Obama supports FOCA against the fact that he supports a social safety net, and concluded that FOCA's potential harm is less than the social safety net's potential good. Thus, given I support him on almost every other issue, his support of FOCA doesn't prevent me from voting for him."
But that analysis only tells us what conclusions you've reached on FOCA and a safety net. It doesn't tell us what you meant by some of the terminology you used to justify that conclusion (terminology I mentioned in my last response to you), and it doesn't factor in the other problems with Obama's abortion record, a record you acknowledge to be "atrocious".
You write:
"Your quite frankly silly way of framing the situation makes it sound like the women in question will be making a profit."
How did I "make it sound" like that?
You write:
"You have no way of knowing that. Shouldering the financial burden of another child could put the women in a position where the life of both her children are in danger. It may force her to move to worse neighborhood, for example."
Your speculations about what "may" happen still aren't as harmful to the living child as an abortion is to the child aborted. Again, if the aborted child were ten years old instead of being in the womb, would the scenarios you've described suggest that ending the life of the ten-year-old has as little significance as you've suggested an abortion in such a scenario would have?
You write:
"I think she's done something immoral, but I don't see how it's productive or accurate to call her 'evil'."
That's not much of a distinction.
You write:
"On the other hand, can't you see how a woman raising one child in inner-city Newark might feel like having to move to a worse neighborhood, or having to rely on the support of men of dubious character, might put her and her child in more danger than having an abortion would?"
We all have to make difficult decisions in life, we all suffer negative consequences to poor decisions we've made, etc. But most of us don't get government funding to try to persuade us to not engage in immorality in that sort of scenario.
You write:
"If his wife is mentally ill, and is attacking their child with a knife? Different story. Even if the belief wasn't rational, that wouldn't make the person 'evil' it would just make the person insane. In my view, the woman's feeling that having a second child would seriously diminish her ability to take care of her existing child is rational, even if it isn't perfectly moral."
Again, if a ten-year-old child "would seriously diminish the mother's ability to take care of" her twelve-year-old child, would you describe her decision to strangle the ten-year-old as "rational, even if it isn't perfectly moral"?
You write:
"Again, I have no beef with anybody who wants to overturn Roe. I want to overturn Roe. My beef is with people who think that will be sufficient."
Who are these "people who think that will be sufficient"? Not the people you're interacting with in this forum. Not Bush, McCain, and the mainstream conservatives who have supported them.
"You don't see any added implications if an abortion is the taking of life? Then why did you distinguish between abortions that take a life and those that don't? Why make such a distinction if it has no significance?"
ReplyDeleteThe only implication I see is the one I've been explicit about, the one that is the source of my disagreement with you folks: I don't want women who have had abortions put to death.
And for this, I've been told that my pen is dipped in the blood of infants.
"You've shifted to a subset of these women and a motivation from trauma rather than money."
And? You introduced the subject of adoption. I responded in a way that included an analysis of that option.
"And we could reduce spousal abuse by paying men not to beat their wives, reduce the murder of children after birth by having the government fund the costs involved in raising those children, etc. Yes, many people do evil things for the sake of money, so giving them money can be effective in preventing them from doing those evil things. But we don't make a government policy of paying off such people."
Here again, in this case the man would be profiting from not beating his wife. A woman whose child is getting free health care is not personally profiting over the position she'd be in if she didn't have a child.
It's apples and oranges.
It's a stupid analogy.
A more proper analogy would be, would I pay for men to have free access to workshops that helped them to learn to stop beating their wives? And the answer to that question would be yes, I would. But in that case, the abuser wouldn't be profiting, just as the woman receiving free prenatal care wouldn't be profiting from her decision to choose life (at least in the financial sense).
Look, no woman in the world, even in Western Europe, is financially better off for the decision to have a child. We're not talking about appealing to a person's greed to convince them to do the right thing. We're talking about providing a person with resources that help them make the morally right decision.
It's a stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid, stupid analogy. Period.
"When the pennies are limited, you have to count them."
And we have to prioritize them. And we could pay for the programs if we weren't spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq, and giving the rich trillions in tax breaks. Why should unborn children come last? Shouldn't they be our first fiscal priority?
"You know that I mentioned more than speeches. I gave you a link to a page from the National Right To Life web site, which lists examples of what Bush has done. He's done more than give speeches. And McCain would do more than give speeches. I've told you that I believe in more than giving speeches. For you to ignore all of that, and respond as you did above, doesn't make sense."
