emlarson.com


Home

Blog

Work

Tech

Life

Lord

Play

 Blog: The absolute latest random thoughts


Kari Byron news

previous posts:

Remember the Archive.org WayBack Machine!

Shouldn't "sexy" be more exciting than this?

Prefer studying to movies? Stay away from Hampton ...

"Arrest" does not equal "Conviction"

Doug Kaye and "The New Project"

Single Girls and Science!

I love my Kari Byron fans -- those eager web-searc...

Microsoft hates itself?

Ubuntu Proof!

True prediction: "O'Connor, Not Rehnquist?"




earlier posts:

09.2002   10.2002   11.2002   12.2002   01.2003   02.2003   03.2003   04.2003   05.2003   06.2003   07.2003   08.2003   09.2003   10.2003   11.2003   12.2003   01.2004   02.2004   03.2004   04.2004   05.2004   06.2004   07.2004   08.2004   09.2004   10.2004   11.2004   12.2004   01.2005   02.2005   03.2005   04.2005   05.2005   06.2005   07.2005   08.2005   09.2005   10.2005   11.2005   12.2005   01.2006   02.2006   03.2006   04.2006   05.2006   06.2006   07.2006   08.2006   09.2006   10.2006   11.2006   12.2006   04.2007   05.2007   06.2007   07.2007   08.2007   12.2007   01.2008   02.2008   05.2008   06.2008   07.2008   08.2008   12.2008   01.2009   02.2009   03.2009   04.2009   05.2009   06.2009   07.2009   09.2009   10.2009   11.2009   12.2009   01.2010   02.2010   03.2010   04.2010   05.2010   06.2010   07.2010   08.2010   09.2010   10.2010   11.2010   12.2010   01.2011   02.2011   03.2011   04.2011   05.2011   06.2011   07.2011   09.2011   10.2011   11.2011   12.2011   01.2012   02.2012   04.2012   07.2012   10.2012   11.2012   01.2013   02.2013   03.2013   05.2013   05.2014   06.2014   07.2014   12.2014   01.2015   02.2015   03.2015   06.2015   11.2015   02.2016   03.2016   04.2016   05.2016   06.2016   11.2016   04.2017  


7.08.2005

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society

...And then there are some pages that are still up, alive and well. Like this one, which I hope is read by all my pro-choice friends and family who think I'm an evil, evil person for voting Republican because I "can't see past 'the abortion issue'." Maybe it's a lot to ask, but take a couple minutes to read John Piper's article, "One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society"

As Piper puts it, "These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil-even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation."

Now, I've got friends who argue that the social programs promoted by the Democratic platform would actually reduce abortions in this country, "and isn't that what it's about?" Well, first of all, a lot of these folks have repeated the same sad lie that "abortions have increased under Bush," (which isn't true -- follow the link) so I think the whole premise is flawed. But that misses the broader point that, if abortions are "wrong", why are we talking about "reducing them"? We don't talk about "reducing rape"; rape is evil. We work toward eliminating it, and punishing the perpetrators of it.

(Don't like the comparison of abortion to rape? Then I hope you have a really solid philosophical justification for not awarding "personhood" to a living being who, by any common-sense definition, is a human who doesn't deserve to be brutally slaughtered. If it's a "human person", then abortion is murder, and why on earth would we be working toward keeping murder "safe and legal?" If it's not murder, then what is it? But I'm getting ahead of myself...)

This kind of "reduction talk" makes sense for "vices" like, say, smoking -- I don't think smoking is wise, I think we should work to reduce smoking, I think we should make it "rare", but I'm not going to criminalize the act and jail those who feel it's okay to smoke. But when you encounter "pro-choice" folks who grant that abortion is "wrong", they're not talking about "wrong" in the sense of "unwise". As best they can (in my experience), they understand the truth that abortion is "morally wrong". Yet they still buy the "Safe, Legal and Rare" rhetoric.

(Another digression: "Safe, Legal and Rare" has nothing to do with protecting women's rights and liberty. As Teresa Collett, Esp. explained in exceptionally clear testimony before a senate committee last month, "It was no accident that the early feminists, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, opposed abortion. They saw it as a tool of oppression, manifesting men's domination and mistreatment." The upshot is that many, many men today who would never say, "Honey, why don't you go rob a bank? I'll drive." ...are perfectly comfortable, and feel justified, in pressuring their partners -- in some cases, abusively -- with "Honey, why don't you go get an abortion? I'll drive.")

