A Left-Wing Pro-Life Perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter DL82
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rereading what I wrote … the word “you” appears nowhere.
This all reminds me of what a priest I knew in high school used to ask us. He never wanted his homilies to be so intelligent that the common person couldn’t understand them. He wanted to speak in their terms. Many a right winger prides themself on highsounding words instead of putting things into practical terms. Take for example the reductio ad absurdem. The only emphasis I would put in that idea is on absurd.
 
This all reminds me of what a priest I knew in high school used to ask us. He never wanted his homilies to be so intelligent that the common person couldn’t understand them. He wanted to speak in their terms. Many a right winger prides themself on highsounding words instead of putting things into practical terms. Take for example the reductio ad absurdem. The only emphasis I would put in that idea is on absurd.
Some folks, when the word “you” is used, take offense.

There is the rhetorical “you” and the personal “you”. And some folks take it one way when the speaker intended it the other way.

That’s why I use the word “folks” a lot. And the expression “you all” … a “plural form” of the word “you”.
 
Strictly speaking, as an argumentative strategy, it just doesn’t make sense. When arguing for abortions, you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you cast any bright light whatsoever on the very thing you’re advocating. A Pro-Life essay uses words with **connotations **most suited to their cause: child, infant, baby, murder, whereas a Pro-Choice essay must rely on zygote, fetus, medical procedure, vacuum aspiration, and no matter how you spin it, in the end, there is no way to disguise the dismemberment of a human body. Once they recognized that irony, my pro-choice students usually became perturbed and yet the fact is that describing abortions in detail is gruesome; when disguised by terms with “neutral” connotations and non-emotionally charged language, they’re almost spooky. It didn’t always change minds but it threw much light on how arguments can be constructed specifically to deceive, and some arguments must deceive in order to succeed. If any teachers reading this want to incorporate this as a lesson, feel free. It’s not preaching. It’s promoting sound logical argumentative strategies.

.
Did you receive any essays that invoked Peter Singer? Did they try to argue that the fetus isn’t consider a person within a utilitarian framework?

I didn’t think Peter Singer described how gruesome abortions were in his work, but he was mainly interested in its morality, not the unpalatable details.
 
I think I can offer a somewhat unique perspective. Quite serendipitously, I came to an ironic discovery about the abortion issue, having been a writing teacher.

Strictly speaking, as an argumentative strategy, it just doesn’t make sense. When arguing for abortions, you’re shooting yourself in the foot if you cast any bright light whatsoever on the very thing you’re advocating. A Pro-Life essay uses words with **connotations **most suited to their cause: child, infant, baby, murder, whereas a Pro-Choice essay must rely on zygote, fetus, medical procedure, vacuum aspiration, and no matter how you spin it, in the end, there is no way to disguise the dismemberment of a human body. Once they recognized that irony, my pro-choice students usually became perturbed and yet the fact is that describing abortions in detail is gruesome; when disguised by terms with “neutral” connotations and non-emotionally charged language, they’re almost spooky. It didn’t always change minds but it threw much light on how arguments can be constructed specifically to deceive, and some arguments must deceive in order to succeed. If any teachers reading this want to incorporate this as a lesson, feel free. It’s not preaching. It’s promoting sound logical argumentative strategies.

As abortion posts are common, I may post this very story on other threads, so forgive me if you ever see it again–you know where it started. DL82’s proposition of Social change before Legal change is really the only way to go. I don’t ever want to see women imprisoned (as I don’t see Jesus ever wanting to see women imprisoned, or stoned to death, etc). The fact that abortion is murder is one thing, but to equate it with murder in the 1st is essentially the false analogy fallacy–though death is death, abortion of an unborn human and the gun-shot murder of a grown person just don’t match up seamlessly point for point. Let us not rely on fallacies; there is enough logic in the truth.
Your post was very interesting. It does put one to wonder about the wisdom of some politicians’ expressed desire to extrude all young people through college based solely on the criterion that they “want to go”. Good welders and plumbers, after all, make good livings, are hard to find, and are rarely obligated to embarrass themselves in writing.

Overturning Roe and its progency would not, ipso facto, put women in prison, and it’s extremely improbable that it would, except perhaps a female doctor here and there who performed an abortion contrary to the laws one jurisdiction or another might enact.

Except for organized genocide, no deliberate killing is ever quite like another. But that does not mean the prohibition of deliberate killing of persons already born is due to application of a “false analogy”. Nor does it follow that because terminology might cause an opponent to react viscerally against the point of view of its user, the user must necessarily abandon the use of it. Sometimes a spade is really a spade and ought to be so designated for the sake of clarity.