Okay fine. But for everything Bush did, the abortion rate in the US during his presidency was twice as high as the abortion rate in Western Europe. So obviously, it's not as effective in reducing abortions as the European strategy. Now, I'll grant that the ideal situation would be a pro-life Democrat. But given the choice, I think the social safety net approach is so much more effective, I have a moral obligation to support that.
"How did I "make it sound" like that?"
By saying we would be paying "evil" women not to have abortions, when what we'd actually be doing is helping these women financially with raising their children.
"Your speculations about what "may" happen still aren't as harmful to the living child as an abortion is to the child aborted."
1. Again, you don't know that. You have no way of knowing that.
2. I'm not arguing that the woman who makes such a decision is morally right, I'm saying she's not "evil". She's a sinner, same as you and me, and she made a mistake, as you and I are prone to do. But she doesn't rise to the level where I think it's useful to describe her entire character as evil. Again, I think this dehumanizes women in these situations, and shorcircuits the kind of compassion I believe the Lord would want us to have even towards those who have made grave mistakes. (Of course, I think I'm in the minority over here in thinking that Christians have any responsibility to be compassionate, judging by the insults hurled my way.)
"Again, if a ten-year-old child "would seriously diminish the mother's ability to take care of" her twelve-year-old child, would you describe her decision to strangle the ten-year-old as "rational, even if it isn't perfectly moral"?"
No, and I've already explained why.
"Who are these "people who think that will be sufficient"? Not the people you're interacting with in this forum. Not Bush, McCain, and the mainstream conservatives who have supported them."
It's all of you. The overwhelming majority of your strategy is aimed at prohibition. It's aimed at making abortion illegal. All the bills Bush signed, or threatened to veto, were aimed at that goal and no other goal. But we know that simply making abortion illegal doesn't work.
Okay folks, I give up. We just seem to be going around in circles, and given you folks' tendency to want to start an unnecessary new thread for every point you want to make, I can't even find where most of the discussions are going on. I'm one person, and I can't keep up with the sprawling posts of half a dozen folks who apparently don't have to go to work.
I think what we learned from our exchange is that most of you folks don't think you have any responsibility to be civil in conversations, regardless of the cost of your incivility, and you think that even people who think abortion should be illegal are baby murderers if they don't agree with you 100% as to the why.
It's been... well, enlightening would be the wrong word... but I certainly learned a lot... (of terrible things about you folks I wish I didn't know.)
ANONYMOUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“The only implication I see is the one I've been explicit about, the one that is the source of my disagreement with you folks: I don't want women who have had abortions put to death.”
As if voting for McCain would result in the execution of such women. A palpable lie.
“And we have to prioritize them. And we could pay for the programs if we weren't spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq, and giving the rich trillions in tax breaks. Why should unborn children come last? Shouldn't they be our first fiscal priority?”
i) Without a national defense, we’re all dead.
ii) And our first priority should be the care of our own families. It would be nice if we could provide for all the needy children around the world, but that’s not our first priority. If a wage earner has something left over, then he can give it to charity.
iii) We should implement policies in which men who father children support the children they father.
“Okay fine. But for everything Bush did, the abortion rate in the US during his presidency was twice as high as the abortion rate in Western Europe. So obviously, it's not as effective in reducing abortions as the European strategy.”
The European strategy? You mean, like medically induced abortions (RU-486) which are never included in the sampling, not to mention other methodological differences in the polling data.
“But we know that simply making abortion illegal doesn't work.”
Since abortion isn’t illegal in this country, we know nothing of the kind. And we also know that decriminalizing abortion in this country led to a rise in the rate of abortion.
Hey Steve, the issue of discourse is one which I've fluctuated on myself. I used to take a rather harder line, much like yours; nowadays I'm a little softer. I'm not sure that Anonymous is entirely wrong in his critique above; let me make some comments of my own.
ReplyDelete2.Apropos (1), I regard inspired Biblical discourse as a model of Christian discourse. I don’t assume that Scripture teaches a two-tiered morality: one for apostles, prophets, and Bible writers, but another for garden-variety Christians like you and me.
I agree that morality is not two-tiered, per se—but doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that discourse is graded according to moral authority, and knowledge of the heart? Jesus is in a significantly stronger position from which to judge and pronounce judgment than an apostle might be; an apostle, in turn, is in a stronger position from which to judge and pronounce judgment than a lay Christian may be. This isn't to say that lay Christians should not look to Jesus and the apostles for their model of discourse; merely that Jesus and the apostles are not normative examples. We need to take into account their elevated authority; both epistemic and moral. We can't presume to speak as prophets, and so if there is a distinction to be made in the manner of discourse between prophets and laymen, it's important that we do in fact make that distinction.
