- List All


  • Web   The Point

Blogroll

+ Theology/Religion + Culture + Marriage & Family + Politics + Academia + Human Rights
Christianity Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Religion Blogs - Blog Top Sites
Link With Us - Web Directory



« . . . And the sun is going to fry us all | Main | As Panic Ensues »

October 22, 2008

’Roe’ v. Iraq

In recent posts concerning the political platforms of the presidential candidates, commenters of a left-leaning persuasion have been agitated over what they see as the skewed evangelical emphasis on abortion, especially when weighed against an unjust war whose mounting casualties of our troops and Iraqi civilians should make it a preeminent concern.

Let me say, right off, that whether or not the Iraq war satisfies just war critieria, the casualties of combatants and civilians alike are tragic. Thus, the question before Christians is not whether this is an important concern but, in the course of civic engagement, does it have primacy over the lives of the unborn. Plainly, when Iraq and Roe are placed on opposite planchettes of the moral balance, where, and how far, does the moral indicator tip?

I suggest that by comparing the scale, intent and end of these two issues, one can gain a fairly good idea. 

On one planchette, thousands of persons per year are being killed unintentionally as a consequence of a conflict waged against a genocidal tyrant and enemies whose military strategy is to target innocent civilians in an effort to annihilate Israel, overthrow Western civilization, and impose an oppressive, theocratic world government. On the other, thousands of persons per day are being intentionally murdered in a Holocaust waged against individuals deemed inconvenient by society.

On one planchette, casualties will decline and, eventually, cease once the country is stabilized. On the other, the carnage is ongoing and, if advocates have their way, controls against it will be eliminated such that it becomes the solution of choice for the problems of poverty, environmental degradation, crime, and every other social ill.

In the end, the moral comparison of pro-abortion and pro-Iraq war policies is like that of an unrestricted, ongoing ethnic cleansing, against the inadvertent deaths caused by medical interventions, despite the best intentions and state-of-the-art care of physicians.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c635553ef0105359a09a3970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ’Roe’ v. Iraq:

Comments

Diane Singer

Regis,
As always, you have a knack for putting issues into their proper perspective. Thanks!

salt.racer

Thank you. The continuous comparison of Iraq to Abortion is such a false comparison.

Rolley Haggard

Regis,

I echo Diane's remarks and sentiments. Thank you, my friend.

Robert Van de Water

Regis,

In a recent post on "Moral Dilemmas" LeeQuod argued cogently that Christians can escape moral dilemmas of the form, "Do this evil to prevent this greater evil" by refusing to do the lesser evil because we recognize that God has the power to avert the greater evil through direct action. If refusing to do the lesser of two evils is an appropriate response to a hypothetical scenario, why is it inappropriate in a real world scenario? (i.e. why do the evil of supporting Iraq in order to avoid the greater evil of millions of abortions?)

But in the real world scenario, the case is even more difficult. Is anyone arguing that McCain would be able to appoint judges that would overthrow Roe if he won? On what basis? We know that Reagan appointees have voted to uphold Roe. Why would McCain appointees vetted by a Democratic congress be any better?

But it gets even more murky if we consider the nature and role of government. If we had the ability to establish a totalitarian government that could prevent sinful human beings from breaking all of God's laws, would this be a desirable thing? Is a human being righteous before God if he/she is incapable of breaking a law because of government restraint? Even if they break the law every day in their heart?

In the Old Testament, God tells Sammuel, "They have rejected me as being king over them." What was it like when God was king in this fallen world? Did God establish a totalitarian state that imposed his law on everyone? When God told us to "take every thought captive" did he mean for us to use police handcuffs for this purpose?

I think it is a huge mistake for Christians to rely on the temporal, worldly power of the state to accomplish Kingdom purposes and I am on the record as predicting (using the alias of Bruce Robertson) that God would rebuke the church for its dependence on political means to accomplish spiritual ends. The warfare that we are fighting is spiritual and the weapons we must use are spiritual.

Brian

I'm not quite sold on some of the assumptions which this post rests on.

The emphasis on Roe:
Assuming Roe is ever overturned, which as Robert pointed out, is arguable at best, will that SCOTUS ruling bring an end to abortions in the US? Will it reduce the number of abortions in the US?

You are right in pointing out that the termination of thousands of pregnancies each day in the US is a tragedy of grave proportions. But will overturning Roe correct that? If not, you _may_ have established the correct priority, but have failed to identify the correct solution.

