In his Oct. 27 New York Times editorial “Why I Am Prolife,” Thomas Friedman paints an ugly, implausible caricature — of his own view of the world. Is it really possible that a public intellectual believes he can cancel out support for the intentional killing of inconvenient pre-born babies by favoring measures like smoking bans or carbon-trading?
The term “pro-life,” like its counterpart “pro-choice,” denotes one of the governing values that stand in tension in arguments over abortion: One side favors the sanctity of life, the other of choice. It’s laughable for advocates of legal abortion to skip lightly over the death of more than 1 million American children every year, then claim that they’re the “real” pro-lifers because they favor more prudent policies on public health, crime or ecology. Paul Ryan might as well say he’s more pro-choice than Thomas Friedman because he favors greater consumer choice through deregulation or parental choice through tuition tax credits.
We aren’t playing a game here. We are arguing over the meaning of human life and liberty. The pro-choice position implies an absolute legal autonomy over one’s body — which, if it were applied consistently, must allow for the sale of human organs, prostitution, the use of addictive drugs and even the abolition of minimum wage laws. (Who is the federal government to tell me I can’t swing a hammer with my own arms and back for less than $7.25 per hour?)
Conversely, the pro-life position would dictate that every human life, beginning with conception, really deserves the protection of law. The political “crime” that certain pro-life politicians have committed by honestly facing the rape exception is this: They were too principled. You might say they are like those few abolitionists who damned the Emancipation Proclamation because it did not free all the slaves. Say that they’re overreaching courage and being reckless.
What you can’t say is that they’re not really pro-life because they don’t want to regulate the size of soft drinks in New York City. Not if you really take human life — or women’s choice — with moral seriousness. Pro-lifers believe that regard for human life must start with the basic, Mosaic commandment “You shall not murder.” A state that allows the innocent to be killed for any reason conceals a cancer at its heart — like ancient Rome’s embrace of infanticide. It was Jews and Christians who started to rescue exposed infants at Rome’s walls, who over centuries shamed a heartless Rome into banning this practice.
The pursuit of the good life and a just society begins with a vision of human dignity; it is from this elevated view of every human being — not just the rich or the powerful — that other crusades against injustice began. We reject slavery, forced marriage, religious intolerance, segregation and sexism not because they are ugly or unpopular. Each of these abuses was quite widely accepted among the “smart set” in its day, and the people who first opposed each evil were tarred as bizarre extremists. But these human evils — and those that will rise up to face us in our biotechnology future — are worth making oneself unfashionable by fighting them.
The legalized abuse of one innocent person threatens us all. On a gut level, each of us knows that he or she is no different from the slave who is being flogged, the civilian killed by a drone, the kulak in a gulag, or Anne Frank hiding in her attic. We might try to fend off this inconvenient truth; whole societies have worked to dehumanize those minorities who blocked the collective will to power.
Today, when sexual liberation is part of our governing creed, unborn children are the speed bumps we’d rather flatten. As society ages, our targets will include the elderly and the handicapped. In every war in history — including our War on Terror — civilians in enemy countries have crowded this tragic list. If you want an organization that takes on all the challenges to the sanctity of human life — from poverty to prison abuse and war — look at (Bella executive producer) Jason Jones’ I Am Whole Life, which organizes grass roots initiatives on each of these life issues.
It’s easy to see the sanctity of my own life, and of my family’s. What’s harder is to recognize is the same dignity in folk who look strange, live differently or stand in the way of my wishes. That’s when the vital force of human selfishness grabs hold of the rest of the brain and begins to manufacture excuses, exceptions and sophisticated rationales. But all of them boil down to nothing more than “might makes right.”
There’s a growing crack at the base of the pro-choice worldview. How can our choices about our bodies be inviolable, when our lives themselves are not? Why is our sexual autonomy sacred, when our very birth into life isn’t? The autonomy some would make sacred can only grow in the soil of human dignity. Either we are productive animals, who can be culled at need (see China’s one-child policy) or else we are dignified creatures whose free choices matter because they’re part of something greater: of the highest value on earth, which is human life.
Comments
Post a Comment
Your phrase “unborn children are the speed bumps we’d rather flatten” is painfully perfect. Too many people think that exact same thing and act on it. May the Holy Souls of Purgatory pray for us this month especially!
