MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: Right to life position “almost like Sharia”
… [T]here’s a grand canyon of difference between Obama, who’s very pro-choice, and, for example, the Republican ticket this year, which would give 14th Amendment rights, whatever that means, life, liberty, and property rights, to a fetus that had just been – or rather, an egg that had just been fertilized, right after sex, if you will.
And to have that notion that that would be a person under this personhood thing that [Paul] Ryan’s pushing, and under the 14th Amendment rights, the platform that [Mitt] Romney’s running on.
This is extremism!… [I]t’s almost like Sharia. You’re saying to the country, we’re going to operate under a religious theory, under a religious belief. We’re going to run our country this way, to the point of making a woman’s decision to have an abortion, her reproductive rights, as criminal, perhaps murderous.
~ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, ranting (inaccurately) against pro-life Republicans prior to Tuesday’s presidential debate, as quoted by Newsbusters, October 17
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Hey Chris. Do you actually know what the word Sharia means? Because the way you’re using it is so wildly inaccurate that it’s making you even more of an embarrassment to your network than you already are.
The next thing you know republicans are going to try and give rights to negros…..
To be consistent, he must have a low opinion of that uppity religious zealot who was such a large part of his beloved ’60’s.
Desperation! The thrill is almost gone.
Chris, it isn’t “religious theory”. It is biological FACT. Life begins at conception. What, you’re saying not all human beings are persons? Now where have I heard that before? Oh right…at the local KKK rally.
Btw, we’ve discovered the earth isn’t flat too. Stay with us Chris. I know its hard to keep up.
You’re right Mr. Matthews, any law the conforms to religious doctrine is wrong, let’s legalize theft, rape and murder and let people just follow their own conscience. After all, if everything is purely material, right and wrong are mere illusions preventing our realization of the will to power…
Chris Matthews is a modern day Stephen A. Douglas with none of the wit or charm.
I would LOVE to see Xalisae open up on him.
Delicious.
We’re going to run our country this way, to the point of making a woman’s decision to have an abortion, her reproductive rights, as criminal, perhaps murderous.
Isn’t it murder? If a man stabs a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is that not considered murder? Who is the victim? If it is the baby, then killing babies are murder only if it is okay with the mother. I do not understand how the law can have it both ways. Either the baby is a person and it is always murder or the baby is property and it is never murder.
I find this particularly galling:
“[I]t’s almost like Sharia. You’re saying to the country, we’re going to operate under a religious theory, under a religious belief.”
I’m pro-life and an atheist, and I’m not the only one. We’re a minority, but we exist and we get pushback from choicers all the time based on the idea that this is all about religion. Now that some of us are making ourselves known in the non-theist community, we’re getting it from them too- like we’re not ‘true’ atheists if we’re pro-life. Don Marquis published a secular argument for the pro-life position in peer-reviewed philosophy journals over thirty dang years ago! It’s just pro-choice propaganda, and unsurprisingly Matthews is spewing it. Biden was making the same argument against Ryan: that he believed in the pro-life position of his church, but refused to impinge on the religious liberty of others who don’t share his belief. Balderdash! To hear him say it, you’d think that when a religious organization opposes the taking of innocent human lives that it’s akin to their being opposed to premarital sex. You can believe abortion is immoral in a way that is related to sin or (as I believe) you can think that sin isn’t involved, but in either case you will certainly believe that it’s immoral based on secular theories about justice. The abolitionist movement and the civil rights movement both had their origins in religious communities, but neither were attempts to create religious law.
I’d like to have a word with Matthews.
Under Sharia, innocent people are killed. The entire point of the pro-life movement is to prevent innocents from being killed. It is very, very scary to me that people like Chris Matthews honestly cannot see the difference.
You’re saying to the country, we’re going to operate under a religious theory, under a religious belief.
No, we’re saying, we’re going to operate under repeatable, verifiable, science, which has been repeatedly documented in peer-reviewed, medical and scientific texts, and is so simple a fifth grade biology student could explain it to you.
http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
We’re going to run our country this way, to the point of making a woman’s decision to have an abortion, her reproductive rights, as criminal, perhaps murderous.
“Reproductive rights.” 1. Yes, we all have the right to reproduce. It’s called having sex. 2. When did another human being’s right to live become less important than a woman’s right to kill her child?
which would give 14th Amendmentrights, whatever that means, life, liberty, and property rights, to a fetus that had just been – or rather, an egg that had just been fertilized, right after sex, if you will.