The situation in Iraq:
The post asserts that, with time, violence in Iraq will stabilize. The first question is, obviously, will it? Has history shown us that more violence is an effective method for countering violence? Has US-led violence in Iraq over the past decade(s) brought peace and justice?

And _if_ violence in Iraq is stabilizing, why is that? Is it as a result of justice or is it because splinter factions have established and locked down control in regions around the country? Will tyranny replace the current chaos?

If we succeed in overturning Roe, with no effect, and succeed in perpetuating violence in Iraq indefinitely, the correctness of our priorities will be meaningless compared with the execution of our methodology.

Thoughts?

Rolley Haggard

Robert,

If an armed man broke into your house to rape your wife, what "spiritual weapon" would you use to stop him?

If it is "unspiritual" to clobber a would-be rapist over the head with a two-by-four, then all I can say is Christ set a bad example when He drove out the money-changers with a cat-o-nine-tails.

Evil should be opposed in all its manifestations by the use of every lawful means. If it is wrong to "rely on the temporal worldly power of the state to accomplish kingdom purposes", it is at least equally wrong in the name of Christianity so-called to let evil proceed unresisted at the expense of innocent lives.

Some "spiritual acts" don't look very "spiritual". Eating a piece of fruit a la Adam and Eve comes to mind. But attempts to make a hard and fast distinction between the "spiritual" and the "physical" are spurious.

I can’t speak for others, but I, for one, do not “depend” on political means to accomplish spiritual ends. But since when is politics the exclusive province of the Devil? I believe it was the apostle Paul who said we were to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. That includes – indeed, it is especially appropriate in – the marketplace of ideas (read politics).

My particular brand of theology (biblical) says that one day each of us will stand before God and give account. I don’t know about you, but I am neither prepared nor inclined to have to tell Him, when He asks what I did to help the least of these – whether “the least of these” is the pre-born or the would-be victims of terrorists – that I did nothing because it didn’t seem “spiritual”.

I submit that it would be worthwhile to consider a broader view of what means to be “spiritual.”

“Pure religion and undefiled is this”, said the apostle James, “to visit orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” (James 1:27)

"He pled the cause of the afflicted and needy; then it was well. Is not that what it means to know Me?" declares the LORD. (Jeremiah 22:16)

LeeQuod

Robert, using one of my arguments to try to derail a Regis argument is about as effective as trying to block machine gun fire with a baseball bat. (That reminds me: I need to check on Andy tomorrow.) Thanks for calling it "cogent", though.

Besides, if we admit God into the picture (which the moral conundrums did not) then the question transforms into one of greatest obedience. And I believe Regis has established conclusively which issue demonstrates our allegiance to God most effectively. Think of it this way: if you could protest against the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, or protest the use of animals in testing pharmaceuticals, and could only choose one, which effort on your part would do the most good - even if it didn't succeed? The prison is short term, and far fewer deaths have occurred. It seems rather callous to disregard the rhesus monkeys who've been dying for decades. (2 Cor. 11:23b)

Which choice most effectively demonstrates reverence for life?

Oh, and this is bugging me - if "Bruce Robertson" was an alias, how do we know that "Robert Van de Water"... oh, never mind.

Mike Perry

QUOTE FROM A POSTER: "In a recent post on "Moral Dilemmas" LeeQuod argued cogently that Christians can escape moral dilemmas of the form, "Do this evil to prevent this greater evil" by refusing to do the lesser evil because we recognize that God has the power to avert the greater evil through direct action."

Yes, we all recall how God sent a host of angels to shut down Nazi death camps and kill all Nazi leaders, ending the war suddenly in the spring of 1942. As any school child knows, that meant the U.S. didn't have to fight a nasty war that included large numbers of civilian deaths in Europe and Asia. Yes, God can and did intervene. No doubt about it.

And we all know that since having police means innocent people are sometimes shot, we should get rid of the police and expect God to bring an end to crime, again through that marvelous "direct action." Someone starts to mug you, an angel appears, taking him I know not where, since even a prison, with its violence and male-on-male rapes, would be off limits in this magical world of God's "direct action."

