Pro-Life and Pro-Democrat?
15 comments | Permalink
Princeton's Robert George, one of the clearest moral philosophers of our day, explains in this post why he cannot in good conscience support Democratic candidates for office. Here is his conclusion:
"So, however much one might dislike Republican policies in other areas, it’s clear that the death toll under the Democrats would be so large as to make it unreasonable for Catholic citizens, or citizens of any faith who oppose the taking of innocent human life, to use their votes and influence to help bring the Democratic party into power.
"I find no cause for joy in this. I wish that it were possible for pro-life citizens legitimately to support Democratic candidates. I wish that the party of my parents and grandparents had not placed itself on the wrong side of the most profound human rights issue of our contemporary domestic politics. I wish that the killing of embryonic and fetal human beings by abortion and in biomedical research were resolutely opposed by both parties so that we could cast our votes based on our assessments of the candidates’ and parties’ competing positions on taxation, immigration, education, welfare, health-care reform, national security, and foreign policy. It is hardly satisfactory that pro-life citizens — representing a variety of views on the range of issues in economic, social, and foreign policy — find themselves bound to the Republicans because the only viable alternative is a party that has abandoned its commitment to the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family by embracing abortion and embryo-destructive research."
(HT: Joe Carter)
"So, however much one might dislike Republican policies in other areas, it’s clear that the death toll under the Democrats would be so large as to make it unreasonable for Catholic citizens, or citizens of any faith who oppose the taking of innocent human life, to use their votes and influence to help bring the Democratic party into power.
"I find no cause for joy in this. I wish that it were possible for pro-life citizens legitimately to support Democratic candidates. I wish that the party of my parents and grandparents had not placed itself on the wrong side of the most profound human rights issue of our contemporary domestic politics. I wish that the killing of embryonic and fetal human beings by abortion and in biomedical research were resolutely opposed by both parties so that we could cast our votes based on our assessments of the candidates’ and parties’ competing positions on taxation, immigration, education, welfare, health-care reform, national security, and foreign policy. It is hardly satisfactory that pro-life citizens — representing a variety of views on the range of issues in economic, social, and foreign policy — find themselves bound to the Republicans because the only viable alternative is a party that has abandoned its commitment to the weakest and most vulnerable members of the human family by embracing abortion and embryo-destructive research."
(HT: Joe Carter)
posted by JT at Wednesday, September 27, 2006
15 Comments:
It frustrates me to see such a distinguinshed philosopher espouse such elementary propaganda.
As if supporting the democrat or republican parties is a choice between life and death. Furthermore, what if supporting the republican party because it is pro-life, doesn't lead to any less abortions?
As Christians and upholders life's value, we must seek to be pro-life in all its forms. Yes, we can't support abortion if we value life, but we must also create alternatives for single mothers, support those children who are born and unwanted, and continue to find more ways to help the poor.
With this is mind, I could have a solid foundation for joining either party and find it unreasonable to assume the republicans have the market cornered on life issues.
Mark od,
I think the point is that he wishes to vote for candidates and parties that " create alternatives for single mothers, support those children who are born and unwanted, and continue to find more ways to help the poor."
His predicament, and mine for that matter, is that voting for said party would mean supporting candidates who supported and continue to support the killing of millions of babies. I agree with you that we need to have greater concern for single mothers and poor children, but there are very practical things I can do as an individual to help, e.g. housing poor single mothers, adopting unwanted children, the list goes on.
However, there is little outside of the law that I can do to protect an innoncent fetus from death. Even if I am the father of the fetus, I am powerless to prevent the mother from terminating that life.
Another level frustration is that many pro-life individuals have latched on so tightly to the Republican party that their opinions and values are taken for granted. Few politicians have a real desire to seek an end to legalized abortions and until pro-life voters voice their frustration they will continue to vote and support candidates who are pro-life only because it is politically expedient.
I'm not comfortable comparing first-trimester abortions (90% of all abortions) to something like murder--there seems to be quite a difference as far as I'm concerned.
I also am truly confounded by the 'moral concern' surrounding issues like stem cell research or IVF. Do we really think as Christians that there's this ethereal non-physical 'soul' that gets grafted on to every human conceptus at the very moment of conception? Sounds like voodoo magic talk to me...
I feel like I might be missing something here. Could you folks kindly clarify?
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Daniel,
Scripture states that we are created in the image of God...so when does this image begin? Or, when does it end? Your question seems to imply the idea that our souls are formed through normal human development and our lives have more significance as we advance through the stages of this process.
Psalm 138 illustrates the point that from our conception we are significant in God's eyes:
"For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works;
my soul knows it very well.