Looks like he was going to say “a fetus that had just been…” aborted or born, fertilized. Which one, Chris? Are you like Obama, calling children outside the womb a fetus? Is a fetus fertilized? Wow.
So after catching himself, he had to go further desensitizing the child as an egg – fertilized after sex. Bravo, give Chris a cookie – that is usually when conception happens, however, wait – an egg (human ovum) no longer exists after conception. It has merged with a sperm cell and despite what you desire in your dark, small heart Chris, it really is a human being, actually a US citizen – the posterity, which is described in the founding documents.
It’s not even worth continuing discussing sharia law if you can’t get your medical science straight.
So sadly, no cookie for you Chris.
However, you can go to http://www.ehd.org and learn all about human development.
For those who cling onto the idea that it’s absurd to identify pre-birth children as US citizens – consider this: Every state requires a medical diagnosis for pregnancy, meaning the mother is with child. As a doctor’s diagnosis is confirmed through tests, evidence exists that the child exists. This diagnosis actually uniquely identifies the pre-birth child as subject to state jurisdiction. Why? A self-abortion or non-licensed abortion would be considered practicing medicine without a license. As Mary Anne Sorrentino – a former RI Planned Parenthood Executive Director famously absurdly asked during a debate – “If they are legal citizens, why don’t we issue them passports?” My response would have been – Why Mary Anne? – do you expect them to take off for a vacation on their own?
Before you can even begin to engage in positive law, you really should get a grasp on natural law.
As for Chris – his head might explode if he found out that more than half the states already recognize the humanity of the unborn in portions of their legislation.
Thanks for the comment, ockraz. Nice to have you here with us.
PS: I’m no theologian, but as I understand it, the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is an extension of the same doctrine which forms the basis for their opposition to the death penalty. Catholic liberals like Matthews laud the Catholic church for it’s opposition to capital punishment, but chastise it when it ‘encroaches’ on the business of the state by advocating a ban on abortion. Seems pretty hypocritical to me.
Paul Ryan’s prolife position is informed by reason and science; and championed because of his faith. Reason tells human beings that human beings are created at conception; and the Catholic faith tells human beings that they should value human beings. You put these two assertions together and you arrive at a prolife position. In short, being prolife requires a two step process: 1) the recognition that human life begins at conception, and 2) valuing said human life at all of its stages.
Few people question the science that human life begins at conception. However, some people question whether human life should be valued. Most prochoice proponents now accept the science but most question whether the embryo or fetus is of any value. To them, since human life is not inherently valuable, the science does not matter.
From the above it should be clear that Paul Ryan’s prolife is not contingent on his faith. Nor is any person’s prolife contingent on them having a Catholic faith. Paul Ryan’s Catholic faith is only needed to the extent it values life. Other faiths, even secular atheists, can determine that human life has inherent value. So a person need not be Catholic in order to value human life. In fact, most human beings, innately value human life due to an innate sense of justice, and do so without having any faith at all. In short, being prolife is not dependent on being Catholic as is evidenced by the many secular prolife people.
The real question is why doesn’t Mr. Obama and Joe Biden value human life in all of its stages? Where do they get their values? And why are they imposing those anti-human life values on prebron human beings which they acknowledge, through a shared modern scientific understanding, are human beings?
Chrissie appears to think that it’s Sharia law to stop forcing tax payers to fund abortion, and to stop the HHS mandate which would force abortion on health care institutions, providers, insurers, and eventually women themselves.
Matthews has become unglued. He’s going to totally melt when the object of his man-crush gives his concession speech at McCormick Place, Chicago, this November.
I’m still amazed that Obama (in the Townhall debate) listed planned parenthood and free birth control as solutions to women’s workplace and employment issues.
Ockraz: “as I understand it, the Catholic Church’s opposition to abortion is an extension of the same doctrine which forms the basis for their opposition to the death penalty.”
While I could nitpick your exact wording, your fundamental point is valid in that our beliefs in the wrongness of abortion and that of capital punishment have a common base; namely, that God is the author of all life and thus it is at His behest alone that people’s lives should be voluntarily ended.
They differ in that he unborn are completely innocent and the condemned may yet be redeemed while they still live.
