Evangelical vitae

Joe Carter's evangelical outpost is one of the higher-traffic sites in the born-again blogosphere. Michelle Boorstein of The Washington Post profiled Carter last week: "Evangelical Bioethics and the Web.

The angle for Boorstein's piece, which Carter seems mostly to agree with, is that A) evangelical Christian politics are mainly driven by bioethics, and B) that this bioethics is essentially Roman Catholic. (This angle arises from this post of Carter's, "What Evangelicals Owe Catholics: An Appreciation).

Here's Boorstein:

By some measures, the change among evangelicals has been dramatic. A generation ago, leaders rarely spoke out against abortion; even the Southern Baptist Convention voted in 1971* to support making it legal under conditions including rape and "severe fetal deformity." Today, Americans who identify themselves as evangelical are the most opposed of any faith group to abortion -- far more than those who identify themselves as Catholic -- even in cases of rape or danger to the mother's health, according to a new survey by Baylor University.

I would argue the change has been even larger. Boorstein writes, "Americans who identify themselves as evangelical are the most opposed ... to abortion." Actually, evangelicals identify themselves as evangelical because they are opposed to abortion. As a defining characteristic, opposition to legal abortion is probably more important than any doctrinal definition or revivalist impulse.

This is so deeply ingrained that if you point to a counter-example, someone like Anne Lamott say, and point out that she is a born-again, Bible-reading, church-going evangelical, you will be told that, since she does not wish to criminalize abortion, she must not really be born again, she isn't really reading the Bible, and that the church she goes to must not be a real church. She may be a Christian, but she's not an RTC.** (See also Obama, Barack.)

We're talking here about abortion -- a subject I prefer to avoid since, generally speaking, once you mention abortion you can't mention much of anything else. But, if at all possible, I want here to avoid repeating the arguments for and against Catholic bioethics. What I'm interested in here is not the merits or demerits of this evangelical tenet, but with the history of it and with the reasons for that history. How did it come to be that American evangelical Protestants -- a group traditionally inhospitable to anything even remotely associated with Roman Catholicism -- have come to adopt this very Catholic point of view?

(That ends with a question mark because it's a question. I have some guesses, but I really don't know the answer.)

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* The Southern Baptist Convention of 1971, of course, no longer exists. That convention was replaced by a denomination, a church. The right-wing takeover of the SBC, which began in the 1980s, brought with it not only Catholic bioethics, but Catholic polity -- hierarchy enforced by inquisition.

** James Dobson helps to clarify the difference between Christians and Real True Christians. Dobson said of former Sen. Fred Thompson, "I don't think he's a Christian." A Focus on the Family spokesman later clarified what Dobson meant:

In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian — someone who talks openly about his faith."

"We use that word — Christian — to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added.

And for added clarification, see the recent letter from Dobson et. al. to the National Association of Evangelicals, in which they call for the dismissal of NAE's top lobbyist, Rich Cizik, because he thinks torture and climate change are Bad Things:

Cizik’s disturbing views seem to be contributing to growing confusion about the very term, “evangelical.” As a recent USA Today article notes: “Evangelical was the label of choice of Christians with conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality. Now the word may be losing its moorings, sliding toward the same linguistic demise that “fundamentalist” met decades ago because it has been misunderstood, misappropriated and maligned.” We believe some of that misunderstanding about evangelicalism and its “conservative views on politics, economics and biblical morality” can be laid at Richard Cizik’s door.

So from these two cases, we can see that for Dobson there are two parts to being a Real True Christian: You must, unlike Thompson, "talk openly about your faith." And you must, unlike Cizik, never vary from the agreed-upon "conservative views on politics and economics." Both ingredients are necessary, but neither one alone is sufficient.

