Tag: abortion

“I despise Birth-Control”: G.K. Chesterton on babies and distributism

As he has done time and again since I recently started reading him in earnest, Chesterton comes in and says with a machete what I had been trying to think with a butter-knife for some time.

The following is from The Well and the Shallows and was copied from Ignatius Insight.

____________________________

I hope it is not a secret arrogance to say that I do not think I am exceptionally arrogant; or if I were, my religion would prevent me from being proud of my pride. Nevertheless, for those of such a philosophy, there is a very terrible temptation to intellectual pride, in the welter of wordy and worthless philosophies that surround us today. Yet there are not many things that move me to anything like a personal contempt. I do not feel any contempt for an atheist, who is often a man limited and constrained by his own logic to a very sad simplification. I do not feel any contempt for a Bolshevist, who is a man driven to the same negative simplification by a revolt against very positive wrongs. But there is one type of person for whom I feel what I can only call contempt. And that is the popular propagandist of what he or she absurdly describes as Birth-Control.

I despise Birth-Control first because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly word. It is also an entirely meaningless word; and is used so as to curry favour even with those who would at first recoil from its real meaning. The proceeding these quack doctors recommend does not control any birth. It only makes sure that there shall never be any birth to control. It cannot for instance, determine sex, or even make any selection in the style of the pseudo-science of Eugenics. Normal people can only act so as to produce birth; and these people can only act so as to prevent birth. But these people know perfectly well as I do that the very word Birth-Prevention would strike a chill into the public, the instant it was blazoned on headlines, or proclaimed on platforms, or scattered in advertisements like any other quack medicine. They dare not call it by its name, because its name is very bad advertising. Therefore they use a conventional and unmeaning word, which may make the quack medicine sound more innocuous.

Second, I despise Birth-Control because it is a weak and wobbly and cowardly thing. It is not even a step along the muddy road they call Eugenics; it is a flat refusal to take the first and most obvious step along the road of Eugenics. Once grant that their philosophy is right, and their course of action is obvious; and they dare not take it; they dare not even declare it. If there is no authority in things which Christendom has called moral, because their origins were mystical, then they are clearly free to ignore all the difference between animals and men; and treat men as we treat animals. They need not palter with the stale and timid compromise and convention called Birth-Control. Nobody applies it to the cat. The obvious course for Eugenists is to act towards babies as they act towards kittens. Let all the babies be born; and then let us drown those we do not like. I cannot see any objection to it; except the moral or mystical sort of objection that we advance against Birth-Prevention. And that would be real and even reasonable Eugenics; for we could then select the best, or at least the healthiest, and sacrifice what are called the unfit. By the weak compromise of Birth-Prevention, we are very probably sacrificing the fit and only producing the unfit. The births we prevent may be the births of the best and most beautiful children; those we allow, the weakest or worst. Indeed, it is probable; for the habit discourages the early parentage of young and vigorous people; and lets them put off the experience to later years, mostly from mercenary motives. Until I see a real pioneer and progressive leader coming out with a good, bold, scientific programme for drowning babies, I will not join the movement.

But there is a third reason for my contempt, much deeper and therefore more difficult to express; in which is rooted all my reasons for being anything I am or attempt to be; and above all, for being a Distributist. Perhaps the nearest to a description of it is to say this: that my contempt boils over into bad behaviour when I hear the common suggestion that a birth is avoided because people want to be “free” to go to the cinema or buy a gramophone or a loud-speaker. What makes me want to walk over such people like doormats is that they use the word “free.” By every act of that sort they chain themselves to the most servile and mechanical system yet tolerated by men. The cinema is a machine for unrolling certain regular patterns called pictures; expressing the most vulgar millionaires’ notion of the taste of the most vulgar millions. The gramophone is a machine for recording such tunes as certain shops and other organisations choose to sell. The wireless is better; but even that is marked by the modern mark of all three; the impotence of the receptive party. The amateur cannot challenge the actor; the householder will find it vain to go and shout into the gramophone; the mob cannot pelt the modern speaker, especially when he is a loud-speaker. It is all a central mechanism giving out to men exactly what their masters think they should have.

