Says it is an issue of Catholic culture, more than Catholic politics. An interesting thesis and one that seems intuitively correct to me:
You could cut the irony with a knife: It's only demonizing when conservatives do it. Still Fr. Himes joins Douglas Kmiec, and America, and Commonweal, and the administration of Notre Dame, and most of the newspaper columnists who've weighed in on the controversy, and a surprising number of conservatives. They all look at the Notre Dame protests and think it must be about politics. Bad politics or good politics, take your pick. But politics all the way down.
As it happens, they're wrong. Politics has very little to do with the mess. This isn't a fight about who won the last presidential election and how he's going to deal with abortion. It's a fight about culture--the culture of American Catholicism, and how Notre Dame, still living in a 1970s Catholic world, has suddenly awakened to find itself out of date.
The role of culture is what Fr. Jenkins at Notre Dame and many other presidents of Catholic colleges don't quite get, and their lack of culture is what makes them sometimes seem so un-Catholic--though the charge befuddles them whenever it is made. As perhaps it ought. They know very well that they are Catholics: They go to Mass, and they pray, and their faith is real, and their theology is sophisticated, and what right has a bunch of other Catholics to run around accusing them of failing to be Catholic?
But, in fact, they live in a different world from most American Catholics. Opposition to abortion doesn't stand at the center of Catholic theology. It doesn't even stand at the center of Catholic faith. It does stand, however, at the center of Catholic culture in this country. Opposition to abortion is the signpost at the intersection of Catholicism and American public life. And those who--by inclination or politics--fail to grasp this fact will all eventually find themselves in the situation that Fr. Jenkins has now created for himself. Culturally out of touch, they rail that the antagonism must derive from politics. But it doesn't. It derives from the sense of the faithful that abortion is important. It derives from the feeling of many ordinary Catholics that the Church ought to stand for something in public life--and that something is opposition to abortion.
***
Still, in a peculiar way, Himes is right that "some people have simply reduced Catholicism to the abortion issue." It is a horrifying fact, in many ways, that Roe v. Wade has done more to provide Catholic identity than any other event of the last 50 years. Still, for American Catholics, the Church is a refuge and bulwark against an ambient culture that erodes morality and undermines families. Catholic culture is their counterculture, their means of upholding the dignity of the human person and the integrity of family--and, in that context, the centrality of abortion for American Catholic culture seems much less arbitrary than it first appeared.
This is what the leaders of Notre Dame need to grasp.
By the way, he isn't too impressed with you guys (remember--I'm just the messenger):
Even some conservatives, Obama's natural opponents, took the school's side and denounced Mary Ann Glendon for refusing this year's Laetare Medal, Notre Dame's annual honor for service to the Church and society. A Harvard law professor, author of the widely cited Rights Talk, and the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, Glendon is well known for her basic niceness and her well-mannered willingness to join attempts at coalition building between left and right.
Her decision was no personal caprice. Back in 2004, the American bishops reached a compromise between their own left and right contingents and issued a carefully worded document called "Catholics in Political Life." "Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles," the bishops agreed [emphasis in the original]. "[Such people] should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions." In part, this explains why, at the present moment, not a single American bishop is supporting Notre Dame in its clash with the bishop of South Bend, John D'Arcy--and bishops from 68 of the 195 American dioceses have publicly chastised the school. What was the point of all that careful work by the bishops if Catholic institutions are simply going to ignore it?
Anyway, Glendon had first accepted the invitation to receive the medal back in December. In March came the announcement of Obama's honorary degree, and then the school's lashing out at critics, and then the leaking of Notre Dame's official talking points, which instructed the university's spokesmen to reply to complaints: "President Obama won't be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal." Glendon decided she didn't much like being a makeweight, so she wrote on April 27 to decline the medal, saying that Notre Dame's refusal even to speak with its local bishop threatened a "ripple effect" that could lead "other Catholic schools . . . to disregard the bishops' guidelines." The university's president, Fr. John Jenkins, had ratcheted the situation up, and up, and up, until even the gracious Mary Ann Glendon was forced to choose between the bishops and Notre Dame. What made them imagine she could possibly choose Notre Dame?
That wasn't how some saw it, of course. The comments about Glendon left, for example, on the libertarian law professors' blog The Volokh Conspiracy are well worth reading: a hilariously incoherent recital of a hundred years' worth of anti-Catholic tropes--mashed together with the thin-skinned reaction of Obama's supporters to any criticism of their leader and spiced with a conservative complaint that Glendon is childishly picking up her ball and going home, retreating into irrelevance instead of fighting the good fight.
On the other hand, polls indicate that the majority of Catholics support the Obama invitation:
A survey conducted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life from April 23 to 27 found that half of Catholics aware of the speech thought it was right to invite Mr. Obama; 28% said it was wrong; and 22% had no opinion. In the November election, 54% of Catholics voted for Mr. Obama.
Prof. Campbell said 85% of the students he has polled supported Mr. Obama's visit. Among graduating seniors who do not support the visit, many will protest by wearing an image of a golden cross between two baby feet on top of their mortarboards.
An interesting--and as you surely can infer from these snippets--provocative article.
Update:
There is a very informed discussion in the Comments about the various polls on this topic in addition to the Pew poll, in particular a Rasmussen poll. They have a very wide divergence in results depending on the framing of the question. I take no side on the question of which is most methodologically sound, I just wanted to alert readers that there are other polls that show different results. Thanks to readers for alerting me to the Rasmussen poll.
Letting the man speak is one thing; lots of people who disagree with Church doctrine speak at ND every year without protest. Honoring him with a degree from the iconoic symbol of American Catholicism is something else.
My only hard comment is to note that he claims that the abortion issue is "[the life issue] that bears most directly on the lives of ordinary Catholics." But if Mr. Bottum would return to the original encyclical of the "Culture of Life", Evangelium Vitæ, he would find that the concept includes selfishness, poverty, and war. Yes, ordinary Catholics sometimes come face to face with personal decisions about abortion, but more of them are called to fight in wars (which may or may not be just), or encounter the hungry and homeless in their own cities and towns, or find their long-term livelihoods and retirement plans threatened as a result of others' shortsightedness or greed.
When it comes down to it, the most direct contact with abortion that many Catholics will have is through the politicians they see in the voting booth. And at that point they should also be considering those politicians' stances on other Culture of Life issues like degradation and sadistic humiliation.
Speech and honorary degree are two very different things. The speech is probably fine with most American Catholics, so I can believe the poll without looking further. The honorary degree is not.
I have discouraged my children from attending Catholic universities, such as Notre Dame and Georgetown, because they are out of touch with "Catholic culture in this country." My children would be disappointed with the Catholic experience.
Terrible polling methodology.
Where are today's Berrigan brothers? Where is Father Groppi? Father Pfleger is the only notable successor to that movement.
And yes, that's the same phrase that George W. Bush tried to co-opt in yet more dog-whistle politics.
The wording will certainly push some folks to answer in a certain way but that does not make it improper or irrelevant.
The wording is real reflection of the situation: the guidance from American bishops warns against Notre Dame's choice (see: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09033106.html ).
Furthermore, the question does not even state that Obama's beliefs contradict the Church's moral principles, which is true on the abortion issue.
I think you might be overstating your position the Church's position on capital punishment...it leaves more wiggle room than the abortion issue does.
It depends on your definition of social justice. "Social justice," to many on the left, means specific political activity - strongly tilted towards socialism. Within the Church, that view is held by a diminishing minority of leaders. It's excesses in the '70s and '80s drove many Latin Americans into evangelical protestantism.
The wording will certainly push some folks to answer in a certain way but that does not make it improper or irrelevant.
a. Given that the primary rationale President Bush has given for the Iraq War was the location and neutralzation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that more than a half decade of intensive searching later have turned up no weapons of mass detruction, do you believe the Iraq War was justified?
b. Given that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who operated rape rooms, and that Iraq is now a democracy that has had elections, do you believe that the Iraq war was justified?
Quite honestly, as a pollster, you make a great 2L.
In other words, if you want to assert the opinion of Catholics on something they are ignorant of, ignore Rassmusen. If you want the opinion of informed Catholics, use Rassmusen.
This is the norm, specifically in the comment section, on issues where Catholicism is discussed here.
.
Pew Forum: Obama, Catholics and the Notre Dame Commencement
"Do you think it was right or wrong for Notre Dame to invite Obama to give their graduation speech and receive an honorary degree?"
.
IMO, the questions in this poll tend to conflate issues.
For the Church's position on room for disagreement on the issues of capital punishment, war, and abortion, see Cardinal Ratzinger's explanation, given in the context of his discussion of worthiness to receive communion:
http://www.catholicculture.org/ culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6041
Ratzinger makes clear that when it comes to life issue, abortion is more important than war or capital punishment. With respect to the Notre Dame issue, I think Ratzinger's statement is relevant when considered in light of the bishops' decision that Catholic institutions should not honor those who work against what the church stands for. Since there is room for disagreement within the Church as to whether a particular war or a particular imposition of capital punishment is justified, honoring someone like President Bush does not violate the bishops' instruction. Since there is no room for disagreement within the Church about the immorality of abortion, honoring President Obama does.
Second, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. The Catholic Church in America has a group of people very adamant about the abortion issue, no doubt about it. There is also a group very adamant about social justice issues outside of abortion. And so on. The group that's most vocal is the anti-abortion group. And you can't get around the fact that the Church teaches that abortion is a mortal sin. But to say that abortion somehow defines the culture of Catholicism in America is absolutely, utterly absurd. Period. I say this as a former seminarian.
I suspect the only single thing that all Catholics in America can identify with is the Sacrament of the Eucharist. That, by the way, has been supported by empirical social psychological research. I don't have the reference immediately to hand, but the study I'm thinking of found (not at all surprisingly) that the Eucharist was at the core of Catholic identity.
Let me say again. This guy is just wrong.
I largely agree with the article, especially this: the Church is a refuge and bulwark against an ambient culture that erodes morality and undermines families. Catholic culture is their counterculture, their means of upholding the dignity of the human person and the integrity of family--and, in that context, the centrality of abortion for American Catholic culture seems much less arbitrary than it first appeared.
Catholic culture certainly is the counterculture. Mainstream culture today has an underlying, pervasive evil that is undeniable, full of commercialization and promiscuity, which are of course built on greed and lust, and above all pride. Catholic culture stands against this social deterioration, imploring people to respect life and family.
That the profound rot in our culture has affected the Church is apparent to all from the priest scandals of late. But less known is the failure of much of the Catholic leadership to engage as warriors on these issues. Especially in the colleges, the failure to stand up for Catholic values is largely seen as a surrender, if not outright heresy. There are too many priests who don't speak often enough about abortion, too many who fail to speak about the Culture of Life, an openness to children, a respect from conception to natural death, a confusion about the use of the death penalty with the murder of the unborn, and above all, a terrible confusion over poverty. A focus on poverty and "social justice" issues is of course important, but nothing in comparison to the wide scale butchery of decades of abortion.
Now that we have a President who can't even condemn infanticide, it is well that these issues are coming to the front now. I agree that it would have been better if the resistance had occurred earlier, and if Catholic colleges had never permitted people like Donna Brazile to speak. The Church is going to have to realize that it is entering an Age of the Roman Empire again, where it will be persecuted and driven to the catacombs, first by the culture and then by the law and powers holding the strings.
Ratzinger once commented that the Church will get smaller but more faithful. I certainly see that happening. Let's be frank: people like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and other abortion supports have no place calling themselves Catholic. If they seriously believed in the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that the Catholic Church is his church on earth upon which is promised that the gates of Hell will not prevail, then they must reject abortion and all the lies that it stands on.
Instead, they have succumbed to the pride and despair of modern American culture. I really pray that all of them would turn aside from the temptations of such Evil, but I have little hope that they will, because even if our own Catholic families the temptation to sin is there.
Lord, deliver us from Evil.
There is more discussion from the original publisher of the letter here.
Ratzinger's memorandum was private, but www.chiesa published it in its entirety. It sided with the unyielding bishops like Burke and Chaput. But most of the bishops in the United States were against withholding communion from Catholic politicians who support abortion. There were even two authoritative cardinals from the conservative wing, Francis E. George of Chicago and the Jesuit theologian Avery Dulles, who said they were reluctant to "make the Eucharist a political battleground." In the end, the bishops' conference decided to "apply" the principles presented by Ratzinger on a case-by-case basis, leaving it "to each bishop to express prudent pastoral judgments in his own specific circumstances."
From Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger accepted this solution and said that it was "in harmony" with the general principles of his memorandum.
In this, Ratzinger adopted a practice typical of Catholic countries in Europe, where rigorous principles coexist with more flexible pastoral customs.
In Europe, in effect, the Catholic Church has never addressed or created cases similar to those of Kerry or Biden in the United States. In recent decades in Europe, bishops, cardinals, and popes have knowingly given communion to Catholic politicians who advance abortion laws.
So this antiabortionist current of the American Catholic Church is unique to itself.
Wrong. The Pope has said flatly that pre-emptive war is inconsistent with just war doctrine. Also, torture is flatly prohibited. Whether waterboarding is torture is up for discussion, but I must admit that the majority of the Church thinks that it is, and it is being condemned.
I didn't discuss torture in my post, but obviously I am troubled that many on the right are making arguments for pure torture, instead of whether waterboarding is torture or not. Charles Krauthammer is particularly troubling, as he has been making arguments for pure torture for a while now, with increasing fervor. Obviously, however, he isn't Catholic.
I think it's a big mistake for many conservatives to argue in favor of pure torture. I can discuss whether waterboarding is torture or not. But there can be no debate that pure torture, for any reason, is nothing but Evil.
Read the piece again. He doesn't say this. Catholics who protest the death penalty, work for workers' rights in El Salvador, feed the homeless, etc., are lionized by the dominant culture. Those who do what society views as weird but harmless stuff like venerating saints, are tolerated. Bottum's point is that the one area where Catholic teaching irrevocably collides with modern America is abortion. That's the sense in which is "defines" American Catholic culture. (Which is presumably why Cardinal Rigali has criticized ND for honoring Obama.) What other aspect of American Catholicism spurs anywhere near the same hostility as the Church's opposition to abortion?
Also, when a majority of members disagree with the policies of their leaders, an outsider really can't say which one represents the true institution.
But as to tolerance, conservatives who support a the attempt to ban most liberal speakers from Catholic Universities can't complain when private liberal schools (unwisely in my opinion) ban or try to ban conservative speakers. If it's OK for people who think abortion is immoral to ban dissenters, it's also OK for people who think it's immoral to oppose equal rights for gay people to ban dissenters.
Conservative Catholics are never going to have one bit of credibility until they stop lying about critics of conservative Catholicism and accusing them of anti-Catholic bigotry.
I am against CONSERVATIVE Catholicism. I have no problem with Catholics, most of whom (at least in America) emphatically reject conservative Catholicism.
One time when I was in college, someone claimed that I couldn't be a real American at the same time as being a Catholic because Americans are rugged individuals and Catholics are slaves to the hierarchy.
Of course, that's the kind of anti-Catholic nonsense you'd expect not to find on a legal blog.....
Gallup Poll on Catholics and abortion
Bottum may think that the view of American Catholics on abortion is inherently unique, either vis-a-vis American non-Catholics' views on abortion or vis-a-vis American Catholics' views on other issues, but neither is the case.
Of course. Indeed, one of the things that conservative Catholics either don't get or deliberately conceal is that the Church hierarchy is very careful NOT to give them full support, even though they presumably agree with the conservatives' positions on many of the substantive issues involved. In other words, the hierarchy lays the doctrinal framework to justify denial of communion, but does not go ahead and tell people to deny communion.
The reason for this is that the hierarchy is a lot more worried about losing more liberal Catholics from the Church than the conservatives are. And that's quite correct-- the reality is that if there were an exodous of liberal Catholics from the fold, that would decrease's the church's ability to influence public policy in a more conservative direction. So the hiearchy smartly sticks to lip service.
The public sphere is SECULAR? Says who? It is only in your dreams. The public sphere is merely that: public. It's neither secular or religious.
As for "imposing" its belief system on society, presumably through preaching the Gospel, you think that's "too far." What do you want to do, quash them with the power of the state? You are not only celebrating the existing culture, but a huge, repressive state that would destroy religious freedom.
Let me guess: some of your best friends are Catholics?
I am against CONSERVATIVE Catholicism.
Be specific. What is it that you're against?
The Catholic hierarchy may have its opinion on Obama, but enough (yet nowhere near all) Catholic worshippers felt that a politician who supports the right to abortion was worthy of their vote to make it clear that Catholicism as such cannot be pigeonholed.
Which is as it should be--if every Catholic slavishly followed the dictates of the Pope, right or wrong, then the vicious slanders directed at John F. Kennedy in 1960, and against Irish, Italians, and other predominantly Catholic ethnicities for decades before, would be spot-on.
What kind of disingenuous statement is that? Of course you're against conservative catholicim, but you're against pretty much conservative everything.
This is the liberal big tent: we have room for everybody who agrees with us on everything, especially if they look different or claim to belong to an organization that disagrees with us.
A religion is not supposed to be a buffet, where you choose which tenets you want to believe in and which you can discard. That's why they make multiple religions. Pick the one that agrees with your own views or start your own.
Where is the contingent of pro-lifers in the Democratic party? How about the ones that don't believe in Global Warming? Or how about the ones that think that Islam isn't necessarily a religion of peace? They don't exist.
The liberal religion is just as orthodox as any faith-based one. Joe Lieberman disagrees with the libs on one thing, the war on terror, and that was enough to try to have him excommunicated, but they needed him to get to 60. If they had 62 or 63 votes in the Senate without him, any bets that they would not be nearly as nice to him?
And now that they have power, they have started their crusade to stifle speech that disagrees with them.
I have no problem with Democrats.
I am against LIBERAL Democrats. Problem is that there really aren't any other kinds these days.
Catholics who oppose Notre Dame's decision should get the same deference, for American universities can, and should, advance different educational missions within different environments. For the secularists who would be at home at most any university in America, this does not seem like a problem; for those students, however, that want a conservative Catholic environment, there are few options - and even fewer if Catholic schools repudiate their missions in an attempt to mimic other American universities. This is a fight against inter-university homogeneity far more than it is about politics.
Abortion, more than capital punishment, war, or any other social issue, is the Catholic (and sometimes the evangelical) touchstone because the issue of the sanctity of life is so clear. While many Catholics do oppose capital punishment (for example, the "Respect Life" group that I was a part of in Virginia frequently lobbied the Kaine administration to commute the sentences of convicted murderers), other pro-lifers see their mission as protecting innocent life. War, likewise, brings up thorny moral issues, especially when there is a despotic regime involved that will, without violent opposition, continue to kill civilians.
On a side note, while I can understand the pro-life, anti-death penalty position, and the pro-life pro-death penalty one, what I cannot wrap my mind around is the pro-abortion, anti-capital punishment group. Makes no sense.
I think that many political and moral positions taken by conservative Catholics are quite bad.
But I do not believe in anti-Catholic bigotry for one second. If any Catholic is denied a right to speak, or fired from a job, or otherwise denied a privilege or right due to his or her religious belief, I am right there with him or her standing up for the person's rights.
I just think that conservative Catholics believe in a bunch of things that are complete bunk and that, if they were adopted, would seriously impact things I care deeply about like freedom and gender equality.
Who said anyone was a "slave to the hierarchy"? My comment acknowledged that many American Catholics don't follow the hierarchy on issues like abortion.
I also said there was a "tension" between the bottom-up and top-down institutions. I think that's unquestionably true. Many more conservative Catholics point out that distinction when the remind more liberal members that the Catholic Church is not a democracy.
In the end, that tension is a good thing. The tensions between and within institutions is part of what keeps this country free. Even though I frequently disagree with the official Catholic position, having competing moral visions is part of what democracy is about.
And as to the comment about legal blogs, lawyers generally have a belief in the adversarial system (again, "tension"). Argument and tension are helpful because they lead to better decisions. "Tension" is a compliment.
I haven't seen liberals trying to deny communion to anyone.
A religion is not supposed to be a buffet, where you choose which tenets you want to believe in and which you can discard.
I don't know what religions are "supposed" to be, because it's hard to determine what the "correct" way to run a mythological system is. But in reality, all religions ARE buffets-- and conservative Catholics, like liberals, pick out doctrines they like and ignore doctrines they don't like.
Where is the contingent of pro-lifers in the Democratic party? How about the ones that don't believe in Global Warming? Or how about the ones that think that Islam isn't necessarily a religion of peace? They don't exist.
Bob Casey Jr., among many others, is pro-life. Christopher Hitchens certainly doesn't think Islam is a religion of peace, and neither does Bill Maher.
As for not believing in global warming, I don't think it shows that liberalism is a small tent that people almost universally believe in something that is true without a doubt. That said, Democrats from coal producing states certainly pretend not to believe in global warming.
For the secularists who would be at home at most any university in America, this does not seem like a problem; for those students, however, that want a conservative Catholic environment, there are few options
Well let's get out the world's tiniest violin then. How terrible that someone might not get to go to school with people who agree with them about everything.
Abortion, more than capital punishment, war, or any other social issue, is the Catholic (and sometimes the evangelical) touchstone because the issue of the sanctity of life is so clear. While many Catholics do oppose capital punishment (for example, the "Respect Life" group that I was a part of in Virginia frequently lobbied the Kaine administration to commute the sentences of convicted murderers), other pro-lifers see their mission as protecting innocent life. War, likewise, brings up thorny moral issues, especially when there is a despotic regime involved that will, without violent opposition, continue to kill civilians.
Religion is often a cover for preexisting beliefs. There are a lot of people who are exercised about abortion because they see it as a wedge for controlling people's sexuality, whereas they support killing in circumstances where they see greater justifications. Thus, they tell themselves a story about Catholicism making distinctions between innocent and non-innocent life, when in fact the religion makes no such distinction. (There are distinctions between abortion and capital punishment and war, but they have to do with there being narrow circumstances where the latter are justified-- it has nothing to do with the victims being "guilty" (especially as many of the victims of war are CIVILIANS who are NOT "guilty").)
On a side note, while I can understand the pro-life, anti-death penalty position, and the pro-life pro-death penalty one, what I cannot wrap my mind around is the pro-abortion, anti-capital punishment group. Makes no sense.
1. Killing embryos is not the same as killing adults.
2. Abortion rights are crucially important to preserve gender equality.
Makes perfect sense.
In terms a conservative can understand, executing criminals is to decriminalizing abortion as single-payer government managed health care is to allowing individuals to form health insurance companies. In one case the government acts directly, while in the other case it merely permits citizens to freely decide what is in their own best interests and act accordingly.
Women decided to get abortions long before Roe v. Wade. Read When Abortion Was a Crime, by Leslie Reagan. Browse the Homicide in Chicago database, to see how many women died from abortion in just one Midwest city, between 1870 and 1930.
Since they are as funny as hell, can we skip right to those? Can you also claim that I'm short? Butch haircut? C'mon Dilan, it's Saturday night and I know that you can, if you really try, get your ad hominems hilariously wrong.
Newsflash: if men and not women were the ones to get pregnant, my views on abortion wouldn't be any different. I know this sounds strange to people who live in a liberal echo chamber, but some of us think that certain medical pracises - like delivering a baby in the breech position until its head lodges in the cervix, jamming scissors into its skull, suctioning its brains out, and delivering the once healthy, now dead infant - should only be done in extreme emergencies and not for "feminism."