Scripture doesn’t use the same language for everyone. It uses different types of language for different types of people, calibrated to their level of culpability.
In view of this, is it not reasonable to infer also that Scripture would not use the same language by everyone; that it would use different types of language by different types of people, calibrated to their level of moral and epistemic authority? How often do we see laymen in Scripture debating other laymen? I can't really think of any examples which would support the same manner of discourse used by the prophets (that isn't to say such examples don't exist of course).
3.Apropos (2), Scripture uses harsh language for false teachers. False teachers profess to be true believers. But their pious claims don’t insulate them from harsh criticism.
Agreed; but even if we are not to calibrate our words to our epistemic and moral situation, should we not calibrate them to our social situation? The words recorded in Scripture were spoken or written in a somewhat different social climate than ours—one where harshness of language and sharpness of rebuke were considered necessary elements to properly defending a position from criticism, or criticizing a position to begin with. Typically, in modern Western discourse, calling people a brood of vipers would not be socially acceptable; in ancient Near East discourse it would have been. So it seems to me that, again, there is a certain measure of disconnection between the biblical exemplars we are given, and our present situation. The biblical situation doesn't map directly onto ours; some translation and adjustment is required.
No, it’s all about how Reppert is being wronged, and not how he’s wronging the future victims of the candidate he’s plugging. He’s the injured party, not the baby in the dumpster.
Having said what I've said, don't take it to mean that I think you're in the wrong with regard to Reppert. I haven't really followed your debate with him (I'm not that interested in US politics), but I would tend to say that, as a matter of history, he's a bit of a girly-man, and a bit dishonest with his argumentation. He has a habit of obfuscating the vacuousness of his positions behind redirections, strawmen, or complaints of ungraciousness from his opponents. And his failure to interact with arguments and admit his errors is, in itself, ungracious. That's my frank view, at any rate.
Regards,
Bnonn
An anonymous poster wrote:
ReplyDelete"The only implication I see is the one I've been explicit about, the one that is the source of my disagreement with you folks: I don't want women who have had abortions put to death."
That's not the only implication of whether an abortion is the taking of a life. If an abortion involves taking a life, then that fact has implications for women deciding whether to get an abortion, doctors deciding whether to perform abortions, what penalty should be applied to abortion when laws are passed against it, what emphasis people who are opposed to abortion should place on opposing it, etc.
You write:
"And? You introduced the subject of adoption. I responded in a way that included an analysis of that option."
The point is that your earlier comments didn't address such alternatives to abortion.
You write:
"A more proper analogy would be, would I pay for men to have free access to workshops that helped them to learn to stop beating their wives? And the answer to that question would be yes, I would."
There are programs people operate to try to prevent women from having abortions. You haven't just proposed government funding for women to participate in such programs. You've proposed financial assistance, even to the point of universal healthcare, for example. Why should we think that sending men to workshops "that help them to learn to stop beating their wives" would produce better results than paying them not to beat their wives? You've repeatedly said that you're interested in results, regardless of the cost and regardless of whether some moral principles are violated in the process. As long as some larger good is accomplished, you think it's warranted to give people financial assistance from the government. Why be concerned that men who beat their wives would profit from such government money? Isn't the fact that the spousal abuse has ended what you're concerned about? What if a man says that the burdens of providing for his family motivate him to beat his wife? Should the government give him some additional income or cover his healthcare costs, for example, so that he'll have some financial relief and be less likely to beat his wife?
I can give many other examples. The government could fund all sorts of programs related to anger, marriage, relationships in the workplace, relationships among neighbors, etc. Once we create all of these government programs you're suggesting (universal healthcare, workshops for those who abuse a spouse, etc.), as well as other ones we could create if we applied your reasoning more widely, what will the tax rate be? 90%?
You write:
"And we could pay for the programs if we weren't spending 10 billion dollars a month in Iraq, and giving the rich trillions in tax breaks."
You offer no documentation, such as how much your universal healthcare and other government programs would cost, and you don't address the implications of changing policy in Iraq and increasing taxes on the rich. We could cut some government programs or raise some taxes in order to pay men not to beat their wives or provide for women who want to murder a ten-year-old child in order to save money. It doesn't therefore follow that we should do it.