Now a child is the very sign and sacrament of personal freedom. He is a fresh free will added to the wills of the world; he is something that his parents have freely chosen to produce and which they freely agree to protect. They can feel that any amusement he gives (which is often considerable) really comes from him and from them and from nobody else. He has been born without the intervention of any master or lord. He is a creation and a contribution; he is their own creative contribution to creation. He is also a much more beautiful, wonderful, amusing and astonishing thing than any of the stale stories or jingling jazz tunes turned out by the machines. When men no longer feel that he is so, they have lost the appreciation of primary things, and therefore all sense of proportion about the world. People who prefer the mechanical pleasures, to such a miracle, are jaded and enslaved. They are preferring the very dregs of life to the first fountains of life. They are preferring the last, crooked, indirect, borrowed, repeated and exhausted things of our dying Capitalist civilisation, to the reality which is the only rejuvenation of all civilisation. It is they who are hugging the chains of their old slavery; it is the child who is ready for the new world.

Bigger questions

A Response to Lauren and Nate on Abortion and Gay Marriage

 

I spent the last weekend wrestling with some very good comments I received by Lauren, Nate and others from my Open Letter to Christians Concerning the Presidential Election. I am grateful to them for the thoughtful responses that made me really think twice about things. I offer the following response in hopes that it will be as helpful/challenging/insightful as their thoughts were to me. If you prefer, here is a PDF form of the article:

 

On Abortion

My friend Lauren says, “Economic stability, especially for the lower and middle class, is what’s going to reduce abortions.” She says that fewer abortions happen by “reducing unwanted pregnancies, and unwanted pregnancies are reduced by providing women and girls with educational [sex ed] and economic opportunities.” This is true, but I think it is a red herring, not the real issue.

I totally agree that sex ed can help reduce unwanted pregnancies. No cultural event short of the Second Coming will totally halt illicit sex, so I am in favor of teaching safe sex to the young and undereducated. That is, providing that real alternatives to sexually active lifestyles are presented, and the dangers of sexual activity are discussed. (I don’t think that sexual activity should be merely assumed, but presented as a choice.) Yet, however well sex ed may be taught, some unwanted pregnancies will persist. The question is, what to do with these?

As for economic stability, yes, poor socioeconomic conditions increase the rate of unwanted pregnancies. However, I think it impossible to argue that people who are economically stable and well educated will not have any unwanted pregnancies, and therefore will not want to get abortions. Rich people sometimes want to get abortions too. What do we do with these cases?

So we agree that it is good to work to decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies. But the real sticky question is, what do you do with those pregnancies that are still unwanted?

Before answering this, let me take down a pair of straw men. Lauren defended that pro-choice people don’t “support abortion”—they think there should be less abortions. I never meant to communicate otherwise. I don’t think that pro-choice people are happy when babies die—they simply see the woman’s choice as more important. And on the other hand, some people assume that pro-life people don’t care about the women who get abortions. I confess that I, for one, usually don’t show enough gentleness toward the difficult, sometimes harrowing personal situations surrounding abortion decisions. I admit that I need to do more to help them and show that I care. However, the pro-life position does care about the women; it’s just that they see the baby’s life as more important.

So the right course of action in those pregnancies that are unwanted depends on which is more valuable: the woman’s choice or the life of the baby? This question in turn depends on whether it is really a baby, a person—or simply a fetus, a nonperson. The issue of abortion thus depends on how we define personhood, which follows from the worldview that we are looking through.

From a humanist or materialist worldview, a human being becomes a person when it reaches some point of self-awareness or sentience, or when it is able to feel a certain amount of pain, or by some other subjective standard determined by a judge or by popular vote. So no one can say exactly when a fetus becomes a person. The definition is wishy-washy. (I once had a friend who thought that infanticide was permissible until around age two.) A “possible-person” or a “pre-person” has less rights than a full person, so, under a materialist view, the adult mother’s right to choose naturally trumps the rights of the “baby” prior to a certain point. A materialist has to support the right of the woman to choose.