Please, please us this as a springboard for your next anti-chocolate-lover ad hominems. Here's a good starting place: I care more about clumps of cells than animals. My diet involves butchering cows.
If you want to go the "pro-lifers are anti-science" route, I would strongly suggest the implication that I hate on nanotechnology. [Nods seriously.] Yes, that one would do nicely.
Newsflash, if your views on the utility and morality of casual, non-romantic sex and the sexual revolution, and its relationship to gender equality were different, your views on abortion almost certainly would be as well.
Cite please? I couldn't find one.
As a conservative and a conservative Catholic (DM... pthththh)... I have some concerns about this also. I think there is, however, a fundamental difference: Notre Dame is nominally a Catholic university, and hence its bestowing an honorable degree on a pro-abortion politician is a violation of that identity. I suspect there would be no such controversy if he was merely the commencement speaker.
Other "liberal" institutions claim (hell, shout to the heavens) their belief in diversity, and yet prevent or allow radicals to shout down conservative speakers.
So in the one case, the offense is conferring a degree in violation of the basic identity of the university; in the other, the offense is allowing a dissenting idea.
This represents a misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine. Catholics are not required to follow any dictate of the Pope (unless it is given ex-cathedra). The church is indeed international and strictly hierarchical, but the permissible behavior of members is not merely a whim of the Pope. There is, obviously a strong presumption of correctness for the Pope's opinions, but it is far from absolute.
1) Yep. Embryos are always innocent.
2) The genders are not equal. That should be obvious. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to re-take basic biology, and then read modern findings in neuroscience, physiology and psychology.
A proposal to acknowledge that government managed health care will be as slow and expensive as executing criminals would get a lot of conservative support (but not as much as a proposal to subject abortion providers to the same crushing tax and regulatory burdens and widespread public contempt as faced by health insurance companies).
Wait, Ronald Reagan was a Catholic politician who was given the Eucharist at Notre Dame?
The fact that two things have the same consequences with respect to whether a Catholic should be administered the Eucharist does not mean they are the same in ALL respects.
Did any conservative Catholics protest when Notre Dame bestowed an honorable degree on the unrepentant adulterer Ronald Reagan?
1. Consider that the ban on abortion is merely a Church teaching, whereas Christ himself forbade divorce and remarriage (Matt. 19:8-9)
2. Consider that Obama never had nor performed an abortion, whereas Reagan himself committed the act that Christ forbade.
Clearly Reagan was the more flagrant sinner than Obama, yet Obama's taking all the heat.
Killing of innocents, or the abetting of such (Obama, very much), is more serious than adultery. Furthermore, everyone is a sinner - repentance is the issue (I have no idea about Reagan in that regard).
That's a very Protestant hierarchy of authority you're proposing.
I wrote nothing about any such relationship. I responded to a post which made assertions about both issues.
The opposition to abortion is the opposition to killing innocents, not to keep women barefoot and pregnant.
The observation that the genders are not equal is something that only needs to be repeated in such modern times where people imagine otherwise.
Philip Berrigan was strongly pro-life and Fr. Daniel Berrigan remains so. Fr. Daniel has even withdrawn his support for Amnesty International over AI's embrace of abortion rights.
As usual, the politically motivated polls get the question wrong. It just isn't a matter of "inviting" Obama to speak, but of Notre Dame bestowing its highest honor -- an honorary degree -- on a man who sees nothing wrong with leaving babies who survive an abortion to die of neglect.
If the question had been phrased properly (e.g., "Should Notre Dame bestow its highest honor on Barack Obama?"), the poll results would have been much different.
As far as I can tell, we see those sort of spiritual threats only with regards to liberal causes such as abortion rights. That kind of puts a damper on the notion that any religious principle, as opposed to mere sectarian politics, is actually behind them.
The doctrine is not only about the sin of unjustified homicide, but also because of the public policy impact that produces a widespread evil committed by many. A person who has had or performed an abortion is in a state of sin until reconciled, but so is a person who commits adultery.
Contrary to popular belief (even among Catholics), the Catholic Church does not consider a death penalty to be always wrong.
Whether a war is pre-emptive or not is a matter of procedure. A defensive pre-emptive war is still a defensive war. The "just war doctrine" is not about the procedures. I have yet to see a cite that shows that pre-emptive war is against Church doctrine.
Only because you are looking at them through a liberal lense.
The idea that sectarian politics is behind the Catholic Church's stand on abortion is ridiculous.
However, the Church's emphasis at this time on abortion is understandable, because this is a religious issue which is currently in contention, and the Church taking a public stand on it now is thus appropriate and timely.
The Church wouldn't care, however, if it were conservatives, republicans, communists, or whoever endorsing the policies. Do you think it doesn't condemn the leftists in China who have state forced abortions?
I still have relatives in Purgatory for eating pepperoni pizza.
History shows the innocents will still die, and their mothers with them. The fault of Obama is not applying criminal sanctions to the women and their doctors. There hasn't been a divine mandate for civil authority to punish sinners since the Church got out of the heretic burning business.
I think the phrase "merely a Church teaching" wins this thread's "complete and total failure to understand Catholicism" prize.
Perhaps by "appropriate and timely" you mean "politically expedient"? After all, to actually take a principled stand for life, and thus against war, would alienate a lot of paying supporters and big-name sponsors. Did we expect the Catholic Church to be more principled in that regard than (say) National Public Radio?
It's pretty clear: the Church will make noises against "unjust war", but it will never formally revoke its continued, collaborative endorsement of politicians who perpetrate it. As long as they don't, you know, hand out condoms while they're doing it.
Again, you prove yourself totally incapable of making a pro-abortion argument without resorting to ad hominem attacks. The only thing that your statements, like this one
show is that you're one of those men who likes abortion because it helps you to get laid. You're not talking about me; you're talking about yourself. You feel the need to place as little value on unborn life as you do upon sexual intercourse, as you apparently see babies as an undesirable side effect of a good time. Yes, for YOU and for other liberals, you must diminish the value of human life in order to be logically consistent. Nevertheless, even an introductory logic course would teach you that the converse is not true; pro-lifers do not necessarily hold their views because we are against sex.
As for this b.s. "equality" argument and the idea that women need abortion to be sexual: maybe I'm a crazy feminist, but I'm not wild about this notion that the only proper way for females to be sexual and to experience their sexuality is in a manner identical to that of men. The feminist in me demands that men respect my sexuality; part of that is an acknowledgment that sexual intercourse has wildly different consequences for our bodies. Neither my sexuality - which, through millions of years of evolution, is attuned to the possibility of pregnancy - nor my feminism has any room for the ridiculous notion that my body, morals, and psyche should change to be patterned after a man's body and psyche.
Pray tell, why is abortion about fairness and equality? I was under the impression that equality was a social and civic concept, not a biological one: in fact, part of the greatness of feminism is that we seek political, economic, and social equality despite sexual dimorphism. The entire concept of civilisation is predicated upon the notion that we are all equal before the law, even though we are not the same. Saying that women need abortion in order to be equal to men undermines feminism: it says that we can only be equal if we change our bodies to be like men's - that our bodies, as they are, are inherently defective.
As a feminist... sorry, Dilan. Epic fail.
Jason F-- This isn't a complete answer to your question, but I think it is entirely valid to say that the church views sins that involve the taking of human life as more serious than remarriage after divorce. The latter is seen a violation of the natural law, not just Christian theology. Thus, while I don't know that the Catholic church has any particular view about the marriage practices among, say, Hindus in India, it would view it as intrinsically wrong for one Hindu to murder another. Indeed, I think it is the case that if one converts from a non-Christian faith (i.e., they have never been baptized) to Catholicism, a previous non-Christian marriage is not viewed as preventing remarriage within the church.
You are presuming a lot... but let's assume that the church considered the Iraq war a great evil (the Pope certainly tried to stop it).
George Bush is not a Catholic. Withholding communion from him would be irrelevant.
If you believed in the latter, you would understand why it outweighs the claims of microscopic embryos (who are "innocent" in the same sense that a tadpole is "innocent") to life.
The problem is that (a) abortion has nothing whatsoever to do with gender inequality, and (b) therefore, views on abortion have nothing to do with views on gender inequality.
David, the reason most pro-choicers are pro-choice is because of gender equality. And the reason most pro-lifers are pro-life is because they don't believe in it.
It's the whole issue. If it weren't for people favoring constraints on female sexuality, we wouldn't be arguing over the lives of the moral equivalent of tadpoles.
Dilan, we were discussing Catholic doctrine, in which that embryo is a living human being deserving of life.
Nonsense. They want sex without consequences... or to be more generous, they don't think anything having to do with sex is the government's business, including the temrination of the resulting pregnancy.
You are making a fool of yourself.
Contrary to popular belief (even among Catholics), the Catholic Church does not consider a death penalty to be always wrong.
This is a convenient crutch used by conservatives. The issue is whether the death penalties supported by conservatives are considered wrong by the Church, and they are. The fact that some other, HYPOTHETICAL death penalty might be OK doesn't matter when the Church has proclaimed the actual actions of the conservatives to be sinful.
And the same analysis is true for the Iraq War.
It's like arguing that because it's OK to run a red light to take a dying person to a hospital, therefore it's not wrong to run a red light to get to the Lakers game before tip-off. The existence of exceptions only helps when you fall within them-- the conservatives who support impostion of the death penalty don't and therefore can't avail themselves of them. They are cafeteria Catholics, just like everyone else.
You are proving my point. Abortion is all about sex and gender.
I don't care how many times conservatives lie. Nobody really believes a zygote has the same interest in living as a thinking human being. But plenty of people believe that preventing women from killing zygotes will incentivize desired sexual conduct.
That's the whole issue. Every time a conservative says it's about life, they are deliberately lying.
Theo, you can call yourself a feminist all you want, but if you believe that government policy should force other women to conduct their sex lives consistent with your moral beliefs, you are not a feminist. Sorry.
Dilan, your belief that abortion is just about sex is telling.
Are you so ignorant as to actually believe that, or are you just a troll?
But the more I look at B. Hussein's opinions on infanticide (killing babies after they're born alive after failed abortion attempts), not simply abortion, the more I'm inclined to think that the protests are justified. I admire the integrity of Glendon for refusing to let her name being used to placate the administration's decision.
Ted Hesburgh would never have put the school in this sad spectacle.
I don't know how the school could be so clueless as to use the Laetare medal recipient as a salve to justify having an infanticide proponent speaking. If they had simply said, he's he president and we have a tradition of asking the new president to speak at our commencement, I'd be much more inclined to say this is much ado about nothing, let the man speak, be respectful and get him off the stage again. Offering Glendon to be the balance for infanticide was going too far.
Skyler, Notre Dame '85
Second, the Church does not teach that all mortal sins are created equal. There are no "degrees" of mortal sin. No second degree mortal sin. But mortal sins can have varying gravity. Masturbation is still a mortal sin, folks. But it's much less grave than, inter alia, murder, torture, or, yes, abortion. Abortion is generally seen to be graver than the death penalty. But I want to make a point that people, particularly in America, and particularly conservatives, like to glide right over.
Application of the death penalty in America is absolutely contrary to the teachings of the Church. The Church teaches that where a society can incarcerate for life, the death penalty is not justifiable. The Pope has spoken repeatedly, over and over again, about how the war in Iraq needs to end. (Incidentally, the Pope speaks repeatedly about the need to end all violence. America doesn't get a pass. If anything, we are, and should be, held to a higher standard. Nevertheless, there is a floor.)
Look at the poll numbers about what Catholics in America think about abortion. Then look at the poll numbers about what Catholics think about the use of contraceptives. Contraceptive use is a sin. I know, liberals will knee-jerkedly scoff at that. I say that as a pretty hard-lefty myself. But that's what the Church teaches. Yet, a supermajority of Catholics in America do not regard contraceptive use as morally troublesome at all. My point is that if you're looking for inconsistencies or flaws or illogic in the system of what most Catholics in America tend to think, you'll find a boatload. But guess what?
The Church also teaches that we are all sinners. Not in order to make us feel guilty, or to condemn us. But in order to point out that, yes, we fail, and we know we do, everyone knows they are imperfect, but the love of Christ is redemptive and always available, to anyone, anywhere. Most people who think about the Church will think about the political controversies, or the moral teachings they oppose or support. That's missing the whole point. Let me say it again.
That misses the point.
It was not by accident that Pope Benedict's first encyclical was entitled Deus Caritas Est. God is love. That is at the heart of the Church's teaching. Will the Church say that communion should be denied to certain people? Yes, of course, but not because they're evil. That worried me about someone's earlier post. No man is evil. Man can do evil. But man is not evil. Man, in the theological anthropology of Catholic teaching, cannot be evil. Yes, man can do evil. And cause evil. But not be evil. Without getting into Thomistic theology, I'll just point out that the notion of a man being evil is actually a contradiction in terms.
So, in the end, I'm just saying, we can passionately disagree about things. And we should, and it's healthy, and we should debate and discuss. There are certain teachings of the Church that some won't be able to accept. Well, ok. There may be consequences in terms of people's relationship with the Church. But the Church does not, and will never, reject someone. She teaches that those who advocate, or practice, abortion are in sin, yes. But the Church's mission on Earth is redemptive. We all sin. There are consequences for all our sins. But of faith, hope, and love, the greatest is love. God is love.
And for all those disposed to defend the Church or her teachings, I would desperately encourage you always to remember that we are meant not only to believe in, but also to live the charity of Christ.
Geez, you know I'm a giant lefty, talking about love so much. ;)
It's not what I believe. Kristen Luker proved years ago in "Abortion And the Politics of Motherhood" that the vast majority of pro-lifers held anti-feminist views on sex and gender issues.
That's what the issue is about. If there were a burning fertility clinic, you would rescue the workers before worrying about the frozen zygotes. Everyone would. Nobody thinks that a zygote has the same value as an adult.
But you guys DO have antifeminist views on sex and gender. You've admitted it.
And that's why you are pro-life.
This conservative appreciates your "giant lefty, talking about love so much."
All of your points are important.
Thanks
Your conclusion absolutely does not follow from your premise. You confuse correlation with causation.
By your definitions, your premise is correct, but your conclusion is terribly faulty.
By less radical definitions, it is quite possible to be feminist and pro-life.
It is quite possible. But to do so, you have to believe in the rest of the feminist program, including the importance of women being able to have nontraditional sex lives, careers, and independence from men.
So while it is possible to be feminist and pro-life, there aren't very many pro-life feminists.
What the heck are these "exclusionary impulses?"
I take it from your response that you have withdrawn your accusation that pro-life views derive from "anti-feminist" views?
And BTW, keep in mind that many of us, evil "anti-feminists," have daughters. Do you really think we want them subjugated or whatever it is you object to in "anti-feminists?"
The only "choice" I oppose is that of ending the life of a human being in order to accomplish the goal of birth control. All humans are entitled to their morally neutral goals, but not to immoral methods to achieve them; women, being adults, should not be treated any differently.
Pro-life. Pro-choice. Pro-woman. Just anti-abortion.
So, random question for you, Dilan: when is it okay for women to kill their unborn children? The zygote stage is rather short. The heart beats approximately three weeks after conception; most women are just figuring out that they are pregnant then. When does it cease becoming acceptable? Eighth month of pregnancy? Shortly after birth? First trimester? When does a foetus become, in your mind, valuable enough to not slaughter in the name of feminism?
Oh, finally: why is it okay to treat some living human beings as disposable? Again, as a feminist, I'm well aware that the language and rationale that you use to justify abortion has long been used to justify repressing women. Not cool.
It turns out that people who are inclined to conservative beliefs will tend to think that Catholicism naturally results in them supporting the conservative party, and people who are inclined to liberal beliefs will tend to think that Catholicism naturally results in them supporting the liberal party. And it turns out that both parties equally fail to conform to Catholic doctrine.
So I pretty much agree with you, Dilan, except that I'd add that I think conservatives don't just pretend, but actually believe they have more support for their positions, because the positions they tend to emphasize when connecting their conservatism to Catholicism are the ones where the Church's teaching fits with their political belief. And I would add that I think precisely the same thing happens with liberals.
And I think neither party is very righteous. Even if I am a Democrat. :)
So Dangermouse, you sound like a good Catholic. I assume you were adamantly against the invasion of the Iraq as the Pope clearly stated that it was a pre-emptive and therefore unjust war. Or do you second-guess the Pope on issues of war too, since from your little essay you, like Scalia, seem to have no problem with the death penalty either.
The statute that Obama did not support would have included anencephalic fetuses as babies born alive, because any twitch of the umbilical cord counted as being born alive. I too oppose the futility of trying to keep alive a brainless infant. Further, Obama feared this law would be used as a backdoor way to punish abortion providers.
The nurse pushed this bill to protest practices occurring at her employer, Christ Hospital, which is part of a group of hospitals run by Lutherans and United Churches of Christ, and which subsequently fired her. I seriously doubt that a Christian church-run hospital would tolerate or practice infanticide.
From SB 1082 from the 93rd Illinois General Assembly:
(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with
15 respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the
16 complete expulsion or extraction from its mother of that
17 member, at any stage of development, who after that expulsion
18 or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of
19 the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary
20 muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been
21 cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction
22 occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean
23 section, or induced abortion.
It seems that if you have a circular definition of what is feminist. If you don't agree with their understanding of morality, then it must be anti-feminist? I would think another legitimate definition of feminism would include that women should be grown ups and take responsibility for their own actions. The technology exists to prevent pregnancy, and it's cheap and easily available.
To be in favor of abortion is acceptable to many people. What shouldn't be acceptable is killing children born alive after botching an abortion. That is pure and simple murder by any definition, and B. Hussein supports this infanticide.
As for saving zygotes in a fire, I guarantee you that some people would try very hard to save them, but practicality would limit their knowlege of how to find them, how to protect them upon removing them from the building, etc. If the building is on fire, it's probably better to concentrate on saving people that you are able to save, not on ones that require substantial technology that isn't likely available.
Denying communion, denying honorary degrees, refusing to allow pro-choicers to speak at Catholic universities, etc.
Remember, most American Catholics are pro-choice. That stuff will shrink the Church and shrink its ability to influence policy.
In practice, people become pro-lifers because they don't agree with the feminist agenda on sex and gender issues.
"Pro-life feminists" are at best, a tiny minority of pro-lifers. Most of them are open anti-feminists.
This person does. The integrity of human rights for all depends on not allowing arbitrary and artificial judgments and distinctions on what forms of human life are worthy of protection and what forms aren't. History is full of examples of grave injustice that were justified at the time by the excuse "well they aren't really human beings..." or "they aren't of the same worth as real people".
Nobody has been able to provide a cite for the bolded portion of above. I don't believe it is true.
You may not realize this, the Catholic doctrine is not defined by what the Pope says. Catholics are not obligated to take everything (or anything, barring ex cathedra) the Pope says as correct.
Theo, pregnancy is a continuum. There isn't one spot where a fetus magically has rights. Rather, it has a greater interest in its life later in the process.
Roe v. Wade recognized this, and it is actually self-evident. The vast majority of abortions are early term, and pro-lifers want them illegal not to save fetuses (by the way, 3 week fetuses don't even have hearts, much less beating ones), but to incentivized desired sexual conduct.
But as I've said before, I have no real problem with strict regulation of late-term abortions if there is a health exception. Late term fetuses are like babies. Early term fetuses are not. And early term abortion must be legal or else women aren't going to be equal, period.
Even if she did "prove" that (which is ridiculously doubtful), so what?
You're talking to a feminist, vegetarian, non-religious, female engineer-turned-lawyer who happens to oppose abortion. I'm bulletproof, and I'm pro-life. Now that my very existence causes every ad hominem of yours to blow up in your face, try justifying abortion on its merits. Try telling us how you find it acceptable to end human life - a healthy, perfect human with every major organ, simply because its existence is inconvenient for another person.
No more ad homimens - your position has been in constant retreat. You've started telling me that I'm a science-hating man with bitter ex-girlfriends; now, you're in a corner, left sniveling about how a chick who accumulates professional degrees in male-dominated fields isn't really a feminist. Ad homimens are over, Dilan. Justify yourself!
Skyler, I doubt ANYONE would save the zygotes first even if he knew exactly where they are. Because we all actually know that the workers have a greater interest in their lives than frozen embryos do. Pro-lifers just don't admit it.
That's phony reasoning. Again, nobody thinks that pro-choicers are going to gas Jews or enslave blacks. Everyone knows what the distinction is. Pro-lifers just like to pretend it doesn't exist.
But again, in that burning fertility clinic, you're saving the workers, not the embryos. Just like everyone else.
Sorry, you are not a feminist. You can call yourself one, but anyone can call themselves anything. You are not one.
1)Denying communion - a practice as old as the Church - not a "conservative" Catholic thing. Communion can be restored for anyone by reconciliation. BTW, liberals loved it when Bishops denied communion to racist leaders during the civil rights movement.
2)Denying honorary degrees - would you suggest a university dedicated to socialism should give an honorary degree to Friedrich Hayek?
3)refusing to allow pro-choicers to speak at Catholic universities,
Who did that?
First. most *practicing* American Catholics are not pro-choice.
Second, the Church is not a political organization. If its doctrines impair its ability to influence policy, so be it. Doctrine is doctrine. It is an orthodox religion.
Three weeks post-conception = 5 weeks LMP. At that time, the heart begins to divide into chambers, beat, and pump blood.
Maybe Larry Summers should have made his comment about pro-choicers....
Yes they are. That is another conservative lie, to define only CONSERVATIVE Catholics as "real" Catholics.
Liberal pro-choice Catholics are still Catholics and they still practice.
If your goal is a tiny Church that everyone ignores, the way to do it is to define all the pro-choicers as "non-Catholics". But the Pope knows better, which is why he's Pope and you are not.
Which desired sexual conduct would that be? Do you think Catholics are against sex?
No, but there is good reason to believe that they are trending toward infanticide, including Obama's refusal to vote for a law banning it. By your own words:
When would that be? Have you asked one? To do that, it would have to be able to speak and understand the meaning of the question. Obviously, then, it's okay to terminate anyone who can't do that... it's just a continuum, after all!
Even as an atheist, I can explain the problem with this theory. The Catholic Church is not about to change its views on abortion based on membership opinions. Remember that this is a heirarchical organization. They direct what is to believed, they don't ask. They base their understanding of what is to believed not on opinion polls or popularity contests, but on very profound and intelligent scholarly and religious examination.
I don't agree with their premise that magical gods exist, but I don't deny that once that premise is granted that Catholicism, whatever its other flaws is intelligently developed and not subject to arbitrary alteration.
Now, pray tell - how does chastity enslave women? I'm intrigued by this notion. By those standards, I'm not a lawyer; I'm a slave to... um... not sure. Someone with whom I'm not sleeping, apparently.
Look up the word "continuum" in the dictionary and get back to me on what it means. Hint: it doesn't mean "at the end of the continuum, things are exactly the same as they are at the beginning".
As I said - 5 weeks LMP = 3 weeks post conception. I suppose that, since you're a "feminist," you'll apologise to a female engineer whose intellect you just degraded.
Profound apologies. NOW!
Even if we assume everyone in that group is a feminist (which is clearly not the case as it is a right-wing front group), that group does not have very many members-- it's a demonstration of how few pro-life feminists there are, not how many there are.
