------------------------------
I find it interesting when the Left wrestles with the logic of their various positions. At times there is an honest effort to really explore the ramifications of what they believe.
Here is one such attempt. Unfortunately, trying to be logical is not the same as succeeding to to be rational. Read on:
------------------------------
I write with great weariness. We have done this before. (Apparently, repeating the same talking points over and over again has made the author weary. However, if the pro-choicers had made convincing arguments in the first place, or any arguments at all for that matter, then perhaps she wouldn't be in this situation.)
It is painful to have to fight for what is already won, (Winning a court case is not the same as winning the argument or making the moral case.)
even more painful for one Christian to have to argue with another one about the freedom of the human to make choices. (This is what I mean by inadequate logical thought processes. The author cannot even frame the issue properly. The argument is not about human freedom to make choices, it is about a particular choice and whether that one choice is moral.
A couple of paragraphs later the author will begin to talk about abortion as a moral choice, so she tacitly acknowledges that the issue is not about generic choice.)
It is sad as well to see the constant struggle -- now initiated by a toy and hobby company -- about women being choice-making human beings. (Hmm. The Hobby Lobby case is about who pays, not who chooses. And the situation came about because of the actions of government, which forced Hobby Lobby to do things it did not want to do. Government is the aggressor, and Hobby Lobby responded.)
What is it about women that the religious right can't tolerate? Is it that important for us to be sub-human? Do that many people really think of women as toys or hobbies or second-class citizens? Apparently, yes. (Once again the author carefully chooses her rhetoric in order to make it seem as though the issue is generic gender-specific animosity. This is a typical technique of the Left, to reframe issues in language that lessens the specificity of the focus in order to disarm those who would criticize the particular, specific issue.) The core argument needs to be made again, no matter how hoarse we are in making it.
Abortion can be a highly moral choice for a woman. (No, not "can be." Abortion is always a moral choice, that is, a choice with moral implications. I'm sure that her imprecise writing was intended to assert that abortion is an approved moral choice.)
The distortion of our faiths to anti-woman and anti-scientific and anti-medical rhetoric proves catastrophic for women and children and their families. (We must note once again the non-specific rhetoric employed. No examples of these supposed egregious violations are given. The terms are employed to create a visceral response, not to encourage thought and analysis.
Indeed, the medical/science definition of when life begins is clearly established. It is is the legal definition that is at stake, not the medical/scientific one.)
This argument demeans the sexuality of women and treats them like children with adult bodies. (Which argument? She has not named the offending argument.)
There is a pragmatic argument that sneakily demeans women as moral agents. Unwanted pregnancies cause poverty and release unprepared children into a world that increasingly refuses to sustain them. (There is no evidence for these claims. But granting the argument for a moment, the consequence of a successful pregnancy is birth, and the status of those children who survive the mother's "choice" is a separate argument.)
But that "practical" argument is not why women can have morally good abortions. We can have morally good abortions because we are human beings, with God-given rights to human agency, just like men. (Again the argument is framed in non-specific terms containing very little meaning. She seems to be suggesting that because human agency exists, "good" abortions exist. This is a sophism, and does not address the argument. The ability to choose does make every choice morally good.)
Women are moral agents. (Who has said they're not?)
Women are capable of making soulful, moral decisions about their own bodies. (Who has said they shouldn't?)
Assuming that a woman cannot decide for herself if and when to bear a child demeans women. (Who has said they cannot?)
Mandatory childbearing makes the woman a hostage to the will of others -- those unfamiliar with her story, her life experience and her needs, and may have disastrous consequences for the children. (Where is there mandatory child bearing?)
Medical choices, like terminating a pregnancy, are medically available. (I thought it was a "moral choice." The existence of "medical choices" does not speak to the morality.)
Other life sustaining medical procedures are not considered immoral. (Here we see an attempt to draw moral equivalency between all possible medical procedures. This is a truly odd argument. She seems to be saying that because we can do various medical procedures to save lives, so therefore we should be able to do various medical procedures to accomplish an abortion. On what basis can such an assertion be made? Frankly, I can't imagine anyone finding this convincing.) Why the complaint against abortion?
Our faith tradition teaches soul competency, (That is, we are moral agents who can make good as well as bad moral choices. Again, we wonder why this might be relevant, since in people who make bad moral choices are known as sinners, and sinners are called by "faith traditions" to repent. Free moral agency does not grant that every choice is moral.)
a Baptist principle that is violated in restricting the right to choose an abortion. (Our "faith traditions" have always called believers to a standard of behavior. Religion has always been involved in communicating a standard of righteousness, much of which has been translated into law. It almost seems that the author is advocating anarchy, if the law would contravene choice.)
Our forebears suffered greatly, even to the point of death, to express their conviction that no one stands between the individual and God. (So if it violates "soul competency" to restrict abortion, then it also does so for theft and murder. Again, the author seems to be suggesting there should be no laws at all that invade "soul competency." This of course is absurd.
Free moral choices can be good or bad. Bad ones have consequences. That is is the essence of the issue, in which the author has taken great pains to avoid discussing.)
Furthermore, it is a it is God-given right to hold your own belief and to reject state-sponsored religion. (So she is making an argument for unalienable rights. However, her confusion is manifest. God does not grant the right to moral choices. People make moral choices, and they either conform to God or they do not. There is not a matter of rights here.
