Pro-choice rhetoric “fogbound cloud of unknowingy stuff”
by Kelli
I’m told that Christians hate science and go for mystical mumbo jumbo.
But when the topic turns to abortion, it’s fascinating that prochoice rhetoric instantly turns to blather about the “mystery” of when human life begins and what human life is: all that stuff that is just so far above Obama’s pay grade that he has no idea what to say, all that stuff about “ensoulment” that so preoccupies and befuddles Nancy Pelosi. It’s all such misty and mysterious and fogbound and Cloud of Unknowingy stuff!
Meanwhile, Christians are going, “Yo! 46 Chromosomes! It’s human. Conception is when the organism began. Here: watch this National Geographic documentary if you have any questions.”
~ Mark Shea, Patheos.com, August 28
[Image via National Geographic]
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.
Abortion enthusiasts make the best case for being pro life when their thinking processes are exposed to light. Mark Shea is spot-on with his observation that pro choicers go all mystical when it comes to when life begins.
As the baby moves through the birth canal, pro choicers get even weirder in their judgments. I’ve asked a few pro choicers if it’s a baby when it’s delivered and they always say yes it is. But when I ask them if it’s a baby when it’s delivered by abortion, they look at me like I have two heads.
And, Mr. Obama, it’s a person at conception; your paygrade’s not the question.
“Cloud of Unknowingy Stuff” — lol!
I love Mark Shea. I’ve shared many of his books with people… Time to buy more and read them again. By What Authority? was a life-changer for me.
=====================================
The Culture of Death’s scientific argument seems to go like this:
A) Contraception and abortion are complicated technology. Scientists and doctors developed these.
B) If you don’t like contraception or abortion, you must be one of those superstitious religionists who does not believe in science.
And then there is the “logical positivist” philosophy….. These are the materialists who do not believe in any sort of spiritual or transcendent reality. Their dogma is, “If science can’t measure it, it does not exist.”
Talking with these people is exasperating, because they have a different meaning of “life.” We mean human dignity, a concept which is nonsense to them. Science can’t measure it. So they may easily admit the chromosomes and cellular metabolic activity — but that does not compel them to give any respect to the living person.
These are the people who set arbitrary guidelines about what lives are worth living. They have no other standard…. and science cannot measure a person’s “worth.”
Don’t forget: it’s not DNA, it’s the patriarchy!
“Don’t forget: it’s not DNA, it’s the patriarchy!”
Interesting. I always thought it was spelled PATRIARCHY.
But wait, the Bro-choice movement is all about using scientific arguments to justify abortion… oh wait, never mind.
Del: A) Contraception and abortion are complicated technology. Scientists and doctors developed these.
B) If you don’t like contraception or abortion, you must be one of those superstitious religionists who does not believe in science.
Del, that’s quite an oversimplification, but to the extent that somebody would actually say that, as you stated it, then they’d be wrong. I doubt you intended any humor, but you cracked me up – to think of somebody earnestly and in a deadpan manner, saying, “Scientists and doctors developed these.” :P
—–
And then there is the “logical positivist” philosophy….. These are the materialists who do not believe in any sort of spiritual or transcendent reality. Their dogma is, “If science can’t measure it, it does not exist.”
I think it really comes down to, “Is it verifiable or not?”
As to spiritual beliefs, if they cannot be proven to be anything beyond imaginary, that is one thing. But that the beliefs themselves exist is not in doubt.
h, no Doug, we do not mean intellectually verifiable, but sensorally verifiable. One is a debate about words/ideas. The other well if it smells (really rank like a pile of sh**). I’ll just bet there is some around! [ and please no bs well not ‘everyone … blah, blah.] Hey this is real, man.
Dear Doug — Why would you think that I did not mean any humor?
That bit was an homage to GK Chesterton! I love it when he strips away all of the rhetoric, jargon and gibberish and strips the silly argument to its bare bones.
The straw-person in my example has confused technology with science. The believer assumes that since chemists developed birth control pills, then Science (always spelled with a capital) has determined that contraception is good for us.
That means that nascent human life is intrinsically “bad” — until the mother decides that her child is “wanted.” Thus every child deserves to die until “proper authority” chooses to let the child live.
It is terribly convoluted thinking. It withers when light is shined upon it.
John McDonell: no Doug, we do not mean intellectually verifiable, but sensorally verifiable. One is a debate about words/ideas. The other well if it smells (really rank like a pile of sh**). I’ll just bet there is some around! [ and please no bs well not ‘everyone … blah, blah.] Hey this is real, man.
John, if something is sensorally verifiable, then there is not going to be debate about it, not like there is debate about some ideas.
Del had said, Their dogma is, “If science can’t measure it, it does not exist.”
I think that is an oversimplification, and that it’s somewhat off the mark, as well. Logical positivism has changed somewhat over the years (so I read), but even going back almost 100 years ago to when the movement arose, I do not think the “it does not exist” part would really apply.
Thought, for example. Even now, we do not know the totality of what thought is, all the electrical and chemical things going on, what happens as we access the memory and mental-processing areas of our brains, etc. Does such a broad description even cover what thought really is?
I do not think that even now, science can really “measure thought.” Certainly, it could not be truly measured in the 1920s. But I don’t think any of the Logical Positivists would deny that they themselves had thoughts.
If we want to exclude what is not sensorally verifiable, then we would really be empiricists. Rather than Logical Positivists saying that something not verifiable “does not exist,” I think they would say that debate about it is essentially meaningless.
For what it’s worth, I do not at all agree with that. I think it would be a very boring world without discussions that go beyond what all or almost all of us agree on. I think it is a part of being human to ask some unanswerable questions.
Del: Why would you think that I did not mean any humor?
Ha! Then please accept my most sincere apology, worthy Sir!
—–
That bit was an homage to GK Chesterton! I love it when he strips away all of the rhetoric, jargon and gibberish and strips the silly argument to its bare bones.
Right on. One of my favorite Chesterton quotes: Happiness is a mystery like religion, and should never be rationalized.
—–
The straw-person in my example has confused technology with science. The believer assumes that since chemists developed birth control pills, then Science (always spelled with a capital) has determined that contraception is good for us.
That means that nascent human life is intrinsically “bad” — until the mother decides that her child is “wanted.” Thus every child deserves to die until “proper authority” chooses to let the child live.
It is terribly convoluted thinking. It withers when light is shined upon it.
Yet who really blindly embraces “Science” in that way? Science has given us cures for diseases, personal computers, cell phones, and artificial hearts. It has also given us nuclear war and Justin Bieber.
Anyone who would actually think that nascent human life is intrinsically bad would certainly not be pro-choice. It’s not a meaningful thing in the context of the abortion debate at the current time. I think that in the future, that may change, due to nothing more than the number of people on earth.