Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Republicans don't support big government. The government has to be very small indeed in order to fit into a woman's uterus.

Posted by: mad the swine | December 22, 2009 9:30 AM

That prediction was pretty much stillborn, given how it started out with the following, utterly unrealistic, assumption:

Republicans may learn

As if.

Posted by: Phillip IV | December 22, 2009 9:43 AM

While Ms. Steinem certainly missed on centrists winning control of the GOP, she did nail the argument* that merely putting women on the ticket would not translate to votes. In fact it appears Ms. Palin could develop into the caricature of a woman pol similar to what Clarence Thomas represents to black people. A CNN/Opinion Research poll conducted prior to Ms. Palin's book tour revealed that 76% of women didn't believe Ms. was qualified to be president including a whopping 50% of Republican women.

*I did a 'search inside the book' of Going Rogue: An American Nightmare to read as much of Ms. Steinem's essay as I could. I link to it here given its primary title matches Ms. Palin's primary title.

Posted by: Michael Heath | December 22, 2009 10:02 AM

Republicans don't argue for the rights of the unborn solely because of some sort of petty grudge against women,

It's really tempting to believe that Republicans are arguing in good faith and that they truly care about unborn embryos. However, when the same group also has members who want to restrict access to birth control and good sex education, it's harder and harder to believe that they actually want to reduce the number of abortions. It's also hard to believe they arguing in good faith when they're more likely to oppose health care reform, and they're certainly not trying to make blood donation mandatory. If they don't want to do things that save actual lives, it's hard to believe that they truly care about human lives. And of course, most of them support rape exemptions for abortion. Apparently they believe that embryos conceived by rape are less precious than ones conceived through consensual sex. As horrible as the Catholic church is with it's insistence that child rape victims can't have abortions, at least it's being logically consistent. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who care about embryos so much that they want the government to mandate that individual women lend their own bodies to support these precious lives, but when it comes to actually reducing the number of abortions, many Republicans don't support those things.

Posted by: catgirl | December 22, 2009 10:36 AM

catgirl: It's really tempting to believe that Republicans are arguing in good faith and that they truly care about unborn embryos. However, when the same group also has members who want to restrict access to birth control and good sex education, it's harder and harder to believe that they actually want to reduce the number of abortions.

The problem that comes in whenever the non-fundamentalist/evangelical and probably non-Christian, period, sorts try to parse the motivations of the conservative Christians on things like abortion is that the outsider can see the cognitive dissonance. This makes it seem obvious that the people are arguing out of bad faith when, in reality, the vast majority are arguing based on an extremely pollyanna-esque view of the world.

Basically, the argument works like this: good Christians don't have sex before marriage. Therefore, if we can get everyone to become a good Christian there won't be any need to have abortions or teach about anything other than abstinence in sex ed classes. It's also why there are so many unwanted pregnancies in Christian circles, since the teenagers who get pregnant aren't taught to think ahead to that moment when they go too far. They are instead taught that if they're good little Christians they'll be able to overcome temptation through the power of their faith/god/what have you.

As such, the outlawing of abortion is a completely separate issue from the teaching of abstinence in their minds. Abortion is about killing babies. Sex ed is about reminding people not to have sex before marriage. And the final piece of the puzzle is converting everyone to Christianity so this stuff will never be a problem again for anyone, anywhere, ever.

And when those teenagers go to church on Sunday after going to far on their dates on Saturday nights, they know from long lives of social conditioning to pretend like they've never done anything wrong. So everyone is surrounded by people who act like they're godly and pure and if someone does end up getting pregnant that person is -- at the very least -- told to repent and it's treated like an aberration. So no one is ever allowed to learn that sex happens and preparation is way more useful than prayer.

The long and the short of it is that most Christians who are both anti-choice and pro-abstinence only education are actually arguing in good faith. They're just not arguing from a position that is in any way attached to reality.

Posted by: Geds | December 22, 2009 11:11 AM

What Geds said. It's not as if liberals are perfect beings of pure rationality, either. Everyone's hypocritical at some level; everyone does things that, from an 'objective' perspective, can be seen as putting the lie to their principles. If you really cared about animal rights, you wouldn't use insecticides to kill roaches in your house. If you really cared about your carbon footprint, you wouldn't drive to work. Etc, etc.