Comments

[JS Bangs]

Actually, evangelicals identify themselves as evangelical because they are opposed to abortion.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. I'm an odd duck, in some ways, because I no longer identify as an evangelical, but I persist in opposition to abortion. However, I can think of three people off of the top of my head that I personally know who call themselves evangelicals and attend evangelical churches, but support legalized abortion. (Note that they think that abortion is wrong, but don't think it should be illegal.) They recognize that they're part of a minority, but they've never been kicked out of church for it.

Dobson is a n00b. I have nothing to say to him.

[Amanda]

She may be a Christian, but she's not an RTC.

I would argue this isn't a predominant Christian viewpoint. It may be predominant in the more conservative Southern states, but not throughout the church as a whole.

[jw]

I had a tough time trying to parse exactly what the Dobson spokesperson was saying. Was he:

a. saying that the equating of evangelicals with conservative views of politics, etc. was the result of guys like Cizik pointing out that this shouldn't be the case, and that evangelicals should also be concerned with environment, etc.

b. saying that evangelicals should be equated with conservative views, but aren't any longer because of guys like Cizik? (As I understand it, that was one of the reasons people latched onto the label "evangelical" over "fundamentalist", because fundamentalist had been too closely aligned to conservative viewpoints on economy, etc., and as a group were ready to disengage from the culture in a circle-the-wagons kind of way)

c. something else.

It's pretty clear from what you wrote, Fred, that you think it's "b". And that makes sense, except I'm not sure the Dobson spokesperson understood what the USA Today article was saying.

In fact, I went back to the USA Today article. The point of the article wasn't that there was confusion about what evangelicals stood for, but that it has become such a pejorative label that many people who used to define themselves as evangelicals are looking for new terms that express an evangelical view of the Bible and Christianity, without all the baggage. Which is exactly how the term came into existence when fundamentalist was abandoned. And the only people responsible for this are those like Dobson's group, who are unwilling to look at issues such as health care for the poor, torture, and the environment as equally important to what it means to be a follower of Jesus as opposition to abortion and homosexuals (perceived). One quote from the article, who is ready to walk away from the label -- "people who preach values in its name didn't live up to their values in their actions and politics."

[Darryl Pearce]

...b-bu-but, the Constitution says "no religious test" required for office. Dobson is therefore, self-evidently, anti-Constitutional.

[jw]

I need to qualify what I said about abortion and homosexuals. It looks like I was stating that I consider those viewpoints as Christian. What I meant was that in terms of politics, this is what evangelicals seem to be focused on, to the exclusivity of both other viewpoints on those issues, and other issues entirely, such as helping the poor. This point of view both demotes the importance of the other issues (Fred's point), and insists that you must have the correct (their) view of these issues to be a Christian (also Fred's point). While I disagree with the point of view of the vocal evangelicals on both abortion and homosexuality, I at least can understand where that comes from. But to then ignore or demote other non-bioethic issues is indefensible as a Christian perspective.

I semi-reguarally read transhumanist blogs and found an interesting parallel here. These fairly frequently discuss the idea that bioethics is a new and emerging political axis, to fit alongside the already present economic and social axes, and that bioconservative groups are already consolidating in ways which disregard political divisions on the older two axes.

So this article, which is about just that, and from a mainline source, is interesting to me.

Additionally, the mention of AI as one of the horizon issues makes me very, very happy. Where you fall on bioconservative vs. techno-progressive is one thing, but it's hard to talk meaningfully about this distinction when people don't have the awareness of it to start with. I'm hoping for a radically different outcome than the people being discussed, but we have a common desire to start the public discussion now, and that's something.

[Xenos]

If you want to marry Christianity and Transhumanism, you can find the two merged in "Scanners live in Vain", by Cordwainer Smith. An odd combination, even then.

[Jesurgislac]

How did it come to be that American evangelical Protestants -- a group traditionally inhospitable to anything even remotely associated with Roman Catholicism -- have come to adopt this very Catholic point of view?