You write:
"But for everything Bush did, the abortion rate in the US during his presidency was twice as high as the abortion rate in Western Europe. So obviously, it's not as effective in reducing abortions as the European strategy."
As Steve and I have mentioned, the European situation isn't as good as you're suggesting. You're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions.
And you keep changing the subject. I was addressing your false claims about what Bush has done. The fact that he's done more than you suggested doesn't prove that everything he wanted done has been done or that what he's done is all that I want to see accomplished. There are other branches of government and other segments of society that are influencing what happens in the United States.
You write:
"She's a sinner, same as you and me, and she made a mistake, as you and I are prone to do. But she doesn't rise to the level where I think it's useful to describe her entire character as evil. Again, I think this dehumanizes women in these situations, and shorcircuits the kind of compassion I believe the Lord would want us to have even towards those who have made grave mistakes."
If you think that the term "evil" is irresponsible and "dehumanizes" people, that it's a term Jesus would disapprove of, why does He use it to address people in general in Matthew 7:11, for example? And He repeatedly characterizes people's actions as evil (Matthew 5:37, 9:4, 12:34, Mark 7:23, etc.). You can't claim that you were only objecting to "describing her entire character as evil", since I didn't say that I was using the term in that manner. If you're going to assume that my use of the term is inappropriate, without asking me for a further explanation of what I meant, then you shouldn't claim that you're only objecting to a particular use of the term, one that I never specified.
You write:
"The overwhelming majority of your strategy is aimed at prohibition."
You keep changing your arguments. You referred to people who think that overturning Roe v. Wade would be sufficient. Now you're referring to people whose strategy has an "overwhelming majority" concern (not a sole concern) for "prohibition" (not just overturning Roe v. Wade).
You write:
"It's aimed at making abortion illegal. All the bills Bush signed, or threatened to veto, were aimed at that goal and no other goal."
Signing and vetoing bills isn't all that a president does. And the actions of a president aren't the entirety of my pro-life strategy or that of other mainstream conservatives. Even in the context of presidential elections, the electing of a pro-life president conveys messages to other people, including people in other branches of government, before that president takes any actions in office.
Furthermore, you're wrong again in your assessment of what Bush has done. The National Right To Life page I linked above, in its summary page on President Bush, notes that he signed "legislation to prevent health care providers from being penalized by the federal, state, or local governments for not providing abortions". That's not just a matter of "making abortion illegal". Elsewhere the same web site discusses the president's support of the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. In some recent threads (see here and here), Steve has documented examples of other actions the president has taken that involve something other than "making abortion illegal". You keep making claims that not only are false, but are also false to a high degree and are easily shown to be false.
DOMINIC BNONN TENNANT SAID:
ReplyDelete“Hey Steve, the issue of discourse is one which I've fluctuated on myself. I used to take a rather harder line, much like yours; nowadays I'm a little softer.”
Hi Dominic. Always nice of you to drop in. It’s a relief to interact with a reasonable critic for a change.
“I'm not sure that Anonymous is entirely wrong in his critique above; let me make some comments of my own.”
That depends, in part, on whether I’m responding to you or to him. You have far more philosophical finesse that he does, so you’re going to frame your own critique in ways that are less vulnerable to obvious refutation than in his case.
“I agree that morality is not two-tiered, per se—but doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that discourse is graded according to moral authority, and knowledge of the heart? Jesus is in a significantly stronger position from which to judge and pronounce judgment than an apostle might be; an apostle, in turn, is in a stronger position from which to judge and pronounce judgment than a lay Christian may be. This isn't to say that lay Christians should not look to Jesus and the apostles for their model of discourse; merely that Jesus and the apostles are not normative examples. We need to take into account their elevated authority; both epistemic and moral. We can't presume to speak as prophets, and so if there is a distinction to be made in the manner of discourse between prophets and laymen, it's important that we do in fact make that distinction.”
Let’s focus on one aspect of your argument: the apparent presumption that using certain types of language involves a knowledge of the target’s spiritual condition.
i) I don’t know why you think that’s a precondition for using certain types of language. Of course, if the language we use involves a definitive judgment regarding his spiritual condition (i.e. that he’s hellbound), then the authority, or lack thereof, of the speaker, is indeed germane.
ii) However, the NT frequently warns the reader (which would ordinarily be a layman) to beware of false prophets and false teachers. That obligates the layman to render a provisional value-judgment regarding the orthodoxy/orthopraxy, heterodoxy/heteropraxy of the individual in question.
