|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 30, 2013 13:43:33 GMT
Since Ann Furedi features regularly on the prolife threads here as "Moloch's High Priestess", this description by Joseph Shaw of debating with her in Oxford, and his analysis of what is wrong with her arguments/unstated assumptions and why, may be useful - especially since when pro-choicers here argue that saying that women are not qualified to decide for themselves on abortion without reference to legal prohibitions is a form of misogyny and a claim that women are not to be trusted, their underlying assumptions are very close to Furedi's: www.lmschairman.org/2013/11/ann-furedi-in-oxford.htmlEXTRACT ...her argument came to rely exclusively on the second idea, which is that for a pregnant woman a moral right to abortion followed from her right to 'bodily integrity'. Actually I think 'bodily self-determination' might be a better term for her intuition here. What happens inside a body, in effect, should be up the owner of the body. I felt that this argument should have come under more pressure in the debate, and I offer here some objections to it. 1. The argument appears to generate the conclusions Furedi wants only if the distinct existence and bodily integrity of the fetus is ignored. Given that the fetus has his own body, that brings something else into the equation which needs to be taken into consideration. What right has a women to interfere with another person's body? Furedi appears to think 'none' if the woman is a pro-life activist taking an interest in the fate of a woman considering an abortion (a point she made a number of times), but if the woman is a pregnant mother it appears to be quite different in relation to her unborn child. The first point noted above was designed I suppose to deal with this, but as Furedi conceded it cannot bear the argumentative weight: just because a human can't talk doesn't take away a moral status he would otherwise have. This being so, Furedi's argument seems to defeat itself: if we have the right to bodily self-determination, then the fetus' right would prevent the mother from aborting. The responses Furedi made to this kind of point consisted of insisting on the lesser moral status of the fetus. Although she wasn't able to make a principled argument for this, she seemed to think it was sufficiently obvious, even while conceding that a fetus has value - more, as she put it, than a goldfish or a cat. But given that the fetus' life is at stake, and the mother's is not, to say that the fetus weighs less in the scales of value is not enough. I might be obliged to suffer a lot of inconvenience to save the life of, say, a whale, a colony of rare bats, or, come to that, to ensure the continued existence of an historic building. 2. The principle of radical bodily self-determination, which Furedi needs, is not plausible, and is not applied in law or in common-sense moral thinking. Examples which show this are suicide and body-integrity disorder. No one has the moral right to commit suicide, which is why we all think that it is permissible for bystanders to save a would-be suicide from (say) drowning, or talk him off the window ledge. (The Samaritans even abandon their normal 'non-directive' counselling for prospective suicides.) Those suffering from body-integrity disorder, who want healthy limbs amputated, do not have the right to undergo the amputations, indeed it would be wrong for a doctor to carry out their wishes. These cases do not even involve the agents directly harming other parties, so a fortiori it cannot be concluded from our intuition that people are 'in charge of their own bodies', that a mother can harm a fetus enclosed inside her body. Yes, we say casually that we can do what we like with our bodies, but the principle here is a weak one. It may include body-piercing, but it doesn't even extend to experimenting with hard drugs, let alone anything more dramatic or irreversible. A wider point is about people being (morally) the best judges of their own interests. The statute books are bursting with laws to prevent people making stupid decisions on the basis of what they imagine are their best interests. Everything from building regulations to tobacco duty acknowledges that the law has a role in guiding rational, grown-up and autonomous decision-makers away from bad decisions. 