The Grand Delusion
Quick background: I posted a link to the story about Planned Parenthood’s organ harvesting/transfer activities on my Facebook account. As intended, discussion ensued. Jesse Hill, a longtime (I won’t say “old”) friend from back in my Catholic middle school days, joined in. Jesse and I are very often on opposite sides of political issues, and that is the case with abortion.
Jesse is very smart and possesses more intellectual integrity than most. Her perspective has broadened mine, probably even helping to change my mind on some things. One of the things I like about her is that she presents strong versions of her side’s arguments and addresses mine in their strongest form. No straw men from her. Yesterday she—no joke—dropped an 853-word comment on the post, which I totally love about her. It warrants a rejoinder, but Facebook didn’t seem an adequate platform. Plus, polemics are fun! Hence, this post, wherein I attempt to address her thoughts.
To make sure I hit everything, I’ll break up her words, quote them and reply. Here we go…
I'll set aside the fact that you're throwing around the word “delusion” while defending a fundamentalist religious position, because we’re old buddies. :-P Let’s address the religious element of the “life” question - you believe (please correct me) that the moment an egg is fertilized it becomes not only a distinct genetic organism, but that it gains an immortal soul. And THAT (I would suggest) is the part that matters here, not whether it is scientifically “life”, but whether or not there is a soul present.
I used the word “delusion” because, given modern scientific knowledge, that’s exactly the mental state it takes to deny that abortion destroys the life of a human being. It does not remove “tissue” or “part of a woman’s body.” And, far from an argument from religion, this is a fact of science. No serious person disputes this, and that includes Jesse. She has astutely crystallized the key issue of a soul (or, if you like, “personhood” or “the image of God”) as the part that matters.
Her description of my belief is probably not worth quibbling over, though I prefer to state it this way: To be a human (as the genetically distinct unborn are, and as other animals are not) is to have a soul. Granted, this is a moral and philosophical argument, but it does not require religious belief. Of course, I am a religious person, and my faith does reinforce this.
You also believe that if a mother conceived by accident, that that event is part of “God’s plan unfolding for her”. And to interfere with that process would be “playing God” and therefore outside the rights of mortals. You also believe that whether a baby dies before or after birth matters, because that baby needs to be baptized in order to have access to heaven. So let’s not couch any of that in pseudo-scientific terms. You are making a religious argument. It’s a nice, simple, comforting assertion to suggest that “life”, “living cells”, “a life”, “a potential life” and “a self-sufficient individual” are all the same thing. But the fact is, a genetic code is not a person.
Certainly I believe in God’s ultimate sovereignty. That is not to say we ought look at every single thing that happens and say “Well, it’s just God’s will!” That which God commands against (murder, rape, theft, etc.) cannot be said to be “God’s will.” However, I do believe God works his good purposes through every single thing that happens, and yes, that does include unplanned pregnancies. I don’t understand this about God, and I yell at him sometimes about it.
The next couple of statements Jesse makes are assumptions, but not unreasonable ones given what we know of each other. We both learned Catholic doctrine at St. Mary’s in Aiken, SC, and we’re both familiar with New Testament descriptions of baptism, including references to the early church baptizing the dead.
I am not Catholic, though I do see a great deal of beauty in the “seamless garment” of Catholic teaching on human sexuality. This includes their opposition to artificial birth control. Though “playing God” is part of the objection, there is more to it. Essentially, human sexuality is so relationally intimate and symbolically significant that we were not made to experience it outside a construct of permanence. It is not “safe” for us to do so. Catholic teaching shows us that, because the very fact that sexual intercourse is the means of procreation points us to this reality. The most intimate human love produces offspring, and the family is a mirror of God’s love in the Trinity. It is not meant to be experienced as a one-off, nor is it meant to be broken.
Of course, we protestants do not all accept that contraception necessarily compromises this vision. After all, one could say that natural family planning (allowed under Catholic teaching) is “playing God” and interfering with the design just as much as, say, barrier methods. And we were made to be gardeners, exercising a modicum of influence or control over the created order. But I agree that we do not have the moral right to halt or reverse nature’s course altogether.