From a Christian worldview, a human being is a person from the moment of conception. In fact, it is really a person before conception (but I suppose it would be difficult to kill someone prior to their conception). Consider the following scriptures.

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.” (Jeremiah 1:5)

For you formed my inward parts;

    you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

    Wonderful are your works;

    my soul knows it very well.

My frame was not hidden from you,

    when I was being made in secret,

    intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes saw my unformed substance;

    in your book were written, every one of them,

    the days that were formed for me,

    when as yet there was none of them. (Psalm 139:13-19)

 

God gives identity to human beings even before they come into physical existence, and it is he who forms them in the womb. If we believe this, then the thing we abort is a person whom God has ordained and known and named and begun himself to shape. Thus human life takes on sacredness. That child is God’s as much as it is the woman’s. It is more than a person; it is a son or daughter of God. Therefore, it seems to me, the Bible allows no other position than that fetuses in the womb are persons, and are thus entitled to the right of life. If the unborn are entitled to the right of life, yet unable to defend their lives themselves, then it is the responsibility of our government to make laws protecting that right.

Lauren says that Roe v. Wade did not increase the number of abortions—it just gave safer options to women who would have gone to drastic measures anyway. She mentions some uncited research. I’m curious about the degree of conclusiveness that this research can reach as to whether legalizing abortion did not in any way increase the number of abortions. As she says, abortions were not documented before, so how can we know for sure? Someone close to me has had two abortions. She told me recently, “I probably wouldn’t have had those abortions if they were illegal. I was scared, but I don’t think I would have gone looking for ways to do it. You don’t think through things like that when you’re pregnant, you’re just scared.” I’ll admit that, possibly, a very significant number of people found ways to have abortions when they were illegal, but I question whether legality doesn’t have a significant curbing effect for many women. And if that curbing effect is all the law can produce, it is nonetheless worth making the law.

Ultimately, I think the solution to abortion is both to reduce unwanted pregnancies, and also to advocate for the lives of the most defenseless children in our society. This is about helping mothers and saving their babies. It’s an issue of social justice as important as any—they are “invisible children” too.

 

On Gay Marriage

The other hot topic about which I received excellent replies is the legalization of homosexual marriage.  Lauren makes the point that opposing gay marriage communicates hatred to gays. Both Lauren and Nate argue that, as far as the government is concerned, marriage is merely a social contract, and the law should be blind to any moral or religious dimensions of marriage. I will respond to these two points below.

1. Opposing gay marriage communicates hatred

Lauren says that vocalizing a political stance in opposition to gay marriage makes the gay community feel like Christians hate them. Saying that gay marriage is wrong “alienates people when I’m supposed to love them….It automatically throws up barriers to loving and serving a community that is in desperate need of love and truth.”

First, I want to admit that I’m not very good at loving the gay community. Neither are most evangelicals (n.b. I apply the label to myself with certain reservations). I want to change that. Making some of my first gay friends at GMU during the last two years has been very enlightening. I totally agree that Christians need to stop sending the vibe that homosexuals are heinous, beyond-redemption perverts who are single-handedly responsible for the moral demise of our country. We need to develop bridges of communication and friendship. Jesus hung out with the tax collectors.