The same is true of medicine. Doctors and hospitals sometimes screw up, killing patients and sometimes a well-intended treatment kills, particularly chemotherapy for cancer. (I know. I worked in a hospital and saw kids die from treatment rather than disease.) We should brush that all messiness aside. We should forget medicine, get rid of hospitals, and trust God's "direct action" to heal us. Heaven has truly come down to earth

SARCASM OFF

I don't really know what to make of "cogent" arguments that are so easily demolished as this. Life in this world is messy. That's why we've saved by grace. We do the best we can in the midst of all the muddle. Tolkien, in both his letters and in Lord of the Rings, noted precisely this dilemma. We do the best we can to fight the evil in our time, knowing that our task with never be perfect and never be complete. Look at slavery. Evangelicals fought it two centuries ago and it's still around, perhaps even growing. Ditto wars, ditto everything.

That poster's selective and rather smug tolerance of evil reminds me of many libertarians. Any evil that doesn't impact them personally, abortion or murderous dictators far away, is an evil about which nothing need be done, one not covered by their notions of limited government. Any evil that can impact them, here crime and disease, is a matter of upmost concern.

In seminary, I once had a professor remark that any truth became a heresy if pushed far enough. Here God's omnipotence is being treated that way. Just because God could do something doesn't mean he will. For the most part, he expects us to act, in Tolkien's terms to be 'co-creators' with God in the moral realm as we are in the arts.

And I'd add my response to all those who push such exaggerated claims. "If you believe God's is that sovereign, why do you push your point of view?" God changing my view about this sort of thing is immeasurably simpler than ending the Holocaust, Saddam's horrors, or legalized abortion. It doesn't even involve any complexities of good becoming mixed with evil. If human means aren't required for the latter three, then they're certainly not needed for the first. Be consistent, keep your views to yourself and let God change our minds by "direct action."

***

A final comment to Regis. This remark, "On one planchette, casualties will decline and, eventually, cease once the country is stabilized" is doubly wrong. Casualities have been declining for many months, so that the debate is over. Al Quada lost in Iraq. And in the Middle East they will probably never cease in our lifetimes, so that goal is pointless. And what is most significant of all, the Iraqis are pushing us out of peacekeeping roles, taking on the risks themselves. I've always thought the trouble in Iraq hinged on whether Iraqis are brave or not. It appears that they are brave.

Iraqi demonstrates what history has demonstrated innumerable times, violence (in this case force including lethal force) in the cause of good works quite well. It's why most Europeans aren't being forced to learn German as their first language and why their schoolchildren don't salute a picture of Hitler each morning. We can't eliminate all evil, but we can eliminate specific evils, Saddam's murderous regime in this case.

****

I've said this before, but it bears repeating. If you'd like to understand how God works to deal with evil in this world, read E. M. Forester's The Good Shepherd. The book is the internal dialogue of a Christian (and pastor's son) who's captain of a US Navy destroyer. He is also in charge of the escort for a ship convoy crossing the Atlantic in the darkness days of WWII. The introduction makes clear that at this point, the war is balanced on a knife edge. Defeat or victory may hinge on what he does.

A Navy captain cannot leave the command of his ship anytime it is in danger, so for two days and two nights, he remains on the bridge, giving orders that mean life and death. That's life AND death. His choices mean that some people die, and not just those in Germany U-boats. At one point he orders his ship to steam full speed through a sea filled with survivors of a sinking. He can't stop, attacking the U-boat before it can sink another ship is more important.

That's life and that's how God intends up to live as 'good shepherds' in this world. It means putting ourselves in situations where we must make messy, ethically conflicted choices, not standing on the sidelines sneering. And that means we should be fighting Roe and fighting in Iraq.

Matt

Brian brings up a good point. Will voting for McCain end federally legal abortions? I doubt it. Not that Obama would reduce abortions by any stretch of the imagination.

Will abandoning Iraq at this point lead, in the end, to less or more death over all? Ignore the argument about the war being just or unjust to begin with, we can't change the the past and not invade. We can only decide what to do going forward. Leaving a power vacuum in Iraq will only invite take over by Iran, Syria, and possibly Saudi Arabia. Is that better or worse for the people in Iraq?

Leaving those two arguments aside I have one other question: Why should Christians (or anyone for that matter) have to choose between these two options? Certainly there is some third party candidate that is both anti-war and anti-abortion. Why not vote for that person? If every conscionable person voted such, that person may even have a shot at winning. If you have to answer to God for you actions (which you do). Would you prefer to say you voted against abortion, you voted against war, or you voted against both?