“Either we are productive animals, who can be culled at need (see China’s one-child policy) or else we are dignified creatures whose free choices matter because they’re part of something greater: of the highest value on earth, which is human life.” I think that this maybe sums up the problem in so far as many of the environmentalists and liberals see us as little more than animals that the world needs to be protected from. This seems to be part of the problem of the pro-abortion side and why they remain so venomous towards pro-life beliefs is that they don’t see humans as a gift or a good thing to them human life is a cancer on the earth.
I wonder if you are right that there is a growing crack at the base of the pro-choice world view. Hasn’t the same crack always been there? And aren’t they just trying a new way to mortar it over, because the previous ways didn’t hold?
I don’t see any end in sight to this problem. I think things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.
This crack is still worth it, if it means upholding the dignity of woman through the means of giving her the choice of how best to live her own life.
We have to stop pretending that our position makes life easier or happier for many women. Our position is not attractive to women who believe that satisfaction in life is to be found primarily outside the home in outside a life as a traditional mother and chaste spouse. Our entire educational system is geared toward making sure that they will think that life outside the home is the only life really worth living for them.
“Have as much sex as you want. No consequences which you cannot manage.” That is the bait and hook we have swallowed, and that is the hook from which we must disentangle ourselves and the food we must disgorge. I don’t see any major trends which will help this to happen. Perhaps God has something in store for us, either good or evil, but it is not visible.
They and you are not really pro-life because you will not call out Santorum on his support of Spectre over Toomey in the PA ‘06 primaries. Is it Non-negotiable or not?
You are not pro-life when you consider the death of a half-million Iraqi children not merely “worth it” as Albright said, but “a good start” and want to do the same to millions of Iranian children. Muslims are “blobs of tissue”. Inhuman. We can slaughter them like cattle. The catechism says targeting non-combatants is a violation of the 5th commandment. But you would have to assume they are humans, persons. While screaming for “religious freedom”, did anyone notice the Mosque burned to the ground in Joplin?
You are not pro-life when you accept the Dubya - unitary executive, Mr. Torture, would not send the jackboots into Florida on a rescue like Clinton did with Elian Gonzales but let Terri Schiavo die a horrible death.
As to “living wage”, they say an employer must pay you X, but if you had a hot-dog cart where you would earn X on a local street, you cannot do it.
Mitt Romneycare imposed the same things the HHS mandate does upon MA, but no one cares. Asmodeus v.s. Beelzebub. He was pro-abort and pro-gay-marriage while governing MA, but says he converted although he had no discomfort in MA, nor in corrupting Ryan to except rape and incest.
If you aren’t merely a mouthpiece for the GOP it would help immeasurably if you would say something different than a mouthpiece for the GOP would say.
tz, your straw-man is circular and makes no sense. Do you have a coherent point to make, or are you just trying to stir up anger?
Excellent points all the way around. Catholics need to keep speaking out against the undeserved caricature that we are against abortion but for violence, oppression, destruction of the earth, etc. Some Catholics tow the party line (on either side) more than they care to follow the Church’s teachings, but in my experience most Catholics strive for a consistent pro-life ethic.
We aren’t playing a game here. We are arguing over the meaning of human life and liberty. The pro-choice position implies an absolute legal autonomy over one’s body — which, if it were applied consistently, must allow for the sale of human organs, prostitution, the use of addictive drugs and even the abolition of minimum wage laws. (Who is the federal government to tell me I can’t swing a hammer with my own arms and back for less than $7.25 per hour?)”
******************
Interesting point, because all the above already take place widely, but on the black market, under the radar, or under the table. No one suggests making organ sales legal to cut down on the more dangerous,illegal sales.But that’s the arguement used in abortion.
One million children? People argue, but can they argue with the biologist who testify to life? One million lives! DNA tells, it is human.
Excellent post, prof Z.
.
People tend to focus on the extremes, but the fact is that >99% of abortions are done as a back up birth control (BC), when BC fails or is not used, according to Guttmacher institute. Less than 1% are because of forced intercourse. The sad thing is that even if Roe Vs Wade is repealed (as it should be), a strictly legislative strategy will not be the answer either. There is no way laws will be passed and enforced, that penalize 100’s of thousands of teenagers/young adults with fines and/or jail each year because they had abortions.