<i>Now, pray tell - how does chastity enslave women? </i>
Why don't you read some feminist theory and get back to me? After all, theo, you are a "feminist" right, you can't not be interested in what feminist authors had to say about the sexual revolution, right?
If you assume conception = fertilization (as pro-lifers always claim), 5 weeks is 5 weeks, theo.
Marist Poll:
It would appear that you are the one defining Conservative to mean real (practicing) Catholic. BTW... if you aren't a practicing Catholic, you are not a Catholic from a religious standpoint. The term "non-practicing Catholic" is oxymoronic.
I get the feeling that you don't have a clue about orthodox religions. Some parts of protestantism (like the Presbyterian Church, which I was raised in) these days make up doctrine to match the latest social fad. The Catholic Church has 2000 years of teachings to counterbalance that tendency.
Yeah, the Pope is really into the pro-choice thing, isn't he? Good grief!!??!!
When does a foetus have the right to not be aborted for convenience? (Answer in weeks post-conception or LMP. I'll convert by adding or subtracting the two weeks.)
.
Link to polling data - 5.3.2009 5:23pm in the previous Glendon thread. FWIW, Dilan Esper participated in that thread, but must have overlooked the information.
What in the world is your hint supposed to mean.
I am well familiar with the word continuum (differential calculus tends to provide a really precise definition).
Not consistent teaching. The Catholics have changed LOTS of major doctrines over those 2000 years.
Only a delusional and uninformed person thinks that Catholic teaching now bears more than a passing resemblance to whatever it was that early Christians were teaching each other.
ROFL. :) Good one. I will point out, though, that Dilan does not respect those of us who have demonstrated a capability to do graduate-level mathematics. (I only did that as an elective, though... maybe you have more street cred.)
Theo, you are just wrong then. It's 6 weeks from LMP, not 5, and the "heart" you are talking about isn't even a real heart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_development
In any event, who gives a crap? Unless you are a vegetarian, eat stuff that had a beating heart every day.
"feminist theory" - that's about as intellectually rigorous as Alice in Wonderland. It's one of those post-modernist nonsense fields.
I don't respect you because you throw around the word "feminist" without knowing what it means to be one.
Someone like Kate Millett or Betty Friedan or even Susan Faludi forgot more about sex and gender than you'll ever know, John.
Yeah, but "feminist theory" is determinative for him.
BTW engineer, then lawyer. Good background (math, then engineer here :-)
So what?
As per above... I am a vegetarian. I haven't eaten meat, fish, or gelatin since the 1990s.
Is it okay if I snicker a bit at your newest failed ad hominem?
No, you don't respect me because I don't toe the Dilan Esper party line on what it means to be a feminist, which seems to involve nothing more nor less than sex and abortions.
I've read feminist theory. Why don't you tell me why chastity is enslavement? Again, to whom am I enslaved with my chaste ways? Can tell you right now - men have a LOT more power over women that are sleeping with them than the ones that aren't sleeping with them.
There are a lot of things about human behavior that were known long before some pin-head professors invented this latest mental masturbation (is that sinful?).
Heh... and you had even written it before. Me thinks he has a reading comprehension problem.
No, but it will make them go blind... at least to reality. :)
Math, then law? Sweet! Is there something about having to put down actual answers on an undergraduate exam that makes people less prone to believing whatever Susan Faludi tells them to believe?
Tony, he seems to think he's more Catholic than this practicing Catholic.
OTOH, in a more serious sense, I don't agree with your premise. Ideas stand on their own. Experience, OTOH...
No, math then engineering (more closely related).
Well, in subjects where the truth is verifiable or derivable, yeah. In a lot of modern humanities, modern "scholarship" fields seem to be designed to destroy critical thinking, especially any field that starts with "Critical..."
.
On the "theobromophile is a vegetarian" point, I presume either oversight or forgetfulness on Dilan Esper's part. In other regards, judging the argument is easy. This isn't a close contest, and probably isn't a "fair" one as pitting similarly adept minds.
Theo, it isn't my line. The term has a meaning, and while pro-lifers can claim to be feminists, it takes a pretty strong commitment to the rest of the agenda to really be one.
Pro-lifers LOVE to claim they are feminists, to deflect criticism. But since the things that cause people to be pro-life are generally anti-feminist impulses, it doesn't work that way.
Sorry, theo, but you can use the term all you want, but not knowing what it means, you have no credibility when you use it.
Read some feminist theory on sex and gender and come back and tell us whether you agree with it.
No, because you've never seen it and never read it.
From which decade? I've been around a long time, and the definition of "feminist" has changed dramatically. Are you claiming it is now orthodox?
I'm no Catholic, but I have read far more Catholicism than you guys (and theo) combined have read feminism.
It actually hasn't changed all that much on sex and gender at least since the time of Simone de Beauvoir.
If you mean "studied it in depth" - you're right, I haven't. I've simply seen the absurd, illogical nonsense that comes from those who are steeped in it.
Regardless of what academic dressing is put on it, ultimately we are talking about a political/cultural movement and trend, which cannot have a single definition.
Would she abort an ectopic pregnancy if it would likely kill her before it was viable?
Would she abort a fetus almost certain to be a stillbirth?
It didn't sink in.
I can't answer for her, but I can give the Catholic Church (see topic of thread) position: abortion is allowed to save the life of the mother; more specifically, killing is allowed to save lives (under the right circumstances).
It would not be allowed for an almost certain stillbirth (the Church would let nature take its course).
Catholicism, like all Christianity, is based on belief that things that clearly could not have happened, happened. So in terms of accepting it's claim as a moral system, sorry. Indeed, I don't think that intelligent Catholics even actually believe these things-- it's all just Pascal's Wager and wishful thinking.
That said, though, I certainly respect the best of Catholic thinking. Aquinas was a giant, for instance, and plenty of secular moral theorists owe a great debt to him.
The problem with Catholicism and abortion is that in order to get logical consistency in its position on abortion, the Church has to basically take absolutely absurd and stupid positions on sex and gender and then actually lie and absurdly claim that God, rather than Church officials, made them up. So you have a whole ridiculous edifice of stupid and unrealistic beliefs about sex and gender, and conservatives actually run around pretending that this load of crap is true.
I'm not impressed.
Rather than arguing about feminism in the abstract, let's take a basic definition: political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.
Nothing about abortion, nor sleeping around, in there. Arguably, that would be under social equality, but there are equally strong arguments on the other side. Chew on this: a lot of my conservative beliefs come from my years in grueling higher education. I realised early on that chastity would help me a lot more than any amount of birth control or abortion; there simply was not time, nor mental energy, to dealing with the mind-mess that would arise from a sexual relationship. Yes, I got dumped - a lot - and eventually came to the point of either being single or dating pro-lifers, who were, strangely, the only ones willing to go along with the "no sex because my degree is more important" thing.
That's not correct. Catholicism permits an operation that will RESULT in abortion, but not a direct abortion itself. (This is because of the BS "principle of double effect", which is a stupid and immoral Catholic doctrine that allows you to get away with just about anything as long as you lie and make up a phony rationale for the action.)
Theo, if you wanted, you could call yourself a "Marxist" too. Nobody would stop you. But if you never read the Communist Manifesto, and never applied Marxist thinking to political problems, and didn't agree with the political positions of established Marxists, well, you wouldn't actually be a Marxist, would you?
So it is with feminism. There's a bunch of tenets that feminists agree upon. Abortion, actually, is not a deal-breaker. But the sex and gender stuff basically is. So if you don't agree with it, you can call yourself anything you want, but you don't really meet the orthodox definition of the term.
All religious belief involves supernatural elements. That doesn't mean (even if you don't believe in them) that claims for a moral system are forfeit. Furthermore, we are talking about the consistency of the moral system, not whether you are required to accept it. You make repeated claims of hypocrisy and lying by adherents to Catholicism. You have failed to substantiate them, only revealing more about your own belief system in your attempts.
You apparently don't understand the relationship between faith and reason, being a total materialist in outlook. Hence, projecting that onto others, you conclude they are being dishonest.
Sure it does. If you think an invisible man in the sky tells us humans what to do and we have to obey, yeah, that pretty much indicates that the moral system you advocate is based on complete delusion.
You apparently don't understand the relationship between faith and reason, being a total materialist in outlook.
I have no idea if God exists. I am quite sure that if She does, She doesn't give a crap what you do with your penis.
Unless, of course, an invisible man in the sky tells us humans what to do (more accurately, for Christianity, what we *should* do - very big difference).
Can I have some of your stash?
Seriously, you REALLY believe this bunk?
Let me add that even if it is based on a complete delusion, that doesn't mean it is a wrong moral system, or even that it is not the best moral system.
I don't think it would help you.
Yes, after spending most of my life an agnostic.
Go figure.
One could say the same of a moral system typed by a monkey at a typewriter.
Yes, but in that case, one would be wrong.
More seriously, you dismiss the work of thousands of the brightest minds of their time, from the early Jewish philosophers to the present, as bunk.
You also claim you know what interest god would have in the use of one's penis.
That's pretty arrogant.
Another way of putting it is that I dismiss the work of charlatans who claimed that an invisible man in the sky told them things that they clearly made up themselves as bunk.
But also, I might add that these great minds, for the most part, lived before feminists taught us what we now know about the genders. So you are telling us we should listen to a bunch of ignorant sexists who didn't know diddly about gender rather than brilliant modern thinkers who understand the issue better.
That's just dumb.
(And finally, God has more important things to worry about than where you put your penis. It's VERY arrogant to think God even cares about you, much less your penis.)
Stillbirth: unless it would pose a ridiculous danger to my own life, carry to term. It would still be my child, no matter how short its life will be. Some of it is cold-hearted self-interest: living the rest of my life with the knowledge that I did all I could and that I tried to do right by my child, and never wondering if the doctors might have been wrong (which happens). Some of it is dignity: I would vastly prefer to struggle through pregnancy and birth, knowing that I would be able to hold, name, and bury my child, rather than having an abortion and having my child buried with biohazardous waste. Also, in the 21st century, we can figure out how to make the process as painless as possible for the child.
Ectopic: my understanding is that they are never viable. The options, then, are abortion (one dead baby plus one healthy mother) or let nature take its course (one dead baby plus one sick and/or dead mother). Should be obvious... nothing about being pro-life, in my mind, precludes medical care to save lives.
I notice you have twice now ducked the logical consequences of the continuum of life you invented.
What about your continuum keeps us from killing 1 month old babies? 2 year olds? Teenagers (research tells us they're sorta non-human for a few years - my experience as one and as the father of one concurs)?
That's really rich. Since human behavior hasn't changed significantly in recorded history, what was it about these "brilliant modern thinkers" that led them to the real, final truth about "gender" that had eluded the brilliant minds of previous centuries?
.
That's a strong dose of "liberal love." But a quite distilled essence of your point of view. Very illuminating, and I appreciate learning what you just taught.
Somehow, you don't care to address the issues of young women in high-pressure situations and sexuality.
On another note: the difference between John and I on one hand, and Dilan on the other, is that the former two people don't rely on anyone else to do their thinking for us. I developed my own thoughts on gender from reading everything, living my life, and thinking about the implications of all of the above. I see no reason to take Betty Friedan as Gospel truth... yes, religious pun intended.
Dilan: have you read Christian apologetics? Most of them address your issues....
That it's a fricking continuum, John.
Get it straight-- the longer development goes on, the more interest the being has in its life.
Further, the competing interest of the woman is eliminated when the fetus leaves the womb.
What you want to do is say "because we can't kill a teenager, we can't kill a zygote". But a zygote is not a teenager, and just because it's a continuum doesn't change that. It just means we have to draw a line somewhere along the continuum.
And feminists want that line to be drawn in a spot where gender equality is preserved. Whereas you just say "the genders are unequal".
That's really rich. Since human behavior hasn't changed significantly in recorded history, what was it about these "brilliant modern thinkers" that led them to the real, final truth about "gender" that had eluded the brilliant minds of previous centuries?
Well, let's put it this way-- women were the legal property of their husbands and fathers until very recently (and they still are in other parts of the world). Spousal rape was legal. Women couldn't own their own property. They couldn't have jobs outside the home. They couldn't testify in court or serve on juries. They couldn't be lawyers. So your ignorance that things have changed so much so recently is quite stunning.
A lot of men said a lot of dumb things about women in the name of religion (and not just Christianity-- Islam is full of this garbage too, as is Orthodox Judaism). Thankfully, we are past that, but it means that we shouldn't be listening to those old patriarchs when it comes to gender. They got it wrong and we've gotten it closer to right.
No, but you do earn them by understanding why a woman's freedom to sleep around (or otherwise to define one's sexuality in ways that offend conservative Christians) is crucial to gender equality. And you clearly don't understand that.
It's weird to me, because I thought intelligent people only defended the various "studies" and enterprises like "feminist theory" in the safety of cloistered echo-chambers. This is not a partisan thing - white nationalism, the intelligent design movement, much of unsophisticated climate skepticism are on the same footing. I have never come across an established feminist work that hasn't been full of dense and unpenetrable Marxist jargon. Occasionally, I wander over to "feministe", a feminist blog, to get some cathartic jollies; I sense they often get so tangled up in accommodating all sorts of views that they in fact say little meaningful at all. It can often lead to absurdities, where in one case these usually rabidly obsessive anti-rapists suddenly start calling for the "understanding" of the minority Oakland rapist who killed 4 cops; dontchaknow, the justice system simply pushed him too far. There was a huge infighting between those I felt who grasped the essence of what they were fighting for and the ideological fashionistas, but yet of course in the end nothing was decided.
I can honestly understand liberals having different views than me on policy questions and even different basic priors. But I have never understood why the Left is so quick to justify sophistry in the name of the collective, even if you grant that it necessarily comes in tandem with having political influence.
That story is mostly irrelevant of the point beside the point I want to make. I'm just trying to establish some bona fides first; I'm an atheist, mostly pro-choice, completely pro-marriage, and have long had an intellectual antipathy to Catholicism, so I'm certainly no arch-conservative.
But I've always felt it wrong that so many religious people want toe the line of the doctrines their faith commits them to, and that the leaders in charge continue to accept them into the fold. I've felt that Christianity has lost much of its aesthetic appeal in its modern day ministration, where many push a New Age, "New Testament"-founded ideal that requires little commitment and little self-reflection before achieving the benefits salvation through Jesus. The Old Testament, with its more stringent rules and regulations, with a jealous God that was only willing to reward if one worked for it, was more to my liking. I also can't imagine this type of free lunch does much to inhibit a sinful religious gluttony if one can receive so much while putting in so little.
I am as righteous as any left-liberal on gay rights and liberty. But I've always condemned the gays who feel they can twist the Bible into a meaningless document by inferring a tacit acceptance for homosexuality within it. That belief hasn't changed a whit since I became an atheist. I understand where the conservative Catholics are coming from; if I were Catholic, seeing other Catholics deliberately flaunting the long-preached doctrines and standards required for salvation would make me feel as though my God and religion was being cheaply demeaned by those who should respect it most. If you're an abortionist, you simply don't have the right to call yourself Catholic - an argument which should strike Dilan Esper as familiar. The right to discriminate should remain a fundamental right.
"The mercy of the Lord
is from everlasting to everlasting.
I declare to you, In the name of Jesus Christ,
you are forgiven.
May the God of mercy,
who forgives you all your sins,
strengthen you In all goodness,
and by the power of the Holy Spirit
keep you in eternal life. Amen."
—Book of Common Worship
A better man might see a rich field for evangelism, not ridicule. If I'm not mistaken, many of our friends to the leftish already have.
Pope's Emissary Meets With Bush, Calls War 'Unjust'
Then the usual suspects tried to spin this into something it wasn't.
Torture is not "flatly prohibited" by the Church. I know this thanks to a commenter here who pointed out correctly that the Catholic Church condones torture, and used that as support for his own pro-torture position.
Which seems connected to this:
Again, do I earn my feminist stripes by sleeping around?
No, but you do earn them by understanding why a woman's freedom to sleep around (or otherwise to define one's sexuality in ways that offend conservative Christians) is crucial to gender equality. And you clearly don't understand that.
In a nutshell, this is the debate between Dilan and Theo. While I am sue that Theo truly believes she is a feminist, and I also believe she holds many feminist positions, this is the salient point that she is missing (and I was wondering why Dilan took so long to make it).
Theo is choosing to not have sex. That's wonderful. That's her choice. She can also choose to use birth control. Also great. Again, notice the choice.
But pregnancy is a massive drain on a woman when it comes to her professional career. In addition to cases of rape (date and forcible), there are examples of failed birth control and poor judgment. In those cases, should a young woman forsake her ability (in cases where there is no extended family or time to take care of the resulting child) to pursue an engineering and law degree like Theo did... to be "equal". If John Moore's daughter (nice paternalism, btw), if she makes a hormonal mistake at 18, be relegated to the mommy track for the rest of her life?
I'm not saying that any of these young women shouldn't. But a feminist would argue that they be given the choice. For Theo to presumptively make the choice for other women is, in and of itself, anti-feminist. The control over your own body, as opposed to the government (I hesitate to use the word patriarchy), is essential.
Again, this is separate from morality. If you believe that morality compels you to a pro-life position, so be it. But be honest that it is morality, not feminism. For example, you could morally believe that (due to religion) women should wear burkas and eat separately from men, but still have the same voting and economic rights as men. Your moral values conflict with some of your feminist values.
I know of people who are personally opposed to abortion (would not have it themselves) but nevertheless support it. I know others who oppose it but have counseled others (children, friends, *themselves*) to get one when the rubber hit the road (and/or the rubber failed to hit the road... umm.....). Such is the real-world complexity that lies behind our abstract "abortion debate" that usually shows up in polls.
I've always thought the best formulation was "safe, legal, and rare." Or perhaps, "abortion is bad, but it is the best last alternative." If only there was some way we could work together to, I don't know, decrease demand instead of reflexively falling back into our old tired talking points, we could accomplish something.
But then these threads would be far less entertaining.
Conservatism is correlated with church-going.
Conservatism is correlated with acceptance of tough interrogation.
This study proves nothing we don't already know.
You're offering one interpretation of the study. The article I cited offers another one. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite was president of Chicago Theological Seminary from 1988 to 2008. She said this:
Clear case of Stockholm Syndrome.
.
She's certainly an "interesting" character in the progressive liberals' camp. Pagans as Patriots: Freedom vs. Prejudice
Her interpretation would be persuasive if it was shown that church-goers were more likely to support torture than non-church goers of that same political stripe. That is, I think you can explain the entire gap solely by politics -- atheist conservatives are going to be just as likely as church-going conservatives to vote yes.
Do the study correctly, controlling for the obvious confounding variable, then you can draw conclusions. As it stands, it's totally meaningless.
JBG: Pope's Emissary Meets With Bush, Calls War 'Unjust'
.
Recognizing that changing the subject from the reaction to Fr. Jenkins extending an offer to honor Obama with a degree, and the resulting criticism being focused on the issue of abortion, I nonetheless followed this side-line debate, and found the "Pope's Emissary Meets ..." rebuttal citation is not responsive to the challenge.
Link
More
Although, I agree that this is entirely irrelevant to Notre Dame -- the Catholic Church is entitled to prioritize its worldly position is whatever way they see fit.
Then I guess National Review, Hot Air and conservative Rod Dreher all have "a predetermined agenda, and should not be taken as endeavoring to engage in good-faith argument on the subject," since they all decided to "cite this Pew poll and omit the question being responded to." In each case, I'm sure "the omission was not an innocent oversight," and they are all 'disingenuous simpletons.' Likewise for the people at CathNews USA and the Catholic News Agency.
By the way, the question is here (pdf):
I fail to see where the article I cited says anything that fails to be faithful to the question.
Do you generally mock and insult people of all religions, or are you just prejudiced against Pagans? And do you happen to know any? Just curious. And I wonder if you mock them directly, or only when you think they're not around.
What I find interesting about your mockery is that you seem to consider the very idea of Paganism to be some kind of a joke, and you think the joke is so obvious that you see no need to provide even a slight clue as to what you find so funny.
I found that your rebuttal to the rebuttal citation is not responsive to the challenge of indicating where there's a problem with the rebuttal citation.
===============
oren:
Pew posted a followup analysis which suggests (albeit in a very delicate manner) that there is still an effect, even after "controlling for the obvious confounding variable:"
(Emphasis added.) It seems to me they are saying that even after "controlling for the obvious confounding variable," there is still a correlation between religion and views on torture. It's just not a "strong" correlation, or at least not as "strong" as the correlation we see between party and views on torture. So party is a "much better" predictor, but it seems that religion is still nevertheless a predictor.
And I don't think Thistlethwaite is drawing "conclusions." She's expressing an opinion. If you have a different opinion, good for you.
Ah, the classic "line-drawing is hard, therefore no line can be drawn" argument. There's a reason this is called a fallacy: it leads to the conclusion that there are no heaps, no man has a beard, and it's never cold out.
Yes, nobody disputes that for pro-choicers -- men and women -- the abortion issue is about wanting to have casual sex. There's nothing that makes that inherently "feminist," though. When you take a position that requires you to argue that women are less feminist than men, and that most women are not feminist, it might be a good sign that your position is untenable.
That's funny, since both articles make their key point by citing the same source using the same words. But you must think this:
… means something different from this:
Maybe you object to the quote marks.
.
One only needs to read the NRO link to discern your hackery on this point. I'm going to assume the other links are likewise lame as for refuting my point that Thistlethwaite's piece was disingenuous.
.
-- Do you generally mock and insult people of all religions ... --
.
I was mocking Thistlethwaite, whatever "religion" she thinks she is. Thistlethwaite seems to lack discrimination between religions, and comes off as holding that "paganism" and "Christianity" are equally valid. Failing to assign a particular religion a place of superiority indicates an absence of adherence to a (single) religion. She's a secularist in church clothing.
.
The cite you provided included this:
Which augurs against "pre-emptive = unjust." There are other reasons your cite sucked as supporting your proposition, but I'll let other read the various pieces and reach their own conclusions.
Not for this pro-choicer. To me the abortion issue is about the fact that embryos are not people. I'd be willing to support restrictions on late-term elective abortions, but there are very few of those.
I don't buy it. Nothing prevents women from having anti-feminist attitudes. But while opposition to abortion is often due to anti-feminist attitudes, support for abortion need not be due to support for feminism. Abortion supporters can be incredibly sexist.
Regarding abortion, sexuality, education, and feminism: that "mistakes" might be made, or that birth control might fail, does not justify abortion. As I said upthread, you're entitled to your not-immoral goals, but not to every method, moral or immoral, of achieving them.
Second of all, I hate the notion that women cannot parent their children (or, if they aren't ready for motherhood, give their babies up for adoption) and be in higher education. If that is the case, we need support systems at our universities. 98% of college women who get pregnant end up having abortions. These are educated, smart, talented women, often with loving and strong families, who, despite being in class for a mere 12 hours per week, feel as if they need to kill their children. The proper solution is to ensure that pregnant and parenting students have the same educational opportunities as the rest of us, not to buy into the notion that women must be as barren as men to succeed. (There's a reason why FFL's motto is "Refuse to Choose." More feminist than making us like men, I would think.)
Moreover, "relegating women to the mommy track" is b.s.. Once that child is conceived, a woman is a mother; the only thing that abortion does is shorten her child's life.