Of course then He will probably ask you (or at least he will ask me) why the only you did to try to stop those things was spend 5 minutes every four years voting. If all you do is vote you are depending on government to solve these ills. I don't think that's what God expects from us.

Robert Van de Water

Rolley,

I wonder if God could protect my wife from the rapist without the need for me to use a 2 by 4? Probably not.

But let us imagine that God did allow someone to enter my home to attempt to rape my wife. Yes, I would resist with all the force at my disposal. I might even attempt to beat the rapist over the head with a 2 by 4. The question is, does this mean that using a 2 by 4 in a pre-emptive strike is the best solution to the societal problem of rape? The question is entirely different.

The problem that I see (and maybe you guys have no experience with this) is that Christians tend to advance political agendas with a religious fervor. When I go and talk to people about Christianity, I have to fight their association of "Christian" = "Republican". Do I really want to defend incompetence, graft, deception, a questionable pre-emptive war in Iraq, poor policies on the environment, torture and adding 5 Trillion dollars to our national debt through flagrant fiscal irresponsibility as essential to eternal salvation? I would rather be "all things to all men" and say, "Yes the Republicans embrace many greedy, evil and irresponsible policies. The gospel is not the same thing as the Republican party platform."

By all means, vote for a Republican if you think that is the lesser of two evils. What I strenuously object to is the idea that voting for a Republican is mandatory for mature Christians of good conscience. I simply disagree.


Robert Van de Water

Mike,

If you read up on history, you find that the rise of Adolf Hitler could have been derailed at any number of points by any number of people. I wonder if Christians had applied Christian principles to the Treaty of Verrsailles Hitler would have been able to take over and cause so much destruction? I honestly believe that World War II would not have been possible if more Germans (one person at a time) had believed in Jesus Christ and lived lives based on his Word.

Your style of post reminds me a great deal of Bill Maher. The arguments are effective against those who do not wish to take the time to think things through, but just because you can make fun of something doesn't mean that it is false.


Matt,

"Of course then He will probably ask you (or at least he will ask me) why the only you did to try to stop those things was spend 5 minutes every four years voting. If all you do is vote you are depending on government to solve these ills. I don't think that's what God expects from us."

That is an excellent point Matt, but I think the problem goes deeper. I think that associating the gospel with the Republican party platform actually increases resistance to the gospel and reduces the churches effectiveness as salt and light in the world. When the church in Acts was effective at stopping witchcraft and idolatry, for example, they did not do it by passing a city ordinance. They did it by witnessing to people such that they repented of their evil ways and destroyed their books on witchcraft and their idols voluntarily.

If I wanted to use an argument from authority, I would say that C.S. Lewis argued that the most political act you could perform is to witness to your neighbor.

labrialumn

Mr. van de Water,
I am afraid you are much mistaken, for what you say God will judge is in fact one of the three uses of the Law.

1 Timothy 1:8 We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for adulterers and homosexuals, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.

Also Romans 13. Civil government does not bear the sword in vain.

A vote for the Democrats in this election is not licit for Christians, for to do so would be material cooperation in the commission of intrinsic evil. The only possible restraint on the Democrats is to vote for the GOP ticket. A vote for a more "ideologically pure" third party candidate only helps establish the intrinsic evil, which is not licit to do. Republican != Christian, that is true. But when ends are considered - and they have to be - they are the only moral option this time around, at the federal level. I'm all for enhancing certain third parties whose platforms are better, but not in a Quixotic manner that only aids evil against the faithful.

Brian

Right on, Matt. Scripture is filled with stories of prophets pricking the humanity of kings, and prophetesses rekindling the humanity of the cold-hearted. And of course, Jesus bids us "Follow me" not "Rock the vote."

I guess the question becomes, how do we create the culture of life that we long for, standing in the way of violence in Iraq AND supporting would-be mothers?

Regis Nicoll

Brian—Overturning Roe, in and of itself, will not eliminate abortions. But it would rescind the moral imprimatur of the State and, given that the moral vision of many folks is no higher than whatever the law will allow, cause women to more fully consider all their options. Combined with a Church positioned to support women and their children during and after pregnancy, there is every reason to expect a significant reduction in abortions.

On the other hand, fortifying Roe with the Freedom of Choice Act by a president who panders to Planned Parenthood, would be expected to have just the opposite effect.

