It strikes me that some potential readers may feel dismayed at my advocacy of a recognizably pro-life position on abortion rights when they have been promised progressive politics. If I have a base among my two readers yet I can throw some red meat at it later but for now I don't see any contradiction between the two positions. I identify myself as progressive in the same spirit (with due respect) that Chesterton called himself a liberal. He also named St. Thomas (and Jesus, and Dickens) among history's greatest liberals. I think that Chesterton and I both mean that to be progressive, or liberal, is to be dedicated to the goodness and potential of the human species - that the created order is really good, and human beings are really good with the potential to get even better. This stands in distinct opposition to the false liberalism of Hobbes, for instance, for whom no real progress is possible. I believe that true rationality, i.e. the love of the true, the good, and the beautiful is the transcendent goal of human history (albeit always only partial and known as fully through its absence as its presence.)
It is this perspective which prevents me from accepting the reductionist and nihilistic logic of "choice" as it is applied to abortion rights. I have never understood how the phrase "a woman's right to choose..." can be abbreviated. To choose what? Fries with that? Choice is not an intrinsic good, and freedom doesn't occur in a vacuum. It may be the case that fetuses never feel or experience anything, but if so, I believe that is strongly relevant to the matter of abortion. This puts me on the wrong side of abortion rights advocates, who believe that it makes no difference one way or another.
What this shows is that on the position of abortion, science and Christian ethics converge. Both compel me to recognize the potential claim that another (even a theoretical other, such as a member of a future generation) makes on my freedom. I can't dispose of this obligation, and I can't ignore it - I'm already bound by it as soon as I recognize it. Science makes that other present to me and won't let me go until I acknowlege its legitimate authority. There's no freedom without relation, and no such thing as progress for one individual alone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Excellent post.
In a perfect world, there would be no need for abortion. In a perfect world unwanted pregnancies would never occur. But we have this world.
What I have trouble understanding is the position that Catholics and some orthodox religions take on contraception. It is their belief (ah, the operative word) that having marital sex without the possibility of creating a life is wrong, evil, and not what the creator intended, that it sullies the very act of sexual intercourse itself.
How can we hope to approach or solve the problems associated with abortion on demand if we have such strong and influential groups who deplore the use of contraception?
You can read what Underground Logician's position is on this subject over on his blog.
http://www.undergroundlogician.
blogspot.com
Thanks, Isabella, I agree with you on the contraception issue 100% as I hope I have made clear in my posts. The Catholic church says it opposes contraception because the sexual act must be both unitive and procreative - which makes no sense because the Church doesn't oppose infertile couples having sexual relations. Somehow the Church believes that by opposing contraception, it will drive the wheels of human history backwards by forcing people to only have sex under circumstances in which they would willingly accept a pregnancy. This is just the kind of bizarre reverse logic which the Catholic church has always been known for.
By the way the argument that an "imperfect world" necessitates abortion is an interesting one. This is virtually the same argument at the heart of "just war" theory, basically that the conditions created by original sin necessitates that human beings choose between the lesser of two evils, i.e. we sin by going to war but we would commit even greater sin by not going to war. I don't know if it's valid for either war or abortion.
weazoe said...
By the way the argument that an "imperfect world" necessitates abortion is an interesting one. This is virtually the same argument at the heart of "just war" theory, basically that the conditions created by original sin necessitates that human beings choose between the lesser of two evils, i.e. we sin by going to war but we would commit even greater sin by not going to war. I don't know if it's valid for either war or abortion.
I’ll have to set aside the premise that original sin necessitates that human beings choose between the lesser of two evils, since I am a non-theist, and therefore, original sin has no meaning for me. What does have meaning for me is the fact that we humans have the capacity to do good and to do evil; and in my view, there is no god or devil influencing one’s choosing between the two. It is we humans who must choose the behavior that brings the most good to the greatest number of our kind.
I am always bemused by people who see apocalyptic evil in allowing women to decide whether or not to abort a pregnancy—an innocent human life, but have no qualms about going into a pre-emptive war where thousands of innocent lives are snuffed out because of politics, or to stand by and watch millions of innocent people die of starvation because their government, for political reasons, does not see fit to intercede on their behalf. These sort of people support a war, which will surely kill thousands of innocents but will, they believe, bring greater good to oppressed people. But they see no hypocrisy in wanting government to intercede and decide on private, difficult matters, which may bring oppression, economic or emotional, to women (and their families) who wish to control their own lives.
Overturning Roe v. Wade, or leaving it to the individual states to decide will not stop abortion. It will, in my opinion, force poor women to seek dangerous, non-medically approved procedures, and, as always, the richer women will be able to go anywhere, anytime to control what happens in their lives.
Safe, cheap, contraception, and programs that teach young people to respect themselves and each other and to delay sexual activity until they have the maturity to handle it would be utopian. But we live in a sex-soaked culture that celebrates the physical instead of the intellectual.
Was it really any different in any other time? Sigh.
Agreed, agreed, agreed. The moral hypocrisy of the Bush administration, which acts as if "life" refers exclusively to fetuses and women in persistent vegetative states, is appalling. How can anyone pretend to be "pro-life" and condone a war which has so far killed over 24,000 innocent civilians - or for that matter, support the death penalty for retarded citizens, the clandestine torture of untried prisoners, insurance companies over patients, corporate profits over workers, energy and chemical companies over everyone? As I stated earlier, the fact that the pro-life movement as a whole disdains the very measures which are most effective in preventing abortions - i.e. contraception, child care and health care for at-risk women, affordable education and housing - shows that this movement cares nothing for preventing abortion, nothing for the fetuses it is supposedly protecting, and instead is a mere front for the control of women. Until the pro-life movement proves otherwise by embracing the goal of putting every effective contraceptive option in the hands of women, that will continue to be my position, and I will never join it.
Post a Comment