It's no surprise that pro-lifers could actually, genuinely support the right to life of unborn fetuses while still supporting policies that (from our standpoint) obviously increase the number of abortions or treat the fetus as less than human. And, of course, when pro-choicers tell pro-lifers (or even other pro-choicers with some qualms about the morality of abortion) that the only possible reason they could have for opposing abortion is their innate hatred of women, the latter naturally get angry about what they see as a vicious and unfair attack. The entire line of argumentation put forward by catgirl, above, is politically counterproductive (besides being unfair). You're not going to change anyone's mind on abortion by telling them that they really just hate women, especially when they don't actually feel any conscious hatred for women in general.

Posted by: mad the swine | December 22, 2009 11:41 AM

MTS, you're right. No pro-lifer would see themselves as being a misogynist. Just as no pro-choicer would see themselves as a baby killer. Although I think there is a far greater chance of a pro-lifer being an unconscious misogynist than a pro-lifer being an unconscious baby killer.

You're also right in stating that everyone is hypocritical. It is what a person is being hypocritical about that makes the difference. Employing an exterminator to deal with an infestation in my home, while donating to the world wildlife fund is not the same as declaring all life is sacred, while advocating those who cannot afford health care do not deserve it.

I doubt very much that you would convince any pro-lifer to change their mind on abortion using any kind of argument.

Posted by: Owen | December 22, 2009 12:21 PM

Wow xebecs, never thought of it that way.

Posted by: Owen | December 22, 2009 2:10 PM

Comment 16 was by me, in case that too somehow becomes relevent. Pardon me, I have the dumb today.

Posted by: Abby Normal | December 22, 2009 2:15 PM

What Schmeer said. Many anti-choicers do indeed change their minds, at least temporarily, when the choice is theirs.

One way to influence them might be to mention the case of a (lawfully married) woman who already has umpteen kids, deciding it's best for those kids' interests if she doesn't have any more kids draining her limited funds. (And if another birth would endanger her life, those kids would be stuck without a mother -- is that what the "family values" crowd really wants?)

In theory, MTS is right that one doesn't have to be misogynistic to oppose abortion. But it does take a certain amount of contempt for women's lives, interests and rights, to try to pretend that a fetus is just as much a person, with the same if not greater rights, as its fully sentient and responsible mother. I think that if the often blatant and shameless misogyny of the anti-abortion movement was widely exposed and discussed, a lot of not-quite-committed people would start to move away from their side.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 22, 2009 2:52 PM

In addition to the excellent points made by Catgirl and Geds, there is the belief by social conservatives that to mitigate the harm done by some act is to encourage it.

Specifically, if teenage girls aren't convinced that they will suffer excruciating torment, ruin their lives, get AIDS, get cervical cancer, and lose out on going to Heaven, they'll have no reason not to sleep with every guy they see.

They ignore the facts that:

Those things used to be (at least a little bit) true and that didn't keep many people from screwing around.

Teenagers think they are immortal and immune from consequences.

People discount long term costs against short term benefits.

Opposing abortion on the grounds that it is murder makes sense if you really think a zygote is a person. Opposing birth control, HPV vaccination, and condoms is madness unless you think that people really are deterred by fear.

Posted by: BaldApe | December 22, 2009 3:47 PM

It's just hard to think in terms of christians caring about anyone at all when they are so ready to accept GOD'S WILL when it comes to people burning in hell for all eternity.

Xebecs,

Your comment brings up a good point that I have always had a hard time sorting out. Christian (and religious people in general) often claim that atheists and agnostics have no moral code because, to paraphrase:

"If this is all there is, why shouldn't I kill, rape, steal, etc...."

I've always had a problem with this because the religious often seem to believe that this world (as they would put it) is a temporary condition on your way to the afterlife which is the actual goal. We see it often with religious extremists who are quite willing to kill people in their righteous cause (especially non-believers), basically that this life is temporary, just a holding pattern really, and heaven is the goal.