And that, in turn, carries some provisional implications for his spiritual condition.
iii) Moreover, the recognition that some individuals are authority-figures is another value-judgment which those of us who are not in positions of authority must render.
“In view of this, is it not reasonable to infer also that Scripture would not use the same language by everyone; that it would use different types of language by different types of people, calibrated to their level of moral and epistemic authority? How often do we see laymen in Scripture debating other laymen? I can't really think of any examples which would support the same manner of discourse used by the prophets (that isn't to say such examples don't exist of course).”
What kind of language do you mean? Language which pronounces a definitive judgment on someone’s spiritual condition?
Keep in mind what I was originally responding to. Anonymous said things like: “I think we always have the authority to be kind, and to stand up for what is right in a respectful manner. I simply reject your insinuation that we cannot stand up to the excesses of people like Benny Hinn and Robert Tilton without being angry, mean-spirited, and insulting. We can definitely challenge our fellow Christians when we think they're falling short of the bar of Christlike behavior. I'm doing that right now. I simply don't think we have the authority to decide that our first line of defense will be to be as rude, angry, and mean-spirited as we can.”
On this view, if you’re in a position of authority, then you have the right to be as rude, angry, mean-spirited, disrespectful, and insulting as possible.
But what would authority qua authority automatically entitle the speaker to be as rude, angry, mean-spirited, disrespectful, and insulting as possible?
Doesn’t Anonymous think it’s ordinarily a bad thing to be as rude, angry, mean-spirited, disrespectful, and insulting as possible? And if he’s going to invoke authority, wouldn’t that appeal logically work in reverse, i.e. those in authority should be held to a higher standard, set a better example?
Here’s an earlier argument that he deployed: “What rudeness would such a line of defense not excuse? Is what you're saying is, since some people in the Bible were occasionally angry, then the gloves are off? Nothing is off limits? Because if that's not what you're saying, if you recognize that there is a line of insulting, angry discourse that it is unChristian to cross, then simply identifying passages in the Bible where much better people were justifiably angry in their speech doesn't in any way show that we are justifiably angry in ours… Do you really think your ability to grab prooftexts of Jesus being angry in completely different situations gives you carte blanche to just be an all-purpose jerk?”
But is he then going to claim that this restriction only applies to laymen? If you’re in a position of authority, then “nothing is off limits”? If you’re in a position of authority, then there’s no line you’re not allowed to cross? If you’re in a position of authority, then that gives you “carte blanche to just be an all-purpose jerk”?
Or take this argument:
“Sure, abortionists take lives, but aren't you doing something as bad, and possibly worse, when your behavior turns away souls? The kind of mean-spiritedness you're promoting does turn away eternal souls. The atheists on Reppert's blog cite his respectfulness as part of what makes his witness persuasive, and they cite the kind of mean-spiritedness you advocate as being ‘Biblical’ as part of what turns them off about Christianity.”
But wouldn’t his later appeal to authority cut in the opposite direction? If such rhetoric is off-putting, then wouldn’t it be even more off-putting on the lips of an authoritative spokesman for the faith?
If the original objection is that we should avoid any rhetoric that drives some people away from the faith, then such rhetoric by an authority figure would be more influential, more calculated to drive some (or many) people away from the right, than the use of such rhetoric by a lowly layman.
That’s the kind of illogical reasoning that I’m responding to. And this is the nub of the problem: Anonymous doesn’t think that abortion is murder. And he also takes the position that whatever (lesser) wrongdoing involved is abortion is further mitigated by various extenuating circumstances.
As a result, he thinks that Christians should be tolerant of his permissive position. That should be a morally acceptable alternative viewpoint.
He then invokes the virtue of civil discourse to shield his own position from censure. It’s a way of saying, “you ought to treat my permissive position with respect!”
When I begin to cite examples of uncivil discourse in Scripture, he is forced to draw ad hoc distinctions to salvage his appeal to civility.
And that’s because civility isn’t his standard. Rather, his position is his standard. The content of his position dictates the level of respect which it ought to be accorded. Because, in his mind, his position is respectable, it should be treated with respect.
Say, instead of abortion, we were discussing child molestation. Would there still be all this outrage over the use of “mean-spirited” rhetoric?