Contrary to the pro-choice cant, making abortion vanishingly rare is not a matter of further entrenching reproductive “rights”, but of shaping our social conscience and the law of the land with the moral code of God.

Robert Van de Water

labrialumn,

If I should use practical thinking in order to modify my behavior so that I can most effectively fight evil, (As you argue when you say, "Don't vote for a third party candidate because the practical effect of this is to establish an intrinsic evil.") then I should also look at the practicality which tells me that even if John McCain wins abortion will still be legal. Do you see the problem? You argue, "Be practical and realize that the best way to fight the evil of abortion is to vote for the GOP, but don't be practical enough to realize that abortion will be legal regardless of whether or not you vote for the GOP."

The only way abortion will ever be illegal is if enough people come to a knowledge of Christ and know about the sanctity of life. The only way that will ever happen is if we bring about revival through the spiritual weapons of prayer and fasting. When you say that we must prevent abortions by making abortion illegal, you are putting the cart before the horse.

But the deeper prolbem I have is with the approach that you take toward the law. Sarah Palin can bring her toddler in to work because she, as a righteous and holy Christian for whom there is no law, would never allow it to interfere with her work. Kenneth Lay can lie and cheat and decieve because he knows what is good for his investors and knows that in the goodness of his own heart he is doing such things for their benefit. Christians who support torturing terror suspects can justify it because they know that, in the goodness of their own hearts, they would never abuse that kind of power. John Ashcroft can support abuses of his Constitutional authority because he knows that the law is not for him, it is for sinners.

In my book, I argue that the law is a "minimum standard" that God gave us to point the way to his true standard which is summed up by Jesus as "Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart soul and mind and love thy neighbor as thyself". When God allowed people to grant a certificate of divorce because of the hardness of their heart, for example, this was not his "command" as the Pharisees said, but an allowance for the fact that they were too hard-hearted to love. God's true standard, as Jesus tells us, was that no man should separate what God had joined together.

What I think God means when he says the law is for sinners, he is saying "Look, the law is a minimum standard for people who don't know me and don't have my Holy Spirit guiding them. They need to limit retaliation for sin to an "eye for an eye". People who have my Holy Spirit must "turn the other cheek" and "overcome evil with good" and not retaliate.

So God says that the law is not for us because he calls us to a higher standard, not because we can violate the law with impunity.

Matt

Labrialum, I disagree with you completely that we must vote for the republicans simply because the democrats are evil. The republicans are also evil. You and I are evil as well. The bible says that God puts in place rulers and authorities. Not you or I, God. That doesn't mean we should not vote, but it also doesn't mean we should only vote for the republican party because they are slightly less evil than the democrat party, especially when there may be a party out there that is less evil than both.

Does it matter if they have no chance of winning? What chance of winning did David have against Goliath? What happened when Israel allied themselves with Egypt against Assyria, we're they voting for the lesser of two evils? Maybe they should have relied on God rather than human institutions? Not that I'm suggesting that a third party is God, or that there is even a Godly third party. Simply, we should not put our hope in things of this world, whether that is our retirement fund, political parties, governments, religious leaders, or etc. Read Revelation, no matter who wins the presidency, this world is still doomed.

Brian, change does not come from the top down. No matter how much Obama's campaign says differently ;) Like the anonymous responder to me said, "the most political act you could perform is to witness to your neighbor." Changing hearts and minds of those around us will change the world far more drastically than any president ever could.

Vote as the Holy Spirit leads you to vote. I already voted (for McCain) but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I'm sick to death of voting against evil by voting for evil.
I don't want to vote against evil.
I want to vote FOR good and only God is good.

Jason Taylor

Actually there is a big difference between abortion and Iraq. War is part of what nations do, what almost all nations have done from time immemorial. Killing ones own citizens for frivolous reasons is not. Even if Iraq is unjust, it is no greater an injustice then is normal among men, whereas killing helpless children(who have a right to the State's protection, as citizens) by the millions is far different.
It is no more a contradiction then there would be in a saint in Ancient times objecting to Circuses but not objecting to the legions.

Samuel X

Umm... [blink] actually, infanticide is one of those things that almost all nations have done from time immemorial, too, so that's not exactly sturdy grounds. Besides, is there such a thing as a "new" evil?

Jason Taylor

Well lets put it this way. Every society is dependent for it's survival on either it's own ability to make war, or the willingness of others to wage war for it.
No society is dependant for it's survival on infanticide.