Now when you stop to think about that, it is a rather creepy and more than chilling idea. The only thing keeping the religious from being the next Jeffery Dahmer is the threat of divine retribution? Their "kind, loving God" is willing to punish people for all eternity for the simplest and smallest "sins?" All of the horrific things that happen (and have happened) are tests? Or are the product of the Devil whom God can stop but chooses not to? That good people who don't choose a specific doctrinal belief system (of the literally thousands that claim to be the True™ faith) but otherwise live charitable, noble lives will still burn in hell for all eternity...

When you think about it, religious is seriously fucked up.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 22, 2009 4:16 PM

Raging Bee:

In theory, MTS is right that one doesn't have to be misogynistic to oppose abortion. But it does take a certain amount of contempt for women's lives, interests and rights, to try to pretend that a fetus is just as much a person, with the same if not greater rights, as its fully sentient and responsible mother.

Having been somewhat of a pro-lifer in the past (I honestly don't know where I am these days: indifferent, I suppose), I can say fairly confidently that this never matched my opinion or that of any other pro-lifer I've ever met. Frankly, if by design men had been the childbearers, I don't think any pro-lifer would instead say that abortion would be moral. In my opinion, the fact that women are disparately affected by reproductive issues is incidental to opposition to abortion (and, on a separate but related note, it is also lamentable that women bear the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to reproduction).

On the other hand, having interacted with quite a few high schoolers who are gung-ho (to say the least) about abortion, there is a bit of misogyny there; I couldn't count how many times the statement "If she didn't want to get pregnant, she shouldn't have had sex" has been proffered to me as an argument against abortion (especially, oddly enough, by girls). Well, yeah, but it takes two to procreate, and none of the students seem to be aware that they are engaging in something of a double standard. But these are high schoolers (sophomores and juniors, mainly), and I hardly think they represent the most sophisticated arguments for the "pro-life" camp.

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 22, 2009 4:38 PM

In theory, MTS is right that one doesn't have to be misogynistic to oppose abortion. But it does take a certain amount of contempt for women's lives, interests and rights, to try to pretend that a fetus is just as much a person, with the same if not greater rights, as its fully sentient and responsible mother.

There are those who might consider such an attitude to be misogyny in its own right. We don't insist that someone display constant raging hatred against every human being they encounter to count as a misanthrope, do we?

Posted by: Seraph | December 22, 2009 4:59 PM

The Christian Cynic: Speaking of strawmen, your analogy is specious.

First, we lock up the worst criminal offenders to protect ourselves from them. God would not need to do that.

Second, we lock up criminals to give them an opportunity to reflect on their crimes and understand that they really ought to use their freedom more wisely, i.e., there is an "after you get out" part that is missing from the eternal damnation thing.

Third, we lock up criminals to deter others. It has been found that criminals are least deterred when the punishment seems unlikely, as non-criminal humans might feel about putative eternal damnation given that no one has ever been released from hell to tell about it.

Fourth, we lock up criminals to punish them. This is actually a poor reason and reveals that our emotions rule us more than they should. I have to think though, that witnessing the eternal torture of even the worst (for the sake of argument) mass child murderer of all time for a few million years -- hearing his or her screams, etc. -- might lead the bereaved parents to say enough is enough.

Fifth, we lock up criminals to provide employment for people and profits for large corporations. I don't see where this would fit into your analogy.

So, in closing: Our criminal justice system and the terms of incarceration it imposes are in no way analogous to the eternal damnation in the burning fires of hell scenario.

Your second point is equally absurd but I'll leave it to someone else to destroy.

Posted by: xebecs | December 22, 2009 5:31 PM

Frankly, if by design men had been the childbearers, I don't think any pro-lifer would instead say that abortion would be moral. In my opinion, the fact that women are disparately affected by reproductive issues is incidental to opposition to abortion (and, on a separate but related note, it is also lamentable that women bear the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to reproduction).

"In a hypothetical world where men can also get pregnant, I don't think pro-lifers would change their stance. It's just an unfortunate quirk of fate that in the real world, women are the ones who have to pay most of the physical, social, and economic price of pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing. Bummer, that."

Do you see why this statement is unimpressive?

(especially, oddly enough, by girls).

