Background
On Tuesday of this week, a friend posted a bumper sticker style slogan on her Facebook wall from a pro-choice Facebook group. This particular group is called Pro-Choice DOES NOT Mean Pro-Abortion! In my curiosity, I visited the page to investigate their reasoning for this semantic claim. Here's what I found.
In response, I proposed the following analogy in a public post on the group's wall.
I freely admit that this was certainly not the best example I could have come up with given the emotional scarring that often accompanies the heinous crime of sexual assault, but the analogy seemed reasonable enough to me. Not surprisingly, more than a few people objected to this rhetoric. Suffice it to say, the TV Guide summary of the subsequent discussion would probably not be "hilarity ensued."So, let's follow this logic to a reasonable conclusion. If I respect a man's right to choose whom he impregnates, that doesn't make me pro-rape. It only means that I respect his right to choose.
Amid the perhaps understandable vitriol given my specific example, a handful of patterns bubbled up in the discussion. As of this writing on Friday of the same week, there have been 534 comments on that post. I'm sure this doesn't count as a meme, but it may be as close to famous as I ever get.
Here's a link to the post if you wish to read some of the comments for yourself. Be warned, gentle reader. It's voluminous and NSFW in a few places due to language.
 |
| Things kinda went downhill after this. |
While I was called ignorant, a dunce, and illogical in my responses to subsequent comments, which I more or less expected, I was also cursed at, threatened, and labeled sexist, racist, anti-woman, and a rapist. Still more, my fortitude and manhood were both called into question when I objected to such uncharitable words. A few people went so far as to send the entire conversation-- then a mere 160 comments or so-- in an email to the dean, vice-presidents, and president of the college where I teach. Though perhaps the most ironic response was the person who referred to me as a "rape apologist." I say ironic, because the clearly stated premise of the group is "Just because you support a woman's right to choose DOES NOT make you a baby killer, or mean that you advocate for abortions."
I certainly don't expect that the average Facebook user is necessarily familiar with the generally accepted logical/rhetorical technique of reductio ad absurdum (Latin for reduction to the absurd); however, it seemed fair to expect that persons objecting to my argument would at least respect the premise I was arguing against. One could perhaps conclude that tacit and strategic dismissal of this essentially semantic premise in order to discredit a challenge to same said premise constitutes an admission of falsity.
In any condition, it would be fallacious of me to use that possibility to discredit all objections (called the tu quoque fallacy), so I will summarize the handful of more or less reasonable objections that emerged amid the ad hominem attacks and straw man arguments. There are three such points, and I will speak to each in turn.
- Child as parasite
- Continuous right
- Sex and consent
Child as parasite
This is a position based on a kind of pure utilitarianism. Here's the crux of the argument as I see it. An unborn child is completely dependent on the mother. Since the child provides no tangible benefit towards the mother's survival, the embryo or fetus is therefore in a parasitic relationship with the mother. Given the health risks of pregnancy, a mother is well within her rights to end this relationship whenever she wishes.
 |
| http://www.sethkaller.com/images/extras/4-Column-Declaration_w.png |
If an unborn child is not a person possessing the inalienable right to life, then this argument is perhaps valid. However, if an unborn child is truly a person, then we have other objections to discuss. My assertion is that an embryo constitutes a human life, and I understand that this assertion is supported by most biology textbooks. However, I will entertain the notion that certain rights of an unborn child might not always override those of the mother. For example, a non-viable tubal pregnancy is a reasonable cause for induced abortion.
Continuous right to my body
Related to but not exactly the same as the 'child as parasite' argument is the 'continuous right' argument. Essentially, one could argue that the unborn child is dependent on the nutrients of the mother's blood, occupies space in her womb, and is otherwise dependent on the mother for survival. Since the mother has the prerogative to do what she wishes with her bodily resources, the mother similarly reserves the right to cease donation of those resources at any time. The ensuing death of a child as a result of such a cessation might be unfortunate but is well within the mother's rights.