3. Furedi conceded that some women think of abortion in a moment of confusion and panic, and being better-informed or just a bit calmer they may well change their minds. She also conceded that many women are under intense social pressure to abort baby girls. She appealed to the case of the women who are cool, calm, and collected, and decide rationally to go through with it as being in their best interests. I would have liked to have asked, in light of this, whether making abortion easier, legally or practically, is in the best interests of women overall. It certainly isn't in the interests of the first kinds of cases, who are more likely to do something they later regret, and are easier for others to bully, the easier abortion is to arrange. Even supposing the cool, calm ones are right about their interests (see point two), it is far from clear that this means that a situation should be perpetuated in which many, many others end up being violated in the most horrible way, when they cave in to pressure to have an abortion which they do not want. Again, compare the case with drugs. Drug users constantly tell us that, in the immortal phrase, 'they can handle it'. Suppose they can - suppose it is true that a certain proportion of users can genuinely derive pleasure from hard drugs without it destroying their lives. As an argument for de-criminalisation this is extremely weak, because everyone can see the drugs users who clearly can't handle it, and making drugs more widely available will cause terrible harm to people in that category. These parallels are not exact. It is for the pro-abortion advocates to explain, however, what is the principled basis of a moral right to abortion, and why such principles don't lead to counter-intuitive results when applied to other cases. END Incidentally, the part I haven't reproduced shows that Furedi is a skilled debater who is willing to make pre-emptive concessions when she knows she is facing a sophisticated audience. I have seen/heard her give much broader and less nuanced statements on mass-media platforms (e.g. saying there is no real evidence of women seeking sex-selection abortions because the evidence adduced - e.g. by the DAILY TELEGRAPH some time ago - came from an undercover reporter who was only pretending to want such an abortion).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 3, 2013 21:01:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 10, 2014 12:04:41 GMT
This is a news item with which we as pro-lifers - and as human beings - should be very concerned: www.politics.ie/forum/health-social-affairs/220485-medical-cards-withdrawn-up-half-irelands-downs-syndrome-children.htmlRemember, one reason for social pressure to abort the handicapped (which is going to intensify as our abortion laws are relaxed) is COST. This is one reason why I am dismayed to see people who call themselves pro-lifers simultaneously taking up ultra-libertarian economics. Some people simply need help. From shutting them in the chicken coop to killing them before they are born, with only a few brief decades of decency in between. What a prospect! Glad to see from the thread that Deputy Peadar Toibin is making a stand on this issue. Although I regard Sinn Fein as Satan's Little Helpers, I would certainly vote for him if I lived in his constituency.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 15, 2014 18:34:33 GMT
Cristina Odone (whose own views on abortion are highly questionable) describes how some self-proclaimed feminists have taken their "pro-choice" ideology to the depth of defending sex-selection abortion: blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100254691/gendercide-the-silence-of-the-so-called-feminists/EXTRACT When parents can abort a baby because it's a girl, they are guilty of the worst kind of sexism. Rape, porn, the tyranny of beauty that compels little girls to perform plastic surgery to attain perfection: these are nothing in comparison to the mindset that will not allow for girls to be conceived in the first place. Our daughters – and not just in immigrant communities – are learning that a girl's life is worthless. Feminists should be up in arms about this. They are not. While they have fought tooth and nail the sexist app that allows little girls to perform plastic surgery on a Barbie, most have stayed silent on a far worse crime against women. Why? because some so-called feminists believe the right to abortion trumps everything. Any abortion is OK by them, no matter when or why. As Sarah Ditum argued in The Guardian: "As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter why any woman wants to end her pregnancy. If it's to select for sex, that's her choice." Incredible? Pro-choice ideology has such a stranglehold on this group that they will wilfully overlook the fact that this ideology can be turned against our sex: when a woman wants to abort her baby simply because it is a girl, abortion becomes the grossest misogynist act of all. END OF EXTRACT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2014 20:38:54 GMT
I'm sorry hibernicus, but I can't support the opinion of this woman or anyone like her for the simple fact that it reeks of the most disgusting hypocrisy and foul intentions. I've seen plenty of people with this non-sense attitude of "I'm pro-choice, but I believe people can't have abortions just because their child is a girl". I'm sorry, but what the Hell are you talking about (the people, not you hibernicus)? You are either "pro-choice" or you are not. What part of that laughable agenda do you have trouble understanding? You want people to be able to decide for themselves if they want to abort their child. So whose business is it if they decide to abort their children based on these grounds? Not yours, obviously. That's the agenda you fought tooth and nail for.