Not so odd. It's a tragic thing, but it's often the people who have no one else to look down on who resent it the most when the people beneath them try to better themselves, even when they could gain for themselves by uniting with them instead. To wit: those high school girls would be better off becoming making common cause with the Dirty Pregnant Sluts to create a system where girls' lives aren't ruined if they have sex - after all, it would only take about five minutes for them to fall from grace themselves - but then, they wouldn't get to look down on the Dirty Pregnant Sluts anymore.

Posted by: Seraph | December 22, 2009 5:44 PM

Christian Cynic:

Don't make analogies if you don't expect them to be dissected.

At the moment I am recuperating from spending about 4 hours shoveling snow, and believe it or not my fingers and forearms hurt. So screw you and your dirty work. I will address the arguments I choose to when I choose to do so.

Posted by: xebecs | December 22, 2009 5:53 PM

No, Seraph, I don't see why that statement is unimpressive, since it is exactly what I said, rearranged only slightly.

It is indeed. I'd hoped that, by putting it in plainer language, I might be able to penetrate what's clearly a very thick wall of apologetics in your mind.

Very well.

Your assertion that pro-lifers would still condemn abortion in a hypothetical world where men (all other aspects of their standing in society being the same) were the childbearers is - even if true - entirely irrelevant, a hollow pretense of fairness. This is the real world, where it is women whose health and lives are at stake in pregnancy, women who do a disproportionate amount of the work involved in childbearing, and, in many cases, women who bear most of the financial burden as well

You acknowledge this, at least enough to say "too bad, so sad", but you don't take the next step and acknowledge that the people who make and advocate for anti-abortion laws must know that those laws restrict (and even endanger) women's lives to a disproportionate degree (especially given that many of the same people also support abstinence-only sex education and restricted access to contraception), but they either a) think that's a good thing/don't give a damn; or b) actively erase the pregnant woman from the equation in their minds (i.e. constantly talking about the rights of "the Unborn" without ever mentioning the fleshy vessel that "the Unborn" haven't been born from yet). Either way, the restriction of women's lives is a feature, not a bug of such laws - if not their whole purpose.

The fact that you don't take that step makes this:

In my opinion, the fact that women are disparately affected by reproductive issues is incidental to opposition to abortion (and, on a separate but related note, it is also lamentable that women bear the brunt of the responsibility when it comes to reproduction).

Nothing more than a cavalier and annoying dismissal of the central issue of the reproductive rights debate.

Posted by: Seraph | December 22, 2009 6:37 PM

"If this is all there is, why shouldn't I kill, rape, steal, etc...."

Disingenuous--if there really were nothing else holding them back, why would the prospect of release from the strictures of morality frighten them in the first place? On the contrary, they should thank you for sweet release from their mental prison, just before they bury a fire axe in your spinal column. Oddly enough though,this seldom seems to happen.

Posted by: Velradi6 | December 22, 2009 6:42 PM

I've said it before, but it bears repeating. When--and only when--people of an anti-abortion persuasion:

*understand that there is no rational reason to deem human life more valuable than non-human life, thereby refraining from ingesting and exploiting all animal products and byproducts;

*understand that fetal human life is not more valuable than the life of the women incubating the fetuses, thereby supporting laws that protect pregnant women and allow them late-term abortions in instances of medical emergencies;

*recognize that the greatest opportunity for restricting abortions is by allowing people greater access to contraception (both regular contraception and emergency contraception);

*support laws that protect the environment and the propagation of other species;

*realize that hunting for sport is antithetical to a value system that celebrates life;

*support not only health care reform but universal healthcare, as access to quality healthcare will help extend countless people's lives;

*understand that the death penalty is a practice that's entirely at odds with a worldview that celebrates life;

*support government systems that allow for greater social welfare;

*withhold support for war except in the most extreme circumstances;

Then--and only then--will these people have earned the adjective "pro-life." Until that happens, I'm going to call them what they are: people with regressive views toward women and/or sexuality.

Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 22, 2009 7:07 PM

Kyorosuke:

It's objectionable for two reasons. One, your hypothesis is completely untestable; we can't peer into the alternate universe where men get pregnant and see if Randall Terry's counterpart is still a pro-lifer, and two, it strains credulity. Look at all the other, non-abortion issues related to women, and you'll find all the same conservatives on the side of misogyny (ex: Lilly Ledbetter fair pay act, the recent Al Franken anti-rape amendment, abstinence only sex education, etc.)

