Doing right even when it hurts

I’m reposting some additional comments I left over at Joe Carter and Justin Taylor’s blog on the rape exception.

steve hays

October 27, 2012 at 5:18 pm

Booth Muller

“Even if we do not agree that it’s morally acceptable, I submit that it’s foolish to think abortion will ever be legally unacceptable after a rape. And I think Christians should reconcile ourselves to that. There are, after all, many morally unacceptable things that we would not even want to be legally prohibited — e.g. coveting our neighbor’s goods, or taking the Lord’s name in vain. I believe we Christians should not even try to ban abortion in the case of rape, though we should reserve our right to try to persuade the victim/mother not to abort the child.”

Several things wrong with that objection:

i) You’re conflating two different issues: (a) We shouldn’t try to ban abortion in case of rape because that’s politically unrealistic; (b) We shouldn’t try to ban abortion in case of rape because there ought to be a rape exception. Whether or not it’s politically realistic is a separate issue from whether it’s right or wrong.

ii) Even if it the attempt to ban abortion in that situation couldn’t succeed politically, that might still be a worthwhile effort if it was a teaching moment. If the attempt to ban abortion in that situation gave prolifers a public platform to explain the ethical issues surrounding abortion in general, then that might be productive. If the prolife case is never made, people never hear the supporting arguments. Never fighting for the cause becomes a self-defeating exercise. You can’t persuade people if you fail to engage the argument in the first place.

iii) Even if it’s politically unrealistic to ban it at a national level, that doesn’t mean it’s politically unrealistic to ban in at a local level. For some states are more socially conservative than others.

steve hays

October 27, 2012 at 5:32 pm

No doubt that’s a hardship on the mother. No doubt that’s unfair to the mother.

However, the acid test of morality is doing the right thing even when it hurts.

Suppose I have a special-needs brother. Maybe he’s autistic. He’s a danger to himself. He requires supervision. He will never be able to live on his own.

Maybe our parents care for my autistic brother for as long as they can. But unless he accidentally kills himself, he is likely to outlive our parents. Moreover, long before they die, they may become too enfeebled by the infirmities of old age to look after him.

At that point it falls to me. I didn’t ask for that. I didn’t sign up for that. But it’s my fraternal duty to look out for my autistic brother, even though that’s a tremendous imposition on me.

And there’s no reason why that shouldn’t be a legal requirement as well. Why should I be allowed to desert him, and leave it up to strangers to care for him?

steve hays

October 27, 2012 at 6:12 pm

Let’s take another hypothetical. Suppose I go on a charter fishing trip with three other tourists. While we’re out at sea we’re overtaken by a terrible squall. Our fishing boat is blown off course and capsizes. Only two passengers (including me) make it to the lifeboat. The captain and the other two passengers drown.

The rations of food and water on the lifeboat are in short supply. It would up my chances of survival if I pushed my fellow passenger overboard while he slept.

I didn’t ask for this predicament. And I barely know my fellow passenger. We just met a few hours ago.

Do I have a responsibility for his welfare, even if it puts my own survival at greater risk?

Suppose he’s injured. He needs me to hold the canteen and pour what little fresh water we have into his mouth. What if I just let him die? The rations will go twice as far with half the passengers. I didn’t create this situation.

    steve hays

    October 28, 2012 at 11:15 am

    Booth Muller

    “Is it just to require her to provide nine months of sustenance to a person whose very existence she finds distasteful, perhaps even revolting or horrifying?”

    Suppose I’m the parent of a student who was killed in the Columbine massacre. Never a day goes by that I don’t think about my dead child. Never a day goes by that I don’t miss my dead child.

    However, there are times when I can put it in the back of my mind. When there are other things I think about.

    Suppose, every now and then, when I go shopping, I bump into the parents of Eric Harris or Dylan Klebod. The moment I see their parents, that brings everything back. Suddenly I’m reliving that horrible day. I can’t look at their parents without remembering what happened to my child. The grief I managed to suppress instantly rises to the surface.

    Does the fact that they remind me of a horrifying experience mean they ought to be executed to spare my feelings?

   

steve hays

October 28, 2012 at 11:00 am

Booth Muller

“Even if we do not agree that it’s morally acceptable, I submit that it’s foolish to think abortion will ever be legally unacceptable after a rape. And I think Christians should reconcile ourselves to that. There are, after all, many morally unacceptable things that we would not even want to be legally prohibited — e.g. coveting our neighbor’s goods, or taking the Lord’s name in vain. I believe we Christians should not even try to ban abortion in the case of rape, though we should reserve our right to try to persuade the victim/mother not to abort the child.”

Even if prolifers will never succeed in banning abortion in case of rape, we also can’t dodge the issue. We can’t get away with not making a case for our position, even if that’s hypothetical.

And that’s because abortion proponents won’t let us remain silent on this issue. Because the issue is so emotionally charged, they use abortion in case of rape as a wedge issue. They taunt prolifers with that scenario. They exploit that issue to make us back down. “Well, if you do make an exception in the case of rape, then where do you draw the line?”

So this debate is unavoidable.

steve hays

October 28, 2012 at 11:33 am

Booth Muller

“But in the case of rape? Pregnancy is costly to the mother, both emotionally and physically.”

We should be extremely sympathetic to the plight of the rape victim. We should be as understanding as possible (our understanding is necessarily limited when it didn’t happen to us).

However, there’s a danger of patronizing women. Acting as though women are too emotionally fragile to cope with traumatic situations. That’s a popular stereotype which many women understandably resent. Are we holding women to a lower standard than men?

I knew a man whose wife developed mental illness. For a time, she was institutionalized. That was too much for him to deal with. He couldn’t cope. So he left her for another woman. While she was in the asylum, he divorced her and remarried.

His first wife later recovered, no thanks to him.

Now, he was in a tough situation. He didn’t have a functioning marriage. No doubt it was painful to see his wife in that condition. To compare her with what she had been, before mental illness overtook her.

Still, I suspect most of us have contempt for the man. He deserted his wife when she needed him more than ever. When she was most vulnerable.

We expect him to tough it out. That’s his duty. Even though she can’t be a wife to him, he can still be a husband to her.

Are we in danger of belittling women by treating them as such frail creatures that they can’t cope with wrenching situations when we expect men to rise to the occasion? Isn’t that attitude demeaning to women? There are some very tough women in the Bible. There are some very tough women in church history.

steve hays

October 28, 2012 at 11:43 am

Booth Muller

“But in the case of rape? Pregnancy is costly to the mother, both emotionally and physically.”

What about parents who have an autistic child? Their child has no sense of danger. He requires constant supervision. It’s emotionally and physically exhausting to monitor his activities round the clock.

And unlike most kids, who outgrow the need for constant supervision, their autistic kid will make unceasing demands on his parents.

The parents never planned to have an autistic child. They didn’t agree to that ahead of time. It took them by surprise. Perhaps, had they known the outcome, they would have practiced contraception.

Does that mean it’s okay for the beleaguered father to drive his autistic son to a remote location and abandon him by the side of the road? To either leave him to die or shift the burden to someone else?

(Mind you, I think parents of autistic kids are entitled to a support system.)

steve hays

October 28, 2012 at 2:06 pm

Booth Muller

“But in the case of rape? Pregnancy is costly to the mother, both emotionally and physically.”

True. What about caring for an elderly parent who’s becoming senile? That’s emotionally and physically exhausting, too. And the grown child didn’t choose to be put in that situation.

So would it be okay to euthanize your mother or father under those circumstances? Or do you have a filial duty to them no matter what?

Lou G.

October 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM

With regard to the personal attacks and insults - supposedly in the name of defending Christ! - I think Frank Viola's article is appropriate. (Joe, please do not delete this comment - it needs to be read).

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/jerk/

    steve hays

    October 27, 2012 at 5:41 PM

    Once again, it's revealing to see some people who are more concerned about imagined slights and hurt feelings (even when their resentment is unjustified) than they are about doing irreparable harm to defenseless little babies. What does that tell you about their moral compass? What does that tell you about their value-system–or lack thereof? That certainly fails to reflect anything resembling a Biblical scale of values. It's wholly self-absorbed rather than showing any real concern for those most in need.