I don't feel like pulling up citations now, but there are six times as many post-abortive women in National Right to Life as there are in NARAL. Groups like Rachel's Vineyard and After Abortion are there because women don't see abortion as second-stage birth control: they truly feel as if they killed their child. The permanent grief over their actions, meant to avoid temporary difficulties, is both the core of feminist opposition to abortion and the reason why abortion, itself, is unjust.
Finally: I do not want to legislate chastity. I do not want to force my views upon other women. I do, however, want sexist prats like Dilan to understand that my side of the bell curve is valid. His view - that female sexuality is only acceptable so long as chaste women STFU and non-chaste women act like men - is sexist in the extreme.
Oh, for all of you who would presume to decide whether or not I'm "feminist" enough to call myself one: why did you not attack Dilan for his statement to me, telling me - a female engineer - to learn how to do math?
Yes, nobody disputes that for pro-choicers -- men and women -- the abortion issue is about wanting to have casual sex.
Really? Thank you for speaking out on behalf of pro-choice people everywhere; I'll have to assume you're speaking as one because it would be disingenuous of you to attribute the motivating factor as "casual sex" to a side you disagree with.
But assuming that you even have a good point, it's not about "wanting" casual sex, it's about the results of sex (casual or otherwise).
In other words, in cases of rape, failed birth control, raging teen hormones, or poor judgment, people have sex. Amazingly enough, throughout recorded history, despite religious, moral, and ethical prohibitions, people have continued to have sex.
I blame a biological imperative. Or beer.
However, the consequences of this sex (forcible or otherwise) fall entirely on one gender- women. Even if society *required* the man to marry the woman and support the child (uh... yeah), the man, freed from the physical constraints of child birth and child rearing, could still pursue his career. The reality doesn't even go that far.
Again, this doesn't account for people's moral predilections. If you have a moral problem with abortion, that is certainly within your rights. But if you want to make sure that other women do not have access to abortions, it is tough to square that with a feminist perspective. Unless, of course, you assume it is all about wanting casual sex (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Tell Notre Dame he has decided to decline its honorary degree because the University refuses to officially state that it does not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Back in February 1999, Notre Dame's Trustees, huddling in London to avoid campus protests, voted down a motion to include sexual orientation in the University's nondiscrimination policy. The policy remains unchanged in this regard to this day.
There is no doctrinal basis for Notre Dame's stance.
Consider the nondiscrimination policy of another prominent Catholic college. "Boston College commits itself to maintaining a welcoming environment for all people and extends its welcome in particular to those who may be vulnerable to discrimination, on the basis of their race, ethnic or national origin, religion, color, age, gender, marital or parental status, veteran status, disabilities or sexual orientation."
I believe that the difference in the two schools’ nondiscrimination policies accounts for the fact that Boston College record against Notre Dame in football is 8-1 since 1999, but that’s another story.
The NRO link is here. This is how many times they included the question from the poll: zero. You said that only "a disingenuous simpleton … would cite this Pew poll and omit the question being responded to." So the hackery is all yours.
What's your basis for claiming that Paganism and Christianity are not "equally valid?" Is that something God told you?
This probably comes as a shock to you, but there are religious people who pursue "adherence to a (single) religion" without believing that their religion embodies some inherent "superiority" over every other religion.
Why is a quote from a "professor of religious studies at Santa Clara University" more important than a quote from the Pope's emissary?
I see you're inclined to keep those reasons to yourself.
Finally: I do not want to legislate chastity. I do not want to force my views upon other women.
Well, if that's the case, there's no problem, right? Do you understand the distinction? If you are pro-life personally, but do not seek to "force [your] views upon other women" (i.e. give them a choice) then that is perfectly compatible with feminism. If you seek to deprive other women of their choice because of your moral views, then that would be incompatible with the precepts of feminism as traditionally defined (but, again, that's your morals).
To give another example. Imagine you're a staunch catholic who is also a feminist. You personally might not use contraception, and you might think that a male-only priesthood is justified by church teachings. This wouldn't really be compatible with feminism (I'm not sure what qualifications a priest needs that requires a penis, other than the obvious and trite molestation jokes) but would be compatible with your moral world view. You could still espouse equal political and economic rights for women.
Think of it as a cafeteria feminist.
He thinks Betty Friedan can excommunicate someone but the Pope can't.
.
It's not a question of "importance." The piece you say supports the proposition that the pope holds "preemptive = unjust" doesn't include the pope's emissary asserting "preemptive = unjust." It doesn't even put those words in his mouth. Then, in the same piece, a different Catholic muckity-muck differentiates between "preemptive" and "preventative" military action.
(*) Yes, radically out of context.
The cites given to refute this either are not statements of the Pope or fail to meet the "therefore" condition above. That the Pope was against the Iraq war is not at issue.
She is celebrating her first mother's day today. Being a mother does indeed cause her to postpone a career in neuroscience. Sometimes values trump utility.
Substitutions to show the basic fallacy of this argument.
Except that is not the argument. Dilan asserted that the pure existence of a continuum was enough to support his argument for abortion. Hence it is appropriate to show the mere existence of a continuum is not sufficient to support his particular choice of a break point.
that may be true, but does not prove that being pro-life is BECAUSE somebody is anti-feminsit.
fwiw, i USED to be pro-life. at the time i was also pro premarital sex, pro legalized prostitution, pro equal rights in all respect, etc.
i have since changed my views. i am pro-choice now (first trimester across the board), but still hold the exact same views on gender equality.
so, we ARE out there.
i disagree with 99% of pro-life people who falsely claim that it's "just about a woman and her body". that's a bunch of crap./ it's about a woman, her body, AND the fetus.
that also implies that we recognize the "right" of people to do whatever they want with their bodies, which we clearly don't - we don't legalize (all) drugs and we don't legalize prostitution.
even as a pro-choicer, i recognize- abortion is NOT just about a woman and her body. that is why it is completely consistent to believe in other aspects of feminism and be against abortion.
that it falls entirely on one gender is false. absurdly so.
given a pregancy, only the woman has the choice whether to abort or not. if she chooses to abort, the man has no choice, but if she chooses to bring the fetus to term, the man is required to offer financial support, etc.
i'm pro-choice, and i am NOT suggesting a man should have the legal right to control whether the woman has the abortion, but you must recognize that consequences of a pregnancy certainly fall on both genders, and ONLY the woman gets the choice to abort, and her decision significantly affects the other gender's obligations and life in general (financial etc.)
that's the honest answer, not the false claim that it solely falls on one gender.
As for the Dilan Esper/theobromophile battle, it's something of a guilty pleasure watching a duel so one-sided, when you happen to favor the winning side.
Dilan, feminism means support for women's political, economic, and social equality with men. I count myself a feminist because I want equal access to every area of civic participation with men; because I want to use my talents (such as they are) in any direction, so long as I can really do whatever work it is as well as any other prospect of either sex; because I see no point in sorting people by sex where the only serious question is what they bring to the table. (That means, by the way, that I would try to avoid people's work being evaluated by people who know the sex of the person in question, where possible; I do not want thumbs on the scale, on either side.)
There is nothing specially feminist about, to put it crudely, ensuring that men can get laid as much as they want without any awkward financial or social consequences. Nor in presenting the "sexually-liberated woman" as a sort of norm from which we are all, of course, free to choose to differ.
that's the honest answer, not the false claim that it solely falls on one gender.
I originally wrote "primarily", thinking of child support. I changed it to "entirely" because I wanted to differentiate the act of carrying the fetus/unborn child to term as opposed to legal obligations society is imposing on others. For example, a gummint could say that "whit" is legally required to pay support for all children that do not have a father recorded on the birth certificate, but this would be created as a matter of law. A gummint could also require forced marraiges (assuming away constitutional issues) but this would be a legally created obligation. I apologize if this was unclear.
As for John Moore-
1. Clearly, your clever tactic of "fixing" posts was something you learned in internet 101. That you fail to understand the gender dynamic difference between abortion and theft shows that you are as good at analogies as you are at internet etiquette.
2. If, indeed, your daughter will eventually proceed into a career in neuroscience after her child (as I trust all anecdotal personal evidence submitted by people on the internet), then good for her. I'm glad she made her choice. It will be very difficult to do the residency (if she's going medschool) or the PhD program (grad school), and her future earnings will most likely be affected as well as her career advancement according to empirical studies from having a child before advancing on her career path, but more power to her. It was her decision to make, and I am glad she followed her morals.
Different words different meaning. The intent of the gospels is to show that Jesus suffered and died for the remission of sins of man. That he was the new Adam and was obedient to God and because of that God exalted him and we are now adoptive children of God, so heaven is now open to us. You want to call it torture call it torture. If you believe that God is all knowing, then he knew exactly what was going to happen, and so did Jesus.
During the last election, many more Bishops made it clear that if a politician supported abortion that you as a voter should not support him. That their support of abortion was the primary issue. Of course, there are a good number of Bishops who never made an issue of it, resulting in a number of those in the pews taking issue with that. It has appeared that the Bishops and Cardinals in the US may be more liberal than their parishioners.
People bring up Ronald Reagan getting an Honorary Degree from Notre Dame in 1981; again, the difference is abortion is considered a grave sin. I do not vouch for there accuracy but http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm is inline with what I have read in other sources.
One of the problems that most catholic Universities have is that it is hard to distinguish them from a purely secular university. Basically, the so-called Catholic Schools are not very Catholic any more and this was a very in your face event by Notre Dame that went beyond what people were willing to accept. It is one thing to have him speak it is another to HONOR him with a degree. That is the key, the awarding of a honorary degree is an honor. It implies admiration, a reward for doing something good, it implies an agreement with the person.
Now, does Notre dame feel that was? Who knows? However, it is definitely implied and that is enough out of bounds for a “Catholic” school to strike large numbers of people as wrong.
I specifically chose theft to find something NOT analogous to abortion, just to show the fallacy of the argument form (otherwise I would have chosen murder), and the strike-out method to avoid lengthy explanations.
The essence of the argument was that abortion is a personal choice in which nobody else has an interest. That is only true if one believes that the abortion has no consequences beyond the woman. That argument is not sufficient, which is the whole point of "right to life" - the focus on the rights of the child rather than purely on the mother.
The difficulties facing working mothers (or studying mothers) are well known, to her and everyone else. Her choice is an example of values over utility.
From the first reference to Church teaching cited in this article, the Didache, abortion is either ranked the same as adultery, because they were listed in the same sentence, or ranked far below adultery, because it was listed last in a group of sins. I cannot interpret this teaching to prioritize abortion over even simple theft.
Of course, Church teaching could well have varied over
the years, but that supports my point -- a variable doctrine is not as reliable as the words of Christ Himself. The Church may once again downgrade the sinfulness of abortions committed before Day 116.
1 And the second commandment of the Teaching; 2 You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, Exodus 20:13-14 you shall not commit pæderasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, Exodus 20:15 you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is begotten.
I ought to have added upthread that, for someone keen to lecture others about feminism and feminist theory, you're remarkably slipshod about the distinction between gender and biological sex. The former is socially constructed, usually but not always corresponding to the latter; the latter is your usual "XX" or "XY," with a few rare "intersexual" chromosonal variants thrown in.
This stuff can get very complicated indeed. (I remember an article in SFWeekly [one of the San Francisco "alternative" papers] at least 15 years back about a [biological] man who had had male-to-female sexual reassignment surgery and was now living as a lesbian.)
My point, though is that "gender" involves whether you are seen (or see yourself) as masculine or feminine, while "sex" involves the plumbing you were born with. No one actually versed in gender studies would conflate the two. Man, I'm barely "versed" at all, but even I have some idea of Judith Butler. Gender Trouble is, what, almost 20 years old now?
The amusing part of this is that the people who use "gender" when they mean biological sex seem to have picked the word up out of what the theorists would call the ambient discourse and taken it to be a way of talking about the relations of men and women without having to use the word "sex" all the time. But it's the likes of theobromophile who get pegged as prudes.
Or, as the utilitarians like to put it, one utility over another.
Exodus is a little bit more circumspect about abortion that the Catholic position:
At least as far as the old testament goes, the life of a fetus is worth more than nothing and less than a full person up until the moment of birth. Kind of takes the sails out of both sides of the argument, though, so it's rarely quoted.
Disclaimer: this is not the interpretation accepted by the Catholic Church at any time or place.
The "social construction" construct (heh) itself seems to be primarily used in post-modernist theory, which usually detaches itself from any reality within a few sentences.
Many of us use "gender" and "sex" interchangeably, because we aren't adherents to postmodernism and don't keep up with the latest fads (alright, so this fad is almost 100 years old, but still...).
The idea that this ordering has meaning is wrong. The church has long considered murder to be the most serious sin, and has considered abortion to be murder.
That the other things mentioned are also grave sins is beside the point. The church certainly condemns adultery, and all but the most misguided of the "liberation theologists" condemn theft.
The Old Testament is obviously not the final authority in Christianity (YMMV) since Christ is post Old Testament.
So if the argument is among religious Jews, your point is relevant (I guess, I don't know much abut Judaism, and as far as I can tell, Reform Judaism is sort of like modern Presbyterianism - free floating ad hoc doctrine).
The "social construction" construct (heh) itself seems to be primarily used in post-modernist theory, which usually detaches itself from any reality within a few sentences.
Well, but if you're really up to date on feminist literature, as Dilan Esper seems to believe any self-respecting feminist ought to be, you will at least have seen people distinguish sex and gender. (Of course, you will also have run across the Dworkin/MacKinnon wing of feminism, and will not think that all feminists are keen on the idea that all women really want is to be as casual and feckless about sexual relations as men have gotten away with being.)
There's really some point in distinguishing sex and gender, if only because there are some situations in which the former isn't clear (e.g., the intersexual), or where the two seem in clear conflict (e.g., people who have one biological sex but feel themselves to belong to the opposite gender; traditions in non-Western cultures where some men are treated culturally as female; &c.) The distinction is useful; I don't see how you can talk about (say) the situation of pre-op transsexuals unsure which rest room to use without applying it.
.
That Exodus passage appears to describe remedies/penalties. The pre-birth differentiation seems to eliminate the risk of a death penalty for a battery-induced miscarriage (i.e., at that point, it's not "life for life"). I'm not sure how much that takes out of either sides sails, as even pro-choice people don't object to penalties at law for battery-induced miscarriage.
Agreed, although I would say it is primarily in the really exceptional cases, as opposed to the normal case where feminists apply it.
I remember when mainstream feminism was about eliminating inappropriate discrimination based on sex. But then, I also remember when the civil rights movement was about ending inappropriate discrimination based on race (to the point where black identity movements are pro-discrimination, and that is accepted at pretty much every university in the land). Both have continued way beyond that... way too far.
I see no material difference between statements made personally by the Pope and statements by his emissary. Especially because there's no sign that the Pope repudiated Cardinal Pio Laghi's statement, a statement that was obviously made on behalf of the Pope and the Vatican.
You're suggesting that the Pope opposed the war for some reason other than the fact that it was preemptive (i.e., we were attacking a country that hadn't attacked us). I can't imagine what that other reason would be, so I hope you'll tell us. Hopefully you won't claim that the Church opposes all wars, because it doesn't.
Really? You need to get out more. I already cited an article quoting someone who said this:
And it's not hard to find stuff like this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
And this:
Hmm. let's see. The Pope's emissary used that exact word: "unjust." So if the Pope says something through his emissary, that means the Pope didn't "declare" it? Interesting concept. Now I know that Obama isn't responsible for official statements his officials make on his behalf.
On the other hand, Rod Dreher did manage to sneak some truthful words into NR:
Stafford seems to be saying that "pre-emptive = unjust," and I see no reason to think that the Pope's opposition would be under some rationale other than that.
==============
cboldt:
The other article, which you said "is better for linking the 'pre-emptive = unjust' claim," has the exact same flaw: it also "doesn't include the pope's emissary asserting 'preemptive = unjust.' " The closest it comes is saying this:
Where is there an actual quote (that is, a passage longer than one word) saying exactly what was said, and by whom, and when? In particular, where is there a quote by the Pope or his emissary using the words "preemptive" or "preventive?" Answer: nowhere. Instead, we have a vague claim being made by the "Houston Catholic Worker, a publication of Casa Juan Diego." If I had posted this article as proof of the Pope or "the pope's emissary asserting 'preemptive = unjust,' " I would have been rightly laughed at. The real substance in that article is in the quote from Cardinal Pio Laghi. And he isn't quoted using the words "preemptive" or "preventive." He is quoted as saying "illegal and unjust."
When you're talking about the Pope's emissary, and then in your next breath you mention an obscure college professor and describe him as "a different Catholic muckity-muck," you're suggesting that these two people are roughly comparable in importance. Really?
And yes, this obscure professor makes an obscure point about an alleged distinction between "preemptive" and "preventative." In my opinion, any such distinction is pedantic and irrelevant.
The bottom line is that the Pope opposed the war, and it's sufficiently clear that his opposition was rooted in the fact that the war was preemptive. Which is a genteel euphemism for 'war of aggression.'
From which we infer the seriousness of the offense described. A quite clear differentiation is made between killing a fetus and further injury.
It takes the wind out of the pro-choice folks by assigning the fetus value.
It takes the wind out of the pro-life folks by assigning the fetus a value that is less than a born human.
The Pope doesn't speak English. We have to rely on translations of what he says from reliable sources.
Forgot to add:
Many of us use "gender" and "sex" interchangeably, because we aren't adherents to postmodernism and don't keep up with the latest fads (alright, so this fad is almost 100 years old, but still...).
If you want to see the "fad" in what many would think a most unexpected place, read the second and third books of C.S. Lewis's "Space Trilogy," Perelandra and That Hideous Strength. The end of the former book has a passage distinguishing "masculine" and "feminine" from "male" and "female", and there's an episode near the end of the second where Lewis lets his angelology get a little out of control and refers to "masculine" and "feminine" as being the two of the Seven Genders (!) that correspond in some sense to the biological sexes and therefore can be in some degree understood by human beings. (Quoting from memory here.) He never really gives you a good idea of the other five, alas.
Of course, Lewis was intensely interested in language and these novels have a philologist as their protagonist; it's not unnatural for either the fictional man or the real one to think of gender as a property encompassing but not limited to biological sex, since if you are interested in words and don't limit yourself to the English language, it is.
FWIW the books are, I think, immediately post-WWII, though I don't know the exact dates. But there is someone, not, 100 years ago but 60-ish, treating "gender" and "sex" as distinguishable as applied to persons, and not exactly your ordinary postmodern theorist either.
The Pope doesn't speak English. We have to rely on translations of what he says from reliable sources.
Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI doesn't speak English? Are you certain? I think you're mistaken, and possibly confusing a charitable decision to speak in the language of whoever he's speaking to at a given moment with an inability to do anything else.
.
It doesn't have exactly the same flaw. Still, it's better than the cite you gave, which never makes a direct "preemptive = unjust" connection, not even one that is a paraphrase or otherwise puts words in the pope's mouth. The one that you say is ridiculous as a cites says "not only the Holy Father, but also one Cardinal and Archbishop after another at the Vatican spoke out against a 'preemptive' or 'preventive' strike." If that cite doesn't support your assertion, the cite your provided doesn't even have that much of a clear (even if sloppily attributed and disprovable) assertion.
.
-- When you're talking about the Pope's emissary, and then in your next breath you mention an obscure college professor and describe him as "a different Catholic muckity-muck," you're suggesting that these two people are roughly comparable in importance. Really? --
.
You can be counted on to inflame a side/irrelevant issue. You would be the clear winner in a strawman erection contest. Not that it matters either way. Your cite was not responsive to the challenge, not matter how many times you proclaim otherwise.
One note: If not quite the linguist John Paul II was, Benedict XVI nonetheless does speak English reasonably well. Here is, for example, a lecture he delivered in English for the First Things crowd.
It takes the wind out of the pro-life folks by assigning the fetus a value that is less than a born human. --
.
But both of those operating in a criminal/civil situation that is remarkably different from abortion. As I said, even pro-choice people will not balk at penalizing a person who induces miscarriage by battery - yet that same loss of fetus would be A-okay if done at the mother's request.
Since most pro-life folks in America are Christian, and that is a tiny tidbit of Old Testament, it does not apply.
No, that is not at all what Stafford is saying. He is saying two things, one a matter of his interpretation of doctrine, and the other a matter of his opinion of the state of international affairs.
The first does not say "pre-emptive = unjust" - it simply defines some criteria for justness:"clear, active and present — not future". Note that it the threat which must meet these criteria, not the carrying out of the threat.
The second is just one person's opinion on international affairs and is irrelevant to doctrine.
.
As to chapters 21-23 in Exodus, many specific situations (e.g., dealing with slaves) and remedies (literal eye-for-an-eye) are antiquated. But I think some of the general principles are timeless. Society does not generally attach the penalty for murder (death) to a person who does not intend to cause death. Still, society may impose a penalty when an unforeseen loss does occur. Oren's cite was to a loss in the course of battery. It isn't applicable to the crime of murder.
.
I've seen one interpretation of Ex 21:22-23 assert that "no mischief follows" means the woman's child lives, and "mischief follows" means the child dies, and the punishment is death. I don't read the two verses that way. I think the "mischief" element is as between the men in "If men strive" at the start of verse 22. I don't know what limits, if any, were placed on "punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him," except it appears the death penalty is out because the judges were to impose financial penalties.
Absolutely
Yes, and of course you get to decide which distinctions are pedantic -- like a theological distinction -- and which are crucial -- like the difference between a quote and a paraphrase in casual conversation.
But if your neighbor shoots you because he thinks that one day in the future you're going to attack him, you might find the distinction between that preventive act and the preemptive act of shooting you because you're pointing a gun at him to be quite significant.
{E]ven pro-choice people will not balk at penalizing a person who induces miscarriage by battery - yet that same loss of fetus would be A-okay if done at the mother's request.
Well, "pro-choice" people don't mind the penalizing, exactly, but they are by no means happy about this being prosecuted as manslaughter or murder, as I think it can be in some states. There is a delicate balance between protecting a woman's right to extra damages if she's assaulted and treating that internal hunk o'tissue as something that has its own right not to be assaulted.
Whatever happened with that bizarre case a year or so back where a man stomped on his pregnant fiancee's belly, supposedly at her own request? Was he practicing medicine without license, or what?
.
Gerardo Flores Found Guilty Of Murder For Stomping Girlfriends Stomach To Kill Babies
.
That's perhaps dated, there's no discussion of action on appeal. It also may be a different case that the one you have in mind.
That's the one I meant, yes; I was still researching when you posted. It got a lot of comment at the time, precisely because what he got convicted for trying to do was something any number of people could have done with no legal risk to either themselves or her. (The risk to the twins obviously is another story.) Apparently stomping on your girlfriend's stomach is not preferred practice in abortion clinics, though; nor was Mr. Flores a licensed and registered abortion practitioner. You can't bloody braid hair on a street corner in CA without a license, and it stands to reason that even TX isn't keen on back-alley stomping clinics.
.
That's the one I linked. The two murder convictions (twins) were upheld on appeal. The link to the left describes a couple other cases, including Laci Peterson. State laws are far from uniform.
.
I take your point that pro-choice people do balk at imposing a murder or manslaughter penalty; since a doctor can abort with no penalty given the woman's consent; and in this case the woman consented. I think the pro-choice objection is strongly muted when the miscarriage/death is against the mother's wishes.
"Whew. What a discussion."
The tone or the ignorance (in a literal sense of giving evidence of having ignored the arguments of folks like yourself throughout one's life)?
If the former, check some Luther or Calvin for perspective. If the latter, you've got the floor. Start dancing.