Because this particular group is extremely patriarchal and male-dominated. It is no longer popular to directly assert that you believe women ought to be treated legally and socially as inferior to men, but being pro-forced pregnancy and against women having control over our own bodies (summarized as being "pro-life") is an excellent way of enforcing those patriarchal values while pretending your concern is all for the "babies".

Whereas a good many Catholics, cleaving to the spirit rather than the letter of the law, are solidly pro-choice.

Being pro-life is essentially all about hating women and wanting women to be kept in an inferior place: some Catholics like that, and many American evangelical Protestants.

[Doctor Science]

Actually, evangelicals identify themselves as evangelical because they are opposed to abortion

Now I am fairly comprehensively confused, Fred.

Are you saying that the "Jimmy Carter evangelicals" no longer call themselves "evangelical"? That people like yourself, Pres.Carter, Obama, or Mark Noll (author of The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind) no longer use the label "evangelical"?

What evidence is there for this view? The Barna Group's research shows no change over the last decade or so in the number of people who call themselves evangelical, nor do they see much increase or shift in what they call "true evangelicals", a much smaller subset.

It's true that Barna finds the declared sexual mores of the groups they call "true evangelicals" and "born-agains" are strongly conservative (=patriarchal), but that doesn't mean the people themselves are using sexual mores as their litmus test.

[Raka goes fishing]

My religious views don't really enter into it. I'm pro-life for strictly pragmatic reasons: if I permitted any of my womenfolk to sully themselves with baby-murder, it would reduce their resale value. And besides, it's too important of a decision to leave up to a flighty female.

[Bugmaster]

...b-bu-but, the Constitution says "no religious test" required for office. Dobson is therefore, self-evidently, anti-Constitutional.

As much as I hate to defend a bigoted theocrat... There's nothing wrong with opposing the Constitution; it is not a sacred text handed to us from on high. In fact, the Constitution is made up mostly of amendments. We have a mechanism (a very difficult mechanism, natch) for introducing amendments; this is how Prohibition was instituted and then repealed. Separation of Church and State, as well as Free Speech, could be repealed, as well. Of course, at that point the Constitution will probably cease to have any meaning, but it can still be done.

[Bugmaster]

BTW, am I the only one who read the title of this post, and thought, "How many blood points to Evangelicals have ? And can Ventrue feed on them ?"

[Yet another Dave]

Why split hairs over what is Evangelical? Personally, I think that given what they advocate has so little to do with Christ, Dobson and his ilk referring to themselves as Christian is a blatant lie. ;p

[Jeff]

"We use that word — Christian — to refer to people who are evangelical Christians"

Then they can't get upset when others do as well.

I read "Because this particular group is extremely patriarchal and male-dominated" and knew it was Jesu. ;-) The statement is correct, but it was more than a little expected (using gender-neutral language).

[Erick Oppeen]

Kurt Saxon, editor of _The Survivor_ and (allegedly) one of the founding fathers of the survivalist movement, once wrote an interesting editorial calling "right-to-lifers" guarantors of death. He said that most "pro-life" crusaders were, at least subconsciously, motivated by visions of happy, contented white, middle-class children playing contentedly in good homes, except that their selfish, modern mothers got abortions instead, just so they could keep their careers or figures. What Saxon had to say about the RTL fanatics...well, if I posted it here, it'd melt down this board, make the Baby Jesus cry, and get my ISP washed out with soap. And _nobody_ has better right-wing credentials than he does.

As for "Climate change," may I point out that NASA says that _Mars_ is warming noticeably, and has been for the last six Martian years? When the Martian polar caps are smaller than they've ever been recorded as, and getting smaller by the year, I think that the evidence points to such climate change as we're seeing not being anthropogenic; unless you think that evil Republicans are driving their SUVs to Mars to spoil that unspoilt scenery. And even the Hummer people would probably admit that driving to Mars is a challenge beyond their vehicles' capabilities.