Or to put it still another way, can you imagine a baby pointing a gun at you?

Jason Taylor

It is not in fact true that almost every nation has condoned infanticide from time immemorial. Christian Europe never did until recently and neither did the Islamic world. And no society was ever dependent on it. Moreover a baby is not only innocent but helpless and it is generally assumed that harming the helpless is different.
And no society above the level of hunter-gatherers(who cannot count on a food source and thus can be cruel to "useless mouths")has EVER required the tolerance of infanticide for it's survival or even it's prosperity.

Samuel X

Christian Europe and Muslim Asia occur rather late in world history to qualify as "time immemorial", don't they? Prior to Christianity no civilization condemned infanticide.

I'm not sure I buy your premise that every society is dependent for its survival on its ability to wage war - especially that we seem to be using that term speciously. Defensive war? I think I can see where it may be necessary at times. [understatement self-test complete] Offensive war? Not so much.

Suppose I grant all that for the moment, though. Are you really trying to argue that traditional sins are less serious than newer ones? I'm not saying that the Iraq War is more important than the abortion issue, only your statement that there is no contradiction between caring about ending one and not the other.

Jason Taylor

I am arguing that increasing a sin is worse then maintaining one. So yes traditional sins are less serious.
And yes, there is no contradiction. In any case it is in dispute whether there is a sin in both cases. It is not however argued that babies are a threat to the general welfare. Indeed, no one is contending that babies are a threat to the welfare of anyone except for to people who ought to have been more prudent nine months before.
As far as your distinction between "defensive" and "offensive" war, your opponents claim that it is in fact defensive. Your basis for calling it offensive boils down to whether or not it is being fought on foreign territory. Which is another way of saying no war is justified unless we are losing.

Benjamin Ady

Regis,

It feels like you are setting up a false comparison, stuffed with straw, and then rather easily knocking it down.

"In the end, the moral comparison of pro-abortion and pro-Iraq war policies is like that of an unrestricted, ongoing ethnic cleansing, against the inadvertent deaths caused by medical interventions, despite the best intentions and state-of-the-art care of physicians."

this feels ever so slightly ... naive, or at least choosing-to-keep-one's-eyes-closed.

To compare the travesty of what is continuing to happen in Iraq to inadventerent deaths despite the best intentions of state-of-the-are care from physicians seems to me to reflect a certain excessive trust in the motives and methods of those who chose to start the Iraq conflict--George Bush and his colleagues. Both the decision to go to war, and the way in which the war has been carried out, even giving the biggest possible benefit of the doubt, compare at best to a very long string of "inadventerent" deaths by a group of doctors who have enriched themselves financially via the process and have ultimately shown themselves unworthy of a medical license and of a mindset where they think they are quintesentially better than their patients , and better at making decisions about, their patients "medical care" than the patients themselves.

Do you actually stand by your comparison of the Iraq War to a mishap by well well intentioned state of the art physicians?

Regis Nicoll

Benjamin--What I stand by is that the one million children killed every year in a billion dollar abortion industry is the biggest moral failing of our time, bar none.

Robert Van de Water

Regis,

As I have been going over this in my mind, there is another aspect of your argument which bothers me enormously. That aspect is the 100% transference of moral responsibility for the sin of abortion from the person who actually chooses the abortion to the person who allows the abortion. Would you agree to this transference in other circumstances?

Let us say that there is a young man who murders his parents. He is not responsible for his action, he claims, because violent Hollywood movies motivated him. He also argues that he has been trained to shoot people in video games since he was old enough to hold the controller. He accuses the school system of not catching the mental condition which made him commit the crime. He blames Republicans for advocating gun laws that allowed him to purchase a gun while he was still angry. Everyone is to blame but him for the murder.

Do you buy this young man's arguments? Is everyone besides him guilty while he alone is guilt free? Or does not the lions share of the guilt rest on his shoulders? If "society" gets only a small part of the blame for this young man's murder, why does a politician get the lion's share of the blame for the evil of abortion? Surely a much larger share of the blame goes to the Hollywood movies that depict free and easy sex? To the television shows which depict people living together without consequences? To the books and advertisements that encourage immoral behavior? To you and I for supporting the movies and the television shows through our collective viewership?

So politicians share only a small amount of the blame for the evil of abortion in our country. If we are going to perform moral calculus as you have advocated, shoud we not weigh only the president's share of the evil of abortion on the scales of right and wrong when choosing a president?