.
The other big problem is that people in general are not being told by BC providers the fact that no BC is 100% effective. None… The are probably many reasons for this. To acknowledge that intercourse is procreative, even with BC, goes against “sex without strings attached” ‘60’s dogmas, now a $trillion industry. So when people become pregnant, then what? They panic (“oh my gosh, I am/you are pregnant, how could that be?”), and chose abortion. The Church does not address this issue, but the Church should.
.
People should be taught that if they are going to use BC, to acknowledge the simple fact that it is never 100% effective, and to take the responsibility, if pregnant, to keep the baby, if need be give it up to adoption. The stigma of teenage or young adult out of wed lock pregnancy is long gone. Young people should be taught to make that decision before even thinking of having sex. This is what needs to be taught in schools. The idea that sex is procreative above all is simple 101 biology. Instead kids are taught that pregnancy is like a disease, a “risk”, like venereal infections.
.
Natural Family Planning, advocated by the Church, is no different from other forms non-abortificant BC, technically. They all use artificially created barriers. NFP uses time as barrier, instead of rubber or hormonal manipulation. The big difference between NFP and other methods is the attitude of the users. People that practice NFP accept that if they become pregnant, they keep the child. That attitude needs to be taught for all forms of BC.
.
BC is not going away. The Church needs to address this issue head on, to dissociate BC, as a sin, from abortion, as an intrinsic evil. But this will take courage, and intellect, something lacking these days.
.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGk…
Kathleen, some organ donations (which are “sales” in that yeah, the middle men make money from the insurance companies) are in fact ethical. *NO* abortion is ethical, so there is no real comparison. Also, laws are not just to control behavior, they are also an expression of what we aspire to as a nation. For example, it’s not really possible for the State to punish someone who succeeds in committing suicide, but by making suicide illegal we at least express our disapproval of what we cannot punish and can only sometimes prevent.
I read a lot of pro-life stuff but this was a cut above the rest. Really well done!
you might be interested in this:
Scientific proof that abortion is immoral
http://intolerant-tolerants.blogspot.com/2011/12/scientific-proof-that-abortion-is.html
Safe sex: 100% effective
http://intolerant-tolerants.blogspot.com/2011/12/safe-sex-100-effective-contraception.html
Footnote: majority of aborting women were on contraception.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/feminist-dont-respect-women-the-catholic-church-does
Social consequences of contraception
http://intolerant-tolerants.blogspot.com/2012/02/social-consequences-of-contraception.html
http://blog.adw.org/2012/04/cohabitations-dirty-little-secret/
Not negotiable principles
http://intolerant-tolerants.blogspot.com/2011/12/not-negotiable-principles.html
f.nazar a t gmail.com
Howard,
Thanks for your comment, but direct selling of your organs is illegal.There’s a big difference between that & companies that profit from processing blood & organ donations.
Regarding abortion, you’re preaching to the choir.I’m completely pro-life, no exceptions.But, the world is not, nor the medical profession by & large. Ditto for pharmaceutical companies.It’s all just tissue to “harvest” & process, no diferent than blood, plasma, organs, etc.
Sad commentary on our world today.
Yes, the anti life group certainly exhibits a great deal of leaf loathing. They complain about America, yet enjoy the freedom, complain about the environmental impact of oil and drive their cars to the gym, the hate themselves and satisfy the emptiness with so many external things, new age fads and any trend that comes along. Others get in touch with nature, eat whole foods and pump themselves with steroid based birth control. Their logic seems self contradictory to me.
Dear Tom ATK:
NFP, practiced as intended, is fundamentally different even from non-abortifacient BC (condoms and whatever else fits under that umbrella), because when a couple practices NFP, every time they come together, they are always open to conception; if for some reason, they need to avoid conception (and that’s something they should discuss first with a priest to make sure they’re not avoiding children for selfish reasons), they avoid coming together during those days when conception is most likely to happen. Otherwise, they have to trust that conception will happen only if God wills it, but they don’t do anything artificial to prevent it.
It’s true that some Catholics practice it as another means of avoiding conception (without the expense of BC pills or other devices), but that is an abuse of NFP, in which case the couple (or maybe just one of them) is culpable, not NFP as a whole.