Thought experiments generally are untestable, yes. Your other point is, however, merely guilt by association. I would again like to see real - and testable - facts about who supports what issues. I am certain that there are misogynists who support abortion, abstinence-only sex ed, etc., but it matters to the misogyny of being anti-abortion about as much as whether or not some pro-choicers are communists (that is, absolutely none).

Posted by: The Christian Cynic | December 22, 2009 7:17 PM

1. It is not hypocritical for a pro life person to declare an exemption to abortion for the mother's health -- and the psychological stress of bearing a child conceived during a rape certainly qualifies as a major detriment to the mother's health.

Depends on their rationale from being pro-life. If they believe every zygote to be a full person from the moment of conception, and that aborting a pregnancy is therefore murder, then it is inconsistent to declare an exemption for rape. Sacrificing one life to save another may be morally acceptable (especially if the life to be sacrificed couldn't have been saved if the other had been lost), but sacrificing a life to protect someone from "psychological stress"? Not so much.

If, on the other hand, the pro-lifer in question considers pregnancy to be the punishment consequences a woman faces for having sex, then an exemption for rape makes perfect sense. After all, the woman in question didn't choose to have sex, and so doesn't deserve to be punished face those consequences.

3. Every woman is different, but the vast majority go through pregnancy and delivery without a major threat to their health.

Which A) is a perfectly valid reason to restrict the options of those who do experience major threats to their health; and B)means that chronic but less "major" health effects are okay to dismiss.

Right?

Not wanting to raise the child is, by itself, an insufficient reason for abortion.

Says who, and why should their opinion be something to base laws upon?

4. Sex is never free or without consequence whether a pregnancy results or not.

Thank you for illustrating my response to #1 above.

The vast majority of Christians are not opposed to birth control. Those that are, are loud and obnoxious. Try to ignore them.

We'd love to, but they keep getting laws made to accommodate them - and when they don't they bomb clinics and shoot doctors (which, of course, is not terrorism, because they're Christians).

6. Utopias are impossible to achieve. If they could be achieved, they would be impossible to sustain. We are humans, not gods.

Exactly. If the world was a Christian utopia where no one had sex before or outside of a single (non-abusive) marriage, where contraception always worked perfectly or everyone had the means to support all children they might produce, and where every pregnancy went smoothly, there would be no need for abortion.

But this is the real world.

Posted by: Seraph | December 22, 2009 7:28 PM

Seraph: But liberals are the utopians! I've been told this by a non-liberal, so it must be true.

Posted by: Modusoperandi | December 22, 2009 7:45 PM

The only thing keeping the religious from being the next Jeffery Dahmer is the threat of divine retribution

Dogmeatib, even more bizarre, I have had a Bible Thumper tell me that if Jeffrey Dahmer sincerely became a Christian in prison before he was killed, then Dahmer is in heaven right now. When I asked him what about some of his victims who were not Christian and were therefore killed before they had a chance, his response, in my words, was basically "They're shit out of luck."

Posted by: Tommykey | December 22, 2009 8:41 PM

"also oppose efforts", that is.

Posted by: Kyorosuke | December 22, 2009 9:33 PM

The idea that opposition to abortion comes from a belief in the soul is beguiling. However, it doesn't explain why so many of our fellow citizens are pro-choice. Don't the majority of people believe in the existence of souls?

Posted by: Captain Mike | December 22, 2009 10:17 PM

Not wanting to raise the child is, by itself, an insufficient reason for abortion.

Actually it is, according to Roe v. Wade.

Also, your line of argument leads back to the old laws which stated a husband cannot be prosecuted for raping his wife.

Posted by: Douglas Watts | December 22, 2009 10:52 PM

dogmeatib: Any Christian who says that atheists and agnostics don't have any moral code is full of crap. Frankly, I've never understood that accusation; virtually everyone has a moral code (I can hardly imagine anyone not having some standard of right action, even if it is total self-interest), but moral codes can vary greatly from person to person, and the accusation is really Your moral code is wrong or You have no basis for your moral code. And of course, even if "This is all there is," there would still be incentive to do the right thing most of the time, even in the absence of compassion and empathy (which I don't think most Christians deny that atheists and agnostics have, at least not openly).