LeeQuod

Leave it to Jason Taylor to open the door to exactly the right issue: war is an attempt to kill another nation's citizens; infanticide kills your own.

We need a new Abraham Lincoln to get us out of this new Civil War that's been raging since the 1960s, and a Harriet Beecher Stowe to immortalize its cause as infamous. Can we, or any nation, long survive when we devalue a portion of our own people not as merely three-fifths human, but as altogether not human? And which is worse, slavery or slaughter?

(Aside to Benjamin, Andy, et. al.: I'm always fascinated by the Left's interest in American casualties, and apparent disinterest in Iraqi casualties. I wonder if that's because in the absence of American troops, the Iraqi casualties would continue to mount or even accelerate. As a Christian, I feel called to value all lives, not merely American ones. And of course this argument applies to the Left's concern for mothers - who, unless their conceptions were immaculate, knew what they were doing - and apparent disregard for their babies.)

(Gina, does Regis hold The Point's records for both "Most Comments for a Single Posting" and "Most Comments Overall"? Makes me wonder if, when he's in a group face-to-face, people naturally line up on his right and his left. :-) )

Regis Nicoll

Robert—I suggested “100% transference of moral responsibility?" Really? As I told Brian, “making abortion vanishingly rare [will require] shaping our social conscience and the law of the land with the moral code of God.” Since the “social conscience” includes that of providers, patrons, politicians, pastors, parishioners, and the voting public, the moral responsibility for aligning our laws and practices with the law of God is broad enough to include most of the citizenry.

Samuel X

"I am arguing that increasing a sin is worse then maintaining one. So yes, traditional sins are less serious."
I agree with your initial statement. I also do not see the history of human civilization as one unending war, and I do see both war and abortion performed throughout human history. Abortion has simply ceased for much longer before experiencing a popular revival. At the moment, however, the United States is deeply involved in both war and abortion, and therefore the above is no reason to prefer one over the other.

"And yes, there is no contradiction. In any case it is in dispute whether there is a sin in both cases."
Irrelevant. We are disputing it now. Calling attention to the fact that we are arguing has no bearing on the argument itself.

"It is not however argued that babies are a threat to the general welfare. Indeed, no one is contending that babies are a threat to the welfare of anyone except for to people who ought to have been more prudent nine months before." Agreed. Conceded, if you wish.

"As far as your distinction between 'defensive' and 'offensive' war, your opponents claim that it is in fact defensive."
...First, "your opponents"? I haven't argued this with anyone else recently, especially anyone you know. Perhaps you are mistaking me for a contrarian hive-minded collective? I disavow all political affiliations to parties, lobbyist groups, or any other organizations that focus on or revolve around the government. Or perhaps you mean people with whom I disagree regardless of whether or not I have actually argued with them? From a realistic perspective, I disagree with not only everyone on the planet but everyone who has ever existed on some point or another, but it would be absurd to consider them all my opponents.
Second, we seem to have a misunderstanding. I am in favor of maintaining the War in Iraq for as long as necessary so long as it is fought with the intention of minimizing the total number of transformations of people into corpses. I am opposed to opening new battlefronts without extremely cautious consideration of the implications, and to the increasingly common and distressingly precedent-setting tactic of engaging in warfare without formal declaration, and I am increasingly convinced that this was not done. However, I am also more concerned about abortion than the war in Iraq, essentially for the reasons Regis outlined.
Third... do we really need to address the profound differences between what is claimed and what is true?

"Your basis for calling it offensive boils down to whether or not it is being fought on foreign territory. Which is another way of saying no war is justified unless we are losing."
Well... yes, actually. There are a few exceptions - goading another nation into attacking your home territory would be an offensive action, rescuing nationals on foreign territory would be a defensive action - but on the whole that is a fairly accurate representation of my position. But it does not logically lead to your conclusion without the premise that whoever fights on their home territory is currently losing, with which I adamantly disagree - "losing" is poorly defined (can a country that ultimately wins be said to have been losing at any point? If V is for victory, how do you determine dV/dt?) and in any case, neither side needs to be completely annihilated for the other to declare victory! The defense wins when they get the offense to stop attacking and all the side-effects of do so are nullified (debts/bribes repaid, cities rebuilt, etc).

The comments to this entry are closed.