It might sound absurd coming from a pro-life Catholic, but I cannot stand with these people or their moronic opinions. If you consider yourself "pro-choice" then tough look. This is what you get for all your lousy work. These people aren't even concerned about these things for the right reasons. They have no problem ravaging a fetus for any other reason because, as far as they're concerned, it's just "a clump of cells". But oh no, we can't have you ravaging a "clump of cells" that's female just because it's female. That would be sexist.
These people are hypocrites and morons. I don't know if it's the right or wrong thing to do, but I would not ever stand side-by-side with these people if they were to protest against it. As a Catholic I don't believe in compromising with these people. You are either whole-heartedly against abortion, or you are an abortionist. Anything in between is the lukewarm that will be spit from the mouth. There's a nice reminder for those "pro-lifers" who lack a spine.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 16, 2014 18:20:07 GMT
First of all, I cited MS Odone on a matter of fact (namely the pro-choicers' insane consistency in their worship of Moloch) not on her opinion. If Ms X says something and on investigation I find her statement is correct and can be confirmed, it is only common courtesy (to readers who wish to check it) to give the source. Secondly, have you never heard the expression that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue? The fact that these people are disturbed by and protest against the logical outcome of their own views and practices (and it is IMHO possible to distinguish between those who are really uneasy and those who are just shamming, like those IRISH TIMES journalists who can never mention Herod's Act for the Establishment of Molochianity aka the "Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act" without repeating a mantra about how "restrictive" it is. The fact that they are disturbed shows that they retain some remnant of conscience, and that it may be possible by working on that remnant to awaken in them (or in others like them who may share the same confusion and may be touched by statements from them precisely because they are not coming from pro-lifers) to bring them back to the true way. This is what Isaiah meant when he said Our Lord does not break the bruised reed or quench the smouldering wick. I would point out, BTW, that there are some wellknown examples of people like the late Alison Davis or Dr BErnard Nathanson who were brought to a full pro-life position and to religious belief by such a twitch on the thread. Thirdly, saying that you will not co-operate with such people to effect a marginal improvement and that there is no difference between pro-lifers who do so co-operate and abortionists is utterly self-defeating IMHO. I agree that in the end there is no middle way between the pro-life and pro-choice positions, and the pro-choicers are quite well aware of that, which is why they constantly work to silence such doubts and draw such people to them. To refuse to address these people where they are in practice is to hand the pro-choicers total victory by default. IN order to evangelise people you need to understand their mindset and work on its weak points and maximise points of agreement, like Matteo Ricci preaching to the Chinese, whom I have often held up as a role-model for pro-lifers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Ricci The purpose of pro-life work is to work towards the eventual victory of the cause of life, not to engage in emotional self-indulgence, which is all too often the case with purists. Your suggestion that pro-lifers who disagree with you on tactics "lack a spine" is a case in point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2014 14:49:38 GMT
First of all, I cited MS Odone on a matter of fact (namely the pro-choicers' insane consistency in their worship of Moloch) not on her opinion. If Ms X says something and on investigation I find her statement is correct and can be confirmed, it is only common courtesy (to readers who wish to check it) to give the source. Secondly, have you never heard the expression that hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue? The fact that these people are disturbed by and protest against the logical outcome of their own views and practices (and it is IMHO possible to distinguish between those who are really uneasy and those who are just shamming, like those IRISH TIMES journalists who can never mention Herod's Act for the Establishment of Molochianity aka the "Protection of Life in Pregnancy Act" without repeating a mantra about how "restrictive" it is. The fact that they are disturbed shows that they retain some remnant of conscience, and that it may be possible by working on that remnant to awaken in them (or in others like them who may share the same confusion and may be touched by statements from them precisely because they are not coming from pro-lifers) to bring them back to the true way. This is what Isaiah meant when he said Our Lord does not break the bruised reed or quench the smouldering