Not that it is anyone’s business, but this is the reason we have avoided any form of contraception that has the remotest chance of operating to prevent the flourishing of a post-conception “clump of cells.”
As to baptism, boy is that a fun question! In the Baptist tradition of my upbringing, baptism is seen as a purely symbolic act, which would negate Jesse’s statement about the importance I would place on when a baby [Hey, you called it a “baby”! GOTCHA!] dies in the womb or out of it. Catholic teaching is somewhat different, assigning sacramental weight to baptism that brings about something effectual in the recipient’s eternal being. The more traditional “reformed” school of thought lies somewhere in between. The baptism that matters is the one that’s of the Holy Spirit. (“one Lord, one faith, one baptism”). Physical baptism acknowledges this. It is a requirement for obedient orthodoxy, but I would not say it is necessary to show that Holy Spirit baptism has taken place. As time’s creator, God exists outside it. His Holy Spirit can baptize whomever he will, whenever he will.
So why is all this important? Well, it does provide the backdrop of why human life is so important and why, contra Jesse, I do believe that genetic code confers personhood. More on this below…
There are meaningful differences between a fertilized egg and a baby, just as much as there are meaningful differences between babies and adults. Those differences affect the moral calculus. You may draw the line at fertilized egg, but many other reasonable, moral people do not. That does not make those people monsters or “cold-hearted killers”, it means reality is complex and often is more gradient than binary, something religion often has trouble contending with. It also means you need to respect OTHER people’s free exercise of their religious beliefs.
Meaningful differences, yes. But not moral differences. Differences in growth, self-sufficiency, consciousness, etc. are clearly visible among the post-born. Disease, accidents, age and many other factors play a role. We (and this certainly includes Jesse) work hard to ensure that these differences do not change our moral position in society. We are right to do so. We are deluded to exclude the unborn in this moral calculus.
Jesse clearly disagrees about when, exactly, personhood happens, and I can accept that a lot of people have a hard time thinking of a zygote as a person. But this asserted ambiguity (I’ll not fully concede the point) is precisely why law ought to protect the unborn. If the question is “who can say when personhood begins?” then the implication ought to be that we must go to great lengths to ensure that we do not allow for the destruction of what could be a person.
And this is exactly why the video of the Planned Parenthood executive is so powerful. Talking about fetal tissue is one thing. Casually dropping in references to heads and livers (which develop sooner than you’d think) and how not to “crush” them over a glass of wine is something else entirely. It is upsetting because envisioning actual human body parts begins to unmask the delusion.
In almost any other context, making laws based on allowing the most interested parties to define the facts would be considered absurd. And it is absurd in this case as well. Either the unborn are people or they are not. Even allowing that this question is not definitively answerable (which, again, I do not), the cost of erring in the direction of abortion is death, and that cost is far too high for any civilized people.
You asserted in an earlier post, Phil, (to which I never had time to properly respond, sorry!) that you believe mothers should, at least in theory, be OBLIGATED to die for their unborn children if need be. So that even when the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus are in direct, mutually exclusive conflict, you believe the rights of the fetus take precedence over the rights of the mother. I applaud you for adhering to this position and for being willing to state it publicly, because it IS the logical conclusion of the pro-life argument, and most people don't have the stomach to admit this. But I think most people hear that scenario and it sits wrong with them.
Why? I would suggest that we instinctively know a mother has at least some rights during pregnancy. The right to survive? (The right to self-determination? The right to safe medical care?) Once you allow that a mother has *any rights in the course of pregnancy, then tell me who decides WHEN a mother's rights outweigh the rights of the fetus? A church? A court? A panel of doctors? Does she have to fill out paperwork? Apply for approval? How long would it take for these cases to be processed? 2 weeks? 4 weeks? 12 weeks? Most women don't even know they're pregnant until at least 4 weeks into pregnancy. Even a small delay matters a great deal, and violates the right to due process. It must be a private decision between a woman and her doctor.