Having said all that, we’ve never really used it in our family. Family life, at least for us, has its own way of spacing children without the trouble of charting. My husband’s work schedule probably contributes to that, too. Every family is different, and I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that a couple practicing NFP is doing so to avoid children for selfish reasons.
Don’t know if my explanation helps, but God bless all of you, and thank you, Dr. Zmirak, for your article.
“every time they come together, they are always open to conception”
I am sorry, but that statement is just not true. If NFP is followed diligently, with couples understanding its principal, it can be just as “effective” in preventing conception as any other method. This is simply because no conception is possible if intercourse occurs far away from ovulation. That is how God created us: it’s called biology. As Catholics, its time to get our heads out of lala land speak, and not be afraid of the truth, of simple biology, which is the basis of NFP.
I am not condoning other methods, I am just saying there are different levels of sin. There is a gulf in level of sin between couples that use any or no method of birth control, and if pregnant, will always keep the child (even if it means giving the child for adoption), compared to people that, again, use any or no method of birth control, and if pregnant opt for abortion as a “back up” “birth control”. This latter group represents over 99% of abortions in the US. If at least attitudes could be shifted so that, regardless of birth control methods, people would keep the children if pregnant, that would a start. Do you really think that the whole US population will stop using birth control? It’s not going to happen. But a change in attitudes about procreation is possible. Why? Because the 60’s dogma, that a 8 week old baby in the womb is not a baby is simply false, again, on simple biological grounds.
Maybe I’m expressing the ideal use of NFP rather than the way it
is practiced by the majority of its adherents. Considering the
depressing statistic that Catholics who do not practice birth
control are in the (small) minority, it wouldn’t surprise me if that
were the case. It’s possible that NFP was designed with the ideal
attitude/usage in mind but has been co-opted by people who saw
its effectiveness as low-budget BC and use it only as such.
When married couples come together, they should always be open
to new life and should leave the decision as to whether a child is created up to God—not putting any obstacles in His way. In unusual circumstances when a pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother, I think the Church allows NFP, in part because—unlike artificial contraception—it requires self-control on the part of husband and wife during the times when conception is likely to happen, and NFP isn’t 100% effective, either, so it’s still possible for conception to happen outside the most fertile days; so it still requires trust in God on the part of the married couple. No doubt, a Catholic priest who knows the Church’s teaching on this inside and out would be better able to explain all this.
I didn’t think you were advocating artificial contraception. You’re absolutely right that too many people, whether they use bc or not, have the wrong attitude with regard to their responsibility for the children they conceive. I would argue, though, that couples practicing artificial contraception—who have already habituated themselves to seeing the marital embrace more as a means to gratification rather than as something sacred that is both procreative and unitive—are more likely to have the wrong attitude also toward a child that isn’t “planned” (and even toward one that is). I grant it’s also possible for those who practice NFP to have the wrong attitude toward children conceived during the “safe” days of the month. It depends on the hearts of those practicing it, but the danger is certainly there.
Off to do some laundry. :) God bless you again.
Dear Tom ATK, your answer is wrong because it assumes contraceptives are not abortifacient: sex with non-barrier contraception means murdering an innocent child, even if formed by one cell.
Contraceptives are all abortives (except barriers), it’s immoral to engage in an activity which sooner or later will kill an innocent child (unborn, but still a human being with human rights). For example, the common “pill” sometimes fail to avoid conception and acts by killing the newly formed human being (who is a person with a different DNA from his parents).
Short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiCU46_lWeE
Scientific article:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_03howpillworks1.html
full article:
100% safe sex
http://intolerant-tolerants.blogspot.com.ar/2011/12/safe-sex-100-effective-contraception.html
“Contraceptives are all abortives.” Regarding combination hormonal birth control, your references provide no evidence, just speculation. This should not be hard to prove with animal models: why has such evidence not been produced so far? Please note that my initial post stated non abortifacient birth control. This being said, I agree that other methods considered abortifacient are equivalent to abortion.
Dear Tom ATK,
It seems you missed or did not understand the scientific explanation that proves that all non barrier contraceptives are abortives:
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/kah/kah_03howpillworks1.html
yours in JMJ
F. Nazar at gmail.com
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.