A friend with some experience in counseling suggested that this sort of argument might originate from sexual assault or a similar violation of a person's bodily autonomy. In fact, at least one of the persons who objected to my comments admitted to having been assaulted. While I certainly pray for anyone who has suffered such a violation of her humanity, I will attempt to reject this argument with due charity towards such persons.
At the time, I was rather at a loss to construct an example illustrating my objection to this argument. Another friend suggested the following analogy.
To my thinking, the situation is an apt comparison. Another would be that of organ donation. Say I donate a kidney for a relative's transplant operation. If I change my mind later, is it my prerogative to forcibly remove my kidney from the person to whom it has been freely given?
The most common premise supporting this line of thinking is that the mother did not consent to the pregnancy. I will say that this applies to the heinous crime of rape, but it does not apply to abortions carried out on children who were conceived via consensual sexual encounters.
Sadly, sexual assault is a reality in America, but most of the 55 million legal abortions carried out in the US since 1973 ended pregnancies that resulted from consensual partners. There's a tragic precedent for organizations such as Planned Parenthood covering up pregnancies resulting from statutory rape, but while the numbers are non-trivial, I doubt even these are a massive percentage. With over 40% of pregnancies in New York City ending in abortion, one would expect significant news coverage if as many as a third of those had resulted from rape.
Regardless, one of many arguments put forth was "Consent to sex does not imply consent to pregnancy." My off-the-cuff counter-argument is "Does consent to a shower imply consent to getting wet?"
Sex, consent, and personal responsibility
This brings me to what I see as the crux of the matter. As an outgrowth of what I call the Promiscuity Gospel [TM], modern Americans have a tendency to view sexual activity as an inalienable right. And if medical science provides a means of avoiding the generally common and foreseeable consequences, among them pregnancy, disease, and physical trauma, so much the better.
First, this is not exactly a new phenomenon in human history. I attended a presentation-- called Green Sex if memory serves-- just last month where the speaker reported that ancient Egyptian physicians had recipes for contraceptive agents. However, widespread social acceptance of such denial of personal responsibility is still a new experiment in American culture. Feminist fore-bearers almost unilaterally opposed abortion, as did the founders of the civil rights movement. Consider the words of Susan B. Anthony on the subject.
Second, I would propose that pregnancy is perhaps the simplest of all human conditions to avoid. We know what causes pregnancy, and yet mothers and doctors are often shocked by the occurrence of conception. Imagine your house guest asking to take a shower and acting surprised when you tell him where to find a towel. "Whoa! I only want to get clean. I never said I wanted to get wet."
I claim that consent to sexual intercourse carries with it a de facto consent, from both participants, to carry a resulting pregnancy to term and then provide for the child's needs either directly or indirectly via adoption. Modern hedonism objects to this claim. Since this claim is a premise rather than an accepted proof technique, I will analyze some implications of denying this claim.
Before doing so, I will state in no uncertain terms that I do not absolve men of guilt in this matter. Practical experience demonstrates that men are all too often willing to impregnate and deny paternity, pressure the mother into abortion, or simply flee. Easy access to abortion greatly enables this sort of irresponsible behavior.
The Heart of Freedom
Let's suppose that our president's fondest dreams come true and abortion becomes as legal as a haircut. Of course, most people who go to the barber are expected to pay for their own haircuts, but I digress. Like it or not, the legal precedent is there. The landmark case is the 40 year old Roe v. Wade decision, but Casey v. Planned Parenthood is typically cited as the more legally significant decision. Here are some pertinent comments from Fr. Robert Barron.
Before I discuss Casey v. Planned Parenthood, I will briefly touch on Roe v. Wade. Only two justices, White and Rehnquist, dissented from the majority opinion. Oddly enough, the case was essentially decided based on the right to privacy. Here are some of Justice White's remarks from the dissenting opinion.
The first line really says it all. "The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries." That value is not only apparent in this 40 year-old decision but also in the post-modern society in which we exist.