My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.Your eyes saw my unformed substance;in your book were written, every one of them,the days that were formed for me,when as yet there were none of them."
Futher, our worth is defined by God and not our usefulness to society or inconveniience to others. We travel a slippery dangerous slope when we define a segment of society in terms of utilitarianism. Any worldview that dehumanizes the helpless finds it a very simple thing to eliminate other less "useful" segments of the population. The result is that not only the very young, but also the elderly or the handicapped can soon become "inconvenient" or less that human. You state that you are a Christian... is the more Christlike ideal to protect or oppress the helpless?
Matthew,
I think we agree on much, and only wish to elaborate on a point you made.
You agree that abortion (no matter the trimester) is murder. I'm not going to go into extraordinary cases, such as the life of the mother being at stake, because the majority of abortions are performed for women who's mortal lives are not at stake.
Now, onto my contention. Is changing the law the best way to decrease the amount of abortions performed in this country? I don't think so. Long before Roe v Wade abortions were being performed in this country, and if it were outlawed today I'm certain millions of abortions would be performed illegaly.
Rather than fight to change the law, it is wiser to change the conditions which contribute to the desire for abortions.
You said, "there are very practical things I can do as an individual to help, e.g. housing poor single mothers, adopting unwanted children, the list goes on.
However, there is little outside of the law that I can do to protect an innoncent fetus from death. Even if I am the father of the fetus, I am powerless to prevent the mother from terminating that life."
Those practical things you mentioned are exactly what you can do to prevent a mother from killing her child! If we as Christians took personal responsibility for abortion and sought to partner with unwed mothers and those living below the poverty line, imagine how many lives would be spared.
So while I don't believe abortion should be legal, I see many more practical ways to decrease the number of abortions than trying to change the law. While we picket, lobby, and argue with lawmakers, countless women are hopelessly killing their children.
Who else can give them real hope besides followers of Christ?
Hello Mike. Thanks for taking the time to respond. I can tell that this an issue which is very meaningful to you. You and I would probably agree on a lot. And I definitely am advocate for the protection of human persons, particularly innocent human persons. I am, however, uncomfortable with what I'm undertanding your position on abortion (and IVF) to be, because I don't think that 'the image of God' is something that is magically given to a fertilized human egg. Certainly a conceptus is biologically 'alive', but then so are a corpse's hair follicles and nails. I think there is a temptation to use fuzzy categories like 'human life' in ways which are misleading here... instead of speaking in biological categories, we should be speaking in moral categories. So there should be talk of experience, consciousness, personhood, pain, will, etc. (please notice that this goes far beyond mere talk of 'utility'). I have trouble seeing how a mass of a couple hundred cells, fewer than exist in the brain of a fly, could have as much moral weight as a fully formed human baby. Does that make sense?
I address these questions more fully in this post on my blog.
While I agree with much of what mark od is saying, I would personally argue that some abortions would be best left as legal (particularly in cases of anencephaly).
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Now, onto my contention. Is changing the law the best way to decrease the amount of abortions performed in this country? I don't think so. Long before Roe v Wade abortions were being performed in this country, and if it were outlawed today I'm certain millions of abortions would be performed illegaly.
I cannot accept this theory. Is it your contention that there were even 1/10th the amount of abortions before Roe v. Wade as there are today? Would illegal abortions take place if they were outlawed? Certainly. Would it be anywhere near the current number? Absolutely not.
Furthermore, I agree that we ought to try to change the conditions that lead to abortions (I happen to think the church should do it and not the state, but that is another discussion). However, I believe that to be the case regarding all sin. Since you have equated Murder and Abortion, allow me to do the same.
Is there any person, specifically you, who would say that we should not have murder outlawed but should just work to change the conditions that often lead to murder? Of course not.
If rape were not illegal, would any of us say that the most Practical way to solve the problem would be to attempt to eliminate the conditions that often lead to it? I think not. I think everyone, rightly so, would be pushing for a law to protect the women (and some men) who are violated in that brutal crime.
Furthermore, this all hinges on a presupposition that I cannot agree with. That is, I do not believe that sin, namely abortion, is fundamentally tied to circumstances. I believe that it is fundamentally tied to the heart. Am I denying that circumstances have an impact? No. What I am saying is that it is rooted in the heart. This is something that can only be changed by Jesus breaking into their life and bringing about a radical transformation. So then, restraining sin by looking only (or even primarily) at circumstances seems to be the wrong approach.
Just my thoughts.
Glad to interact,
mike
Thanks for the link.