wick. I would point out, BTW, that there are some wellknown examples of people like the late Alison Davis or Dr BErnard Nathanson who were brought to a full pro-life position and to religious belief by such a twitch on the thread. Thirdly, saying that you will not co-operate with such people to effect a marginal improvement and that there is no difference between pro-lifers who do so co-operate and abortionists is utterly self-defeating IMHO. I agree that in the end there is no middle way between the pro-life and pro-choice positions, and the pro-choicers are quite well aware of that, which is why they constantly work to silence such doubts and draw such people to them. To refuse to address these people where they are in practice is to hand the pro-choicers total victory by default. IN order to evangelise people you need to understand their mindset and work on its weak points and maximise points of agreement, like Matteo Ricci preaching to the Chinese, whom I have often held up as a role-model for pro-lifers. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matteo_Ricci The purpose of pro-life work is to work towards the eventual victory of the cause of life, not to engage in emotional self-indulgence, which is all too often the case with purists. Your suggestion that pro-lifers who disagree with you on tactics "lack a spine" is a case in point. Hibernicus, I never said that you shouldn't have shown the source or that you agreed with what she was saying. I think you give these people too much credit. As I already said, these people are protesting for the wrong reasons. They don't see what they do as hypocrisy, so I don't think it is as simple as awakening a certain amount of common sense in them. When has hypocrisy ever been an issue to people who support these kind of things? The reason that I say I won't cooperate has nothing to do with a "marginal improvement". If anything it will probably reinforce the mindset that abortionists can make exceptions to the rules when it suits them. They will not see it as people working together for some common good. The entire battle will be fought on their terms. I understand that the best way to deal with people is to understand their mindset, but merely understanding doesn't mean anything if their mindset is so opposed to what you stand for that any attempt to mentally connect is fruitless. Matteo Ricci's situation was bit different. I'm not sure what you mean by calling me a purist as I have come to realise that labels can mean different things to different extents, depending on who's using them. I do not refer to pro-lifers who rely on different tactics as lacking a spine. I refer to "pro-lifers" who say they are, but insist they wouldn't "force" their opinions on anyone else. That is a weak and cowardly attitude that can only buy you so much time - or none. It's an excuse used for the convenience of the individual. I would say I am not a purist as I was the same at one time. I was a coward. I "lacked a spine". But I had to contemplate and consider before I came to the conclusion. There is no use in being shamed by those whose stance you so strongly disagree with. Why, for example, should I be shamed by someone who wants to legalise abortion so they can have sex with as many people as possible without consequence? I do not have respect for someone like that, therefore why do I care what they think about me personally? The point is I did at least think about these things. I am referring specifically to a pro-life attitude in the face of hostility, not as an attitude to be taken in general
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2014 19:26:57 GMT
When I called you a "purist" I understood you to be advocating the view that pro-lifers should not, under any circumstances, co-operate with those who are bad against those who are worse. This division can be seen in the Smeaton v.Bowman dispute which has severely damaged the British pro-life movement; Phyllis Bowman argued that pro-lifers should be prepared to work with those whose attitude was less than satisfactory in order to improve the situation, while keeping the goal of ending abortion completely in mind, whereas John Smeaton argues that pro-lifers should never support anything less than an immediate and total ban, and moreover should also campaign against contraception, gay marriage etc. It is quite clear that Phyllis Bowman, and those pro-lifers who agreed with her, genuinely believed that this was the best approach to take under the circumstances; if they were "spineless" they would not have got involved in the pro-life movement at all, with all the sacrifices and personal abuse it entails. There is a serious difference between the Bowmanite approach and the attitude of Ms Odone, who makes it clear she is in favour of legalised abortion but is squeamish about some of its implications. I would agree that there is a prima facie case for the Smeatonite approach, because gradualism can indeed lead to self-deception (assuming that such allies are real allies rather than deluded or opportunist, or compromising where one ought not to compromise) but my central problems with it are (a) it's defeatist (b) it's self-regarding. It's defeatist because it assumes that everyone who is not already pro-life is in fact a pro-choicer of the very worst type - who, as you say, consciously want abortion on demand so they can have sex without consequences. There is in fact a large "muddled middle" suffering from various degrees of confusion and corruption, and it is that "muddled middle" who must be targeted, rather than writing them off as unreachable. I remember when I was canvassing for the 1983 amendment we were told to devote most attention to the undecided - rather than to those who were already clearly for or against. My point about MAtteo Ricci is aimed precisely at reaching the muddled and undecided, not about trying to convert hardline pro-choicers (a much more dicey endeavour.) Your view comes close to saying that there is no difference between the muddled or undecided and the out-and-out enemies. It's self-regarding because it all too often actively resists the hard work of thinking and setting priorities, and promotes such attitudes as "follow the heaven-sent leader who will deliver victory if (s)he is obeyed unquestioningly, and anyone who questions him/her on anything is no better than an abortionist" or "all we need to do is shout whatever slogans come into our heads, and the abortionists will come tumbling down like the walls of Jericho", even when the abortionists are presenting some of said slogans to the undecided and muddled as proof that all pro-lifers are loonies and the abortionists are civilised people, like Herod and Pilate and Caiaphas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2014 19:39:06 GMT
When I called you a "purist" I understood you to be advocating the view that pro-lifers should not, under any circumstances, co-operate with those who are bad against those who are worse. This division can be seen in the Smeaton v.Bowman dispute which has severely damaged the British pro-life movement; Phyllis Bowman argued that pro-lifers should be prepared to work with those whose attitude was less than satisfactory in order to improve the situation, while keeping the goal of ending abortion completely in mind, whereas John Smeaton argues that pro-lifers should never support anything less than an immediate and total ban, and moreover should also campaign against contraception, gay marriage etc. It is quite clear that Phyllis Bowman, and those pro-lifers who agreed with her, genuinely believed that this was the best approach to take under the circumstances; if they were "spineless" they would not have got involved in the pro-life movement at all, with all the sacrifices and personal abuse it entails. There is a serious difference between the Bowmanite approach and the attitude of Ms Odone, who makes it clear she is in favour of legalised abortion but is squeamish about some of its implications. I would agree that there is a prima facie case for the Smeatonite approach, because gradualism can indeed lead to self-deception (assuming that such allies are real allies rather than deluded or opportunist, or compromising where one ought not to compromise) but my central problems with it are (a) it's defeatist (b) it's self-regarding. It's defeatist because it assumes that everyone who is not already pro-life is in fact a pro-choicer of the very worst type - who, as you say, consciously want abortion on demand so they can have sex without consequences. There is in fact a large "muddled middle" suffering from various degrees of confusion and corruption, and it is that "muddled middle" who must be targeted, rather than writing them off as unreachable. I remember when I was canvassing for the 1983 amendment we were told to devote most attention to the undecided - rather than to those who were already clearly for or against. My point about MAtteo Ricci is aimed precisely at reaching the muddled and undecided, not about trying to convert hardline pro-choicers (a much more dicey endeavour.) Your view comes close to saying that there is no difference between the muddled or undecided and the out-and-out enemies. It's self-regarding because it all too often actively resists the hard work of thinking and setting priorities, and promotes such attitudes as "follow the heaven-sent leader who will deliver victory if (s)he is obeyed unquestioningly, and anyone who questions him/her on anything is no better than an abortionist" or "all we need to do is shout whatever slogans come into our heads, and the abortionists will come tumbling down like the walls of Jericho", even when the abortionists are presenting some of said slogans to the undecided and muddled as proof that all pro-lifers are loonies and the abortionists are civilised people, like Herod and Pilate and Caiaphas. Once again you have misunderstood my point Hibernicus. I am not calling people who differ in their approach to me "spineless". I am talking specifically about people who claim they are pro-life - "I wouldn't personally get an abortion" - when they are obviously not - "but I don't believe in forcing my opinions on others. They should be able to decide themselves". Still though, I take what you say into account and will try to be more patient and understanding in future.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2014 19:55:38 GMT