Sorry 'cinic, but this comes off very much as a "no true Scotsman" argument.

I've personally run into the lack of a moral code/no basis for a moral code quite often over the years. I couldn't provide a link, but I'm fairly certain at least one non-Poe, non-troll Christian made such an argument here, I'm certain they've done so over at PZ's blog, I've even had students make that claim while discussing the 1st amendment. While they are naive near adults, they got that idea/attitude from somewhere, nine times out of ten it comes from their parents/grandparents, or other family members.

"It's just hard to think in terms of U.S. citizens caring about anyone at all when they are so ready to accept THE COURT'S WILL when it comes to criminals spending the rest of their lives in prison."

Also, this argument would have some merit if the US were issuing life sentences for jaywalking or leaving their cell phone on in a movie, heck many Christians believe that simply by being born you have committed sin and therefore will go to hell unless you accept "Christ." That's akin to my great-great grandfather getting a parking ticket and me being sentenced to life in prison. Also, to make matters worse, some Christians believe that the most heinous murderers, if they accept Christ, will be forgiven and go to heaven. So again, using your analogy, that would be like me going to Alcatraz for my great-granddaddy's parking ticket while Jeffery Dahmer getting off scott-free for saying, "I'm sorry."

Xebec's argument is far less a man of straw than your counter argument.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 22, 2009 11:00 PM

Republicans don't argue for the rights of the unborn solely because of some sort of petty grudge against women, a grudge that they can easily get over in the name of electoral victory

There are a few observations whose inconsistency with this you need to explain.

Posted by: Azkyroth | December 22, 2009 11:58 PM

I've been to a few right-wing-Christian blogs (most notably Evangelical Outpost, which Ed once rightly praised for opposign torture), and the amout of overt hatred and bitterness toward women I've found there was absolutely astounding. Those guys aren't just elevating the fetus; they're diminishing women to the status of baby-vessels and demanding that women fulfil their ideals of motherhood by sacrificing their very lives, if necessary, for their babies. (No answer on what's supposed to happen to the babies who are thus orphaned.) If any woman wants to control whether or how often she gets pregnant, she's trashed for sacrificing family values for "convenience" -- now a swearword on the same level as "eugenics." The message is clear: women have obligations that are more important than their selfish "convenience."

Ever see those bumper-stickers that say things like "What if your mother had had an abortion?" Answer: same thing that would have happened if my parents had never had sex and never conceived me. The attitude, not always concealed, is that my mother was obligated to bear me, even before there was anything to bear.

Notice how birth-control is now routinely portrayed as "eugenics" by the Christian right? Not just birth-control practiced by the state by force, but ALL birth-control. They're not defending human life, they're attacking all forms of reproductive choice. If your wife uses the pill or a diaphragm when having sex with you, she's practicing "eugenics." If she chooses not to have kids because she's afraid of passing on some genetic defect, or doesn't think she can afford to raise another kid, that's "eugenics." Not to mention sacrificing human life on the altar of "convenience." And if we want to help people in other countries control their population, that's both "eugenics" and "racism."

In theory, it is indeed possible to be anti-abortion without being anti-woman. In practice, however, it's increasingly rare. This is yet another movement that's been taken over by its lunatic fringe.

Posted by: Raging Bee | December 23, 2009 11:02 AM

My wife and my eldest daughter have a rare form of anemia that only allows them to absorb iron from animal sources. Becoming vegan would quite literally kill them.

I'm in a similar boat. Most forms of vegetable protein with which I could replace animal protein also contain an enzyme that my body cannot break down.

----------

If I do accept, for the sake of argument, that non-human life and human life are rationally of equal value, then why draw the line at animals? What is the rational basis that justifies killing and exploiting living plants?

Interestingly enough there are Buddhist monks who adopt this very philosophy. Ultimately they cut their food intake down to nil and meditate themselves to death.

Posted by: dogmeatib | December 23, 2009 12:59 PM