Crisis pregnancy centers are a wonderful thing. I support the one in my town. But selfish and irresponsible "parents" that have a cheap and legal remedy, sanctioned by government, will choose that over keeping the child most every time. Without addressing the hearts of these individuals the only remedy is the power of the state and/or stigma applied by society. We have neither of those.
We don't have "crisis murder" centers, we just make it illegal to murder and apply punishment to those that do. Law constrains the actions of citizens. As a society we need to outlaw abortion. At least the Republicans "say" they want to outlaw it.
The issue of poor unwed mothers is completely separate. They should be cared for whether abortion is legal or not.
This is a sin problem, not a support system problem. Our society sanctions murdering innocents. We all share in the bloodguilt. God have mercy on us, sinners.
I agree with Mike T, even though I think (emphasis on "I think") I understand the root of many of Daniel's concerns with this - that scripture doesn't give a crystal-clear straight forward command on WHEN a conception becomes God's image - and the tension comes when overly-conservative people go freeking ape about it because they don't see any "gray" in the issue.
Hey Mike T, great job being diplomatic and kind in the context of sticking to what's true without sounding pissed off.
Ryan
Daniel,
Do you have any proof to back up that first trimester babies don't have a soul? If not then you may want to reconsider some of your thoughts.To leave some abortions as legal is in a sense "playing God" something I would never be comfortable doing. Abortion any way you look at it is murdering a human being. Jeremiah 1:5 says, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,..." David says in Psalm 51:5, "Surely, I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
Everyone, thank you for your comments. I seem to be the only one here who is less than comfortable with using the word 'murder' synomymously with 'abortion'. I really suggest that those who would like to understand where I'm coming from a little better refer to my blog entry which I referenced earlier.
My basic thought is this: whatever the soul is, I see no biblical or philosophical reason to think that it 'pops' into being at conception. Any amount of thinking on twinning should reveal this (twins start out as one conceptus, and then become two human beings... do they therefore share a split soul?--no). The only 'proof' I can offer of this is to say that whatever is meant by the word 'soul' is fully dependent upon relevant neural structure. That's why, when someone is decapitated (as opposed to, say, dismembered in some way), they die; when someone's brain goes, they go--if someone (e.g. an embryo) doesn't have a brain, there's no meaningful sense in which they are a person (at least not in the fullest sense).
So let me pose this question: is a mother who chooses to have an anencephalic fetus aborted guilty of murder (and please, if you don't know what anencephaly is, please look it up--it should raise some good questions)?
This is clearly a divisive issue. If I have walked on any toes, please forgive me. I have simply grown restless and uncomfortable with some of the views I inherited from my upbringing on this particular issue.
Cheers, and much love to all,
-Daniel-
I see no biblical or philosophical reason to think that it 'pops' into being at conception.
Fair enough, if the creation of a person isn't when it "pops" in, where might it pop into being?
You may have answered this somewhere, but I am tired and therefore not thinking very well :)
Daniel,
Yes, in this fallen world we have all manner of birth defects. But before you write-off the fetus with no brain or a defective brain please check out an article that appeared in the December 12, 1980 issue of Science. In the article, the author Lewin reported a case study by John Lorber, a British neurologist and professor at Sheffield University:
"There’s a young student at this university," says Lorber, "who has an IQ of 126, has gained a first–class honors degree in mathematics, and is socially completely normal. And yet the boy has virtually no brain." The student’s physician at the university noticed that the youth had a slightly larger than normal head, and so referred him to Lorber, simply out of interest. "When we did a brain scan on him," Lorber recalls, "we saw that instead of the normal 4.5–centimeter thickness of brain tissue between the ventricles and the cortical surface, there was just a thin layer of mantle measuring a millimeter or so. His cranium is filled mainly with cerebrospinal fluid."
Just as I was against the killing of Terri Schiavo I am against the exception for abortion you advocate for the reason that we are not equiped to judge innocent life by a standard set by sinful man. How would you answer the Judge of us all in this instance?
BTW...inherited views are often correct. Wisdom certainly preceeded my being? (C:
Michael, thank you so much for your post. Your story (which I was able to reference quite easily thanks to our friend google) highlighted some murkiness with an anomaly known as 'hydrocephaly', where certain ventricles in the brain are enlarged. This is, however, entirely different from anencephaly--a condition from which 100% of new borns (if they are even born alive) die from within 10 days (though 75% of them die within a day). I'm not trying to say that anencephalic children have no worth (please don't misunderstand me)--but I refuse to believe that aborting a baby with no brain can or should be unqualifiedly equated with, say, someone intentionally stabbing someone else.
You are, in my humble opinion, quite right about the caution we should make use of given our fallen biases. However, I do think this cuts both ways.
Thanks for the conversation all.
Cheers,
-Daniel-
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home