But if gays are indeed a community “in desperate need of love and truth,” as Lauren says, then loving them while tip-toeing around the truth they desperately need is no love at all. The gospel first empathizes and identifies with your brokenness until you can admit “I have a problem.” Then it says, “Jesus is the answer to your problem.” This is the gospel for every one of us guys who has had a problem with porn, and every couple who is living together, so a gay couple is not exempt. When Jesus hung out with tax collectors, he explained it by saying, “It is not the healthy who need a physician, but a sick.” I feel that the homosexual political agenda (maybe not all gays themselves) is asking me to agree that “nothing is wrong.” Well, nothing is more wrong with you than with me, but that is still a lot of wrong. If I hold the Christian worldview, it is the most hateful thing I can do to smile and nod when gays say that they’re “born this way and they don’t need to change.” It is the most loving thing I can do to embody the tension between truth and love that exists in the gospel. Living this tension will probably make enemies with many conservatives, and it won’t be enough for gays who want exoneration from any moral standard other than “being true to their hearts.” But I feel like that is the line God has called his people to walk in our culture today.

2. The government has no right to define marriage

The second thrust of Lauren’s argument about gay marriage is that the government should not be concerned with any sanctity of marriage. “Marriage” to the government is simply a social contract that “ensures joint property rights, right to decide medical care issues, etc.” Any so-called sanctity is only within the walls of the church. (I presume she means like how the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches “recognize” marriages.) This connects with Nate’s point that the purview of the government is to interfere with someone’s freedom only if it violates someone else’s. The U.S. is not Israel, he observes. It is not built to enforce Christian mores, but to tolerate the maximum number of mores. Lauren and Nate essentially agree that the government should be blind to all but the economic and social privileges due to any two people who are willing to enter into a contract of life cooperation.

This is the point I almost agreed with. I agreed with it for most of the weekend; I kept thinking about it while helping to paint my parents’ house. I annoyed my wife by playing devil’s advocate with both positions back and forth. Our government was built on the right of every man to the “pursuit of happiness”. What right does it have to define what may or may not make him happy? Isn’t that counter to the heart of the American experiment? As Nate implied when he referred to the “red scare,” if people want to be communists, they are allowed. Likewise, if people want to be gay, they are entitled to all the rights otherwise due to them by the government—including the privileges conveyed by marriage laws.

This reasoning, however, makes an assumption. It assumes that the authority exercised by the civil government is derived solely from the consent of the citizens, and that there is no greater authority than those citizens themselves. Is there a greater authority?

The Declaration of Independence says that authority of the government is derived from the rights that “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle” to man. It holds the these truths to be self-evident: “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed….” The authority that our government exercises is derived from the combination of the “consent of the governed” and the Laws of Nature. Without the laws of nature, I suppose we would have a simple majority rule—whatever the majority of people voted on at any one time, would be right. An appeal to individual rights in the Natural Law gives minorities a voice, protects the marginalized and powerless, and forms the foundation of social justice. Crucially, such the Natural Law cannot be divided from a Lawmaker, God, since no rule exists without an authority enforcing it with proper jurisdiction.

Furthermore, if the standards of the Creator were revealed to us in ways other than Natural Law, then these revelations too would hold sway, just as the Natural Law does. Justice Joseph Story (1779-1845), then Dane Professor of Law in Harvard University, captures this perfectly:

“the Law of Nature…lies at the foundation of all others laws, and constitutes the first step in the science of jurisprudence…” but, “the law of nature has a higher sanction, as it stands supported and illustrated by revelation. Christianity, while with many minds it acquires authority from its coincidences with the law of nature, as deduced from reason, has added strength and dignity to the latter by its positive declarations….Thus Christianity becomes, not merely an auxiliary, but a guide to the law of nature, establishing its conclusions, removing its doubts, and elevating its precepts. (A Discourse Pronounced Upon the Inauguration of the Author)

Therefore, if government is built on the Laws of Nature, and the Laws of Nature descend from God, the Lawmaker, and if Christianity is the revelation of God, then the principles of Christianity ought to inform and constrain the principles of civil law.

If we accept that God is the ultimate sovereign, then we must believe that governmental strata that steward his authority must be structured to acknowledge the sovereignty of God.

It just so happens that the authority to which government answers has defined marriage. God has painted a pretty clear picture in his word about homosexuality and marriage. He calls homosexuality wrong and unnatural, while urging that marriage be kept holy (1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:5-6, Romans 1:24-27, Leviticus 18:22, etc.). I won’t get into this in detail because I don’t think we disagree about what the Bible says on this topic.