It's "Bottum," for what it's worth. I'd guess he means the amazing pile of stuff that you find in a couple of hundred comments in a Volokh thread about Catholicism.
Yes, and the tone (as in, often nasty), and the ignorance (as in not bothering even to try to understand what your opponents are talking about) both do rather suck.
I don't trust my own understanding of Catholic teaching, because I'm not a Catholic; but there's been a lot here that looks to me, um, dubious.
As I wrote earlier, if the hypocrisy of the critics of Notre Dame is that they criticize an opponent of abortion rights whereas they ought also to be criticizing supporters of capital punishment, does it matter at all that Obama is, in fact, a declared supporter of capital punishment? Does it matter that it would be very difficult to construct a vision of just war doctrine that would actually not exclude anything Obama is now doing, or is likely to do soon?
When you raise "a side/irrelevant issue" (e.g., make a fuss about an obscure person making an obscure point about an alleged difference in meaning between "preemptive" and "preventative"), then you shouldn't be surprised when someone points out that you've raised "a side/irrelevant issue." That's not called "inflame." That's called pointing out what you did.
You've admitted that the only difference is a statement that's "sloppily attributed." So we know you're using the word "better" quite loosely.
Where did I say the second article is "ridiculous?" I didn't. What I said is that it's ridiculous to treat the two articles as materially different. Which is what you did.
If the "challenge" is narrowly defined as 'prove that the Pope personally used the word preemptive in a statement condemning the war,' then neither article is "responsive to the challenge." And there is probably no article that's "responsive to the challenge." But that's a silly challenge. (It's like claiming that it matters that Bush didn't say "imminent" threat, even though his surrogates used synonyms, like "immediate.") I interpreted the challenge to mean 'show that the Pope viewed the war as unjust and opposed it.' And both articles are sufficient to meet that challenge.
As far as the "preemptive=unjust" part, I consider that self-evident. What other reason did the Pope have to oppose the war?
==================
moore:
Huh? What? I thought the Bush doctrine of preemption was that you have to attack before the threat is allowed to become "clear, active and present." The whole idea is to attack the other guy before they have a chance to attack us. And this is exactly what Stafford is calling unjust. So if you think preemption has a different definition, I hope you'll tell us what it is.
And since you're claiming that the doctrine of preemption is not the reason the Pope opposed the war, then I hope you'll tell us why he opposed the war. Because all the statements via his surrogates seem to indicate that he opposed the doctrine of preemption.
==================
nieporent:
There is indeed no material difference between an official making an official statement, as compared with the official's official spokesman officially making that official statement on behalf of the official. And that's not something I just believe when it's "convenient" for me. It's something I believe all the time. So you should either demonstrate an instance where I said something contrary to this, or you should withdraw your false accusation. Because you are creating quite a track record of making false accusations.
Since you're claiming that the distinction between "preemptive" and "preventative" is something other than pedantic (in this context), I hope you'll enlighten us all by explaining the importance of the alleged distinction.
It's not pedantic to point out the following distinction: some distinctions are pedantic, and some are not. Here's an example of a distinction that's not pedantic: the difference in meaning between the words 'quote' and 'paraphrase.' We already know you think it's "pointless" to treat those two words as being different in meaning, but I'm surprised that you're going out of your way to remind us.
I hope you'll explain how that analogy relates to what's being discussed. If I'm "pointing a gun at him," that's obviously an imminent threat, right? But Bush said the threat wasn't imminent, right? So why did Bush's cheerleaders repeatedly talk about the Bush doctrine of preemption? Why weren't they talking about the Bush doctrine of prevention?
It's true that from an academic perspective, there are people who talk about how the two terms (preemptive war and preventive war) mean something different. And that's what I mean by pedantic: overly academic. In the context of this war, I think the difference is meaningless, and the people who sold the war and still defend the war tend to use whatever terminology they think will serve them best at any particular moment. That's why we were told the threat was immediate (in a statement on one occasion), but not imminent (in a statement on a different occasion). Even though those words are synonyms.
Change the word "miscarriage" to "gives birth prematurely" and see if the verse from Exodus doesn't make a bit more sense. The Heberew word used in that verse is "yatsa" which doesn't translate to miscarriage, it literally means "her children comes out".
The word yatsa is also used in Genesis 25:26 to refer to the live birth of Jacob.
Of course, Catholic dogma is clear, abortion is a grave evil and the taking of that life can never be intentional though the loss of that life while saving the life of the mother is consistent with Catholic teaching.
.
The challenge was to show that preemptive = unjust. That showing is different from (and more broad than) Iraq = unjust.
.
Your diversion into how the Bush administration pedaled the Iraq war is not responsive. Your posts provide a veritable parade of non-responsive non sequitur points, spiced with mischaracterizations and falsehoods.
No, the idea was that the threat was clear, active and present - an idea I agree with (but please, lets not hijack the thread into an Iraq war thing).
And since you're claiming that the doctrine of preemption is not the reason the Pope opposed the war, then I hope you'll tell us why he opposed the war. Because all the statements via his surrogates seem to indicate that he opposed the doctrine of preemption.
The Pope made his judgment based on the Vatican's analysis of the threat. That is NOT a religious action, but a secular one. The Vatican is not just the head of the Church, but also a nation with a foreign policy.
Furthermore, even if the Pope outright declared pre-emptive war to be against doctrine, it would NOT change the doctrine. The Pope is not presumed to be infallible - contrary to the mistaken view of most non-Catholics. There have been some pretty bad Pope's in Church history, as I'm sure you'd be happy to remind us should the topic turn in various other directions.
Thanks for the query. I'm a regular reader of the VC and comment, though rarely and always on minor things. The blog is a fascinating snapshot of an intelligent set of Americans in these strange days.
Anyway, all I meant by "whew" was a reaction to the sheer bulk of the comments that Prof. Zywicki's post precipitated--and their enormous range, tangets, cleverness, and opacity.
The question of just-war theory is simply too envenomed now to get anywhere with it, I think, but if the analogy is the death penalty, my own reading of (and opposition to) the death penalty is that modern states typically lack the authority for it. At least, that's how I take Evangelium Vitae.
Is there a parallel authority question in the state's licensing of the private deadly force employed in abortion? (Unlike, say, China, we have no real history of public force committing abortions.) Maybe, but I can't immediately see the parallel. The arguments share a certain object--somebody ends up dead, in both cases--but the paths are so different that it's hard to fold them together.
Anyway, the lumping of them together is almost always for political effect (as I know full well when I do it, too, alas). I'm vehemently against the death penalty, but I do wonder why the accusation, in public discourse, of inconsistency about abortion and the death penalty is counted almost entirely against the pro-life/pro-execution types.
Shouldn't it count just as hard against the pro-abortion/anti-execution types? At the very least, it should count against them whenever they accuse others of pro-life/pro-execution hypocrisy, since they're the ones who are lumping the two together when they make the charge.
Infallibility doesn't turn on the "goodness" or "badness" of the Pope in question. All of us are sinners, including every pope in history. Infallibility is a promise that the teachings of the Church will be safeguarded against the human failings of the popes. It's a protection from the "badness" of the popes, not a charism springing from their "goodness."
Since we were discussing the Iraq War, I was referring to JPII. Context.
Since we were discussing the Iraq War, I was referring to JPII. Context.
Your entire comment from which I took that line follows. I haven't differentiated one writer's comments from another, but it really doesn't look as though the subject was the Iraq War. "Context," indeed.
Not that it matters, since JPII spoke excellent English anyway -- as Bottum says, better than the current Pope.
---------
That Exodus passage appears to describe remedies/penalties.
From which we infer the seriousness of the offense described. A quite clear differentiation is made between killing a fetus and further injury.
The pre-birth differentiation seems to eliminate the risk of a death penalty for a battery-induced miscarriage (i.e., at that point, it's not "life for life"). I'm not sure how much that takes out of either sides sails, as even pro-choice people don't object to penalties at law for battery-induced miscarriage.
It takes the wind out of the pro-choice folks by assigning the fetus value.
It takes the wind out of the pro-life folks by assigning the fetus a value that is less than a born human.
The cites given to refute this either are not statements of the Pope
The Pope doesn't speak English. We have to rely on translations of what he says from reliable sources.
Compared to the millions of born human beings suffering around the world, the plight of human beings who cannot suffer because they have not yet developed nervous systems is hard to appreciate.
I fear that anti-abortion forces are guilty of a further inconsistency. When the Church pronounced in 1974 that no one can vote to make abortion legal, at the same time the Church required society to provide for the needs of all children, to eliminate the cruel necessity of abortion. Yet few conservatives support allocating tax money to support other people's children.
22. It must in any case be clearly understood that whatever may be laid down by civil law in this matter, man can never obey a law which is in itself immoral, and such is the case of a law which would admit in principle the liceity of abortion. Nor can he take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or vote for it. Moreover, he may not collaborate in its application. It is, for instance, inadmissible that doctors or nurses should find themselves obliged to cooperate closely in abortions and have to choose between the law of God and their professional situation.
23. On the contrary, it is the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption - a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.
The challenge was to show that the Pope had some reason to say "Iraq = unjust," other than "preemptive = unjust." Especially since Stafford said "the threat must be clear, active and present — not future," which seems to be a complaint about 'preemptive.'
So I wonder why you and moore are still both ducking "the challenge."
The challenge is to demonstrate a single example of me posting "falsehoods." I think you'll be meeting this challenge at roughly the same time you'll be meeting the other one: never.
====================
moore:
Huh? What? "The Vatican's analysis of the threat" wasn't different from Bush's. Because Bush said the threat wasn't imminent (for the moment let's ignore the fact that his surrogates contradicted him). And that's also what Stafford said. Stafford's complaint was that "the threat must be clear, active and present — not future." So it's not that His Eminence (as represented by Stafford) disagreed about the imminence of the threat. It's that Bush said war is OK, even in the absence of an imminent threat (and this is what's known as the Bush doctrine of preemption), and Stafford said it's not.
Recall what Stafford said: "that war can only be justified if it is defensive or the threat of attack is 'very imminent.' " In other words, this war was unjust because there was no imminent threat; i.e., the war was preemptive.
Really? So Bush was lying when he said the threat wasn't imminent? Or do I have to get the special GOP dictionary that explains how 'imminent threat' means something different from 'a threat that's clear, active and present?'
The original statement was not about Church "doctrine" with regard to "pre-emptive war." It was a statement about the Pope. So let's try to not muddy the waters too much.
With the message count now well over 200, there's been ample opportunity to talk about zygotes and feminism. And the Pope's attitude about the war is relevant, because it illustrates the way certain people accept his authority (and the authority of the church) only when it doesn't get in the way of their political preferences. This issue was raised way upthread by Frater (" 'Catholic culture' cannot be bothered to condemn evil when it is perpetrated by a military or by conservative officials. It sees a threat to 'life and family' in condoms, but not in wars of aggression; in sexually suggestive movies, but not in torture."), but it hasn't really been addressed.
And Tony just raised that issue again, in a very clear way.
We covered that upthread. In depth. Your contributions are redundant and tendentious.
-- The challenge was to show that the Pope had some reason to say "Iraq = unjust," other than "preemptive = unjust." --
.
Your recasting of the challenge may explain why your cite was not responsive. My contribution was simply to note that this challenge was a side issue, and that I found your cite non-responsive; I wasn't and don't intend to independently seek evidence that goes to your contention. You are the one who volunteered to step up to the challenge.
You "covered" it by pretending there's a difference in meaning between 'imminent threat' and 'threat that is clear, active and present.' Stafford said the absence of the latter was the reason for him calling the war unjust. Bush said we must act preemptively, i.e., even in the absence of an imminent threat. In other words, the very heart of Stafford's objection was the fact that Bush was acting preemptively.
You're claiming a distinction where there is none. Those of us without the magic GOP dictionary find this fairly incomprehensible. But I see what you're doing. When you dwell outside the reality-based community, you get to create your own reality, which means you get to pretend that words mean something different from what they mean.
What's really going on here is cognitive dissonance. The GOP tried hard to deny the fact that the Pope opposed the war (even though you denied this denial). It's also very hard for the GOP to accept that the Pope had the same reason as everyone else: it's wrong to attack a country that hasn't attacked us. And when we're speaking plainly, we dispense with genteel academic euphemisms like 'preventive war' or 'preemptive war.' Instead we use the same simple term some Church leaders used: war of aggression. (Before the war, the Vatican's Foreign Minister said "a unilateral war of aggression would constitute a crime against peace and against the Geneva Convention.")
This is an important point, and relevant to this thread, because it reminds us that lots of people who claim to embrace the Church's 'Culture of Life' aren't really doing so. What they support, in practice, is the twisted Cheney/Limbaugh usage of that term.
=================
cboldt:
You're claiming that the Pope had some other reason to oppose the war, other than the fact that it was preemptive. You just won't tell us what that reason is. So the one who's being "non-responsive" is you. You're taking the same position as moore, because your relationship with reality is the same as his.
.
.
I never implied that you found the article "ridiculous per se." I read that comment as saying that it would be ridiculous to use Oren's cite to meet Moore's challenge. When I expressed that Oren's cite was better than yours, that wasn't to be taken as me finding that Oren's cite satisfied Moore's challenge.
.
-- As far as the "preemptive=unjust" part, I consider that self-evident. --
.
The challenge involved getting into the pope's head, not yours.
.
-- I interpreted the challenge to mean 'show that the Pope viewed the war as unjust and opposed it.' And both articles are sufficient to meet that challenge. --
.
This is a repetitive pattern. Deliberately misconstrue your opponent, then claim victory. Your reputation for arguing in bad faith is well known, and well deserved.
If you interpret "Moore's challenge" in a silly and narrow manner, then "it would be ridiculous to use Oren's cite" to meet that challenge, because the challenge is so narrow that it just can't be met. By that article or any other article.
What you said is that "the http://www.cjd.org/paper/jp2war.html cite is better for linking the 'pre-emptive = unjust' claim." That sounds awfully close to saying "that Oren's cite satisfied Moore's challenge." At the very least, you were saying that the article was "better" at satisfying the challenge. And then you later admitted that the passage which impressed you was "sloppily attributed."
You claim to know enough about "the pope's head" to know that his basis for opposing the war was something other than the fact that the war was preemptive. Even though his surrogates complained about the fact that the war was preemptive. So we're still waiting for you to explain why you think that what was in "the pope's head" is something different from what his surrogates were saying.
You should point out where what I've said about what you've said is different from what you've actually said.
I've posted here many times, so if your accusation is correct, it should be easy for you to point to an example of me "arguing in bad faith." I'll be waiting patiently.
By the way, here's a good example of "arguing in bad faith:" making a silly claim (that Paganism and Christianity are not "equally valid") and then refusing to retract or defend it. Likewise for your silly claim about "failing to assign a particular religion a place of superiority."
.
You were the one claiming to have the inside dope on the pope. I'm just saying that (then describing how) your cites don't do the job you think they do.
.
The rest of your post is just more of your usual diversionary and incendiary claptrap.
Fixed that for you.
OK, I get it. Statements made by his personal emissary and by his Foreign Minister should not be treated as representing the views of the Pope. Even though those statements were never withdrawn or repudiated. That's helpful to know. I'm sure that in the future you will similarly hold that Obama is not responsible for official statements made by officials who are speaking officially on his behalf. It's nice to know that we can count on you to play by those unusual rules. Too bad we can't say the same for your ideological comrades.
============
seamus:
You seem to be saying that conservatives support some "public, tax-supported expenditure for the purpose of supporting other people's children." But the Church didn't say it's enough to just help some kids. It said we need to take care of all of them. Tony already cited the text, which came from here:
(Emphasis added.) The Church said that it's up to the government to make sure that every child is cared for. Dilan used the term "cafeteria Catholics," and that's a good description for the people who selectively ignore what the Church actually said. Especially on subjects like war, poverty, and the death penalty.
The piece goes on to report that the Vatican's position is that the conditions that represent a morally licit (just) preemptive war aren't present against Iraq.
.
You were earlier looking for an example of "what I've said about what you've said is different from what you've actually said."
It's as rigorous as any other field in the humanities.
The Pope certainly can excommunicate people. My problem with conservative Catholics is that they don't realize that the Pope has DELIBERATELY STOPPED SHORT of kicking the liberals and pro-choicers out of the Church.
Really, the Pope could end this debate within his Church in a minute if he wanted to. But he is very careful not to do so. What does that tell you?
As I said, it is possible to be a pro-life feminist.
However, if you don't even UNDERSTAND the theoretical underpinnings for the feminist justification of abortion rights, you are not a feminist.
And like theo, you don't understand that Michelle. It has nothing to do with men getting laid as much as they want. Indeed, to even make that statement is proof that you have no idea what feminism is, because one of the key tenets of feminism is A REJECTION OF THE STEREOTYPE THAT ONLY MEN SEEK OUT CASUAL SEX.
"I fully understand the need of women to be able to pursue sexual pleasure with consenting adults in any manner that they wish, and the importance of an active sex life to the fulfillment of a woman's ambitions and desires. I further fully understand the role that traditional sexual morality has played in oppressing women and interfering with their sexual autonomy.
"I also understand that unwanted pregnancies can seriously harm women, both by disrupting and ruining their lives and by forcing them into dependence on unreliable and abusive men. And I also understand that these pregnancies are not women's 'fault", that women must not to be put to a choice between having a sex life and remaining independent and autonomous and pursuing their ambitions. The traditional practice of blaming women for getting pregnant, saying they should not have had sex, denies the pursuit of sexual pleasure of its rightful place in womanhood.
"For those reasons, I fully appreciate why so many feminists support abortion rights. However, I cannot in good conscience do so because I believe the fetus is fully human and has a right to life.
"Appreciative of how disruptive unwanted pregnancies are to women's lives, and understanding of how laws prohibiting abortions will cause harm to women, I believe that any attempt to restrict abortion must be accompanied by a dramatic governmental strategy to mitigate any harm caused, including the extensive distribution of free contraceptives to all sexually active girls and women as well as those contemplating sexual activity, free crisis pregnancy services, and an extensive welfare state along with jobs, job training, and education for all single mothers to ensure that they are not forced into dependence on men."
Now, when do you ever hear anything like THAT from our self-proclaimed pro-life feminists?
David, I certainly am. You are lying.
The Pope has been lobbied, HARD, by the right wing on this issue. The right wing WANTS exclusionary policies. And the Pope (and his predecessor) has rejected them. The policy is that conservatives get all the RHETORICAL support they want, but they don't get the substantive Church policies that kick pro-choicers out of the Church.
It is a very careful balance that the Pope is striking, and conservatives are pretending that they've gotten everything they want when they haven't. For instance, conservatives have been asking for years for a Papal statement that all pro-choice politicians should automatically be denied communion, and they haven't gotten one. (Instead, the Vatican says that such people have "formally cooperated with evil" and have "excommunicated themselves", but that's another way of saying "we don't approve of these people but we aren't going to give a direct order to kick them out".
50 years of consistent feminist theory on sex and gender, going back at least as far as de Beauvoir.
If my parents hadn't had sex, my mom wouldn't have been pregnant, right? So the argument is that a restriction her pregnancy (abortion), is an restriction on her sexual freedom. The government has no place retricting sexual activity, so abortion restrictions are wrong. That's the argument, right?
But I wouldn't be driving down the road to work today if my parents hadn't had sex. So why isn't a restriction of my driving (speed limits) a restriction on her sexual freedom?
Am I misinterpreting the (or this particular) pro-choice argument? I can see how it applies to anti-sodomy laws or restrictions on birth control, but not necessarily abortion.
I fully understand the need of women to be able to pursue sexual pleasure with consenting adults in any manner that they wish, and the importance of an active sex life to the fulfillment of a woman's ambitions and desires. I further fully understand the role that traditional sexual morality has played in oppressing women and interfering with their sexual autonomy.
It's truly amazing, you know, how you manage to know what will fulfill the "ambitions and desires" of half the world's population even without asking. One might even, maliciously, wonder whether your confident pronouncement of what women really want and need doesn't in itself constitute "interfering with their sexual autonomy." I mean, are we "unfulfilled" unless we want what you say we obviously want? Are we culpably negligent if we we don't agree with you about "the importance of an active sex life"?
Hey, inquiring minds want to know. Do, please, set us straight, with quotations from whatever canon you're using here.
Michelle, you don't have to agree with anything. But this stuff is non-controversial among actual feminists. And that's my point.
While it's possible to be a "pro-life feminist", in practice, usually that is a defense mechanism put up by pro-life non-feminists against the charge that the policies they favor might harm women.
"Feminism" describes a theoretical system of thought and a movement that is dedicated to various changes to traditional societal practices that impinged on the autonomy of women. Many of these practices relate to sex and gender issues, and the feminist movement has done much to undermine these traditional assumptions.
If you don't understand what the assumptions were, why they are questionable, and how they can and have harmed women, you really don't get what feminist theory relating to sexuality is all about, and protestations about being a "pro-life feminist" are simply a misuse of the term.
Excommunication does NOT result in someone being kicked out of the Church. The Church wants excommunicated people, and those guilty of grave sin (certain pro-choicers in this case) to stay in the church and ultimately to rejoin full communion. I presume you include liberals in your statement because you are incapable of thinking about the Church as other than just one more political faction.
Says you. There is no universally agreed upon unified theoretical system of thought. There are various strains and threads by "feminist" theorists who claim to speak for all feminists. Claim is the operative word.
"Feminism" describes a theoretical system of thought and a movement that is dedicated to various changes to traditional societal practices that impinged on the autonomy of women. Many of these practices relate to sex and gender issues, and the feminist movement has done much to undermine these traditional assumptions.
Right. And you, who seem to use "sex" and "gender" interchangeably as no one who would describe feminism as a "theoretical system of thought" would ever do, are going to lecture me about what feminism is.
I know what feminism is. I mean the historical core of feminism, as opposed to the various hideous fads attached to it over the last century. Feminism is about women acting as citizens in the same environment in which men do. It is about women doing the same jobs that men do, when they can do them as well. It's about women doing the same work for the same pay. It's about the idea that men and women know roughly as much.
"Sex and gender issues" is a term of art which refers to the reslationship between human sexuality and gender. It's commonly used by feminists (and non-feminists for that matter).
I know what feminism is. I mean the historical core of feminism, as opposed to the various hideous fads attached to it over the last century.
Well, now you are where libertarians are when they call themselves the "real liberals". Yes, it's true, women's suffrigists and the like in the 19th Century had very different views on female sexuality. But when one says one is a "feminist", I think most listeners would reasonably assume you are referring to the modern feminist agenda and not the agenda of a 150 years ago.
Feminism is about women acting as citizens in the same environment in which men do. It is about women doing the same jobs that men do, when they can do them as well.
You aren't wrong about that, but that vision is incomplete. Specifically, feminists have done a lot of work in the last 60 years relating female sexuality and reproductive issues to the issues you raise, and they came a consensus that you obviously either reject or are not even aware of. That's a big part of feminism, and, as I said, while one certainly can be a feminist and be pro-life, you aren't really a feminist if you don't understand and accept the critique of traditional sexual morality as oppressive of women that has been one of the cornerstones of second and third-wave American feminism.
Now, to be fair, I understand that ND administration has been supportive of the procession, after having proof of concept demonstrated to them after the first year or so. So it's actually symbolic of a sort of olive branch. "We old guys aren't just the big bad progressives. We do real old Catholic stuff too."