So, I agree with Piper. (And that, on theological topics, is a good example of "rare".) It's clear that being "pro-choice" disqualifies you from political office, any way you slice it.

2 Comments:

At July 9, 2005 at 1:55 AM, Blogger Citizen O said...

Very compelling arguments. That certainly puts a thing or two into perspective, doesn't it?

Does it follow that the use of contraception should be expanded? You can't abort a fetus that was never conceived.

And although the fallacy of "reducing vs. eliminating abortions" was explored, the same argument does not apply to "reducing pregnancies". A pregnancy is not immoral.

So if pro-life conservatism is ONLY about saving lives, why is there such a drive to control people's sexuality beyond the issue of protecting life?

I'm suggesting that traditionally conservative sexual inhibitions including homophobia, body shame, seeing masturbation as self-abuse rather than self-exploration, and insistence upon abstinence for unmarried adults detract from the credibility of the pro-life movement by muddying the waters.

It takes the focus off of protecting life, and swirls it around with all sorts of perverse, destructive biases until few self-respecting liberals can possibly trust pro-life motives enough to stand up for it.

Who benefits from convincing people that they're fundamentally worthless?

 
At July 9, 2005 at 10:28 AM, Blogger emlarson said...

Thanks, Jon! Excellent reply, and you raise a great point that's rarely discussed. It gives me the chance to be an "equal-opportunity antagonizer", because my conservative friends are going to hate this. :)

From a Bible-believing Christian standpoint, I believe that sexuality is a God-given gift to be expressed in marriage, with its intent (though not its sole purpose) being procreation. Frankly, it's hard to read the Bible and come up with a lot of variation from that theme.

BUT, from a societal standpoint, I believe that we should be pushing "responsible sexuality" rather than forcing a Biblical or "Christian" worldview on everyone. So, in terms of lawmaking and such, the use of contraception should absolutely be expanded.

(Another aside: I'm actually terrifying "liberal" on this point. Since condoms aren't 100% effective at preventing pregnancy and/or controlling some STDs, I think adults should have even more discussion about the variety of sexual options and explorations that humans are capable of, beyond intercourse. That gets a bit more complicated when dealing with educating kids of various ages, because they'll have less developed judgment to evaluate which risk they want to pursue, and to what degree.)

Anyway, there's merit to pushing abstinence education to society as a whole, because it's a good way to live -- Ruth and I don't have to worry about STDs, cervical cancer, no fear of an unplanned pregnancy before we were married, because we weren't having sex (with each other, nor with anyone). And that's good whether you're Christian or not. But that education is "good" in a practical sense, and I disagree with pushing it on society as a whole in the "moral" sense, because not all of society can be held to a "Christian moral standard", because not everyone is Christian!

Paul (the Apostle) actually wrote about this kind of issue when he deal with early Christians and whether they could eat meat that had been sacrificed to idols. The gist is that they could, because (among other reasons) it's not the job of Christians to be "fixing" the acts of a society that isn't Christian. It's our job to be pointing people to Jesus, Who will change hearts, and at that point individuals might choose to pursue different interest or behaviors.

I hope that makes sense. So, applying it to "abstinence for unmarried adults", if I were talking to Christians I would insist on abstinence as strongly as I could based on the Biblical standards that they themselves claim to follow. If I were talking to non-Christians I would recommend abstinence as a healthy way to live, but would also make sure that their activates were keeping them as healthy as possible... and weren't producing children who they would then feel obligated to kill.

That's probably not a very satisfactory answer, because in the wrong hands (or brain) be can be abused and turn into something really arrogant. But without spending another chunk of time to say more and try to make it clearer (which probably wouldn't help), that's the best I can do. :)

 

Post a Comment

<< Home





 


emlarson.com:   Home | Blog | Work | Tech | Life | Lord | Play | Mail

Entire site contents Copyright © 2000-2005 Eric M. Larson

All rights reserved, please don't steal my stuff, etc. etc. etc.