If homosexual marriage thus violates Divine Law, which informs the Natural Law, and if right civil statutes derive their authority by conformance to the Natural Law, then civil homosexual marriage also violates right civil statues. It is the obligation of good citizens who have a Christian worldview to vote for representatives who will create right civil statues that adhere to the Divine law.

What is ultimate, democracy or deity? We are faced in our culture with the tacit elimination of God’s authority in the public sphere. The humanist believes that people’s freedom is limited by nothing but their desires. The Christian believes that people’s freedom is limited by God’s laws.  And we gladly fight to keep the knee of our country knelt before God. “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

 

Bringing Change

The questions of abortion and gay marriage summon deeper questions. Who defines personhood? Who has sovereignty over man? These questions lead us down to the bedrock of worldviews. Do we believe that God exists? Do we believe all of His implications, in all the spheres of life? Are we willing to stand up for these beliefs?

I will end by discussing one of Nate’s points. He says that making laws against a certain immoral practice will not stop the practice from happening. Legislation will not bring about change. He says, “I don’t think we can charge people with being moral when they don’t understand the real reason why it’s needed. Christ produces morality and fruit, and not vice-versa.” I admit that it is the Holy Spirit who makes the ultimate change in hearts, but this is not a reason to abdicate our seat at the cultural roundtable. In fact, quite the opposite. We are Christ’s representatives. If he is to get into people’s hearts, it will be through us—through our speaking the truth in love. (And in love is crucial.) We need to be like Christ, unswerving in his condemnation of sin in the Jewish culture, yet recklessly compassionate in his dealings with the broken, sinful Jews. As I said regarding abortion, this is the tension we are called to walk as believers. We need to fearlessly advocate toward a culture that honors and obeys God, while loving and being a part of a culture that isn’t there yet. We may never see direct fruit of our efforts, but by God’s grace, they will not be in vain.

An open letter to Christians on the presidential election

Dear fellow Christians,

When I found out that my choices for the 2012 presidential election were between a Mormon and the current administration, I admit that I lost interest. I don’t consider either man a role model who embodies the ideals, faith, and values that I espouse. And I don’t think I should blindly hold to a party line. I don’t want to be one of those Christians who mistake a particular political ideology (conservative, liberal) or party (Republicans, Democrats) for the Kingdom of God. Ultimately, the kingdoms of earth will come and go, but the King of Kings will remain. So generally, I don’t care much for politics. I think we citizens of the Eternal Nation should maintain some perspective.

Nevertheless, too many of my ancestors have died to purchase my right to vote for me to say, “whatever” and write the whole political scene off as corrupt. So, what am I supposed to do with my vote? What are you supposed to do with yours, since “Jesus” is not one of the names on the ticket?

Although economic issues and foreign policy are certainly important, God warns his people countless times against pursuing financial stability above obedience to God. If we “seek first the Kingdom” he will “add all these things.” If we trust in God more than we trust in our country’s leaders, then our job is to vote for righteousness, not for the plan that will create more jobs, or ensure us the best healthcare, etc. These are extremely important, but they’re just not priority. God doesn’t speak about medical policies, but he does say, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people” (Proverbs 14:34).

So how the heck do you “vote for righteousness”? Well, what does God care about? What does he legislate about? Well, he seems to care a lot about the value and dignity of human life. And he also cares about marriage. How so? He created those two things back in the Garden of Eden, and called them good. God hated it when the Caananites sacrificed their children (dignity of human life) and he punished the Israelites for intermarrying with them (marriage). He said when you care for the “least of these” (who is lesser than the unborn child?) you cared for Him. He called homosexuality immoral and unnatural (1 Corinthians 6:9, Jude 1:5-6, Romans 1:24-27, Leviticus 18:22, etc.).