OK, point taken. I was thinking in particular of your statement in the original post that you would not be willing to join with such people if they protested against abortion. I seem to have interpreted that much more broadly than you meant.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2014 20:32:34 GMT
Caroline Farrow on how the 1967 Abortion Act was sold as extremely restrictive but turned out to be anything but, how the official response to recent revelations about how a coach and four has been driven through the Act has been to issue a new set of regulations which legitimise the abuses, and what "women's choice" really meant for her - and her baby- when she was a confused teenager pregnant outside wedlock. Read it and weep. What price that the PLP Act - which the IRISH TIMES never seems to mention without the word "restrictive" added on - will turn out to be equally "restrictive" in practice, and the result will be still more calls for the 8th Amendment to be repealed to get rid of the "anomalies" once and for all? carolinefarrow.com/2014/01/16/whats-changed-since-1967/
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2014 16:11:04 GMT
30 years ago Governor Mario Cuomo of New York gave a speech at Notre Dame University explaining why he personally disapproved of abortion as a Catholic but thought it should nonetheless remain legal in the name of "religious freedom". A certain type of "liberal" and "liberal Catholic", such as those who infested RTE and the IRISH TIMES even before it became MOLOCH'S HERALD, went all swoony over his "mature faith", etc etc etc. Now his son Andrew Cuomo is Governor of New York, and has just delivered himself of a rant in which he declares that pro-lifers are "extremists" who have no place in New York State. (I should add that Cuomo junior has been busily deregulating abortion in MY state and gutting any conscience protection provisions.) A slippery slope indeed, and those who saw that the elder Cuomo's position at the top of the slide would eventually lead to the position his son currently occupies at the bottom thereof were denounced as slanderers and bigots. BTW if you don't think Cuomo Junior's position - that pro-lifers have no place in public discourse - is quite widespread in Ireland, and a significant section of our politicians and administrators would like to see it enforced, you haven't been keeping a close eye on what the Irish pro-aborts are saying: www.nationalreview.com/corner/368829/andrew-cuomo-puts-catholics-need-not-reside-sign-new-york-kathryn-jean-lopez{note this is a secular conservative site whose policies I do not necessarily endorse; I link to it because of its pointed contrast of the two Cuomos' professed positions] wdtprs.com/blog/2014/01/gov-andrew-cuomo-conservative-have-no-place-in-the-state-of-new-york/
|
|
luke
New Member
Posts: 19
|
Post by luke on Jan 20, 2014 17:46:12 GMT
Hibernicus, related to the above, it is worth having a look at Una Mullally's piece in today's Irish Times.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2014 19:19:37 GMT
I'm going to post something about it on "What it Says in the Papers" as it is about gay marriage, not abortion. I would agree, however, that the rhetorical strategy Ms Mullally is pursuing is also used quite regularly by pro-choicers; drive the other side out of the public sphere by declaring that the expression of their views causes distress and is therefore an expression of hatred/discrimination. The more I think about it, the more Abraham Lincoln's "house divided" speech ("a nation cannot continue half slave and half free - it must be all one or the other") seems to me to apply to the pro-life cause. (Lincoln was referring to the demands of the slave states that the free states should not merely recognise the legality of slavery where it existed, but should actively asssist in maintaining it by returning runaway slaves to their owners and suppressing the expression of abolitionist views on the grounds that these were an act of violence since they incited slaves to attack their masters. Sound familiar?)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 20, 2014 19:28:12 GMT
File this one in "YOu Couldn't Make It Up". A US stand-up "comedian" called Jenny Slate was aggrieved by the fact that romantic comedies in which a central female character gets pregnant unexpectedly tend to portray her deciding to keep the baby, so she decided to make a film in which the central character (played by herself) has an abortion and lives happily ever after (in her own words "how abortion doesn't have to change women's lives forever and doesn't leave an emotional scar"). The director's name is Gillian Robespierre (no, I'm not joking). Expect the Abortion Fan Club in the US media (and probably here, too) to give this atrocity all the help they can, at least on the arthouse circuit. Another one to skip when it comes to the Irish Film Institute: www.salon.com/2014/01/19/jenny_slate_brings_humor_to_obvious_child_an_honest_rom_com_about_abortion/
|
|