Even more than convenience, I would say that divorcing sex from personal responsibility is the ultimate aim of abortion on demand. The promiscuity gospel-- accepted throughout our culture-- preaches that men and women have not just a right, but a duty to self, to explore without consequence every shade of irresponsible and potentially destructive sexual behavior. The pseudo-scientists of the Kinsey Institute imply that the only truly unnatural sexual practice is self-imposed abstinence. But compare the health and stability of children to the sexual indulgence of adults and see which one contributes more to society. Simply put, after an empire crumbles, historians tend not to wax poetic on the frequency and intensity of orgasm.
You might think that the fallout from the sexual revolution would have shocked our culture into noticing that the promiscuity gospel isn't doing anyone any favors. You would be wrong. Less than 20 years later, the supreme court issued a still more ridiculous ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so is the following higher in non-sense than the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. I quote directly from the Facebook discussion.
Literally, the Supreme Court of these United States has declared that the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution provides each citizen the right to define the entire universe as he or she sees fit-- and then make personal decisions based on that definition. There are political progressives, and there are nitwits. The last time I said something this nutty I was thrown off a bar stool and carried home to sleep off a hangover.
The last word?
I must confess that when a person debating with me claimed to have read and endorsed the Kinsey reports, I felt an altogether unbecoming surge of relief. Of all arguments one can refute, the pseudo-science of Alfred Kinsey surely must be the simplest. Here's a snippet of our brief interaction.
This exchange would actually be quite laughable if not for the laundry list of persons and institutions whom are numbered among Kinsey's proud and loyal followers. Here's a sample.
To my thinking, the situation is an apt comparison. Another would be that of organ donation. Say I donate a kidney for a relative's transplant operation. If I change my mind later, is it my prerogative to forcibly remove my kidney from the person to whom it has been freely given?
The most common premise supporting this line of thinking is that the mother did not consent to the pregnancy. I will say that this applies to the heinous crime of rape, but it does not apply to abortions carried out on children who were conceived via consensual sexual encounters.
Sadly, sexual assault is a reality in America, but most of the 55 million legal abortions carried out in the US since 1973 ended pregnancies that resulted from consensual partners. There's a tragic precedent for organizations such as Planned Parenthood covering up pregnancies resulting from statutory rape, but while the numbers are non-trivial, I doubt even these are a massive percentage. With over 40% of pregnancies in New York City ending in abortion, one would expect significant news coverage if as many as a third of those had resulted from rape.
Regardless, one of many arguments put forth was "Consent to sex does not imply consent to pregnancy." My off-the-cuff counter-argument is "Does consent to a shower imply consent to getting wet?"
This brings me to what I see as the crux of the matter. As an outgrowth of what I call the Promiscuity Gospel [TM], modern Americans have a tendency to view sexual activity as an inalienable right. And if medical science provides a means of avoiding the generally common and foreseeable consequences, among them pregnancy, disease, and physical trauma, so much the better.
First, this is not exactly a new phenomenon in human history. I attended a presentation-- called Green Sex if memory serves-- just last month where the speaker reported that ancient Egyptian physicians had recipes for contraceptive agents. However, widespread social acceptance of such denial of personal responsibility is still a new experiment in American culture. Feminist fore-bearers almost unilaterally opposed abortion, as did the founders of the civil rights movement. Consider the words of Susan B. Anthony on the subject.
 |
| http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm |
Second, I would propose that pregnancy is perhaps the simplest of all human conditions to avoid. We know what causes pregnancy, and yet mothers and doctors are often shocked by the occurrence of conception. Imagine your house guest asking to take a shower and acting surprised when you tell him where to find a towel. "Whoa! I only want to get clean. I never said I wanted to get wet."
I claim that consent to sexual intercourse carries with it a de facto consent, from both participants, to carry a resulting pregnancy to term and then provide for the child's needs either directly or indirectly via adoption. Modern hedonism objects to this claim. Since this claim is a premise rather than an accepted proof technique, I will analyze some implications of denying this claim.