For clarity, I should qualify those statement by pointing out our adherence to the principle of double-effect, whereby unwanted side-effects can sometimes be acceptable if the primary purpose and intent are a greater good. For this reason, removing the child, say, during an ectopic pregnancy (and thus killing that child), while tragic, is an acceptable solution since not doing so results in the death of both mother and child (and I and many others long for the day when this is no longer the case). Similarly, capital punishment can be allowed under circumstances in which allowing the person to live would result in far greater harm and (usually) a decision must be made very quickly. One of the most common and obvious examples used for this is a police officer shooting a rampaging gunman in a crowded mall and killing him before anyone else dies. Aside from that type of situation, though, the requirements for us to accept capital punishment are almost never present in our society, and thus we don’t accept it.
“Catholic liberals”
Just like “carnivorous vegetarians”; it’s an oxymoron. :-P
“Seems pretty hypocritical to me.”
If he does indeed claim to be Catholic, then his hypocrisy goes right to the core.
ockraz,
Would you mind sharing some of those secular theories of justice that support the prolife position?
Thanks.
I need to revise this sentence: “Ryan’s Catholic faith is only needed to the extent it values life.”
It should have read:
“From a prolife perspective, Ryan’s Catholic faith is only needed to the extent it values life.”
ockraz –
As an agnostic pro-life person myself, I’m glad you’re here! It gets pretty tiring to be told – from both sides – that this is a religious issue or a stance rooted in religious belief. I think that if I were a religious person I would probably believe that my religion is objectively true and thus that anyone searching for truth, logically, would come to agree with my religion’s teaching, and because it is the truth that conclusion would be possible to arrive at via reasoning methods beyond the religious. To that extent, abortion is no more a religious matter than any other ethical matter is. You don’t hear people arguing that being anti-theft or anti-rape is a religious stance too often…
I can understand people wanting to defend their religion when it is verbally attacked, but going on the interrogatory offense every time someone mentions being atheist or agnostic is kind of mystifying to me. And tiring. ;)
Anyway, glad to see you here!
Good point. Because when we think sharia law-we think about enhancing rights and protection.
I wonder how Chris Matthews feels about William Wilberforce, who was a socially conservative evangelical. I wonder if he’s even heard of William Wilberforce.
I’m not concerned that talking heads in the media happen to think this way. My concern is that for every talking head in the media that thinks this way, there are thousands of people sitting at home nodding their heads.
Ockraz, I, too, welcome you here with open arms.
As a pro-life atheist, I’m always glad to see some of my own around. Welcome aboard, ockraz.
Are We Serious About Abortion? Check out the following in reference to Matthews:
http://vlogicusinsight.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/answering-catholic-chris-matthews-abortion-penalty-trap/
America had anti-abortion laws for decades. Women still had many, perhaps most, of the rights they enjoy now. America in the 1940s and 1950s had flaws but it was not under anything similar to Sharia. It was illegal to abort but adulteresses were not stoned to death and few women wore veils (except as pretty decorations).
A country can make abortion illegal without impinging on women’s “reproductive rights” in other ways. For example, they will still have the legal right of refusal as forcible rape will be illegal. They will have the legal right to use contraceptives. If they are infertile, they will have the right to seek treatment for that. It is perfectly possible to outlaw abortion and stop there.
Alexandra, Ockraz, JDC et al
I sincerely would be very eager to hear how a secular, atheist or agnostic answers the value question. How does the secular, atheistic, or agnostic person determine that human beings have value? I would like to know this because it would be helpful to me to know how to respond to prochoicers who declare that they are agnostic, secular and/or atheistic.
If you don’t feel like explaining the theories/arguments please feel free to just name the theories/arguments so that I may look them up on the internet.
By the way, if any secularist, atheist, or agnostic responds with an answer to the value question I promise not to ask them any questions about it or to engage them in a debate unless they specifically say it is ok for me to question their arguments/theories.
How does the secular, atheistic, or agnostic person determine that human beings have value?
I’ve already answered this for you. I can realize I am a human being. Because I am a human being, I can realize my life has value. I can realize my abilities and cognizance. I can realize that due to my position (abilities and cognizance), I have an obligation to other human beings like me, because I am a human being and would want other human beings to acknowledge their obligations to me in order to help facilitate MY survival.
welcome, ockraz! Always happy to see another pro-life atheist around!! I’ve been kickin’ it here at Jill’s for a long time, and I’m always so psyched when more come along to remind everyone that religious people don’t have the monopoly on the fight for human rights in the womb! :P
Thanks xalisae for your response. Please let me know if I may ask you further questions.