Maybe you see what I’m getting at. I think that the social-moral issues represented on the ballot, chiefly, abortion and homosexual marriage, are more important than who’s the better debater, who pays more taxes, or who can ensure me a larger tax return. I think they are utmost importance. I think God cares about them. And I think that our attitude toward these practices affects whether we will be a fragrant smell to God, or a reproach to Him.

(I also must interject that taking Mr. Biden’s stance, “I believe abortion is wrong but I’ll not push that on others,” is a farce. If you actually believe that those embryos are humans, then you are an accomplice to murder because it was in your power to stop it. No one would exonerate someone who passively witnessed a stepfather rape of his stepson because “it was his son”.)

Perhaps you’re reading this and you’re not a Christian, or if you hold to a foggy, pick ‘n’ choose theism. If so, you should know that, if I held your worldview, I would certainly support the right of the mother or of the two gay lovers, to choose. But to my brothers and sisters, who have read the Bible and who really accept it as more than niceties and folklore and antiquated ecclesiastical power plays: how can you vote for a candidate who supports abortion and homoesexual marriage? Please do explain it to me.

For me, anyway, these moral issues trump. Although I don’t particularly like either candidate on a personal level, basing my voting decision on my faith in Jesus and on the Bible has made my decision this November a little bit simpler.

In Christ,

Ben Taylor

I killed a girl

I killed a girl last year. But I’m not sorry.

She was trespassing on my property, uninvited. I own 10 wooded acres on the outskirts of town, and I have the perimeter clearly marked with “No Trespassing” signs.

She was one of those orphans that have been wandering the streets and living under bridges ever since the orphanage burned down last year. Filthy little creatures. They’re so covered in mud that you can barely tell they’re human. They don’t talk, they just stare at you. They stalk decent people, and steal from our garbage, and sometimes our pantries. I heard Mrs. McCullough found a half dozen of them living behind her garage last winter, taking food from her dogs. The little things disgust me. Their matted hair, riddled with bald patches and welts.

I had taken precautions, you know. When I left my property, I always wore proper protection. A big hooded cloak, that is, so the children couldn’t get a look at my face, and follow me home. It’s always better if you don’t make eye contact.

I had a right to kill her. You can’t deny that she was intruding onto private property. The law says I have a right to defend what’s rightfully mine, and I had the signs posted. It doesn’t matter that she couldn’t read. That is of no consequence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

After all, she was threatening to interfere with my lifestyle. She was looking at me with those haunting eyes, and I knew I was beginning to feel obligated to let her sleep inside. Then I’d have to clean her up. And feed her. She wouldn’t have left. Before long I’d practically have to take care of her like a daughter. Then what?

It’s expensive, that’s what. I wouldn’t be able to take my yearly trip to Cancun. And Mrs. McCullough and the neighbors think it’s disgraceful to let one of those creatures crawl around your house. Janet felt all benevolent right after the orphanage burned, and now look at her—house overrun by a dozen of them. Cooking for them, cleaning them, teaching them. She never leaves that filthy house. No, I’m not ready to have a kid, and I won’t have one forced on me. That’s why I had to kill her quick, while my head was clear, and I could make the decision that was right for me.

Janet says those orphans have a “right to life.” She says killing children is wrong. But I don’t like the way she puts it. I don’t think they’re really “children”—I mean, they don’t have names or families. They don’t even communicate, they just stare. Maybe they don’t even think. They’re entirely helpless and unable to contribute to society. I prefer to call them “potential children,” or just “hominids,” because their emaciated bodies only vaguely resemble proper children. To be a real child, you have to be wanted.

Come to think of it, maybe not even “hominids,” because I am a passionate member of PETA, and I would object to the killing of an orangutang on my property. (An orangutang wouldn’t threaten my lifestyle.) So maybe the potential girl was just more of a  “thing.” Yes. I didn’t really “kill” then – I just removed an unwanted thing.

And I didn’t even do the removing myself. I had a doctor remove it. He went out to where she—sorry, it—was hiding, behind the shed, and suctioned its brains out. It was a clean procedure, and I didn’t even see it at all, once it was dead.