I remember that post, and again, to my recollection, it is mostly fair, but not quite complete. What I think I said was that I could not think of a parent I know who would choose to save his or her own life at the expense of a child’s. Do I think this principle should be codified in law? No. Do I believe there is no moral justification for saving one’s own life at the expense of another? No. But parents are not wired that way. Parents—especially mothers—are wired to protect their children even at the ultimate cost.
The application here is to the (extremely rare) circumstance of pregnancy endangering a mother’s life. If one does not accept the personhood of the unborn (or if one can be deluded to deny it), then this becomes a no-brainer. If, on the other hand, one recognizes the unborn human’s inherent worth, it is as hard to imagine a self-saving abortion as it is to imagine a self-saving leap from the train tracks while leaving a 2-year-old behind.
I have only my imagination to guide me as to how I would respond in this scenario. If a doctor told my pregnant wife that there was a 100% certainty that she would die if she continued to carry this child, I can imagine encouraging her to abort. I can further imagine her refusing. And I can still further imagine her convincing me to save the child’s life over hers. May God have mercy on me and never put us in that situation.
(For the record, I have sincere doubt that this scenario ever actually occurs. Doctors are prone to hedge, so I don not see one saying something like this. But I could be wrong.)
By the way, even a 4-week-old embryo has a beating heart. I can certainly see why abortion providers would want to get all the “due process” out of the way as quickly as possible, before any further obvious evidences of personhood start cropping up.
But even if I were to grant you that a day-old embryo qualifies as a full individuated citizen with full legal rights (which is ludicrous, but let’s go with it), the argument still doesn't hold water. My biggest problem with the pro-life movement (among many) is that the bedrock principle - the idea that all life is sacrosanct in all cases - is a principle almost no one actually believes, and even fewer put into practice. You, Phil, are one of the very few pro-lifers I know who actually bothers to be vegan (at least I think you are?). To me, a vegan pacifist is the only kind of person who has any standing to argue the pro-life position. Everyone else is engaged in a greater or lesser degree of blatant hypocrisy. We support war, the death penalty, killing in self-defense, factory farming, fur coats, animal testing, police killing, torture; we brush off the extermination of entire species, not just individuals, and on and on; not to mention all the life-saving actions we don't take in favor of personal pleasure or gain.
This is where I appreciate Jesse’s integrity, which she shows on many other issues as well. She actually makes the argument that some human lives matter more than others. And of course she points out the uncomfortable truth that “pro-life” people do not consistently behave as if they really believe that all human lives matter equally, let alone the lives of our fellow creatures. Most pro-choice people I have encountered refuse to engage this idea (instead falling back on delusion), and I think the reasons are fairly obvious: One has to calculate and define the value of an individual life in order to do so. (Or to blandly assert that only a woman is qualified to make that determination in her own case, which, as noted above, is absurd. It is also a cop out.) Jesse starts down that path, then turns to a critique that deserves answering.
I am indeed a vegetarian (not vegan, though I am choosy about which dairy products I use, especially at home). One of my frustrations with people who otherwise share much of my worldview is that they, too, are living under a delusion. In this case, they live as though certain non-human animal life has a moral value of zero. Of course, they take care of their pets, and they aren’t personally cruel, but they would rather turn away from the institutionalized cruelty of factory farming. I would suggest they read this piece by Matthew Scully, a pro-life Republican and animal welfare activist. There are, indeed parallels.
Now, I do not believe it is morally wrong to eat meat. There is a lot of good thinking out there that aligns farming with Christian principals of stewardship, husbandry and creation care. I believe this kind of thing, and not factory farming, is what God had in mind when he permitted humans to eat meat. Animal life does not hold equivalent value to human life, but it also does not hold zero moral value. I’ve written about this before. Nevertheless, I do not agree that eating meat is hypocritical or inconsistent with being pro-life.
The trifecta of capital punishment, war and self-defense killing are a different animal (sorry). They all end human lives. As such, they are all horrible. But there is a critical reason they are different than abortion and why it is therefore not hypocritical or inconsistent to support them in some circumstances. The difference is that, when performed properly, they are based on justice.