Hi Tyler 7:06PM
I am very fond of you but as a pro life agnostic, I must say that I resent the insinuation here. How do non- religious people determine that human beings have value? The same way you do. If your reasons are religiously motivated, I respect that. If I, X, JDC, Alexandra, and ockraz have our own more worldy reasons, you should no less respect that. Do all religious people respect human beings and human life? Religious people argued for slavery and abortion. Religious people argued for segregation. Religious people opposed civil rights.
Sorry Tyler, but religious people have no monopoly on morality, or respect for the value of human beings.
Abortion, like the struggle for civil rights, is a moral issue. People of all faiths, and no faith, can agree..or disagree.
Honest Mary I do not intend to insinuate anything about prolife agnostics et al. I am very moved by their ethical standards I just genuinely want to understand how they arrived at the supposition that life has value. In my opinion, true materialists, like Peter Singer for example, argue that life has no value aside from what we assign it; hence, he believes the prolife position is just a form of speciesism. I truly want to understand how material matter can create values or a moral imperative? If we are human beings we have no spirit, we are just blobs of tissue, no different than inanimate material. How does an agnostic determine that a human being has more value than a statue of a human being. Why does flesh and blood have more value than a chunk of marble?
Mary et al, I respect your positions, I just want to understand them. I mean this sincerely, and I mean no slight.
Oy. Where do I begin!?
“which would give 14th Amendment rights, whatever that means, life, liberty, and property rights, to a fetus”
Why don’t you read the Constitution and find out what it means? It’s a little scary to hear him brush off bits of Constitution like that. Life, liberty, property rights, whatever that means… Yes, Chris, it would appear you haven’t slightest inkling of those values…
that had just been – or rather, an egg that had just been fertilized, right after sex, if you will.
5th Grade biology, hon. An egg that has just been fertilized by sex (ohhhh my gooooodness!! A Christian pro-lifer just said sex?! Yep. I did. It makes babies.) is in fact an embryo which will grown into a fetus which will grown into an infant which will grow into an adult. Human Development. Google it. It’s pretty cool. But be careful, Chris! Science requires lots of reason and thinking and – oh my goodness – truth. It might just fly in the face of all your preconceived notions.
And to have that notion that that would be a person under this personhood thing that [Paul] Ryan’s pushing, and under the 14th Amendment rights, the platform that [Mitt] Romney’s running on.
Oh heavens!!! Considering unborn babies as …. as… persons!? The HORROR!!!!
This is extremism!… [I]t’s almost like Sharia.
No, it’s nothing like Sharia. Do you know what Sharia is? And by the way, people called William Wilberforce an extremist and he was influential in ending the British Slave Trade. Would you that’s like Sharia? Here’s a basic breakdown for you:
Sharia = taking rights away from humans
Abortion = taking the right to life away from humans.
Pro-life = GIVING the right to life to humans
Don’t look now, Chris, but your side is closer to Sharia than ours!
You’re saying to the country, we’re going to operate under a religious theory, under a religious belief. We’re going to run our country this way, to the point of making a woman’s decision to have an abortion, her reproductive rights, as criminal, perhaps murderous.
Reproductive rights? No one is forcing women to do anything with their reproductive organs. And my goodness. What is it with these liberal nutters who are stuck in their fantasy that pro-lifers are all religious and Republican and trying to establish a Theocracy? Newsflash!!! We’re not. We’re simply trying to let humans not be killed before they even have the chance to draw their first breaths. How is it that that gets misconstrued as “reproductive rights?” Everyone has the right to reproduce! No one *should* have the right to kill their offspring for any reason!!
Anywho, let’s summon the nice young men with the white coats to take Mr. Matthews to a happier place. He seems to have a few screws missing…
Mary, I also agree that religious people have argued on both sides of the slavery position and have been on both sides of many thorny moral issues. However, I would argue: 1) slavery and abortion are not equivalent moral evils (abortion is worse); 2) there are different religions so we would have to narrow what religion we are talking about; and 3) even after determining the religion we would still have to acknowledge that most religions still appeal to an authority that is transcendent and outside of the particular individuals involved in the moral dilemma.