“Agreed; but even if we are not to calibrate our words to our epistemic and moral situation, should we not calibrate them to our social situation? The words recorded in Scripture were spoken or written in a somewhat different social climate than ours—one where harshness of language and sharpness of rebuke were considered necessary elements to properly defending a position from criticism, or criticizing a position to begin with. Typically, in modern Western discourse, calling people a brood of vipers would not be socially acceptable; in ancient Near East discourse it would have been. So it seems to me that, again, there is a certain measure of disconnection between the biblical exemplars we are given, and our present situation. The biblical situation doesn't map directly onto ours; some translation and adjustment is required.”
i) At an abstract level, what’s appropriate in one culture may well be inappropriate in another culture. Of itself, that generic truism doesn’t have much mileage.
For example, we live in a culture where profanity and obscenity constitute socially acceptable discourse while explicit Christian discourse is socially unacceptable. Should my linguistic patterns conform to current social norms?
ii) I also don’t see any evidence that the existence or function of invective varies from one time and place to another. That seems to a cultural universal.
iii) I don’t consider invective to be a necessary element to properly defend a position from criticism, or criticize a position to begin with. It ought to be unnecessary. When dealing it a reasonable opponent, it is unnecessary.
What makes it necessary on occasion is that certain opponents make it necessary. If they deploy dishonest tactics to defend their position or attack the opposing position, then it becomes necessary to censure their dishonest methods.
Finally, I don’t accept the latitudinarian position that anything goes in Christian theology and ethics, so that we should always be tolerant and respectful of the opposing position. It is morally incongruous to invoke “civility” to defend an inherently vicious position like abortion, or support for abortion—as if civility is a prerequisite for words, but not for actions. The fact that a doctor at an abortion clinic may say “please” and “thank-you” to the nurse as he plunges a pair of scissors into the skull of a baby” doesn’t cut it for me.
And, yes, that’s another example of my “mean-spirited” and “off-putting” comparisons.
BTW, I’m not imputing a latitudinarian position to you. I’m merely explaining why I say what I do the way I do under certain circumstances.
The problem I have with Reppert on abortion is that he uses sloppy arguments and sloppy research to justify a morally abhorrent position. That’s inexcusable.
BTW, my interaction with Waltz on this subject raises many of the same issues. Consult the combox of this post for further details:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/09/where-does-all-this-lead.html
Two additional points:
ReplyDeletei) Why do Bible speakers and Bible writers resort to invective? It’s possible to communicate truth and correct error without the use of invective.
I think the reason is that Bible writers and speakers are concerned with more than the intellectual character of error. They are also concerned with the ethical character of error.
Invective is moralistic rhetoric. It inhabits a moral register. It offers an ethical evaluation of the error, by offering a moral evaluation of the erroneous proponent.
A lot of modern readers find that offensive, in part because they’re permissive and tolerant of the same errors, and in part because they think that’s too ad hominem.
But the Bible is concerned with the ad hominem dimension because the Bible is concerned with the moral dimension, which involves concrete sinners. False teaching which emanates from false teachers with sinful motives.
There is more to Scripture than truth for truth’s sake.
ii) On a related note, if blame is to be assigned, I think that dishonest opponents share much of the blame for the response they provoke. They act badly, then they turn around and complain about how badly they are treated in reaction to their misbehavior.
Hi Steve; thanks for your thoughtful replies. You answer my questions about authority very well in my view; in fact, although you're very kind about my philosophical abilities, I think those questions reflect more the unconscious influence of pluralistic values than a careful consideration of the biblical data. And I think your point about invective being important to establish moral register is a particularly good one. I don't find the observation that atheists hold Reppert in higher esteem than you because of his "respectfulness" to be compelling in the least. Anyone who is not merely lenient toward, but who supports an ungodly position will tend to be held in high regard by the ungodly. (Romans 1:32 naturally comes to mind.)
ReplyDeleteMy concern is primarily for accurately representing Christ in my words. It seems very important that not only the wrath of God against sinners, but also the grace of God toward them, be reflected in my discourse. I'm also concerned to accurately represent myself by not saying anything which would imply that I am less of a sinner than those I may be criticizing. And in my particular case, I'm also aware that my age is a factor.
This isn't to say that I think I, or anyone else, should be hobbled in upholding the truth; nor that I think that upholding the truth is a purely intellectual, as opposed to moral exercise. (Again, I think your comment about the moral character of defending the truth is a very important one.) I just want to be sure that I'm not misrepresenting Christ in how I speak. James' warnings about the tongue are often before me, and I tend to choose my words very carefully in view of them, since historically (ie, before my conversion) invective has been a particular skill of mine. I want there to be a clear distinction between how I used to use words against people, out of my own sinful heart and on my own sinful authority; and how I currently do. But perhaps I worry too much (:
Regards,
Bnonn