Sometimes I get these flashbacks of its eyes. I shouldn’t have looked at it for so long before I called the doctor. That was a mistake. That’s why I wear proper protection when I’m in town. But I did see them. And its eyes make me wonder. If I had let her stay on my property, could I  have raised her to be a real child? Maybe I could have fed her, and taught her to be a lady. Maybe she could have had a name. Maybe she would have been good for me.

No. I don’t think about that. I’m happy with my life. Those thoughts just make me feel some sort of pang in my heart, like I made a mistake. I told myself I wouldn’t go there anymore. Never mind.

I’m not sorry that I—had it removed. I’m fine.

Ungentile, unwhite, unborn

“Hey dude – fair comparison?” called the guy in the middle of George Mason University’s courtyard. He was holding a big poster.
“Well, actually, no,” said the graduate student he had caught traveling between buildings.
“Why not?”
“I don’t want to get into it. We will get nowhere.”

“I just stood there looking at it for a few minutes, describing it to my sister on the phone,” said my friend as he concluded his story, “I really found that offensive. It was propaganda. But I know it’s his right to free speech. Still….” He shook his head. “Makes me frustrated.”

“Did they use graphic pictures?” asked another friend.

“Yes, the other two were in black and white, to highlight the picture of the fetus, all bloody and stuff.”

“It’s offensive,” agreed a third friend. “I think they mean for it to be offensive.”

* * *

My friends are well-thought people. The discussion that ensued between them hinged not on whether abortion of itself is good or bad, but on whether the right of the mother to choose what to do with her body is greater than the right of the embryo to its life. Let me take a stab at expounding the rhetoric of the poster, to get to the heart of the ethical question of which right is greater.

  1. Ungentile = “A Nazi does not think that a non-Aryan Jew is fully a person. Nevertheless, it was wrong for the Nazis to kill Jews.”
  2. Unwhite = “A racist white man does not think that a black man is fully a person. Nevertheless, it is wrong for whites to kill blacks.”
  3. Unborn = “Like the racists, a woman (and her man) who aborts does not think her baby is fully a person. Nevertheless, in the same way as it is wrong to kill an ‘inferior race,’ it is wrong to abort a baby.”

The rhetoric hinges on the concept of personhood, that is, what it means to be fully or optimally human. Before any value can be assigned to “fully a person” or “optimally human,” we have to answer to enormous question, “What is a person?”

The materialist says that a person is merely a physical organism whose mental synapses get firing so intricately that there eventually rises a byproduct, like smoke from a fire, called a consciousness. To him, the right to life is a property of this consciousness. Therefore, before any self-awareness has surfaced, the fetus is not entitled to human rights. I knew a guy in high school who said that infanticide was okay until about age one and a half.

The theist says that a person is not only a body like all animals have, but also an essence, breathed into the body by the Divine, and capable of relating to God and other humans in an immaterial plane of reality. To him, human rights are a property of this “soul” or “spirit.” Furthermore, the standard position of the Big Three monotheistic systems (Islam, Christianity and Judaism) is that the spirit enters the body at conception.

The answer to the question “is the right of the mother or the baby greater” depends on whether you say that the baby is fully a human. If it is a person, with all the rights pertaining thereunto, then it’s an easy step to Pro-Life beliefs. One need only agree that, of the rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” the right to life is the most fundamental, and outranks the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which might be violated for the mother. If the fetus or embryo is not a person, then the mothers right to liberty trumps the “organism’s right to life.” We permit women to go hunting and kill deer, which are organisms, but not persons.

One the friends who engaged in the discussion above said it best (and I paraphrase): “There’s no way you can be a Christian and not be Pro-Life. There’s no way you can be an atheist and not be Pro-Choice.” The two sides of the political issue follow from the deep-rooted worldviews they derive from. So that sign in the courtyard and my friend’s response uncover a deeper question at hand: Does God make a person, or is a person the byproduct of his body?