But yes, I do think the ND administration was listening to their buddies and not to anybody who wasn't engaged in a different brand of Catholicism. There are plenty of adamantly pro-life progressives, but they weren't listening to them either. They are drunk on the Kool-Aid, and thus can't process the fact that other people who are educated Catholics don't feel and think exactly the same cozy way.
"Thanks for the query."
And thanks for the response. Welcome to the mission field. Your ancestors dodged blowgun darts and samurai swords - I'm confident that you can handle a few anti-Catholic tropes.
"I'm a regular reader of the VC and comment, though rarely and always on minor things."
Why?
"Anyway, all I meant by "whew" was a reaction to the sheer bulk of the comments that Prof. Zywicki's post precipitated--and their enormous range, tangets, cleverness, and opacity."
A (very small) glimpse of what God's prayer life might be like.. You'll find that posts concerning the big guy continue to elicit considerable interest.
"my own reading of (and opposition to) the death penalty is that modern states typically lack the authority for it. At least, that's how I take Evangelium Vitae."
That should win friends among libertarians. I would concur.
"Anyway, the lumping of them together is almost always for political effect (as I know full well when I do it, too, alas). I'm vehemently against the death penalty, but I do wonder why the accusation, in public discourse, of inconsistency about abortion and the death penalty is counted almost entirely against the pro-life/pro-execution types."
True. In the abortion case, the competing value is liberty (of the mother, though my guess is that as the liberty of the child is given more consideration, the scales will tilt against abortion, as they did in the analogous case of slavery, where the liberty of the property owner eventually was eclipsed by a consideration of the liberty of the slave), and liberty (i.e. personal autonomy) is highly valued among the highly educated. So if it is to the highly educated that you are listening, it should come as no surprise that you hear the argument tilting that direction.
In the case of the death penalty, the competing value can be seen as theory of justice which many of your colleagues no doubt find primitive (retributive). That in fact many of the supporters of the death penalty do so for utilitarian reasons and/or out of a concern for the wider life of the community would only muddy the waters of what would otherwise be a comfortably black-and-white issue.
"Shouldn't it count just as hard against the pro-abortion/anti-execution types? At the very least, it should count against them whenever they accuse others of pro-life/pro-execution hypocrisy, since they're the ones who are lumping the two together when they make the charge."
This dodging of (very valuable) self-criticism (that the present progressive establishment urges so vehemently on everyone else) via a single-minded fixation on their opponents and the failings thereof, while very human, is what has prevented that establishment from reaching the heights achieved by their predecessors. The loyal opposition often likewise.
Anyway, hope that you dive into the scrum more fully. A couple things I think that I've learned:
(a) The better the comment, the unlikelier the response. It does not follow that such comments have no impact.
(b) If one seeks a response or dialogue, specific questions directed at a previous comment will usually do the trick. No one enjoys any subject so much as their own thoughts.
Desid, there's some merit to this point-- certainly I suspect that you are right that intellectual elites see the desire for retributive justice to often be kind of vulgar and primitive and that tints views on capital punishment.
That said, I suspect that another reason for a "double standard" is because a lot of right wing Catholics really are trying to exclude pro-choice views from the scope of permissible views held by Catholics. You can argue whether that is correct or incorrect as a matter of Catholic doctrine, but it is clearly a position that is being urged.
And in response, again, whether or not this is a correct intrepretation of Catholic doctrine, I think it is entirely natural that pro-choicers would point out that many of the conservatives pick and choose what Catholic doctrines to endorse as well.
"Well, now you are where libertarians are when they call themselves the "real liberals"."
We have 2500-odd years. Your 70 seem to be winding down now with the Progressive rebrand and the attacks on neo-liberals all the rage. I'll take my chances.
It is pro-choice actions, not views, that are the problem.
What he's describing is in fact politics. The Church doesn't just oppose abortion. It opposes the legal right to abortion. That's plainly and simply a political issue.
You aren't wrong about that, but that vision is incomplete. Specifically, feminists have done a lot of work in the last 60 years relating female sexuality and reproductive issues to the issues you raise, and they came [to] a consensus that you obviously either reject or are not even aware of. That's a big part of feminism, and, as I said, while one certainly can be a feminist and be pro-life, you aren't really a feminist if you don't understand and accept the critique of traditional sexual morality as oppressive of women that has been one of the cornerstones of second and third-wave American feminism.
Am I understanding you correctly? If you don't believe that women are just as eager to have random sex without consequences as men are, but for their reactionary traditional upbringing; if you don't think it's women's duty to "critique traditional sexual morality" — then you aren't a true feminist?
I say again: When a guy tells women that truly progressive, right-thinking women want endless pregnancy-free sex with a limitless successsion of partners, and it's only nasty patriarchal teachings that make them believe otherwise, I do wonder whether there's any whiff of self-interest in there.
Dilan, is Andrea Dworkin a feminist? Yes or no.
That's silly. Language changes over time. It is organic. Words take on different meanings.
So when I say I am a "liberal", most Americans would associate that with a political philosophy roughly similar to that espoused by the Democratic Party. Very few would assume that means I am a "libertarian".
Now, maybe you are right that in the future, the word will go back to meaning what it meant centuries ago. But that's not really relevant to the use of the word now.
Now, with "liberal", it's just kind of a silly discussion. But with "feminist", when it comes to abortion rights, it's much more serious because pro-lifers are deploying the word "feminist" in a deliberate strategy to obscure the negative impact that their favored policies would have on women. Thus, there are very good reasons why the word "feminist" cannot be conceded to pro-lifers unless they really do espouse views that are consistent with the MODERN understanding of the word.
Abortions are not going to stop if the practice is made illegal again. Like drugs the problem (if you view it as a problem) will persist long after the stated goal of making the practice illegal is reached.
In the end Catholics have a nice backstop in that they can just chill out and let god judge the sins and sinners. Face the fact that more "innoncent" childer/adults/humans die every year from illness, malnurishment and war than abortion by a huge margin.
The amount of time, money and energy spent fighting a losing battle on legalality could really help some actually live children in this world.
The problem with is that is too difficult for most people. There is an entire industry supported by donations that just spins and spins against abortion without realing making any progress. It is harder to actually do something beneficial for children than it is for an organization to just raise money, pay its executives and board members a nice salary. Imagine if all that money that went to consultants, politicians, committees, etc... was actually used to buy stuff and things rather than just pocketed by organizations.
For all you pro-lifers. How much time or money have you spent in the last five years helping living children in this world. In every city in this country there are young wowen with children who could use help. With medical care, food, clothing, and housing. What about donating your time. How many of you have voluntered at a soup kitchen or shelter for homeless families. How many of you are acting as foster parents for at need childern? For many of you the answer would be pretty high, but for far too many of you I think that answer might say more about you than anything else.
Sorry this ended up being more of a rant against the organizations around the abortion debate. I have just found that most average pro-lifers just want to help, but in the end the organizations that they support do so little to produce anything that helps anyone.
Nope, Michelle, you still don't get it. The feminist critique of traditional sexual morality is that policymakers and thinkers MADE ASSUMPTIONS about female sexuality that oppressed women who didn't conform to them. That doesn't mean that every woman wants to go out and have random sex. It does mean that those that do shouldn't be stigmatized or disfavored in public policy.
Dilan, is Andrea Dworkin a feminist? Yes or no.
Sure she was. She accepted the feminist critique of traditional sexual morality and was, indeed, a major thinker in this area. Bear in mind that Dworkin disagreed with other feminists on a different issue, which was whether heterosexual relations could EVER be reconfigured in a way that was consistent with gender equality. She thought that was very difficult to do. But that's very different from accepting traditional gender roles when it comes to sexuality or arguing for public policies that assume them. Dworkin never did that and indeed advocated quite radical changes in the law to conform to a more feminist view of human sexuality.
One can certainly argue that Dworkin played into the hands of traditionalists, but that's a strategic question; Dworkin, theoretically, emphatically rejected traditionalists and fits squarely within the feminist critique of patriarchal views of sex and gender.
Or, more accurately: Abortion is the point at which some traditional Catholics say "this far and no farther" to the secular society.
Unlike drugs, we know that prohibiting abortion (or otherwise making it more difficult) will greatly reduce the number of innocent deaths.
Quite a bit, in my family's case, and in the case of my Parish. I also note, from personal experience, that the Southern Baptists do a lot of work on behalf of the poor (which, of course, especially means poor children). They were one of the best relief organizations in the 1985 Mexico City disaster, choosing specifically to site their operations in the poorest areas.
Nope, Michelle, you still don't get it. The feminist critique of traditional sexual morality is that policymakers and thinkers MADE ASSUMPTIONS about female sexuality that oppressed women who didn't conform to them. That doesn't mean that every woman wants to go out and have random sex. It does mean that those that do shouldn't be stigmatized or disfavored in public policy.
Well, if that's the case, the feminists-as-you-describe-them have won, right? As a matter of law, any woman who wants to can engage in anything she wants to, so long as she doesn't do it in the street and frighten the [horses] BMW drivers. I fear that what you're complaining about is that she still doesn't do it often enough.
"Policymakers and thinkers [!]," these days, is a category with many women in it. And even some of us don't think random sex is a particularly good idea. We remember the scourge of the 80s, if you don't.
Now, if you do that and say "despite all that, I still cannot endorse legal abortion because of the moral status of a fetus", that's being a pro-life feminist.
But what a feminist does not do is say that women who want to pursue a sex life that isn't consistent with traditional morality aren't doing anything important, or are doing something wrong, and that they should bear the burden of any pregnancies that result, or say that women should only pursue sex in the context of marriages with men and open to the possibility of pregnancy, or say that if a woman gets pregnant it's due to her own irresponsibility and it doesn't matter if it derails her life and career and leaves her dependent on an abusive man, or deny that unplanned pregnancies ever have bad effects on women's lives.
Those are not feminist arguments, because they are made without understanding of the fundamental feminist critiques of traditional sex and gender roles that are at the heart of modern feminism.
And those are the arguments that many pro-life feminists traffic in.
But that's not the point. You can think that lots of things "aren't particularly a good idea". But if you believe in personal autonomy, you have to create space for people to do things you don't think are particularly good ideas.
In this case, you had a legal and value system that created no space for female sexuality outside a very narrow, prescribed sphere. And feminism came and overturned that value system. And it didn't result in every woman going out there and pursuing random sex; what it did do is allow women more autonomy to make their own choices about their sexuality.
And that's why arguments against abortion that presume that women having "random sex" isn't a good thing anyway (and that therefore abortion restrictions are "good" and not "bad" for women) are anti-feminist-- because constricting women's ability to be their own agents when it comes to sexuality reverses a crucial tenet of modern feminism.
What you wrote was not at all "respectful" of the choices women make. To re-quote you:
I fully understand the need of women to be able to pursue sexual pleasure with consenting adults in any manner that they wish, and the importance of an active sex life to the fulfillment of a woman's ambitions and desires. I further fully understand the role that traditional sexual morality has played in oppressing women and interfering with their sexual autonomy.
You say here that women "need" to be able to "pursue sexual pleasure with consenting adults in any manner that they wish." And that "an active sex life" is "important" to "the fulfillment of a woman's ambitions and desires." The imaginary pro-life feminist you're pretending to channel here apparently thinks that all women have certain needs, and had better pursue them, because if you haven't an active sex life, your ambitions and desires are apt to go unfulfilled.
Look, no offense, but it's pretty obvious a man wrote that.
You are reading way too much into this. The NEED isn't to have random sex if she doesn't want to-- the NEED is to have autonomy over her sex life. A conservative Christian woman who freely chooses marriage and monogamous sex with her husband is acting fully consistently with that paragraph.
The point is, American feminists agree of the importance of women being able to define their own sexuality, and to integrate it into their lives without it disrupting them and being forced to curtail their ambitions or become dependent on men as a result of their reproductive choices.
You apparently are unable to see that it is possible to (1) create the space for women to pursue sex lives that are not consistent with traditional morality while (2) also preserving the space for those women who choose more traditional paths. But that's basically at the core of the feminist agenda. Indeed, many of the young pro-sex feminists on the Internet, like Jessica Valenti, are themselves in committed monogamous relationships.
The problem with many pro-lifers who label themselves feminists is that they don't think preserving that space is important, because they don't think that women "should" pursue non-traditional sex lives or that it is "good" for them. But that's paternalism, not feminism.
A conservative Christian woman who freely chooses marriage and monogamous sex with her husband is acting fully consistently with that paragraph.
But theobromophile and women like her are not, because "an active sex life is important to the fulfillment of a woman's ambitions and desires." (Sez you.) If you're not getting laid, you are letting ambitions and desires go tragically unfulfilled! What the hell is wrong with you?
How is it, by the way, that you're au courant with "the young pro-sex feminists on the Internet," but have no clue that sex and gender are different things?
Michelle, if a choice to be celibate is freely made, it isn't an issue. At the same time, celibate people are irrelevant to the abortion debate, except to note that sometimes unplanned pregnancies occur when someone who intended to be celibate engages in sexual intercourse, because the person is not using contraception.
The thing is, using celibate people as your metric for reproductive rights policy is like having a vegetarian write a review of a steakhouse.
And Michelle, I explained my use of the term "sex and gender" earlier. "Sex and gender" is a term of art for the INTERSECTION between human sexuality and gender issues (or, to be more technical, how the cultural constructions surrounding gender affect issues of sexuality and reproduction).
I don't care how celibates fit into the abortion question. What I do care about is that when you try to imagine a feminist, you can't imagine her being celibate. And when you try to imagine exceptions,
except to note that sometimes unplanned pregnancies occur when someone who intended to be celibate engages in sexual intercourse, because the person is not using contraception,
it never occurs to you that a celibate woman might be raped.
Again, that's pretty much anti-feminism. A feminist may come to any number of conclusions about "correct" sexual choices and sexual morality, but he or she will certainly start at the standpoint of recognizing what women actually do and how the constraints imposed by society can harm women and impose drastic consequences on her behaviors.
In other words, there's a heck of a lot of "I don't do this (and perhaps) the women I know don't do this, therefore it's clearly not important and the only reason someone would want to advocate it is to make it easier for men to get laid". But leaving aside the fact that people (including women) do lots of things on the down low, the fact of the matter is that plenty of women do, in fact, feel that their sexual autonomy and ability to pursue sexual pleasure is very important, whether that pursuit locates itself in a traditional marriage, a monogamous long-term relationship, a short-term fling, or a casual encounter, or a combination of any number of those.
The two of you don't think these things are important to YOUR lives, so you fail to understand how important it can be for other women. And further, I might add that you fail to understand how even if some women ARE pursuing sexual pleasure in irresponsible ways (something I wouldn't argue with you on, by the way), that doesn't mean that it isn't highly unfair when if society dictates that the punishment, randomly imposed, for such conduct is an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy that is life-altering, disruptive, and destructive. And you also seem not to understand how such an event can force a woman into a dependence on an unreliable, abusive male.
It isn't that I am saying that everyone has to be an unbridled hedonist. It's that one of the major victories of feminism is that we no longer construct our culture around the presumption that no woman would ever want to be one, or that sexually autonomous women don't know what's "good" for them.
And I don't hear from the "pro-life feminist" contingent very much of an awareness of that societal change and the reasons it was necessary.
That was actually one of the two things I was referring to in that passage, Michelle. Any person with experience in an abortion clinic will tell you that it is not uncommon for women to obtain an abortion when they were not sexually active and either (1) were raped or (2) had a "swept of her feet" sexual encounter. Those are circumstances when a person is least likely to be using contraception.
The thing is, using celibate people as your metric for reproductive rights policy is like having a vegetarian write a review of a steakhouse.
Can you tell me what you think are "reproductive rights"? In all seriousness, I don't know what they are. I mean, apparently there's a right not to reproduce that belongs to women. But is there a positive right to reproduce? Is there a negative right not to reproduce? Are these evenly distributed across the sexes (genders, if you prefer)?
"Reproductive rights" is a categorical description, like "intellectual property", referring to various rights relating to the reproductive system, such as contraception, abortion, the right not to be forcibly sterilized, etc.
You don't have to use the term if you don't like it. But I wasn't trying to spin-- I was just indicating that celibate people aren't really that relevant to abortion policy (except for the fact that they are in danger of an unwanted pregnancy due to rape or an inpromptu encounter).
To expand on that point a little, one of the problems with theo is that she assumes that because sex may not be that important to HER, that means that any woman who thinks that sexual pleasure is worth pursuing outside the bounds of a partnered relationship open to the possibility of children must have something wrong with her or not be thinking straight or needs to be discouraged or doesn't know what's good for her.
See, this is what's irritated me here.
You think that theobromophile can't possibly be a feminist, because she thinks that f*cking anything that moves is wrong. Do you consider any man who believes in [gasp] monogamy an anti-feminist? Are the men that do sleep around prototypical feminists, only of the wrong sex? Are the men that don't prototypical anti-feminists, oppressing women because they keep to one for years at a time?
"Reproductive rights" is a categorical description, like "intellectual property", referring to various rights relating to the reproductive system, such as contraception, abortion, the right not to be forcibly sterilized, etc.
Have men, as such, any reproductive rights? Apart from not being forcibly sterilized, I mean.
That is not meant to be a "gotcha" question; I'm seriously curious.
Personal morality is not the issue here. There are plenty of feminists who are against ****ing anything that moves. You actually mentioned a nice example earlier, Andrea Dworkin, who argued passionately that most heterosexual relationships were bad for women. And I mentioned how Jessica Valenti and a number of other pro-sex feminists are monogamous.
But the question of whether ****ing anything that moves is a good idea is a separate question from the question of whether public policy should be predicated on traditional understandings of female sexuality, or whether space should be created to ensure that women can be their own agents when it comes to this aspect of life. And whether pregnancy should be the punishment for nonconformance with standards of traditional morality with respect to female sexuality.
You are hopelessly confused about the difference between the personal beliefs that you might have about sexuality and the premises of our culture and public policy. Our culture and policy must create the space that allows women to do things that you think are bad for them and fundamentally disagree with, because when we didn't do that, we oppressed and repressed women and their sexual desires.
Well, Griswold v. Connecticut would indicate they have the right to buy a condom. And the right against forcible sterilization is a big one.
One could also categorize visitation and joint custody rights with respect to a man's children as a sort of reproductive right as well.
But obviously, there's no male analogue to abortion rights because men don't carry and bear children.
But the question of whether ****ing anything that moves is a good idea is a separate question from the question of whether public policy should be predicated on traditional understandings of female sexuality, or whether space should be created to ensure that women can be their own agents when it comes to this aspect of life. And whether pregnancy should be the punishment for nonconformance with standards of traditional morality with respect to female sexuality.
Right, because every "nonconformance with standards of traditional morality with respect to female sexuality" has the "punishment" of pregnancy potentially attached to it. You're either very confident of your own gifts or exceedingly ill-informed.
But obviously, there's no male analogue to abortion rights because men don't carry and bear children.
And that is the whole problem. Men can't carry and bear children, and any serious attempt to create legal equality between the sexes has to recognize that.
If you are a man and want to have a child, you do, practically speaking, have to ally yourself with a woman for the couple of decades it will take the child to reach adulthood. Single men (and gay couples) have a tough time adopting; and surrogate motherhood is costly and risky.
If you are a woman and want to have a child, things are rather easier. There are sperm banks; and there are actual men, who might turn into sources of income if you play things correctly. In any case, there's no necessity of having the father actually around; you can bear a child and raise it as you wish.
If female "reproductive rights" basically involve being able to bear children or not at will, and male "reproductive rights" involve condoms, vasectomies, and not much else, is there not a wee asymmetry in here? I will believe that "reproductive rights" are what you say they are when one of their proponents makes a serious effort to, say, fund surrogate motherhood for single men or gay couples such that it is no more expensive for them than obstetrical care for a single woman or a member of a lesbian couple was for her.
You are hopelessly confused about the difference between the personal beliefs that you might have about sexuality and the premises of our culture and public policy. Our culture and policy must create the space that allows women to do things that you think are bad for them and fundamentally disagree with, because when we didn't do that, we oppressed and repressed women and their sexual desires.
I don't want to spoil that with any comment. But why am I somehow persuaded that somewhere in the back of your mind is "Hey! Lesbian mud wrestling!"?
It's pretty amazing to notice that you seem to not notice that you're bringing evidence which just further demonstrates that what I've been saying all along is correct.
That passage you bolded only applies when there's an imminent threat ("a state is preparing to inflict grave harm both upon people's lives and health and upon the vital interests of another state or states"). And the article gives the following example of an imminent threat:
So yes, the Church supports what is obvious as a matter of common sense: it's OK to shoot first, but only if the threat is imminent. Trouble is, Bush said we needed to invade even though (according to at least one of his own statements) the threat was not imminent. And this idea that Bush promoted has a name that was commonly used (by his cheerleaders and others): the Bush doctrine of preemption. The Church rejected this doctrine. That's reflected in the article you cited, and it's also reflected in the statements of the other Church leaders we've mentioned. Why? Because according the Church, "it was a pre-emptive and therefore unjust war." And that's exactly the claim that was made here, and challenged here. The claim was also made here:
There are two ways of criticizing that claim, but they're both utterly pedantic. Yes, we don't know that the Pope made the statement personally. But that doesn't matter, because the statement was made by multiple official surrogates. And yes, the Church admits it's OK to shoot first if there's an imminent threat (i.e., there are circumstances where "preventive war [is] morally licit"). So if you define that situation as "pre-emptive war," then it's true that the Church allows "pre-emptive war." But that definition of "pre-emptive war" is irrelevant and disingenuous, because the Bush doctrine of preemption specifically means attacking in the absence of an imminent threat. So that's obviously the definition of "pre-emptive war" that's relevant in this discussion.
And the point is that many Catholics supported the war even though the Church didn't. This entailed ignoring and denying what the Church said about the war. And that denial is vividly present in this thread, where we see people going through bizarre gyrations in an effort to pretend that the Church didn't say what it actually said: that it was wrong for Bush to invade, given that Bush himself acknowledged the absence of an imminent threat. In other words, the Church opposed the war for essentially the same reason as everyone else who opposed the war.
How is that an example of me saying that what you've said is different from what you've actually said? You did indeed claim that the statements by the Pope's official representatives should not be taken as an official representation of the views of the Pope. (I think that was you. Either that, or there's another person posting under the name cboldt.) So why shouldn't I assume that you will apply the same principle to Obama? Because if you don't, you'll be exercising a transparent double standard. But maybe that's what you're trying to say: that you are shameless about your double standards. Just like you're shameless about claiming the "superiority" of your religion, and mocking someone else's.
You are being obtuse here. "Reproductive rights" is just a category description, just like "intellectual property". It's CONTENT is what the debate is about.
People are pro-choice because unplanned pregnancy is terribly harmful for women. Whether or not they utter the words "reproductive rights", that's the argument. You are deliberately (and dishonestly) seizing on the LABEL rather than arguing the substance. Deal with the substance.
I don't want to spoil that with any comment. But why am I somehow persuaded that somewhere in the back of your mind is "Hey! Lesbian mud wrestling!"?
THIS IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT YOU ARE NOT A FEMINIST. Seriously. If you don't even UNDERSTAND the argument as to why women have to have cultural space for sexual autonomy, you are an anti-feminist.
