Hic Est Corpum Meum
Perhaps the greatest service that religion once rendered to Western civilization was providing the individual with a real or imagined hotline to God. Whether this was simply a conceit or not let us set aside for the moment. For as long as man imagined himself to be sacred and accountable to the Creator he stood at the center of polity. The state was there to serve him and not the reverse. Today he has lost that central place and is no more or less than a collection of curiously animated chemical substances with a market value of less then fifty dollars which the state has deigned to keep alive until some bureaucratic panel decides it is too expensive to do so. Just as Global Warming can be understood at one level as an attempt to bring nature into the purview of politics, it is impossible to understand the Left’s fixation with abortion except as a sacramental affirmation of the state’s power over man. The strident insistence on abortion on demand goes way beyond any conceivable need to prevent backroom abortions, or even an affirmation of a woman’s right to choose. It is really an absolute display of the power of politics over life. Abortion’s principal utility is as a stake driven through the heart of the notion of human sacredness, which once performed, ought to prevent its revival entirely.
Perhaps. But I think that abortion is the sacrament of the left l not because its a religious assertion of the primacy of the state, like Wretchard argues, but because its a source of communion. Widespread on-demand abortion is such an obvious evil that those on the Left once having been complicit in it, they are psychologically and socially bound to defend it at all cost.
I think that partly explains the reluctance of the public to think about abortion. Its not something we can blame on a few bad apples, Its a national sin.
Its also, I think, why the recent Democratic strategy of arguing that abortion is bad but that it still should be legal is actually leading to an increase in the public opposition to legal abortion on demand.
I wonder if this dynamic may partly explain one of the Civil War puzzles. The Civil War was fundamentally about slavery, yet most Southerners weren’t slaveowners. What gives? Part of the explanation is that Southern elites successfully persuaded southerners that black slaves, if given a hint of freedom, would touch off a bloody race war. But I bet part of it was simply that most Southern whites felt themselves complicit in slavery whether they owned slaves or not so they had to combat at all costs the notion that slavery was wrong.
Bruce Nielson
October 28, 2009
Okay, first my own bias: I’m typical Mormon moderate pro-lifer. I.e. entirely pro-life except in a case where the woman lacked a choice in the first place (i.e. health of the mother not realized, rape, incest, etc.) but only then if God tells you it’s okay.
“The strident insistence on abortion on demand goes way beyond any conceivable need to prevent backroom abortions, or even an affirmation of a woman’s right to choose. It is really an absolute display of the power of politics over life. Abortion’s principal utility is as a stake driven through the heart of the notion of human sacredness, which once performed, ought to prevent its revival entirely”
I just can’t agree with this assessment. The reason abortion is so important to the left is because it is directly correlated with female earning power and thus directly correlated to potential or real male oppression of women. I think utterly free abortions with huge efforts to remove all guilt over it are (currently) required if women over all are to gain equality in the job market. I think the outcome of economic equality is what is at stake and what is being played for by the left.
In short, I see it as a legitimate issue, but one that is (to me) clearly secondary to the importance of human life. We are making a good choice (women not being oppressed economically) through an extreme measure that is obviously immoral (declaring a fetus to be a part of the woman’s body, even though we all know it’s not.)
There has to be a better solution, though I have none to offer as of yet. But I don’t buy that the liberals don’t understand that this is about overall economic freedom/power (however you choose to say it) for women.
Vader
October 28, 2009
Niven and Pournelle’s cannibals in Footfall? You either ate or were eaten; and, once you ate, you were morally bound to the cannibal cult.
Adam Greenwood
October 28, 2009
Vader,
I originally had that in, but I left it out because (1) even for me it seemed a little inflammatory and (2) I hate it when people use fiction as evidence of the way people really are.
Adam Greenwood
October 28, 2009
Bruce N.,
I think thats a huge part of it to, the idea that because we can overcome nature and the environment using technology, it must be moral to do so.
Bruce Nielson
October 29, 2009
“it must be moral to do so…”
This is an interesting thought. I suspect it’s not representative of their “point of view” (though I think it objectively accurate.)
To me the question is, how is it justified morally in their minds. We have part of the equation: the alternative is lack of economic power for women, thus creating a danger of oppression. The other aspect of it is rebranding the fetus as part of the woman’s body. Terminating it is no less moral than clipping your nails or cutting your hair.
It’s the second part that needs more thought. How do they justify it? It seems counter intuitive. I suspect we overwhelming intuitively understand that terminating a fetus is not equivalent to clipping your nails and indeed is biologically speaking independant of the woman’s body. (Not that I am assuming here that a fetus is equivalent to a full person either. I’m just saying it’s obvious it’s not just part of the woman’s body in any regular sense.)
I guess what I am saying is, that I have an underlying assumption that people are generally moral — or at least intend to be. I think a basically moral person can do something terribly immoral due to what we might call “rationalization” and I think that is what we are talking about here.
I feel like I’m talking in circles. I need to think about this more. I think what I am saying is, I don’t understand the rationalization but I am starting with the assumption that it’s comprehendable. Thus I must be missing something.
From the Blawgernacle – November 2, 2009 « LDS Law
November 3, 2009
[...] Adam Greenwood of Junior Ganymede writes about some of the motivations for abortion law advocates. [...]