Is abortion a greater evil than child abuse? Of course it isn’t! Indeed, I don’t generally regard abortion as an evil at all. We could doubtless get into hypothetical cases of late-term abortions carried out on a mere whim, but are there many, or any, such cases in the real world? In the real world I think you must either suffer from a distorted moral sense or be in the grip of a theory if you regard abortion as the real evil (as opposed, say, to denying an abortion to a desperate woman or teenage girl).
It’s better not to get into metaphysical discussions with the religious, as it goes nowhere or at best it is 99 percent jawboning, 1 percent enlightenment.
I tell believers their religion is acceptable, not their politics. From studying the Bible, for instance, for many years, Christians are quite knowledgable concerning their Faith yet when it comes to politics their hearts are in the right place but their brains are something to worry about (re Christianity: no reflection on Christ, Jesus was no imbecile for someone living 2,000 years ago).
The Church proscribing—if it still does—birth control in third world nations is literal insanity, even a person in a mental ward wouldn’t necessarily be so foolish as to hold such a doctrine. The religious talk about responsibility!
And btw the Catholic Church is one of the saner houses of worship, Reverend Jones-type Westboro churches exist in every state in the South and Midwest: 200 years of gobbledygook built up during the Westward Expansion, while pioneers were fighting nature, fighting natives.
Posted by SHaGGGz on 11/27 at 05:57 AM
The outsize, hyperbolic importance placed on the abortion issue makes little sense until you realize that the entire religio-conservative worldview rests upon opposition to abortion. If the zygote is not ensouled upon conception and its willful termination not tantamount to murder, then we really are, fundamentally just matter and thus topples the entire theistic house of cards.
Inextricably linked to these lofty ideas of ontology is the political factor. Allowing a woman to take control of her reproductive destiny is a dangerously potent expression of liberty wholly antithetical to the traditional patriarchal power structure.
Analogously, teaching a slave to read was also met with the swiftest punishment.
Posted by Intomorrow on 11/28 at 01:26 AM
These protesters are real pro-life ‘activists’ (disrobe-ivists), they are not only utilising a wedge issue—that is a small part of it, there’s always that factor in politics—they are also protesting for life; while the old-time “pro-life” IMO protest for a dead religious conception of pro-life, a conception which died with the so-called Moral Majority who may have in fact been a majority at one time yet were no more moral than the larger society:
“THREE PEOPLE were arrested after stripping outside the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives in a demonstration yesterday.
The activists stripped to reveal messages painted on their backs – including ‘AIDS cuts kill’ – in protest at possible cuts to HIV programmes in the event that no deal is reached to avert the ‘fiscal cliff‘ spending cuts which kick in on January 1.
The demonstrators said they wanted to articulate the “naked truth” about the impact of cuts to AIDS prevention and treatment programmes.
The stunt was timed to coincide with World AIDS Day, which takes place on December 1.”
Posted by rms on 12/01 at 02:25 AM
Late-term abortions occur regularly—typically to save a woman’s
life. That’s why banning them, as theocratic fanatics try to do, or
shutting the few facilities which perform them by murdering the
doctors (which has also been tried), is very dangerous.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/01 at 09:26 AM
No doubt pro- ‘life’ is moral- but not practical (virtually all discussed in houses of worship is moral; not practical, though).
And as for the old moral majority, it was far more majority than it was moral.. and even less practical.
Posted by Intomorrow on 12/01 at 01:32 PM
..a recent example of cloying ethics: the following excerpt in an article on empathy in politics from American Spectator, 12/29; the ploy is how at the end of the excerpt the unborn are linked to the post-natal:
“...On September 7, 2011, Republican debate audience members cheered when Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he had ‘never struggled’ with the idea that one of his state’s record 234 executed death row inmates might have been innocent. Five days later, A Republican audience cheered a debate moderator’s question about whether a hypothetical 30-year-old who suddenly needs urgent care should be allowed to die because he lacks insurance. The perception of Republicans as heartless was reinforced when Republican Senate candidates Todd Akin and Richard Murdock made inept and uncompassionate remarks about rape and abortion. It was further reinforced when a video went viral of Mitt Romney claiming that 47 percent of Americans see themselves as victims and don’t ‘take responsibility and care for their lives.’
More generally, this perception is reinforced whenever conservatives use ‘illegal’ as a noun or use the word ‘alien’ to talk about illegal immigrants, and whenever they advise, as Romney did during the primaries, that illegal immigrants ‘self deport.’ Democrats do not have a monopoly on empathy, of course. Obama often shows an appalling lack of compassion and understanding toward entire groups of people—for example, unborn babies and those who don’t want to be complicit in their demise…”
For example, unborn babies and those who don’t want to be complicit in their demise?