You can certainly think that the rights of the fetus outweigh it and be a feminist, but if you don't even get why women might need sexual autonomy, or that some women might find sexual pleasure more important in their lives than you find it in yours, and you think it's all a big plot by oversexed men, I am sorry, but you are not a feminist. Game set and match.
If you think women are naturally and biologically inferior to men, it does. If abortion is necessary is preserve gender equality, it can only because it is right and just to treat people who bear children as inferior, because women who bear children have thereby forfeited their rights to be treated equally, and because you are entitled to demand that women who want to be treated equally refrain from bearing children, even at the cost of surgery.
A feminist position would be that the problem is not that women, by their very nature, bear children, but that you think it just to discriminate against them for it.
Nobody really believes a sleeping person has the same interest in living as a thinking human being.
Any argument?
Nobody really believes a zygote is the same as a sleeping person.
Again, if you were in that burning fertility clinic, you'd rescue the workers first, not the frozen embryos, just like everyone else.
Yes, the Church said that preemptive war (in the sense that Bush used that term, which means war in the absence of an imminent threat) was unjust. But plenty of Catholics supported the war anyway, and still make excuses for the war. And I don't recall Notre Dame ever turning away any pro-war politicians (and I don't recall the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, or any similar group, pressuring them to do so). So the current fuss about Notre Dame, Obama and abortion strikes me as insincere.
So "reproductive rights" is just a label? I am not to connect that phrase with, say, any ideas about the right to reproduce or not to reproduce? OK.
THIS IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT YOU ARE NOT A FEMINIST.
The proof: You wrote,
Our culture and policy must create the space that allows women to do things that you think are bad for them and fundamentally disagree with, because when we didn't do that, we oppressed and repressed women and their sexual desires.
And I made a joke about lesbian mud wrestling. But if you were to say that
Our culture and policy must create the space that allows women to do things that you think are bad for them and fundamentally disagree with
and we were talking about women insisting that their daughters undergo female genital mutilation, or women demanding amniocentesis so that they could abort any female fetuses, would you still agree with yourself?
It[']s CONTENT is what the debate is about.
If you say so.
You can certainly think that the rights of the fetus outweigh it and be a feminist, but if you don't even get why women might need sexual autonomy, or that some women might find sexual pleasure more important in their lives than you find it in yours, and you think it's all a big plot by oversexed men, I am sorry, but you are not a feminist. Game set and match.
Sir, I really don't think that America's pioneering feminists would agree with you. I can't imagine Stanton or Anthony or anyone else who did the real work (like getting women the vote) going on about "sexual autonomy." What they wanted (and what I want, and have got) is political equality with men.
What you appear to want is women with male sexual mores and no encumbrances in the way of possible pregnancies &c. You would appear to have rather a wide field just now.
The fact that you equate women who pursue sexual autonomy and pleasure to the horror that is female genital mutilation and to the complex and troubling issue of sex-selective abortion shows that you have no understanding whatsoever of how important this is in other women's lives.
Sir, I really don't think that America's pioneering feminists would agree with you. I can't imagine Stanton or Anthony or anyone else who did the real work (like getting women the vote) going on about "sexual autonomy."
And as I said, with all respect to Ms. Stanton and Ms. Anthony, we've moved on since then and MODERN feminism is very much concerned with female sexual autonomy. You're argument is the reverse of the right wingers who tar feminism with Margaret Sanger's views on eugenics. In each case, it's an attempt to distract from one's modern anti-feminist views by saying things about feminists 100 years ago.
Another way of putting this is that your views on sex and gender are 100 years out of date.
You know, you've now lobbed this at me several times. It isn't what I am interested in and it has nothing to do with why feminists support abortion rights.
But I should add that it is also an ad hominem attack. I really don't care whether liberal or conservative abortion policy would be more likely to get men laid. That just doesn't enter my mind when I think about this issue.
And again, it is completely anti-feminist to think about the issue in these terms. Here's an issue that concern's WOMEN'S bodies, WOMEN'S ambitions, and WOMEN'S autonomy, and you can't get it out of your head that perhaps it might have a collateral effect on horny men?!?!?!???? Seriously, this is a gross trivialization of all the women's lives which are seriously disrupted by unplanned pregnancies. It is profoundly anti-feminist to think that the needs and wishes and desires and freedoms of women are less important than trying to make sure that men keep it in their pants.
Good thing you put in the parentheses, since it changes the meaning of what you had been asserting, which was that preemptive war was against Church doctrine.
Abortion is against Church doctrine. NOTHING you have posted shows that preemptive war is.
It is okay for Catholics to listen to Church officials opinion on a particular war, and to disagree. That is
to the abortion issue, which is not ad hoc opinion, but doctrine. In fact, if the Church's opinions had the power you impute, the original attack on Kennedy (he'll follow the Pope rather than US interests) would have been correct.
If you had read the previous posts closely, you would have already understood that.
And as I said, with all respect to Ms. Stanton and Ms. Anthony, we've moved on since then and MODERN feminism is very much concerned with female sexual autonomy. You[r] argument is the reverse of the right wingers who tar feminism with Margaret Sanger's views on eugenics. In each case, it's an attempt to distract from one's modern anti-feminist views by saying things about feminists 100 years ago.
Right, because agreeing with people who fought for female suffrage and disagreeing with different people who fought for contraception are pretty much the same sort of thing.
The fact that you equate women who pursue sexual autonomy and pleasure to the horror that is female genital mutilation and to the complex and troubling issue of sex-selective abortion shows that you have no understanding whatsoever of how important this is in other women's lives.
And the fact that you don't see that "create the space that allows women to do things that you think are bad for them and fundamentally disagree with" does mean allowing them to do things that you think are "bad for them" and "fundamentally disagree with" suggests that you're not reading what you write.
And again, it is completely anti-feminist to think about the issue in these terms. Here's an issue that concern[']s WOMEN'S bodies, WOMEN'S ambitions, and WOMEN'S autonomy, and you can't get it out of your head that perhaps it might have a collateral effect on horny men?!?!?!????
Well, it's a complicated question, of course. But IIRC polls show women slightly more to the anti-abortion side than men, and have done pretty much since Roe.
That alone is interesting, isn't it? If abortion is a liberation from bondage, a step towards sexual autonomy, &c, you would expect that men, who had an interest in preserving the bondage and preventing the autonomy, would oppose it more than women do.
Feminism and the sexual revolution are independent concepts.
Feminism and the sexual revolution are independent concepts.
I have been trying to explain that to someone for the better part of a day. Unfortunately, he appears to think that every feminist who didn't either participate personally in the Sexual Revolution or at least look forward to it is hopelessly outdated. I gather that Marie Curie's status as a feminist icon would stand or fall entirely on her attitude towards free love.
It's fair to argue that feminism requires that one treat female casual sex the same as male casual sex, but not to argue that the only such legitimate treatment compatible with feminism is libertinism.
True, the consequences of sex are different for men and women, but that's biology, not politics. Men and women can be equal, but not the same.
.
Again you dodge to a strawman of your own making in order to fake making a score.
.
-- You did indeed claim that the statements by the Pope's official representatives should not be taken as an official representation of the views of the Pope. --
.
Surely you can provide a cite for that.
.
-- Just like you're shameless about claiming the "superiority" of your religion, and mocking someone else's. --
.
Another example of your dishonesty. Either that or you didn't understand my point, even when I stated it plainly at the time. If you did understand my point, then you would realize that the insult you are leveling has ZERO foundation.
Look, if being sexually active was analogous to having your clitoris cut off, you'd have a point. But since it isn't, you don't.
But IIRC polls show women slightly more to the anti-abortion side than men, and have done pretty much since Roe. That alone is interesting, isn't it? If abortion is a liberation from bondage, a step towards sexual autonomy, &c, you would expect that men, who had an interest in preserving the bondage and preventing the autonomy, would oppose it more than women do.
Actually, it's a right-wing talking point constantly harped on by the pro-life movement and repeated robotically by its supporters.
The reality is a majority of American women are pro-choice, which indicates that they understand the importance of this issue. Further, though, SUCCESSFUL women are OVERWHELMINGLY pro-choice, which is why you see very few pro-life female CEO's and very few pro-life female politicians. They know that their lives could have been derailed through an unplanned or ill-timed pregnancy, and they also know they shouldn't have to give up their sex life to become successful.
If a ban on abortion were really no threat to women, you would certainly expect to see, for instance, far more pro-life Republican women in the Congress. But you don't, because those women understand very well that abortion needs to be available as an option for them to get ahead.
They are quite related. One of the big reasons we had a sexual revolution is because of feminism, and countries that haven't had sexual revolutions tend to be countries that still have institutionalized oppression of women.
Again, Michelle, if you want to prove you are an outdated prude who opposes modernity and doesn't understand modern feminism, keep on citing the positions of women who lived 100 years ago before many feminists started writing seriously on the subject of sexuality.
To draw an analogy, 150 years ago, the "progressive" position on race relations was that the slaves should be freed and deported to Africa. Yet nobody who advocated deporting all black Americans today would be seen as a racial progressive.
Why Are There No Debates Over Commencement Speakers at Notre Dame in the "Star Trek" Universe?
</blockquote>
ROTFLMAO.
Yes, Dilan. Conservatives spend their time walking around with turkey basters chock-full of super-potent male gametes, ready to inject them into "sexually autonomous" women upon whom we "randomly impose" the "punishment" of pregnancy.
/sarcasm
Let's be real: that pregnancy follows from sexual intercourse does not make it a punishment of sexual intercourse; it just makes it the natural, biological result thereof. Lung cancer is not a punishment for smoking; wrinkles are not a punishment for living a long life and smiling a lot; nor are any (potentially undesirable) biological conditions a "punishment."
That pro-abortion advocates insist on pretending that unwanted pregnancy is imposed by society shows nothing but how far they must remove themselves from reality in order to provide even the thinnest of veneers of support for their positions.
To Michelle: awesome job. I got thoroughly tired of this discussion and felt it better to concentrate on other things. Thank you for taking over.
Look, if being sexually active was analogous to having your clitoris cut off, you'd have a point. But since it isn't, you don't.
How about aborting a fetus that isn't a boy?
The reality is a majority of American women are pro-choice, which indicates that they understand the importance of this issue.
You are probably right, though it would depend on how you define "pro-choice." I think if you offered American women a choice between the Roe arrangement and your basic European first-trimester-only-with-exceptions system, you would find that most of the country is to the "right" of Roe.
Further, though, SUCCESSFUL women are OVERWHELMINGLY pro-choice, which is why you see very few pro-life female CEO's and very few pro-life female politicians. They know that their lives could have been derailed through an unplanned or ill-timed pregnancy, and they also know they shouldn't have to give up their sex life to become successful.
Well, now we know what Dilan thinks it means to be a SUCCESSFUL woman. It involves making lots of money or acquiring lots of power. If you haven't done either, count yourself a non-success. [raises hand]
.
"Being correct" (one aspect of your strawman) is not the same as fronting a responsive argument or citation; which was the point of my first post on the "preemptive = unjust" subject. You modified Moore's challenge twice int he course of debate, and now when confronted with the Vatican's statement that preemptive can be just or unjust (i.e., preemptive = unjust is false as a general proposition; but may be true or false in application), you unilaterally reset the terms of somebody else's challenge.
.
Moore: [seeking a citation for] the Pope clearly stated that it was a pre-emptive and therefore unjust war
.
-- I interpreted the challenge to mean 'show that the Pope viewed the war as unjust and opposed it.' 5.10.2009 9:52pm --
.
-- The challenge was to show that the Pope had some reason to say "Iraq = unjust," other than "preemptive = unjust." 5.11.2009 12:04am --
.
And as a finale, you say "See, I was right all along." ROTFL.
Thanks! Of course, I'm procrastinating, and really ought to be working on something else, but ...
Then the criterion in question can't possibly be "thinking."
Please keep it up. In addition to the schadenfreude I feel for Dilan, I'm enjoying your style and incisive logic, as I did with the chocolate lover.
Yeah, but if we banned medical treatment for lung cancer, I would say that the people who favored such a policy were indeed trying to punish smokers.
How about aborting a fetus that isn't a boy?
As I said above, sex selection abortions raise serious issues. But that doesn't make them analogous to the important forms of female sexual autonomy that feminists seek to protect.
You are probably right, though it would depend on how you define "pro-choice." I think if you offered American women a choice between the Roe arrangement and your basic European first-trimester-only-with-exceptions system, you would find that most of the country is to the "right" of Roe.
And I suspect you are probably right on this. But bear in mind, in Europe there are few issues with access. Government-funded clinics provide abortions, clinics are located in every region, etc. In other words, you also don't have the obstacles to women obtaining abortions in Europe that we have here.
Well, now we know what Dilan thinks it means to be a SUCCESSFUL woman. It involves making lots of money or acquiring lots of power. If you haven't done either, count yourself a non-success
That's a philosophical question as to what "success" is. But you claim to be a feminist, and feminists have clearly and certainly rejected the contention that women don't need to be "successful" in the business world because they can be "successful" mothers and homemakers. Indeed, you indicated you agreed with this upthread.
So it's quite notable that the women who feminism opened the doors for are, even if they hold conservative views on other issues, usually pro-choice.
Again, Michelle, if you want to prove you are an outdated prude who opposes modernity and doesn't understand modern feminism, keep on citing the positions of women who lived 100 years ago before many feminists started writing seriously on the subject of sexuality.
I didn't cite a position, for the record; I suggested that you would condition Marie Curie's position as a feminist icon on her views on free love. Which I don't know, any more than you do.
I am entirely willing to be an "outdated prude," if that's what you call lifetime monogamists around here.
No, for the same reason that I don't question Thomas Jefferson's position as an apostle of democratic rights and equality because he owned slaves and had an affair with Sally Hemings.
These people believed different things because PEOPLE BELIEVED DIFFERENT THINGS ONE OR TWO CENTURIES AGO.
You mentioned Elizabeth Cady Stanton upthread. No doubt she is a huge figure in feminism. But that doesn't mean that we should look to her for advice or thoughts on the relationship between sexuality and gender and eschew the more modern feminist theorists who have actually given the matter a lot more thought and questioned premises that Stanton never examined with any care.
"Saying my views would made me a feminist 100 years ago" is the same as saying "I reject modern feminism". Again, if that's your position, fine, but you aren't a feminist.
As I said above, sex selection abortions raise serious issues. But that doesn't make them analogous to the important forms of female sexual autonomy that feminists seek to protect.
What you wrote:
Our culture and policy must create the space that allows women to do things that you think are bad for them and fundamentally disagree with, because when we didn't do that, we oppressed and repressed women and their sexual desires.
If women want boy babies rather than girls, isn't that something that belongs in the "space"? Even if you think it is "bad" and "fundamentally disagree with it"? Or is the "space" only for things that I might disagree with, but you don't?
I am at a loss to think of any "serious issues" sex-selective abortions might raise that you haven't already said are the woman's business alone.
Nobody knows ANYTHING about who slept with whom 100 years ago. In that day and age, there were surely swingers and cheaters and marriages of convenience and lesbian affairs and threesomes and all the rest, but people didn't admit it and for the most part, it didn't make it into the history books.
So in fact you should be very careful when you presume what any of these figures might have actually felt about gender and sexuality. Indeed, you shouldn't even assume you know anything about the sex life of, for instance, Marie Curie.
In general, we can't stop people from having abortions because of the sex of the fetus. There's just no way to prohibit that. Indeed, it goes on even in countries where abortion is illegal.
On the other hand, what makes it a complex issue is that an imbalance of women and men raises social policy issues that are quite legitimate, whereas other women exercising their sexual freedom doesn't hurt Michelle Dulak Thomson or any other woman one bit.
I suspect that sex selection abortions falls in the category of "unsolveable problem". But it has nothing to do with using social policy to stop Jane Doe from sleeping around, which you seem to think is a compelling use of the government.
In the case of a sex selection abortion, the woman wants to have a baby. She's quite willing to carry a fetus and bear a child. She has consented to whatever disruption there will be.
Her problem is simply that she doesn't like the gender of the particular fetus that was conceived.
It seems to me, without necessarily endorsing regulation, that a regulation aimed at scenario B is far less of an intrusion on autonomy than a regulation aimed at scenario A.
My mom practically ran away from home to go to college because her parents weren't keen on women being educated. She ended up with a Ph.D. in biochemistry, and I was born while she was working on it.
That is, if you will, practical feminism — the kind I grew up with, the kind I respect.
I suspect that sex selection abortions falls in the category of "unsolveable problem". But it has nothing to do with using social policy to stop Jane Doe from sleeping around, which you seem to think is a compelling use of the government.
Um, can you point me to the place where I said or implied any such thing? I think I may have suggested that Jane Doe sleeping around was a bad thing, but I'm pretty sure I didn't suggest that the government put an ankle bracelet on her. I don't think it's a government problem.
There are feminist ASPECTS to that, but feminism is a movement and a theoretical system, not just an attitude.
Again, think about my analogy to Marxism. If you believed that the government should buy up some key industries, but you'd never read Marx, never read Engels, rejected key premises of their work, etc., you wouldn't be a Marxist, even though you shared some viewpoints with Marxists.
The second and third waves of feminism happened, and it happens that one of the things they did was reconstruct society's view of female sexuality in ways that assured greater autonomy for women who did not want to conform to traditional sexual morality. This is a part of feminist theory, it is a part of the feminist movement, and it is one of the reasons why the abortion rights movement is such a key part of the feminist coalition nowadays.
That doesn't make your viewpoints invalid or wrong, but it does make them not "feminist" as the term is used now.
As I said, I do believe it is possible to recognize the real importance of female sexual autonomy and the reason why feminists critiqued traditional sexual morality as a tool of the patriarchy, while at the same time saying that abortion goes too far because it takes a human life. But that is not, in my experience, where the vast majority of pro-lifers (including those who label themselves feminists) come from. Rather, pro-lifers are drawn from the folks who never did believe that we needed to change the rules of sexuality. Kristen Luker's "Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood", which I mention above, is the key text-- she fleshes out the correlations between pro-life views and views on female sexuality.
As I said, this is a big part of feminism, many feminists believe it is a big part of feminism, and you wouldn't get far speaking to, say, a NOW meeting, and espousing your beliefs on sexual morality.
But the thing is, properly conceived, the policies that feminists endorse don't hurt you either. You are free not to have abortions. You are free to be monogamous. You are free to order your life as you wish. The point is, public policy should leave substantial room for women to order their sex lives in different ways. Not because feminists have this monolithic view of female sexuality, but because we view it as a matter that is within the realm of individual female choice and must be in order to achieve any sort of real gender equality.
There are feminist ASPECTS to that, but feminism is a movement and a theoretical system, not just an attitude.
Right. Strong, independent women who have carved their way out in a world much less friendly to women than today's is just have an "attitude." They don't count as actual feminists until they join the movement and subscribe to the theoretical system. And you have to keep paying dues on that one, because the theoretical system never does stop changing.
The second and third waves of feminism happened, and it happens that one of the things they did was reconstruct society's view of female sexuality in ways that assured greater autonomy for women who did not want to conform to traditional sexual morality. This is a part of feminist theory, it is a part of the feminist movement, and it is one of the reasons why the abortion rights movement is such a key part of the feminist coalition nowadays.
Which in itself makes the thing look ridiculous. An "abortion rights coalition" when a Constitutionally guaranteed abortion right has been here for 36 years is silly.
As I said, this is a big part of feminism, many feminists believe it is a big part of feminism, and you wouldn't get far speaking to, say, a NOW meeting, and espousing your beliefs on sexual morality.
Dude, you have no idea of my "beliefs on sexual morality." You're guessing based on my self-description as a lifetime monogamist. I didn't say that everyone should do the same, and I would not.
The proper analog of the sex/pregnancy-smoking/lung cancer position is not what you claim it to be (i.e. denying medical treatment to those with lung cancer). Rather, the destruction of one life to achieve the social goals of another person would be akin to harvesting the lungs of innocent, living, healthy people in order to transplant them into lung cancer patients.
In making this mistake, you strengthen the pro-life position and weaken your own.
We do not refuse medical care to pregnant women. A pro-life society would ensure that pregnant women have access to hospitals, doctors, modern medicine, and the safest possible pregnancy. It is, in every way, exactly like our current means of treating any other medical issue. What pro-lifers do not want is to lump in the death of another human being with that medical treatment. Again, the proper analog is harvesting lungs from healthy, albeit politically weak, groups in order to allow smokers to continue their lifestyle without "punishing" them with lung cancer.
Michelle, there are plenty of strong independent women who are not feminists. Phyllis Schlafly is strong, independent, and accomplished. But she isn't a feminist-- she's an anti-feminist. Same with Sarah Palin.
And you have to keep paying dues on that one, because the theoretical system never does stop changing.
All political theories and political movements evolve over time. American conservativism was once isolationist; it is now interventionist.
Feminism, as right-wingers love to point out, once had connections with the eugenics movement; now it doesn't.
Things evolve, sometimes in ways you like, sometimes in ways you don't. Sometimes people end up switching sides. That's life.
An "abortion rights coalition" when a Constitutionally guaranteed abortion right has been here for 36 years is silly.
Not really, when there's a strong and vibrant movement dedicated to taking away the right and which has, on occasion, come very close to getting the 5th vote on the Supreme Court to do so.
Dude, you have no idea of my "beliefs on sexual morality." You're guessing based on my self-description as a lifetime monogamist. I didn't say that everyone should do the same, and I would not.
No, I am extrapolating based on the comments you made upthread in response to my point that feminists believe strongly in creating space for women to be sexually autonomous. You responded with some pretty harsh condemnation of women who exercise that autonomy in ways you dislike.
No theo, because embryos aren't the same as adults.
Theo, generally, if any abortion analogy you draw is based on the assumption that embryos = adults, I'll give you this hint-- it's a inapposite, intellectually bankrupt analogy.
A pro-life society would ensure that pregnant women have access to hospitals, doctors, modern medicine, and the safest possible pregnancy.
Unfortunately, the American pro-life movement is comprised of a lot of people who don't believe that.
You say it as if you would be perfectly content to be dismembered or to have your brains sucked out through a hole in your head, so long as someone didn't try to get in the way of your career - because, after all, that wouldn't be a violation of your autonomy or anything.
Haven't time now to respond to everything, but
there's a strong and vibrant movement dedicated to taking away the [abortion] right and which has, on occasion, come very close to getting the 5th vote on the Supreme Court to do so
is odd. If majorities of voters everywhere want legal abortion, we are going to have it, whether it's a Constitutional right or not.
To the extent it would disappear if the existing precedents were overruled, it could only be that the voters [in the hypothetical case] weren't keen on the regime as expressed in the existing precedents. Right?
Note to Dilan: Michelle and I are feminists. We aren't Friedanists, or de Beauvoirists, or Valenti-ists. We are feminists. That word does cover a lot of ground, but also has a rather precise definition (which we both fit). As someone (John Moore?) pointed out upthread, you don't think that the Pope (the duly elected leader of the Catholic Church) can excommunicate someone, but you think that Betty Friedan can. Well, you apparently also think that the Feminine Mystique and the Vagina Monologues are more reliable than the Bible.
Too ridiculous to parody.
As for the career thing... so if you don't like Michelle's pro-life feminism, since she hasn't done the high-powered career thing, what about my pro-life, high-powered career feminism? :)
1. There are pro-life voters concentrated in certain states, so we would have a patchwork.
2. Due to the concentration of small-state representation in Congress (especially the Senate) and the pro-life platform of the Republicans, it is probably possible for Republicans to pass a ban if they ever again control both branches of government.