Before doing so, I will state in no uncertain terms that I do not absolve men of guilt in this matter. Practical experience demonstrates that men are all too often willing to impregnate and deny paternity, pressure the mother into abortion, or simply flee. Easy access to abortion greatly enables this sort of irresponsible behavior.
The Heart of Freedom
Let's suppose that our president's fondest dreams come true and abortion becomes as legal as a haircut. Of course, most people who go to the barber are expected to pay for their own haircuts, but I digress. Like it or not, the legal precedent is there. The landmark case is the 40 year old Roe v. Wade decision, but Casey v. Planned Parenthood is typically cited as the more legally significant decision. Here are some pertinent comments from Fr. Robert Barron.
Before I discuss Casey v. Planned Parenthood, I will briefly touch on Roe v. Wade. Only two justices, White and Rehnquist, dissented from the majority opinion. Oddly enough, the case was essentially decided based on the right to privacy. Here are some of Justice White's remarks from the dissenting opinion.
 |
| http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/gov/bl_roe_m.htm |
Even more than convenience, I would say that divorcing sex from personal responsibility is the ultimate aim of abortion on demand. The promiscuity gospel-- accepted throughout our culture-- preaches that men and women have not just a right, but a duty to self, to explore without consequence every shade of irresponsible and potentially destructive sexual behavior. The pseudo-scientists of the Kinsey Institute imply that the only truly unnatural sexual practice is self-imposed abstinence. But compare the health and stability of children to the sexual indulgence of adults and see which one contributes more to society. Simply put, after an empire crumbles, historians tend not to wax poetic on the frequency and intensity of orgasm.
You might think that the fallout from the sexual revolution would have shocked our culture into noticing that the promiscuity gospel isn't doing anyone any favors. You would be wrong. Less than 20 years later, the supreme court issued a still more ridiculous ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so is the following higher in non-sense than the Supreme Court's majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. I quote directly from the Facebook discussion.
Literally, the Supreme Court of these United States has declared that the fourteenth amendment to our Constitution provides each citizen the right to define the entire universe as he or she sees fit-- and then make personal decisions based on that definition. There are political progressives, and there are nitwits. The last time I said something this nutty I was thrown off a bar stool and carried home to sleep off a hangover.
The last word?
I must confess that when a person debating with me claimed to have read and endorsed the Kinsey reports, I felt an altogether unbecoming surge of relief. Of all arguments one can refute, the pseudo-science of Alfred Kinsey surely must be the simplest. Here's a snippet of our brief interaction.
 |
| http://americansfortruth.com/uploads/2012/10/Kinsey-Table-34-2.gif |
This exchange would actually be quite laughable if not for the laundry list of persons and institutions whom are numbered among Kinsey's proud and loyal followers. Here's a sample.
- The American Law Institute Model Penal Code (ALI-MPC) of 1962
- Planned Parenthood and SIECUS
- The Rockefeller and Ford Foundations
- The American Psychological Association (APA)
- The North American Man/boy Love Association (NAMbLA)
- Hugh Hefner
Yes, Virginia. Henry Ford went on record opposing jazz music as an art form but apparently didn't complain when his wealth was used to fund mass child abuse and sexual torture. Here's what Judith Reisman had to say in her book, Sexual Sabotage.
In conclusion
In conclusion
It is no wonder that many persons in our culture value orgasm over personal responsibility. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male was published in 1948. That means that both secular sex education and the law have been based on pseudo-science for over half a century. Like it or not, we can extrapolate and see clearly that convenience abortion is a logical result of widespread acceptance of the Kinsey reports.
On the upside, there are entities opposing this culture of death. Many of them are religious in nature, and our current administration seems bent on removing religion from the public square. However, I believe in both the humanity of Americans as well as the good nature of humans in general. We will either watch as other nations simply out-breed us, or we will learn to respect life. If I were a betting man, I would guess the latter, but it's still too early to tell.