Neither is there a God given-right to reject state-sponsored religion. This is just silly. There are no faith traditions which hold to this idea. In fact, many faith traditions freely mix religion and government.)
This is the core Baptist principle of soul competency -- belief in the ability of each person to "rightly divide the word of God" (2 Timothy 2: 15) and act accordingly. (But not without consequences, either morally or legally.)
Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. (This is patently false. This right is highly restricted. No one has a right to do anything their conscience dictates.)
Therefore, current legislation restricting women's reproductive choice also restricts moral choice. (Yes it does. The author has yet to show why restricting moral choices is wrong in a way that excepts other laws that restrict other moral choices.)
To restrict a woman's choice is to refuse her soul freedom. (Now this is an astonishing [and banal] conclusion. She tells us people have a right to be immoral, so restricting the right is in itself immoral. Apparently, every moral choice, no matter how immoral, is automatically moral, and restricting that right is, surprise, immoral.)
Our faith tradition teaches freedom for religion and freedom from religion. As powerful as the U.S. Constitution must have seemed at its inception, Baptists were not satisfied that it would protect their most deeply held principles. "We, as a society," they wrote President Washington, "feared that the liberty of conscience, dearer to us than property or life, was not sufficiently secured." The pressure they brought helped in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, in which the very first amendment defines two critical tenets of our society: the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion. To privilege one spiritual belief over another violates religious freedom. Theocratic legislation is neither Baptist nor, fundamentally, American. (The author seems unable to establish basic premises in order to argue her point. How we arrived at theocracy is anyone's guess. She seems to think that her faith tradition, as she interprets it, must be upheld by the state as inviolate, yet bristles at the idea of theocracy.)
Our foundation of Baptist principles and our Christian call to advocate for justice provide a powerful theological grounding for our unwavering support for a woman's individual freedom to choose whether and how to bear children. (Again note the non-specific language chosen. As before, we note that no one has asserted that women should be forced to bear children.)
Sexual relations are holy, spiritual exchanges, and as such, should be entered into with consent, respect, and a joyous heart. Consenting adults are free to decide whether or not to have sex. Consenting adults are free to have sex that is not procreative. The state should not dictate reproductive decisions, either in favor of or in opposition to carrying a child to term. (Whoa, did you notice the bait-and-switch? Three assertions that gain the rhetorical "yes" in response, then she swerves off the rails. The fourth sentence is not a logical consequence of the first three.)
As Christians, as Baptists, we wearily say, the right to choose a medical procedure is also a woman's right. It has to do fundamentally with the freedom of our souls to practice our religion and morality in our own ways.
(Yes, I know. This is what passes for logical thought among the Left. And the author stamps her foot and proclaims rhetorical victory, but has yet to leave the starting line. Sad.)
This is the core Baptist principle of soul competency -- belief in the ability of each person to "rightly divide the word of God" (2 Timothy 2: 15) and act accordingly. (But not without consequences, either morally or legally.)
Each person and each community of believers has the right to follow the dictates of their conscience, without compulsion from authoritative structures. (This is patently false. This right is highly restricted. No one has a right to do anything their conscience dictates.)
Therefore, current legislation restricting women's reproductive choice also restricts moral choice. (Yes it does. The author has yet to show why restricting moral choices is wrong in a way that excepts other laws that restrict other moral choices.)
To restrict a woman's choice is to refuse her soul freedom. (Now this is an astonishing [and banal] conclusion. She tells us people have a right to be immoral, so restricting the right is in itself immoral. Apparently, every moral choice, no matter how immoral, is automatically moral, and restricting that right is, surprise, immoral.)
Our faith tradition teaches freedom for religion and freedom from religion. As powerful as the U.S. Constitution must have seemed at its inception, Baptists were not satisfied that it would protect their most deeply held principles. "We, as a society," they wrote President Washington, "feared that the liberty of conscience, dearer to us than property or life, was not sufficiently secured." The pressure they brought helped in the adoption of the Bill of Rights, in which the very first amendment defines two critical tenets of our society: the separation of church and state and the free exercise of religion. To privilege one spiritual belief over another violates religious freedom. Theocratic legislation is neither Baptist nor, fundamentally, American. (The author seems unable to establish basic premises in order to argue her point. How we arrived at theocracy is anyone's guess. She seems to think that her faith tradition, as she interprets it, must be upheld by the state as inviolate, yet bristles at the idea of theocracy.)
Our foundation of Baptist principles and our Christian call to advocate for justice provide a powerful theological grounding for our unwavering support for a woman's individual freedom to choose whether and how to bear children. (Again note the non-specific language chosen. As before, we note that no one has asserted that women should be forced to bear children.)
Sexual relations are holy, spiritual exchanges, and as such, should be entered into with consent, respect, and a joyous heart. Consenting adults are free to decide whether or not to have sex. Consenting adults are free to have sex that is not procreative. The state should not dictate reproductive decisions, either in favor of or in opposition to carrying a child to term. (Whoa, did you notice the bait-and-switch? Three assertions that gain the rhetorical "yes" in response, then she swerves off the rails. The fourth sentence is not a logical consequence of the first three.)
As Christians, as Baptists, we wearily say, the right to choose a medical procedure is also a woman's right. It has to do fundamentally with the freedom of our souls to practice our religion and morality in our own ways.
(Yes, I know. This is what passes for logical thought among the Left. And the author stamps her foot and proclaims rhetorical victory, but has yet to leave the starting line. Sad.)
No comments:
Post a Comment