I personally believe the laws of a people do tend to influence the moral sense of that people. When, as with abortion on demand, a “law” is created that does not actually reflect the mores or secular convictions of the people, (obtained from other sources), and actually ties the legislative hands of those who would or might make the law otherwise, the passage of time does not make its rectification more likely in either sphere, particularly if those who would change that law feel themselves obliged, by urbanity or otherwise, to call the act in question something other than what it is.

Some maintain (though I’m not sure you intend to second it) that the law should not be involved in the abortion issue, and that persuasion of individuals not to abort their children should be the sole focus. Doubtless the latter is important, just as persuading people that, e.g., not stealing should be motivated by something higher than the fear of jail alone. But while the law has an exemplary function, its primary function is the protection of the innocent from the depredations of the more powerful. For that reason, virtually every society provides secular sanctions against stealing and does not rely on moral suasion alone for its prevention. More than that, the law frequently prohibits certain acts which are not predatory in themselves but which bear some potential for being a part of such acts. (Money Laundering, for example, comes to mind.)

At present, the “law”, so declared some thirty years ago by five individuals who felt no need to allow the body politic any say in the matter, assumes the non-humanity of the unborn person. That assumption, it seems to me, necessarily underlies, at least tacitly, the argument that the law should remain uninvolved in the abortion issue (despite many legislatures’ clear, but frustrated, efforts to get it involved) until society as a whole is of one mind about it. (and perhaps not even then)
 
Al M. made this observation-
That’s why I use the word “folks” a lot. And the expression “you all” … a “plural form” of the word “you”.
I thought in NJ it was “use guys” instead of “y’all?” I now see the influence of so many Southerners hanging out on CAF. Reckon I better get use to hearing the term with a Northease accent.

Won’t be long we’ll be hearing phrases like “usta could” in Vermont. 😊
 
Al M. made this observation-

I thought in NJ it was “use guys” instead of “y’all?” I now see the influence of so many Southerners hanging out on CAF. Reckon I better get use to hearing the term with a Northease accent.

Won’t be long we’ll be hearing phrases like “usta could” in Vermont. 😊
Oh yeah, you betcha…don’tcha know.
 
Did you receive any essays that invoked Peter Singer? Did they try to argue that the fetus isn’t consider a person within a utilitarian framework?

I didn’t think Peter Singer described how gruesome abortions were in his work, but he was mainly interested in its morality, not the unpalatable details.
This name has come up on this post a lot, and I have to confess my ignorance of him. Might have seen him on a Work Cited page here or there, but honestly I’ve read thousands of student essays, and I feel like all publications that support abortion are just a waste of time and paper. Really, from an argumentative standpoint, anyone who tries to tell me that women who are pregnant do not carry a human life within them is just wearying my ears. What do they think will be birthed nine months later? A potato? I don’t have time for foolishness.
 
Al M. made this observation-

I thought in NJ it was “use guys” instead of “y’all?” I now see the influence of so many Southerners hanging out on CAF. Reckon I better get use to hearing the term with a Northease accent.

Won’t be long we’ll be hearing phrases like “usta could” in Vermont. 😊
Listen up:

The plural of “you” is … “youse”. As in “youse guys”.

Get it right!

:rotfl:
 
I thought in NJ it was “use guys” instead of “y’all?” I now see the influence of so many Southerners hanging out on CAF. Reckon I better get use to hearing the term with a Northease accent.

Won’t be long we’ll be hearing phrases like “usta could” in Vermont. 😊
Dey don’t talk like dat way up nort here doh. You know dey have dat Scandinavian influence up here in da U.P., eh!
 
Dey don’t talk like dat way up nort here doh. You know dey have dat Scandinavian influence up here in da U.P., eh!
It’s da second week a deer camp
An all da guys are here
We play cards an shoot da bull
An never shoot no deer.😃
 
I keep asking the same question over and over: How can we convince people abortion is wrong when the law says it’s a right?
In the 1750’s, the Quakers of Pennsylvania decided unanimously to free all their slaves, and to recompense them for their labours. In 1808, the British government outlawed the slave trade. Slowly, state by state, slavery became distasteful and by turns illegal.

The only places that held on to slavery were the poor, agriculturally driven Southern states, who couldn’t see a future for their industry if they had to pay their workers (see any parallels, poor people stuck in dead-end jobs with no healthcare, for example?)

Just as the British and French had outlawed slavery decades before America, maybe now America needs to look beyond itself to countries such as Nicaragua which place quality of life above economic prosperity.

I’m not saying the law doesn’t have a part to play, I’m just saying that it can’t do the job alone.

The less popular the law, the less effective it will be, even to the extent of being counter-productive. Look at prohibition - not only was it unenforceable, it was so unpopular that it set a precedent which will never be repeated. A bad anti-abortion law that wasn’t followed would be worse than no law at all.

Besides, in today’s world, no country’s laws can be binding beyond its’ borders. Here in the UK, we already have people flying to Holland and Switzerland for euthanasia, and I’m sure the same would happen with abortion were it to be outlawed without widespread public support.

Also, propaganda aside, nobody is really pro-abortion, abortion is always something that is emotionally troubling and damaging to a woman, and not something anybody wants to go through if they can help it. The people on the pro-choice lobby just think it should be allowed as the lesser of two evils. Though I think that’s wrong, and that killing someone is NEVER the lesser evil, I don’t know that we will ever convince the pro-choice lobby of that fact in the current climate, or that the argument is even possible without recourse to theological propositions which non-Catholics won’t accept. On the other hand, if you eliminate the other evil, bringing an unloved child into a world without opportunities, becoming a social outcast and destroying your own quality of life into the bargain, then the pro-choice argument collapses.
 
This name has come up on this post a lot, and I have to confess my ignorance of him. Might have seen him on a Work Cited page here or there, but honestly I’ve read thousands of student essays, and I feel like all publications that support abortion are just a waste of time and paper. Really, from an argumentative standpoint, anyone who tries to tell me that women who are pregnant do not carry a human life within them is just wearying my ears. What do they think will be birthed nine months later? A potato? I don’t have time for foolishness.
Seen on a T-shirt … at a model railroad show … at a Catholic high school gym:

Be a hero:
Save a whale.
Save a baby,
Go to jail.

[Lord, help us. This is a great country, but we sure are screwing it up.]
 
In the 1750’s, the Quakers of Pennsylvania decided unanimously to free all their slaves, and to recompense them for their labours. In 1808, the British government outlawed the slave trade. Slowly, state by state, slavery became distasteful and by turns illegal.

The only places that held on to slavery were the poor, agriculturally driven Southern states, who couldn’t see a future for their industry if they had to pay their workers (see any parallels, poor people stuck in dead-end jobs with no healthcare, for example?)

Just as the British and French had outlawed slavery decades before America, maybe now America needs to look beyond itself to countries such as Nicaragua which place quality of life above economic prosperity.

I’m not saying the law doesn’t have a part to play, I’m just saying that it can’t do the job alone.

The less popular the law, the less effective it will be, even to the extent of being counter-productive. Look at prohibition - not only was it unenforceable, it was so unpopular that it set a precedent which will never be repeated. A bad anti-abortion law that wasn’t followed would be worse than no law at all.

Besides, in today’s world, no country’s laws can be binding beyond its’ borders. Here in the UK, we already have people flying to Holland and Switzerland for euthanasia, and I’m sure the same would happen with abortion were it to be outlawed without widespread public support.
The problem with the analogy of slavery is that slaves were freed in areas where the cost was very low. They were not freed in areas where the slave-owners had a high self-interest in maintaining slavery (until after the American Civil War, which was a lot more than just a law.)

A better analogy would be segregation. Segregation and attitudes about race were driven by law. I was in high school when Eisenhower sent troops to integrate Central High School in Little Rock. I can remember Democrats bemoaning losing primaries because they were “out-segged” (not as hot in defending segregation as the winning candidate.) I can remember governors bragging how they would “stand in the schoolhouse door.”

The racial attitudes in this country changed because the law drove the change.

And as I said before, I do not see how we convince people abortion is a wrong, when the law says it’s a right – and they see it as a matter of self-interest.
.
 
And as I said before, I do not see how we convince people abortion is a wrong, when the law says it’s a right – and they see it as a matter of self-interest.
.
I agree that we can’t convince people until we eliminate the self-interest side of the issue.

Using your analogy of segregation, in the industrial cities in the North and West, where employers wanted a large, well-educated workforce because the majority of jobs were technical and complex, segregation ended by itself. In the South, where there were only a few literate jobs and lots of low-paid agricultural labour, the whites wanted to keep the good jobs for themselves by keeping the black population poorly educated. Self-interest at work.

Once you take away the self-interest in abortion, it becomes a no-brainer. Again, nobody wants an abortion, nobody. Social change can make abortion unthinkable.

To use another analogy, shooting yourself in the foot seems like a really stupid, painful, unattractive thing to do. The kind of thing you’d have to be crazy to even consider. Yet if you were in the trenches in the First World War, facing constant bombardment, the threat of a suicidal advance over the top, and living in wretched cold damp conditions for months on end, you might well consider it as the more attractive option.
 
I agree that we can’t convince people until we eliminate the self-interest side of the issue.

Using your analogy of segregation, in the industrial cities in the North and West, where employers wanted a large, well-educated workforce because the majority of jobs were technical and complex, segregation ended by itself. In the South, where there were only a few literate jobs and lots of low-paid agricultural labour, the whites wanted to keep the good jobs for themselves by keeping the black population poorly educated. Self-interest at work.

Once you take away the self-interest in abortion, it becomes a no-brainer. Again, nobody wants an abortion, nobody. Social change can make abortion unthinkable.

To use another analogy, shooting yourself in the foot seems like a really stupid, painful, unattractive thing to do. The kind of thing you’d have to be crazy to even consider. Yet if you were in the trenches in the First World War, facing constant bombardment, the threat of a suicidal advance over the top, and living in wretched cold damp conditions for months on end, you might well consider it as the more attractive option.
Ah, but the point is, abortion** is** an act of self-interest. The ultimate motivation for the abortionist is money and power. For the mother undergoing the aboriton the motivation is to get rid of an encumberance.

Since we can’t change the self-interest, we must use other means – and the best is for society to officially announce abortion is wrong, by making it illegal.
 
DL82 said
Just as the British and French had outlawed slavery decades before America, maybe now America needs to look beyond itself to countries such as Nicaragua which place quality of life above economic prosperity
The quality of life in Nicaragua?? America- in just 200 years, only 200 million people made the richest, most powerful, country history has ever known, and ya think it would be better if we started acting more like Nicaragua??? Economic prosperity and quality of life go hand in hand. :hypno:

Europe has become a secular society, where almost anything goes, we are working hard to keep that from happening here. And if not for Roe v Wade, most states would have tough anti abortion laws.
 
Thank you to all who read my first long post. Here is yet another.
To use another analogy, shooting yourself in the foot seems like a really stupid, painful, unattractive thing to do. The kind of thing you’d have to be crazy to even consider. Yet if you were in the trenches in the First World War, facing constant bombardment, the threat of a suicidal advance over the top, and living in wretched cold damp conditions for months on end, you might well consider it as the more attractive option.
For some reason, you talking about the First World War made me think of the birth of my son, *and *Tolkien, who himself survived the Battle of the Somme. There is a passage in *The Fellowship of the Ring *which has always haunted me, and I feel it is “applicable” to this situation (and I’m sure this is the first time Tolkien has ever been cited this way). It comes from the chapter “The Ring Goes South” as the Fellowship is about to leave Rivendell:
“Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens,” said Gimli.
“Maybe,” said Elrond, “but let him not vow to walk in the dark, who has not seen the nightfall.”
“Yet sworn word may strengthen quaking heart,” said Gimli.
“Or break it,” said Elrond.
I am often hesitant to contribute to abortion debates, having moderated many myself in writing classes, and also because the debate is often futile. The “sentient” issue is a red herring, clearly.

My wife and I have a two year old son that we both *desperately *wanted to have. He was my first born. I spent nine months trying to care for my wife, whom suffers from depression and anxiety, and for whom the pregnancy was very taxing, often debilitating. I often think of all she suffered. When her water broke, it was evening, and we sat in the hospital listening to, one by one, the screams of other women as each in turn went into labor. I imagined that it was like sitting in a fox hole, listening to bombs exploding all around you, *knowing *that your position *would be hit *eventually. By 4am my wife was sleeping a medicated sleep, and I dozed off in a chair, only to be woke up an hour later as my wife was quickly whisked out of the room as I groggily tried to stand. I was told she was having an emergency C-section. I know now that my son could have died or have become developmentally disabled. Thank God he was born alive and suffered no lasting trauma.

And I’ve been thinking of all of this together, the Tolkien passage, my wife’s suffering (and mine which was minor compared to hers), and the fact that we *wanted *our son. Now I’m not setting up an argument for abortion, but the idea of making it illegal across the board without discernment. The Catholic Church is Pro Choice (owing to the Doctrine of Free Will) but we staunchly advocate the choice for LIFE. Social change must come first before a legal one. I think of poor communities where I have taught, and seen first hand the way women are dehumanized and beleive all that they have to offer the world is their sexuality. Abortion, in that sense, is only the very tip of the fire, the base being the lack of human diginity and sexual dignity. Many good people are already engaged in that fight to raise awareness and offer consolation, but as one man I knew working in ministry in poor communities said “It’s a black hole of need.”

This is why fallacious analogies of “murder is murder” don’t match up point for point. The suffering of a woman *who wants her child *is bad enough–the suffering of a woman who doesn’t want a child I cannot imagine. The spirit of a young woman in that sense could be crushed, which is only further complicated by how her spirit will be crushed the day she realizes what she has done. But the resources need to be there, as those providing them are overwhelmed, and we’re not supposed to think this, but we cannot save them all. Again I don’t mean this as an argument for abortion, but I think we need to get away from what I’ve heard called “slogan ultimatums” which in our laziness we rely upon rather than getting off our Assissi. I know many of you are involved in ministry, and I’m preaching to the choir, but those of you who are not, or have never been to a poor community need to go to one, and fast. The change to a “law” against abortion must be slow. So many of these young women walk alone in darkness, and without fellowship how can we expect that they will not be broken?
 
This is why fallacious analogies of “murder is murder” don’t match up point for point. The suffering of a woman *who wants her child *is bad enough–the suffering of a woman who doesn’t want a child I cannot imagine.
What about the suffering of a woman who doesn’t want her already-born child?
The spirit of a young woman in that sense could be crushed, which is only further complicated by how her spirit will be crushed the day she realizes what she has done. But the resources need to be there, as those providing them are overwhelmed, and we’re not supposed to think this, but we cannot save them all. Again I don’t mean this as an argument for abortion, but I think we need to get away from what I’ve heard called “slogan ultimatums” which in our laziness we rely upon rather than getting off our Assissi. I know many of you are involved in ministry, and I’m preaching to the choir, but those of you who are not, or have never been to a poor community need to go to one, and fast. The change to a “law” against abortion must be slow. So many of these young women walk alone in darkness, and without fellowship how can we expect that they will not be broken?
In fact, we provide plenty of resouces for young mothers.

The problem is made worse by the failure of our education system, which leaves so many people unemployable, and which fosters morals that lead to more “unwanted” pregnancies among teenagers.
 
What about the suffering of a woman who doesn’t want her already-born child?
I’m not being combative, but in reference to what?
In fact, we provide plenty of resouces for young mothers.
If this is so, it begs the question "Why do young poor women still get abortions?
The problem is made worse by the failure of our education system, which leaves so many people unemployable, and which fosters morals that lead to more “unwanted” pregnancies among teenagers.
I’m not sure you know (and maybe you do, of course we don’t know each other) what it *really *means to be poor. Do not mistake me for getting on a soap box here. I’ve had a look and it isn’t pretty. True poverty has little to do with money, as evidenced by former street thugs turned celebrities who bring their poverty with them into their mansions.
The poor are uneducated to the point that even with resources available, they don’t have the interpersonal tools to even ask for them or avail themselves to them. We can’t just say “We’re offering resources,” and expect abortion to go away. The failure of the education system is a long tragic story. Do you know who teaches in poor communities? Unqualified teachers that can’t get work anywhere else. Technically, my first year as a teacher, I was one of them. Fresh out of grad school (no M.Ed) and the school that hired me was desperate–no one else would take the job for that pay. And the Dean of Students was incompetent, so problem children were sent back to the classroom (“children” who were in gangs. Some had killed people). I had a student offer me $400 to pass him (a junior) so he could get a good grade *and *skip class to work and provide for his *two *children. I tried calling parents. I’d say 80% of my students didn’t have the same last names as their parents. And often it was an elderly grandmother who answered the phone saying “I don’t know what to do with him either. Can’t *you *help? Aren’t *you *his teacher?” Students writing essays about it’s hard to do homework when the baby is crying and their grandmother is smoking crack in the bathroom. I kid you not.

It’s a black hole of need. And there aren’t enough good thoughts and hand-holding going around just yet, and I don’t know if there ever can be. “The poor you will have always” Jesus said. A law making abortion illegal would target the poor, and in many cases most likely young women who just don’t know that they don’t know. And to reiterate, I’m not for abortion. I am for fellowship, and against a law. And the job will *never *be done.

And this post doesn’t fall under the *ad misericordiam *fallacy, “appeal to pity.” It is fact. To think it is sad is simply a matter of perspective. For many, it is reality.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top