That said, your statement is not completely wrong. In reality, if Roe were overturned, there would be a huge backlash against any attempt to ban abortion. Pro-lifers get a lot of votes right now because the votes are cheap.
The "continuum" answer fails you here, as you are positing two distinct states of being that all humans pass through.
No, theo, I am positing a continuum.
It's amazing how pro-lifers are so dishonest that they won't admit to knowing what a continuum is.
Note to Dilan: Michelle and I are feminists.
Note to Theo: No, you aren't. You just are claiming to be in order to deflect the harm that your opposition to abortion would do to women. But a modern feminist believes in the critique of patriarchal traditional impositions on female sexuality, and you and Michelle do not believe in that critique.
As someone (John Moore?) pointed out upthread, you don't think that the Pope (the duly elected leader of the Catholic Church) can excommunicate someone, but you think that Betty Friedan can.
I answered that above.
As for the career thing... so if you don't like Michelle's pro-life feminism, since she hasn't done the high-powered career thing, what about my pro-life, high-powered career feminism?
Like Phyllis Schlafly, you are pro-life and have a career. You are an anti-feminist, however, not a feminist.
What makes you think that Stanton never questioned those premises with any care? that she didn't give a lot of thought to women and sexuality and abortion? What makes you think that she did not look around her society and wonder what about it was good for women and bad for women?
Dilan: your anti-woman rants are freakishly sexist. You assume that every single woman who disagrees with your "spread those legs, sister" attitude is either stupid, repressed, misogynistic, or incapable of critical thought. It has never crossed your mind that people who have actually lived as women (instead of merely theorising about it, like you) can critically examine our lives and come to different conclusions about what is best for us.
I don't know how old Michelle is, but if she's about my age, then, between the two of us, we have six decades of experience at this whole "being a woman" thing. Elizabeth Cady Stanton - mother of six or seven - had at least five years of pregnancy to contemplate the effects of sexuality upon her life. Yet, according to the Grand Poohbah of Feminism, Mr. Dilan Esper, none of us have a bloody clue about female sexuality and the effects of the availability of abortion.
You show an amazing lack of historical understanding.
We can absolutely prohibit it. Even ignoring the pro-life position, society has a strong interest in preventing unreasonable sex ratios. China, India and the Muslim world all have ticking time bombs of overly high male to female ratios.
Marxists are those people who count how many capitalists can fit on the head of a pin. Postmodern feminists are equally loopy and disjointed.
.
Please. Grand Poobette.
Exactly!
And my mom was so steeped in traditional anti-feminism that she pretended not to know math when I asked her for calculus help, and never discussed her degree and prize in math or her short career in engineering with me.
There is a lot to be said for Michelle's practical feminism.
Where did I make any claims about "Church doctrine?" Answer: nowhere. You've been proven wrong, so you're now attempting to relocate the goalposts, and in an exceptionally conspicuous manner. Let's review. Way back here, 'Fact Checker' said this:
That's not a statement about "Church doctrine." It's a statement about the Pope's position on the war. You decided to challenge that statement. You said this:
You weren't saying "I don't believe" a statement about "Church doctrine." You were saying "I don't believe" a statement about the Pope's position on the war. Trouble is, what you "don't believe" happens to be true: the Pope did indeed indicate, through multiple surrogates, that the war was unjust, and that it was unjust because there was no imminent threat. The Pope rejected the Bush doctrine of preemption, and this is a fact that certain people (like you and cboldt) have a lot of trouble accepting.
And speaking of "Church doctrine:" although I haven't made any claims about "Church doctrine," Bishop Gregory did indeed make such claims:
According to Gregory, it is indeed a violation of "Church doctrine" to use military force in the absence of "adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature." And that situation is an exact description of the Bush doctrine of preemption: that it's OK to attack even in the absence of an imminent threat. And Bush himself admitted there was no imminent threat. So according to Gregory, preemptive war (in the sense that Bush used that term, which is the only sense relevant to this discussion) is indeed "against Church doctrine." And Gregory's statement is consistent with the statements of at least three other Catholic leaders that have been cited in this thread.
You are making a claim directly contrary to what Gregory said. I guess we're supposed to believe that you're a better Catholic than he is, or that you know more about "Church doctrine" than he does. You can claim that Gregory is offering nothing more than an "ad hoc opinion," but he is purporting to be doing something other than that, and he is citing text from the Catechism to support his claim. So the one who seems to be offering an "ad hoc opinion," backed by no support at all, is you.
==================
cboldt:
I notice you're not bothering to indicate where I've used a "strawman," or where I've said something "fake." Your empty accusation might become something other than an empty accusation after you provide some evidence to support it.
My first citation was indeed "a responsive argument or citation." I cited the Pope's emissary calling the war "unjust." And I later brought evidence to prove what was already obvious even in the absence of evidence: the reason the war was "unjust" was that there was no imminent threat. That is, it was preemptive.
No, I didn't modify Moore's challenge. I just pointed out that it would be silly and disingenuous to interpret the word "preemptive" (in the challenge) as having a meaning different from the meaning of the same word when Bush's cheerleaders discussed the Bush doctrine of preemption. But of course that's exactly what you're trying to do: erase the history of how Bush's cheerleaders used that word, and instead come up with a brand-new meaning that suits your argument.
The Vatican didn't state "that preemptive can be just or unjust," unless you erase the history of how Bush's cheerleaders actually used that word. The Bush doctrine of preemption says it's OK to go to war even in the absence of an imminent threat. The Vatican didn't say that going to war in the absence of an imminent threat could be "just or unjust." The Vatican said this is unjust. Period. So "preemptive = unjust" is indeed always true "as a general proposition," if we are using the word "preemptive" in the sense that it was used when people talked about the Bush doctrine of preemption. And suddenly deciding to erase that definition, for the purpose of this discussion, and come up with a new definition, is highly disingenuous.
The one is who trying to "unilaterally reset the terms" is you, because you're trying to give the key word ("preemption") a definition distinctly different from the definition it had when Bush's cheerleaders repeatedly discussed the Bush doctrine of preemption.
I guess that joke was too subtle for you. When I said that, I wasn't describing moore's challenge. I was just imitating your phrasing.
I guess it must have been some other 'cboldt' who said this:
In my opinion, statements made by his personal emissary and by his Foreign Minister should be treated as representing the views of the Pope. You denied that, and now you are denying that you denied that. How entertaining.
This is what you stated … plainly:
Not every religious person believes that their religion embodies an inherent "superiority" to everyone else's. But that's obviously what you believe. And you also accused Thistlethwaite of "holding that 'paganism' and 'Christianity' are equally valid." Which is yet another indication that you're convinced of your religion's inherent "superiority." Which might have something to do with your being willing to shamelessly mock someone else's religion.
So if what you meant to say was something other than what you actually said, maybe you should finally let us know what you actually meant. There's no time like the present.
Theo, this is proof positive that you are not a feminist. No feminist in her right mind would say that because someone thinks that there should be cultural space for women who don't conform to traditional sexual morality, that person automatically thinks that any woman does not live a hedonistic lifestyle is deranged.
Theo, nobody is stopping you and the millions of other conservative, antifeminist pro-life women from living whatever life you want to live. It is your side, not mine, that is constantly associating the right to an abortion with some sort of generalized celebration of sluttiness. I do believe, quite strongly, that a woman who WANTS to live a promiscuous life should be given the cultural space to do so. But nobody on my side of this debate is forcing that lifestyle on anyone.
The fact is, you believe in traditional sexual morality and are happy to condemn your sisters who live differently than you do. Again, that's your right, but it's the antithesis of feminism. You don't have the right to that label and you shouldn't be using it to deflect criticism about the substantial harm that the pro-life policies you advocate would cause women.
I have a better understanding of it than conservative Catholics who claim to know Mary's sexual activities 2000 years ago.
Really, all sorts of things happened beyond closed doors in "the good old days". And conservatives seem to have no appreciation of that fact whatsoever.
1. the beings that are embryos are never going to be adults (so it's like comparing plants and humans); or
2. there is a distinct point at which one gains the rights and characteristics of an adult that one has as an adult but not as an embryo.
I know that logic is hard for you, but you can't wish it away.
At what point along the continuum of development does a human being earn the right to not be aborted?
Note to Dilan: I am a feminist. Read the sub-header of my blog, for heaven's sake.
At the beginning of this discussion, I pointed out your horrifically bad ad hominem attacks. Most of them - that I'm a man, anti-science, uneducated, meat-eating, etc - have been laughably easy to disprove. Congratulations, Dilan: you've finally found an ad hominem whose definition is squishy enough for you to manipulate for your own desires.
That you desire to do such manipulation, however, does not mean that you are correct in doing so. Ultimately, feminism does have a definition, which I've cited (as has Michelle) and you've ignored. You have arbitrarily imposed your own desires upon the word "feminist," even though there is nothing in the long history of feminism that has required that.
Feminists find themselves united not in the support of specific social or policy goals, but in the way in which they view the world and a desire to see a world in which women and men are on equal footing. The specifics are just that - distractions used by sexist prats to divide us and ensure that our focus is not on the main goal of gender equality.
Furthermore - and laughably - you ignore the vibrant debates within the feminist community. Pro-choice/pro-life is but one of them. There are feminists like Linda Hirschman who think that all women who are so capable should have high-powered careers; while I haven't heard her address the issue of Michelle Obama's career ("helping profession" rather than working her way up the law firm track, and now a SAHM), there would doubtless be some incredible intra-feminist head-butting there.
Michelle and I are feminists. We are not Friedanists, nor Dilan-Esper-approved-feminists, but feminists we remain. You do not get the definition of feminism that happens to exclude every woman who disagrees with you; that, Dilan, is misogynist in the extreme. And I don't give a hoot about what misogynists have to say about feminism.
You seem to be saying it's OK to ignore what the Pope says, because it might just be "ad hoc opinion," but it's not OK to ignore "Church doctrine." So I wonder if you'll explain why so many Catholics (including you, as far as I can tell) have no problem ignoring the "Church doctrine" that was cited here.
Nice concession speech, Dilan.
You started out by claiming that I am for imposing my sexual morality, via the law, on other people. You used terms like "enslavement." Now, like your silly ad hominem attacks (which meandered from "man" to "not really a feminist"), you've retreated to saying that you only seek "cultural space" for women to express their sexuality.
Aside from the fact that your criticisms of my views on female sexuality - in which I no way advocated any sort of legal, only cultural, representation for chastity - show that you don't care about "cultural space" unless it benefits you, this is ridiculous. In case your critical reading skills - the same ones that missed my statement about vegetarianism and have no idea how to distinguish fertilisation from last menstrual period - failed you yet again, let me repeat, slowly: I was not mocking, condemning, or otherwise trashing women who do not live their lives the way I live mine. (Rather, I take the long view: even the proverbial "Sex and the City" lifestyle ended up with... well, all the women wanting monogamous marriages. Go figure.) I was mocking exactly one thing: your views on acceptable female sexuality.
.
The entire argument is over that precise point. If you'd seen his challenge the same way he meant it, your entire interaction would have been different, and likely you'd not have offered a non-responsive solution to his challenge.
.
-- The one is who trying to "unilaterally reset the terms" is you, because you're trying to give the key word ("preemption") a definition distinctly different from the definition it had when Bush's cheerleaders repeatedly discussed the Bush doctrine of preemption. --
.
That's repetitive of the crux of your mistake. As was pointed out to you, your error pivots on the way Moore's challenge employed the word "therefore." You tacitly accepted the challenge as one seeking support for "the pope said preemptive = unjust, period."
.
-- In my opinion, statements made by his personal emissary and by his Foreign Minister should be treated as representing the views of the Pope. [Your statement quoted above is a denial of that] --
.
No. My statement is that the cite you provided don't show the pope asserting that preemptive is always unjust.
.
-- So if what you meant to say was something other than what you actually said, maybe you should finally let us know what you actually meant. --
.
I meant exactly what I said. That you comprehend it for something other than what was said is your problem.
Like usual, you link to a long rant which might have doctrine in it somewhere, but I didn't see it.
If you want to assert something, JBG, why not just do it. Your habit of linking to your rants and to articles which do not say what you claim has long ago caused me to stop spending much time looking at them.
Theo, there's a continuum of cooking temperatures for steaks, from rare to well-done. A well-done steak is NOT rare.
1. the beings that are embryos are never going to be adults (so it's like comparing plants and humans); or 2. there is a distinct point at which one gains the rights and characteristics of an adult that one has as an adult but not as an embryo.
Theo, it isn't my fault that you are pretending not to know what a continuum is.
There is NOT a distinct point, because the embryo / fetus develops over time and acquires characteristics over time that are relevant to the question of personhood.
Note that pro-lifers admit this. That's why late-term partial birth abortions are so horrifying. That's why they use the slogan "abortion stops a beating heart". That's why they show pictures of fetuses developed far enough along that they look like babies.
It's a fricking continuum. It's gradual. And you have to draw a line somewhere in the continuum. This stuff isn't that hard-- pro-lifers just pretend it's hard.
Feminists find themselves united not in the support of specific social or policy goals, but in the way in which they view the world and a desire to see a world in which women and men are on equal footing.
Sorry, theo, but if you actually talk to some feminists in the movement and express your views to them, every one of them will agree with me that you aren't a feminist. You just call yourself one.
Does "the movement" have a definition? A web site? Is it defined in a commonly accepted dictionary?
Dilan,
Theo, this is proof positive that you are not a feminist. No feminist in her right mind would say that because someone thinks that there should be cultural space for women who don't conform to traditional sexual morality, that person automatically thinks that any woman does not live a hedonistic lifestyle is deranged.
She didn't say "deranged"; she said "either stupid, repressed, misogynistic, or incapable of critical thought." And I think she summed up your thought reasonably well.
theobromophile, I'm 41, so I gather that we actually have more than 70 years of female existence between us. Plus two engineering degrees (me, MechE, UC/Berkeley, 1988) Obviously we are but blushing violets in the presence of The Dilan, who knows a genuinely liberated woman when he sees [or reads] one.
I want to quote this graf of theo's, because this is the crux of everything:
What makes you think that Stanton never questioned those premises with any care? that she didn't give a lot of thought to women and sexuality and abortion? What makes you think that she did not look around her society and wonder what about it was good for women and bad for women?
What makes him think that, theo, is that he assumes that people a century ago didn't bother thinking, and people a little later on got better at thinking, and people a couple of decades back got very good at thinking indeed. This is why he assumes that nothing anyone said a hundred years ago can possibly be worth thinking about, but dotes on Susan Faludi. Something of the same quirk makes him assume that Marie Curie must have been a prude, though I'm sure he knows nothing more about her sexual mores than I do, which is frankly zero.
I feel for you man - wish I had the time or the patience to read enough of this thread to hop in on your side somehow, but you guys have been, um, prolific.
"That's silly. Language changes over time. It is organic. Words take on different meanings."
I wasn't actually referring to usage, but how the past is understood from the perspective of the present. If I asked you whether Robin Hood or King John were more liberal, say, or Athens v. Sparta, I think the distinction would be clear, and I think it would be closely related to the dispersal of power being liberal. It is only in the last century (perhaps somewhat before that in Britain, thanks to the threat of good old Disraeli's Tory Democracy) that that would change, and that change doesn't look to have much long-run legs thankfully.
Dilan: if it's not hard to draw a line on that continuum, THEN DRAW IT. We've been arguing for the better part of a day about this. You state that one group does not have certain rights, that another group does, that the former will become the latter, but refuse to tell us when that happens.
As I'm obviously not asking for the point at which every characteristic of an adult happens - just the time at which abortion is wrong - there's no need to lecture me about a continuum. Just tell us when it's not okay for a woman to have an abortion.
By the way, we discussed the "beating heart" thing. According to an unbiased source, it happens at three weeks after conception, which is approximately five weeks after a woman's last menstrual period. That encompasses pretty much every single surgical abortion and a good portion of medical abortions, too.
Yeah, I know. Of course, I remember all the squabble among Marxists as to who are the "true" Marxists also :-)
Somehow you can't get your arms around the idea of rights and a continuum.
Not that it's a great analogy (embryos, after all, have no rights at all), but think about how we dole out rights gradually at points along the developmental spectrum with respect to children. If you said "what is it that magically makes a person unfit to drink at 20 years 11 months 29 days but fit to drink at 21 years" and thought it was a great argument, you'd be an idiot. We have a developmental continuum, we picked a spot on the continuum, and that's the best we can do.
There's no reason abortion policy can't work the same way.
Dilan thinks that feminism is like Marxism (note his numerous analogies to it): definitive founding documents, a clear set of principles, and a person (or small group of persons) whose ideas are canonical.
The lovely part of this is that he thinks that 21st-c. Marxists actually have read Marx. It would astonish me to learn that one in ten self-described academic Marxists had read Capital from start to finish. We'll never know, naturally, because no one has bad enough manners to ask.
I'm not disputing anything you say, and, trust me, I understand what a continuum is. I'm just asking you to answer a very simple question. The answer, by the way, would be akin to saying that you can drink at 21. I just want to know where you put that spot.
There's a couple of little differences.
Abortion policy is life and death, or it isn't, depending on you POV.
Abortion policy has many very strong advocates for radically different points on the age continuum - drinking doesn't.
Abortion policy was dictated by the Supreme Court in a way that even pro-choice legal scholars recognized was terribly reasoned. Drinking policy has always been set by a democratic process.
-- In my opinion, statements made by his personal emissary and by his Foreign Minister should be treated as representing the views of the Pope. [Your statement quoted above is a denial of that] --
.
No. My statement is that the cite you provided don't show the pope, or his emissary, or anybody else asserting that preemptive is always unjust.
Roe v. Wade said fetal viability. It has worked well for 36 years.
Mind you, that isn't the only spot that could have been picked. But the key is, whatever spot you pick must be one that preserves the rights of women to their sexual autonomy by allowing them to terminate unplanned pregnancies. So it can't be at fertilization.
Okay, they have ten minutes to decide after they discover the pregnancy. That satisfies your criterion.
Those people are almost worse than the Randians. At least the Objectivists have all read Atlas Shrugged (and have a dating site, too).
I'm not quite 30, so we are just shy of 70 years of female experience between us. I certainly remember what it was like to be a female engineer even ten years ago, at a school which boasted a very high percentage of women (about 30% of the engineering school was female, IIRC). What was Berkeley like in the 80s?
It has been wonderful to read your comments (as it always is, but particularly here). Good luck with your concert review. I may head off to grab some dinner before doing some research.
Roe v. Wade said fetal viability. It has worked well for 36 years.
Roe said no such thing. Roe said that the state had an interest in the welfare of the fetus in the third trimester. It was Casey that made viability a criterion. Which rather upset Roe, given that suddenly the state had an interest in protecting late-2nd-trimester fetuses that, up until that time, featured in jurisprudence only as potential biological waste.
.
Or giving more leeway, as in not expecting a fixed, precise line, he might provide a range, and say "the line is somewhere between 'here' and 'there'."
Michelle, the Roe trimester framework was BASED on viability. All Casey did was move it back a few weeks because of improvements in technology for saving premature births.
But the whole reason the state had the power to ban abortion in the third trimester under Roe was because the fetus could be viable.
I can't even imagine a 30% female engineering program. Ours was maybe 15% female, maybe 70% Asian, and very competitive.
OTOH, the women kicked the occasional butt. My first semester I was in an honors linear algebra course taught by a visiting Japanese professor who was never sure that the girls were quite following him — he'd glance over in our direction (not difficult, given that there were three of us in a class of 35 or so) every time he made a point. I got a fricken' B+ in that course, which was a disgrace, but the girl who sat next to me (and was a high school junior, 14 years old) got the sole A+. There's no arguing with real ability.
Yes, the Roe framework was based on viability, in the sense that the third trimester was when a fetus was then thought to be viable; but what Roe specified was the third trimester, not "viability."
And "viability" itself is a bit of a bone of contention, isn't it? There is no bright line, only lesser and greater chances of survival, with associated greater and lesser chances of physical and mental damage.
Yep. Guess what? Continuum!
In any event, Casey gives states broad latitude to fix viability, as long as they do not unduly burden the right to an abortion. Again, that's perfectly workable.
.
So even "viability" is an unacceptable line on the continuum, eh?
Before you guys worry about the supposed immoralities of the rest of us, you all need to practice telling the truth and not deliberately mischaracterizing arguments.
Show me what I've misquoted or mischaracterized and I will apologize.
NB my last comment was written before I saw this of yours at 9:21.
.
My comment was phrased as a question. Did you mean that abortion post-viability can be proscribed, and that abortion pre-viability can be restricted, as long as the restriction is not an undue burden?
.
I asked because the way you ran "viability, as long as they do not unduly burden" together, I thought you might have intended for the viability line to be be conditional in conjunction with undue burden.
It isn't just that. States have latitude in SETTING the viability cut-off, as long as that cut-off doesn't unduly burden the right.
That was the holding of O'Connor's concurrence in Webster as well as the joint opinion in Casey.
.
I still don't understand the standard you are advocating. Can post-viability abortions be proscribed (at some point, all will agree "viable") or not?
According to Casey, post-viability abortions can be banned as long as there is an exception for the woman's health.
Assume you hold a position where you get to approve or reject every abortion application in America. I.e. every woman who wants an abortion has to present her case to you and you get to approve it or reject it (or counsel her and let her make her own decision). What's your answer to the following scenarios:
1. My wife is pregnant. We already have 3 children (ages 21, 18, and 16) and we are in our mid-forties. We do not want another child. My wife applies for an abortion. What's your answer?
2. My 21 year old daughter had unprotected sex with her boyfriend. She is worried that she may be pregnant but doesn't know for sure. She'd like to take a morning-after pill but these are regulated by you. What's your answer to her?
3. A 25 year old college student was raped by a stranger and learns she is pregnant with the rapist's baby. She wants an abortion. What do you tell her?
And thanks in advance for your consideration.
Since I am a Catholic, you can predict my answer: No; no - take responsibility for your actions; no - unfortunately the right to life is more important than the cost (time, risk, discomfort) to the mother.
I expect others to have different opinions, for it is a difficult issue.
.
Well, if you agree with that, then justify being offended by my "even 'viability' is an unacceptable [bright] line on the continuum" question. Viability is not determinative when the criteria for abortion is "health of mother."
.
I want to set aside the cases where the decision is "life of the mother or life of the baby." I think all pro-life people will permit abortion to save the life of a mother, and no pro-choice person is offended by that. The "life of the mother" situation is not a point of friction. With that as exception to a complete ban, I aim to apply pressure at what IS a point a friction.
.
Said another way, Dilan holds that post-viability abortions cannot be banned. They must be allowed if the mother/doctor find a health improvement to the mother by performing a post-viability abortion.
.
Seems to me to be just another way of saying "viability" is an unacceptable line (for proscription) on the continuum.
Michelle, that's a lie that you've been fed by the pro-life movement. They haven't been able to come up with even ONE example of a woman gaming a health exception where there wasn't a serious threat to her health.
And yes, mental health is serious. Unplanned pregnancy can lead to suicide, you know.
.
If I can't kill the son-of-a-bitch inside me, I'll kill both of us.
Who cares how "he meant it?" Moore didn't introduce the phrase "preemptive war" into this discussion. That phrase was introduced by Dangermouse, who said this:
And the phrase was used again by Fact Checker, here:
The word was also used by Bishop Gregory, here: