Life under the Big Top
April 15, 2016 § 40 Comments
Someone is pro abortion if he asserts – for whatever reason or set of reasons – that no woman should face any kind of legal sanction or punishment for deliberately choosing to have her unborn child murdered.
It is a pretty big tent. I used to think that many of the folks who literally march under the pro-life banner were well meaning but suffered from a kind of stockholm syndrome. Recent events show that I was giving them too much credit. It turns out that they are just pro abortion after all, and have been so all along.
Zippy Catholic 
I like to call them liars.
Cane Caldo:
It is so much worse than the word “liars” implies. (Recent discussions of SJW’s and lying are pertinent).
Give me a liar – who knows he is dissembling – over the self deluded opposite-day true believer, any day of the week.
I was rather disappointed with the result of this whole thing. Since I don’t live in the USA, I don’t really have any direct experience with the whole pro-life movement there, but I was rather appreciative of a whole lot of what they did. I still think they are (mostly) well meaning people, who are deluded by the current culture.
Take a guy Zmirak for example. I’m not sure it’s fair to call him pro-abortion because if made Dictator for a Day, he probably would issue a sweeping executive order outlawing all abortion on demand. The issue that comes about is whether or not he’d punish a woman who does something like make her own morning after pill by getting a doctor to prescribe her contraceptives and then strongly overdosing.
Mike T:
I think it is perfectly fair. He has made it quite clear that the primary person who chooses abortion should never be punished for it under the law.
That actually is something the pro-life movement is entirely overlooking. Under their metrics, how do they deal with a woman who deliberately uses pharmaceutical products to “safely” cause a spontaneous abortion? In cases like that, blaming the doctor is not necessarily a given because birth control can be prescribed to a woman for hormone regulation or a pro-contraception, anti-abortion doctor could advise her to use condoms to ensure that no abortion happens from the contracepted sex.
(I am not looking to start a fight on contraception, especially since I don’t believe it’s ever moral to have unprotected sex when an abortifacient is involved. I’m just pointing out that even if a Catholic Zmirak goes AHA! Contraception! The doctor is still guilty! That doesn’t follow through because the doctor could say “this could cause fertilization and then an abortion, so wear a condom to ensure that no life is lost.”)
Mike T:
Right, the so-called pro-life movement, under its own principles, cannot muster any legal objection to self-administered abortion where the mother herself directly takes the action to kill her child.
So they are pro abortion, period. They just object to third party abortion on unprincipled grounds.
I think it is perfectly fair.
Ok it is fair and good rhetoric, but not necessarily logically true. People can easily be vehemently opposed to something but hold such incoherent views that if made law would be futile.
But they aren’t – as you point out yourself – opposed to legal abortion. They are just opposed to involving a third party in carrying it out.
So they are pro abortion, period. They just object to third party abortion on unprincipled grounds.
When you phrase it like that, your point makes a lot more sense. I’m not sure if it makes them objectively pro first party abortion, but it is very strong proof that they have no will to actually stop it.
Ouch. Brutal.
[…] we listen to the fruitcakes and nutcases who think there should be legal sanctions against women who procure abortion, that […]
One thing I think you are missing here is that a lot of these people appear to genuinely not believe that a normal woman would go there. When Mike Huckabee says there are two victims, I think he truly believes that the nature of woman is such that it is unnatural for her to want an abortion. The mere fact she is getting one is indication that she is not acting of her own volition. Lydia’s arguments about coercion frequently cross into that territory.
Consider Matt Walsh as an example. Matt Walsh wrote volumes after the Ray Rice incident about how he could not conceive of a time and place where it is right for a man to knock the #$%^ out of a woman. Obvious examples include, a man coming home to find his drug-addicted wife beating his child half to death or a man facing a woman coming at him with a knife or gun. He even partially addressed that point with a well, I guess if she’s trying to murder you you can uhhh well, sorta defend yourself. Maybe. At W4, Jeff C made a more moderate point that illustrates how a lot of traditionalists see women and their responsibility viz-a-viz violence. (Note that he implies that a violent female has any honor to preserve in the first place)
What I see at work is an intersection of the worst deformed notions of chivalry, mixed with superficially conservative religion in a liberal context that is not quick to say “dat f#$%ed up” lest someone feel judged.
Mike T:
They also all get together in groups of 20 and cram themselves into tiny cars. It is such a hoot!
I’m pretty sure that was racist since I’ve only seen day laborers pull that off.
Yes, I’m sure that’s it.
People have been enduring all sorts of suffering for the cause of the unborn, but are really pro-abortion after all.
Congratulations.
I’m sure labelling those who have been working against abortion as pro-abortion will do the unborn a great deal of good.
John McG:
Good intentions and being a nice person are everything.
While I don’t fully agree with Zippy’s take, one has to admit that based on his reasonable observation Planned Parenthood’s biggest problem with them was doing the labor, rather than making a portable, DIY abortion kit.
Those who seek to burden those working to end abortion with additional unpopular positions are objectively pro-abortion.
See? This is fun! I’m sure I saved a lot of unborn lives with that one.
John McG:
Except that is factually incorrect. The ‘additional unpopular position’ is simply to make all abortion – including DIY abortion – illegal.
[…] Source: Zippy Catholic […]
I believe they know they lie. Their words run like exercise, and they know it. A doctor knows when she’s just spitting jargon as chaff; this bit to counter such-and-such attack; this one for so-and-so. To misquote the prophet Ice Cube: They push (words) like weights.
LOL! Best Internet punchline of the year so far.
This entire exercise has been eye-opening.
It makes one think that perhaps we ought to have been sympathetic to the Menendez boys for they were orphans.
[I am posting this before I read the comments]
As a theologian I run into rather interesting scenarios. Here is an example.
Twice in the last 4 months I have encountered a Catholic who has stated that (simplified),
‘If you commit mortal sin you lose grace so supernatural faith is dead inside you – you no longer have supernatural faith.’
Of course, the Council of Trent states,
“If anyone says that with the loss of grace through sin, faith is also lost with it, or that the faith which remains is not a true faith, though it is not a living one, or that he who has faith without charity is not a Christian, let him be anathema.”
So believing that if you lose sanctifying grace you lose faith is heresy.
The first person I encountered that said this was a very nice, average person doing their very best to be a good Catholic. Their goal was to be true and faithful Catholics, to be moral and upright, to be virtuous and charitable. They had made an error of fact but were not, actually, heretics.
I learned that they had been *taught* this error by another person; a person who had placed themselves in a leadership position, a person that presented themselves as authoritative in matters of faith, ethics, and morals. Their ignorance means that they might not be in a state of sin.
That was the second person I encountered that held (and repeated) this position, Michael Voris.
Michael Voris, of course, *has* a degree in theology and because of that is expected to know the truths of the faith and *required* to be correct when he claims to teach the faith. The fact that he not only believed and stated that but actively TAUGHT it to others makes him a heretic. He may very well be speaking out of ignorance rather than malice, but because of his education and position and his voluntary act of teaching others the Faith his error is sinful.
I surmise that the overwhelming majority of people active in the pro-life movement are like the young lady I first discussed the error about faith with – well-intentioned, opposed to evil, but a laypeople living a busy life who trust others to teach her the truth. A good heart, good intentions, and errors of fact.
I also surmise that many of the pro-life leaders are much like Michael Voris – well-intentioned but ignorant but, because of their choices to lead, teach, and represent others, subject to stricter requirements.
There are probably hundreds of other people who have watched that same video by Michael Voris, believed it, and are now afflicted with believing something that isn’t true without being actual heretics.
There are probably thousands of pro-life people who simply trust the self-appointed leaders, are afflicted with believing something that isn’t true, but are not actually cut off from sanctifying grace.
@Zippy
I think it is perfectly fair. He has made it quite clear that the primary person who chooses abortion should never be punished for it under the law.
I have to disagree Zippy, and chooses is the operative word. The pro life movement is anti abortion, but pro choice. This is the one thing that sets the mother apart from the rest of the conspiracy; she is the only one seen as having the right to choose. Punishing her is different, because it necessarily infringes on that unique (presumed) right. Therefore you are right regarding the big tent, but it is a pro choice big tent, not a pro abortion big tent.
Zippy:
Right, the so-called pro-life movement, under its own principles, cannot muster any legal objection to self-administered abortion where the mother herself directly takes the action to kill her child.
In 2008 30% of abortions carried out by Planned Parenthood were medical abortions, i.e. abortion by ingestion of chemicals. (And as RU-486 was only approved in 2000, the current rate is probably higher.)
There is no abortion worker forcing the pills down the throat of the mother; the mother is the one who directly commits the act. 30% of the time.
Therefore you are right regarding the big tent, but it is a pro choice big tent, not a pro abortion big tent.
Indeed, I called a few relatives who are pro-choice “pro-abortion” and they were offended because they said that they consider abortion to be an ugly thing that should rarely happen, they never liked to see it happen, but left it open to the mother. Many pro-lifers are not aware of just how close philosophically they are to much of the formally “pro-choice” faction.
Pro choice = against legal consequences for abortion.
Mike T:
The difference is less than razor thin.
Few people want abortion completely unregulated.
Where they are unanimous is in objecting to legal consequences for the mother who chooses it.
There is no abortion worker forcing the pills down the throat of the mother; the mother is the one who directly commits the act. 30% of the time.
You’re missing the fact that the important part of the act, where criminal liability comes into play, is the act of opening the medicine cabinet and popping the gel pack.
@Dalrock
That’s true, but it’s not what I’ve seen argued in the articles to which Zippy linked. What has been argued is that the choice (agency) is stolen from women who abort by the meanies around them who have hidden the truth of human life inside her womb. The evidence of this theft of agency is that she chose an abortion…
Also, since many conservatives inform us that the admonition that women are the weaker sex means reduced liability, it is fair to assume that if the RU-486 pills come in a child safety cap-covered bottle she wouldn’t be able to figure out how to open the jar without a guilty male worker helping her.
As an addendum to my earlier comment, CDC statistics for 2011 estimate medical abortions as making up an overall 20% (Table 11), with this proportion increasing annually since 2002.
@Zippy
Pro choice = against legal consequences for abortion.
It is practically a euphemism for being pro abortion.
There are probably hundreds of other people who have watched that same video by Michael Voris, believed it, and are now afflicted with believing something that isn’t true without being actual heretics.
But they are still believing something that isn’t true. And pointing out to them that what they believe isn’t true gives them the opportunity to not be a heretic. Should they persist in believing what is not true after being instructed, then they become actual heretics.
[…] that is how everyone ends up in favor of legal abortion, including the mainstream pro-life […]
[…] has been pointed out to me that in characterizing the public position of the mainstream pro-life movement as pro abortion, I am being unfair. Some go so far as to suggest, while bravely facing the applause, that this […]
Well this apparently includes Mark Shea now.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/04/christianist-prolife-pundit-kevin-williamson.html
My comment on that post:
And we saw how it went from there. Well at least ya tried.