Mary, here is the corrected version…
If we human beings have no spirit, we are just blobs of tissue, no different than inanimate material. How does an agnostic determine that a human being has more value than a statue of a human being. Why does flesh and blood have more value than a chunk of marble?
Hi Tyler,
Why would I and the others not respect human beings and human life? I think Tyler that this is more a personal bias, like assuming Jewish or black people think or do not think a certain way, you know, the way we do.
I have lived and seen much in my old age. I am open to all possiblities concerning the origins of humans. As you have seen from my previous posts on previous threads, I entertain no delusions concerning human nature. Life has taught me that. Value human beings and life, yes. That is part of my nature and always has been and will be.
Hi Tyler,
To me evil is evil. What is worse or better is a matter of perspective.
I didn’t say we have no spirit. Strange as it sounds, I believe in ghosts. I had an encounter as a child and members of my family have as well. I am also open to reincarnation. I find it strange that as a toddler, I referred to my grandmother, exclusively, as tutu. I have NO memory of ever doing so. My grandparents thought it was cute and often called me “tutu” and not until adulthood did a friend tell me it was Hawaiian for grandmother. I had a midwestern city upbringing and certainly NO Hawaiian influences in my life. Strange yes, but of course proves nothing.
Blobs of tissue? Not at all Tyler. We are each unique individuals with emotions, talents, skills, etc. Of course there are exceptions, people who in my opinion are lowlifes, but they are no less human.
Mary, for me, my reversion (I tend to hope that no one is convert to the prolife position) back to the prolife position was based on the realization that human beings are spiritual beings, in addition to material beings. I saw that each human being has a spiritual destiny, and is loved by the Creator of this material seen world, and the immaterial unseen world of loving spiritual entities and beings. When I saw the pictures of the aborted fetuses I just didn’t see blood, and flesh. I saw a human being that was created for a purpose, for a spiritual life, I saw a wanted human being, a chosen human being, chosen by a transcendent being to come into existence. I thought if I had the power to choose, why shouldn’t God have that same power, only infinitely greater and with no error. The beginning of each human being is a moment when a spark of the infinite ignites the finite into existence. We are privileged to be blessed with the awareness to witness these miracles.
Hi tyler,
I certainly respect your belief and perspective. I and the others may or may not share it, and what difference does it make if we do or not? We are all in this together whatever our reasons, and share a common goal. My and the others’ respect for human life and value is no less than yours, whatever motivates us.
So, let’s try to put aside any biases or assumptions. We are all in this together.
Hi Mary
I think I have a different definition of what an agnostic/atheist is. To me an atheist/agnostic is someone who does not believe in spirits, evil, ghosts, reincarnation, etc.. To me an atheist does not believe in God or Gods, and an agnostic is skeptical about the existence of God’s existence. To me atheists and agnostics are materialists.
Sincere question: can a Catholic be considered a secular prolife person?
I certainly respect your belief and perspective. I and the others may or may not share it, and what difference does it make if we do or not?
Hi Mary,
Interesting question. Thank you for respecting my beliefs. I respect yours. I agree that we are all in this together. My goal is to better understand the secular prolife position so that I can defend it and explain it. Because I don’t understand it, and can’t explain it, I tend to view the position with suspicion and I don’t want to view it with suspicion.
Atheist and agnostic pro-life friends – Your pro-life-ness is awesome. I cringe when I hear about pro-choice “Christians,” and at the same time I would agree that secularism need not be incompatible with the pro-life position. But like it or not, most pro-life people are theists if not Christian, which is why it is branded as a religious perspective. I think Tyler is trying to understand what makes your ideas different. Among other possible reasons for these questions, I personally would like to know how to better talk to secularists about abortion, because, as Tyler mentioned, I can use science and logic to address the life at conception hurdle, but I inevitably defer to religion at some point in the discussion to defend non-pragmatic approaches to the treatment of that life, but that may just be because of my mindset. X, your logic works for me, but why does it not work for so many other agnostics and atheists? Not that you are like other secularists in this regard, obviously, but I just wonder if you have more insight.
Yeah, Chris, it really would be extreme to protect life at the very point that it starts, far more so than ending it at any time during gestation.
What a nutty comment.
Under Sharia law people can be killed for-
leaving Islam
being raped without having four witnesses (male witnesses iirc)
having homosexual sex
adultery (only for women)
dishonoring the family
Silly Chris, Sharia kills and so does abortion. Prolifers are asking for an end to abortion.
And… hello!! Since when is an ultrasound machine inherently religious? Whatever our views on religion, the prolife view is grounded in verifiable existence of tiny human beings.
Just another nutty uncle in the Catholic family. Along with Biden, Pelosi, Sibelius, etc., I see them as wacky extended relatives. And while I love them I’m really sick of hearing from them… and hearing about their callous, embarrassing opinions.
Tyler, you asked whether Catholics can be considered secular prolifers.
My answer- no. Catholics are not secularists.
One can be a Catholic who doesn’t practice their faith all the time or not even very often but is still a believer (prob majority of us). One can be from a Catholic family but lose or reject their faith. Sometimes such people still identify as Catholics because of familial or sentimental reasons. They often return to the faith, and are still considered family since they are baptized. That gets tricky, but we hold the door open for people in such situations. Most Catholics know and love several people in that category. The parable of the prodigal son is very real and important to us. I digress.
Again, Catholics are not secularists. It’s different from the Jewish faith because
there is also a Jewish race/bloodline. That is not the case with Catholicism.
I think this is hard for other Christians to understand. If an evangelical for example, leaves the practice of their faith, people in their own family probably don’t consider them Christian anymore. Someone can call themself a Catholic, and not practice, maybe not even believe. But they are still considered Catholics if they were baptized. Sometimes, in the case of Chris Matthews, they’re just Catholics with wrong views.
Will Jesus recognize lapsed Catholics as believers and followers? That depends on a lot, including someone’s personal culpability/ responsibility and knowledge, their final days and beliefs. Would I want to be in Chris Matthews shoes at the judgment? Based on his disregard for the lives of the smallest among us, no I would not. I pray he returns to a vibrant and loving faith, one that values all human beings.
Hi Tyler,
I believe there is much out there we cannot understand or explain, and given my own experiences and that of my family, I am open to the possibility of ghosts, evil spirits, reincarnation, etc. I do not view these beliefs as ”primitive” or “exotic”, or that the people who believe them are evil or ignorant.
There is much that I question and in fact am envious of people firm in their faith, whatever it might be. I am equally open to the possiblity that God exists.
Hi Lifejoy,
Talk to us about abortion and life issues like you would anyone. If your beliefs are based on faith, we have no issue with that. I greatly admire Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a clergyman who led a civil rights movement. Whether Dr.King was motivated by his faith or something else is irrelevant. Also, Dr. King’s leadership did not make civil rights a religious issue, it was a moral issue.
If memory serves me right, abortion was turned into a ”Catholic” and religious issue in an effort to mobilize PA forces and give them a common enemy. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson described this as part of the PA strategy. In fact, abortion has always been and remains a moral and ethical issue in which people of all faiths, and no faith, agree or disagree.
“X, your logic works for me, but why does it not work for so many other agnostics and atheists?”
Hey, LifeJoy, I think that the same could be said for “faith.” Your faith works for you as a pro-life rationale but why does it not work for so many others? The reality is that people who begin with the assumption that abortion must be okay will always come to the conclusion that abortion must be okay, whether they claim to have arrived at that conclusion by faith or by logic. It seems like an obvious thing to say but it really comes down to that sometimes.
I was very pro-choice for my whole life. I “considered” pro-life arguments when they were presented to me, in your classic rogerian strategy sort of way, but I never actually considered them, from start to finish, beginning with a blank slate that did not already have its conclusion written out ahead of time.
In the end it was logical and secular reasoning that led me to change my mind. But I do believe that before I could really force myself to begin with a blank slate and work through the logic and ethics of abortion from the beginning, I was greatly helped by feeling respected – not for my ideas but simply for who I am. There were people, here and elsewhere, who called me a lot of really crummy names, made jokes about my sex life, etc; why would I ever think that people like that had anything worthwhile to say? But there were also people who were compassionate and who never, however much we disagreed, made fun of me or laughed at me or high-fived each other over jokes about me. They held, in tandem, a firm belief that abortion was wrong, and a firm respect for me as a human being. That made me feel like it would be okay to have been wrong, like the great danger of re-examining things – becoming pro-life – wouldn’t be a terrible or crummy thing after all.
If you are curious about which specific argument – it’s a tough thing to nail down, because so much of defending abortion relies on switching between justifications as necessary. I – like, I think, most pro-choice people these days – was pro-choice for reasons of bodily autonomy, and so at the end of the day it was really talking through the bodily autonomy of conjoined twins or breastfeeding mothers on a deserted island, with a guy who used to post here frequently, that finally made me really that abortion was no different, or rather that the only difference with abortion is that it is convenient to support. But I probably wouldn’t have engaged in that conversation at all, or at least not genuinely, if I did not feel okay doing so. To be honest I’d had the conversation many times before that, always “agreeing to disagree” when the fork in the road inevitably came.
I apologize if this is scrambled – I’m in the middle of some totally overwhelming projects at work and just taking a coffee break!
Thank you, Mary and Alexandra, for taking the time to address my question. Sorry for the delay (I only get to speak with adults when my three kids are in bed).
Mary, you’re answer still applies most likely, but I intended to say pro-choice secularists, just to clarify.
“If memory serves me right, abortion was turned into a ”Catholic” and religious issue in an effort to mobilize PA forces and give them a common enemy.”
That’s interesting. But it probably wouldn’t have worked if the PA forces were largely religious or pro-life forces weren’t generally religious.
“Whether Dr.King was motivated by his faith or something else is irrelevant.”
I see your overall sentiment, but the question is: irrelevant to what exactly. To the end product of civil rights, perhaps not. However, in countering the not uncommon liberal mindset that religion is the great scourge of society and leads only to conflict, Dr.MLKJ’s motivation matters greatly. Wilberforce, Bonhoeffer … Christ’s love compelled them.
Alexandra – Yeah, after reading what you wrote and then re-reading my last comment, I realize that I have to take a step back … Logic and science make us see when life begins, and perhaps basic human decency makes us see how life *should* be treated, but it is my faith which makes me want to do what I should do, particularly when it involves sacrifice. So this line of questioning is hopefully taken as complimentary, because here it is in all its glory, and it is really more a general curiosity: If I wasn’t a Christian, I doubt I would be much different from those confused souls who are pro-choice. Therefore, I give you great credit. For I am nothing without my Savior.If I thought no one else is looking out for my best interest or that my actions do not have an eternal significance, I would probably be very selfish and do what is best for me in the moment. This perspective of course keeps me appropriately humble and empathetic to the lost and hurting who do some bad things in their lives (including Christians). So certainly this desire to be moral evades both atheists/agnostic and religious people, but it is just true that religious people rely less on relativist and pragmatic motivations – *at least as their standard*.
Well, my question seems to be: A lot of people do the right thing when faced with choices, but when the right thing means self-sacrifice, not so much. What motivates you? Please do not be offended when I say that I see God’s goodness shining through your heart.
Hey LifeJoy –
No offense taken at all. I guess that what motivates me to attempt to discern, and choose, the right thing is, in some ways, a belief that there is nothing else (or rather an uncertainty). If the only form of justice is the justice in our own behavior, then it is exceptionally important that we behave in a just way. Because maybe there is no big after-party where all of this stuff becomes irrelevant. Maybe this stuff is all there is, and if that’s the case then it’s important to do it RIGHT.
I was always a really sensitive kid and I always had a lot of emotional distress over seeing people feel sad or upset. But that’s not really where my being pro-life comes from – actually, that was where my being pro-choice came from. Especially when I was first pro-life, I struggled with it because I had more emotional empathy for the women who are pregnant and scared and want an abortion, than I did for the children aborted. Because the women’s suffering is tangible and ‘here’ whereas most children aborted are, as we are so often reminded, non-sentient and unaware of the injustice of what is done to them.
But my parents raised me to do the right thing for the sole reason that it’s the right thing, and they raised me to both appreciate my own feelings and also to put them in their proper context: never, ever above someone else’s rights, or even someone else’s feelings. Abortion is right or wrong regardless of whether I think it’s right or wrong – the only question is, do *I* want to be right, or do I want to be wrong?
Generally speaking I don’t think it is possible for atheists to co-opt the golden rule without believing in the transcendent God who underwrites that rule with the offer to keep a spot open for the follower this rule in his eternal Kingdom. I believe that it is not possible for atheists to co-opt the golden rule because I don’t think it is possible for a material atheist to truly care for another person (especially a completely dependent human being) based solely on some material/finite form of rational self-interest (I am not denying that atheists care for other human beings, only that their concern/care for others is derived from some material cause). More specifically, I don’t think the golden rule can work for true atheists/materialists when it is transformed into some modified rational self-interest theory that postulates a distant future material reward/compensation for the person who cares for someone in the present.
No doubt this golden rule has and can reap many practical and material benefits to those who follow this rule whether they are believers or not; however, in the scenarios where the expected payback is far in the future, or not expected at all, the willingness of non-believers to follow this rule is expectedly less and less. In order for the golden rule to work well a person has to already believe that he/she is assured a place in Heaven, and that their material well-being means very little in the Kingdom to come. In this temporal life the golden rule offers little chance of a material payback and even if some material payback is reasonably possible the sheer fact that it is material and finite means that it will be less than satisfying as a motivating cause for performing sacrificial acts for others, such as becoming a parent. When confronted with these harder sacrifices it is too easy for a materialist/atheist to stop following this rule. For example, in some western pre-Christian pagan societies a parent facing a dire situation, such as a severe famine, have been known to eat their children for survival. If we grant that these parents are not mere beasts but are logical and carring beings we can easily see that their version of the golden rule might cause them to reason that if the situation was reversed they would want their child to eat them so that their children may survive. Conversely, they could be part of a cult that believes in Gods that require and value human sacrifices. Acknowledging both of these possibilities shows one why it is not only important to believe in God, but also why it is important to believe in the right God. Jesus said the way is narrow, and I think this is what he meant in part by making that statement – there is only one True God. I hope I have not offended anyone with these comments and quite willing to hear dissenting opinions.
In my opinion, all of our morals are attached to our spiritual outlook, or lack thereof, in some highly intricate and awe-inspiring way. Having a spiritual, as opposed to a material outlook, changes a person’s morality (in my case, very slowly, or perhaps, imperceptibly).
Alexandra – Your insight both as a secular pro-lifer and as a former pro-choicer is helpful. It is so unsettling to me that many pro-choice people are indeed driven by their empathy for women – I just don’t know how to think and feel about that misguided love. As you also said, they and their emotions are more tangible, at least seemingly (is that redundant ?) and most definitely more observable. I was just talking to my husband today about the very significant and obvious difference between most other human rights atrocities and abortion – that the unborn will never be able to speak about the injustices done them. Reminds me of 2 Corinthians 4:18 – “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”
Our actions are of eternal significance and highly relevant, but you summed up well a giant problem with some Christians: “Because maybe there is no big after-party where all of this stuff becomes irrelevant.” The distinction that this and too many Christians gloss over seems to be between what is unimportant and what is forgiven. Our sins are not forgiven because what we do is unimportant, but our past sins have, in some sense, become unimportant because they are forgiven, and yet our actions, again, have eternal relevance. When Christians fail to understand the after-party and God’s purpose I believe you get exactly what you described. C.S. Lewis spoke to this phenomenon a bit in Mere Christianity when he concluded that the problem isn’t people thinking so much of heaven that they forget about earth, but exactly the opposite and so it is the people who focus on heaven who do the most good on earth. But I would emphasize the sincere focus on the true heaven. And for this reason perhaps it is a bell-shaped curve. Some hide behind heaven, but those who do, sadly misunderstand it.
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Your desire to do right is impressive. You will find God when you seek him. He does not seem to be far from you. =)
This sort of comparison is dishonest. For much of the time in America, there was a saying, “You can’t be just a little bit pregnant.” This meant that if a girl or woman was pregnant, she was expected to have a baby and (usually) raise that baby.
The raising was less certain. They could place for adoption. Extended families were somewhat strong so raising could be diversified among relatives.
But the saying indicates that it was expected that if a girl or woman was pregnant, she would carry to term and give birth.
America during this time period was not anything like a conservative Islamic country.
Thanks, LifeJoy. I don’t know about the God parts but I do honestly try to do right, at all times. I screw up a lot but I try not to screw up in the same way twice. ;)
Your phrase ‘misguided love’ is a good way to put it. I try to remember how genuinely I once believed that I was being compassionate and just in supporting legal abortion, and to give the same respect and consideration to other pro-choicers as was shown to me by some pro-lifers.
Yet another man who wants to unload the responsibility for sexual behavior entirely onto the woman.