For the record, I am opposed to capital punishment. Our country does not apply it justly, and it should therefore end. Furthermore, a New Testament Christian ethic of love rooted in I Corinthians 13 “believes all things,” including the hope of redemption for murderers. Capital punishment truncates this. In principle, however, taking life for life is just. So is killing in defense of self or others. (Given the opportunity, I would absolutely take the life of anyone intent on doing violence to Jesse, as she doubtless would for me if she had no other choice.) Destroying an innocent (here I’m using “innocent” in the civic sense, not the theological “original sin” sense) life is the ultimate injustice.
Being “pro-war” is abhorrent. But I do believe there is such a thing as a just war. In practice, we humans are never perfect executors of justice. Still, one can believe the American Civil War was a just action to preserve the union and free the oppressed while at the same time believing that Sherman’s march was an atrocity. It took war (after some noteworthy poor diplomacy) to stop Nazi Germany. The Iraq War is much more morally ambiguous, but still should not be conflated with being “pro-war” or “pro-killing” versus pro-life.
Once babies are born, we leave them to rot in poverty, neglect, and abuse, we judge and condemn their mothers, shove them out of our neighborhoods, etc. etc. I would bet my house that 95% of pro-lifers don't actually believe the principle on which the whole argument is based. You don’t actually believe that all life is sacrosanct in all cases. So to say a fetus is “a life” is not the slam dunk argument you seem to think it is. Even outright killing is justified all the time. By you. By your churches. It’s just that women apparently aren’t qualified to make those kinds of decisions, nor do their values or even survival matter enough to rate consideration.
This is uncharacteristically not fair from Jesse. It could also be turned back around: I believe 95% of pro-choicers don’t actually believe in “safe, legal and rare.” Yes, abortion is legal. No, it is not safe. No medical procedure that results in the death of at least one out of every two people who undergo it can be considered “safe.” It is not “safe” for (disproportionately poor, non-white) women who are intimidated or manipulated into it by their families or the cowardly men who refuse to be accountable for their pleasure-seeking sexuality. It is not “safe” for the people engaged in the soul-killing work of accounting for all the parts of dismembered bodies. And it is certainly not rare: One out of five pregnancies (including four out of ten unplanned pregnancies) ends in abortion, and three out of ten women will have at least one by age 45.
But that is not Jesse’s argument. Instead, she says pro-lifers are hypocritical. That we ignore our own stated principles. That we forget the plight of the born in our zeal to protect the unborn, then abandon them after forcing their lives onto parents who cannot adequately provide for them. That the women in the position of considering abortion do not matter to us. I confess I do not know how to argue this point because the point itself is not really an argument.
I will agree on one point: Women are not “qualified” to determine what constitutes a human life and whether or not that human life gets to continue just because it happens to reside within her body. Nor are men, for that matter. Questions like these have never been open to individualistic interpretation, at least not with respect to law. The first is a question of scientific fact and the second one of moral reasoning. Yes, the unborn is a human life. Yes, it is sacrosanct.
There are other “yesses.” Yes, women deserve reproductive justice. Yes, children deserve opportunities to thrive (which, of course, they cannot do if they are dead), including love, nutrition and education. I would argue the strongest line of defense for both of these is adherence to a Christian ethic of sexuality. But regardless, an honest inquest into the social problems of poverty, disintegrating families, violence against women and a host of others will show Christians (Catholic and evangelical pro-life ones at that) to be on the front lines. We may hold political views that do not see government intervention as the best answer to these problems (though there is increasing diversity within our ranks on this), but we are not the caricature of hostility or indifference that Planned Parenthood would have you believe. Organizations like Save the Storks are just one example. The movement truly is pro-life. It is slanderous to suggest that we do not care about women with unplanned pregnancies, ether before or after the children are born.
So to conclude this meandering adventure, I will say once more that we are suffering under a grand delusion. Most Americans hardly think of abortion, and when they do, they prefer not to consider its implications. My friend Jesse is an exception to this, and I wish we agreed. Seeing as we do not, I am at least glad that the emergence of this organ harvesting/transfer story will force at least a few people to look at abortion with fresh eyes. I believe the pro-life position is on the right side of history, and I hope this helps move us there more quickly.