[hapax]

I'm stunned to find myself agreeing (sort of) with Jesu on this one, although I still vehemently object to her characterization of this as "pro-life". I just as vehemently object to Fred's characterization of this as "Roman Catholic bioethics". There is no consistent ethic of life her: no opposition to the death penalty, no hospice work, no just war doctrine, no concern for alleviating the suffering of "the least among these."

There is just a visceral loathing for dirty dirty women, and nasty nasty sex, and lazy selfish brown people, and the dirty nasty vile squicky (yet oddly compelling withal) doings of same-sex couples....

[pharoute]

Evangelicals are more Catholic than they'd like to admit: it wasn't William Donohue filling the TV screen cheerleading for Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ" but RTC's. How Mel sold them a Middle Ages Passion play is a modern (pr) miracle.

[Edo]

No, Bugmaster, you aren't the only one to think that.

As to whether Ventrue can feed on them, that depends on the Ventrue, and also where the chronicle is set. (In the red states, you'd definitely need to get MUCH more specific than "evangelical" for the Storyteller to approve it at all.)

[hf]

Erick, please take all climate-related nonsense here.

I strongly suspect that some of these church leaders (or their teachers?) did in fact change their doctrines to help 'anti-Communists' win elections.

[magistra]

Since I'm a British Christian and not well up on these debates, on what grounds do (some) American Evangelicals oppose abortion? Do they also oppose contraception? The Catholic view on the boundaries of acceptable sexual practices ultimately hinges on a late antique/early medieval concept that all sexual acts must be potentially procreative. (Though even they have surreptitiously dropped some of the implications that the Church Fathers made, e.g. that women who are pregnant or menstruating shouldn't have intercourse and that couples should also become celibate in old age).

By contrast, if you don't accept this view (which is a church tradition, not specifically mandated in the Bible) to oppose abortion all you've got is 'you shall not kill', which obviously admits some exceptions for almost all Christians. (For condemning homsexuality, in contrast, evangelicals can fall back on St Paul, as it were).

[Cactus Wren]

magistra: The nominal explanation for RTC opposition to abortion is that they claim to believe it's "murder". I phrase that with precision: "claim to believe". When pressed, many of them give vent to other complaints, often having to do with either men's money or the position of womens' legs (usually phrased as, "She made her choice when she spread her legs").

Fred, in response to the question at the end of your entry: have you read The Life and Death of NSSM 200: How the Destruction of Political Will Doomed a U.S. Population Policy, by Stephen D. Mumford? Chapters of it are available here. To start with, there's an article from Free Inquiry magazine here. Excerpt:

On November 20, 1975, at its annual meeting, the American Catholic bishops issued the Pastoral Plan for Pro-Life Activities, a frank and superbly detailed blueprint of the bishops’ strategy for infiltrating and manipulating the American democratic process at national, state and local levels. It maps out the creation of a national political machine controlled by the Vatican through the bishops. The plan is directed toward creating a highly sophisticated, meticulously organized, and well-financed local, state, and national political machine. The plan candidly states that the Church will undertake activities to elect officials from local to national levels who will adhere to Vatican-ordained positions; that it will seek to influence policy in ways that will eliminate the threat to the Church; and that it will encourage the Executive Branch to deal “administratively” with matters that are unfavorable to the Church....

The Protestant face carefully put on the movement, first by the Moral Majority and then by the Christian Coalition, was called for in the Pastoral Plan. Richard A. Viguerie, a Catholic, is the man most responsible for the development and success of the New Right. He was also involved in the original discussions that led to the creation of the Moral Majority and, as its fundraiser, can be credited with its financial success. Paul Weyrich, a Catholic, claims credit for originating the idea for the group and the name itself. In their search for an attractive front man for the organization, they chose Jerry Falwell.

(Emphasis mine.)

[laurax]

whenever anyone mentions abortion in a debate way, i always say:

I believe in abortion until the fetus can vote.

usually they think for a moment or two, then drop the subject :-)

[Jesurgislac]

Hapax: I'm stunned to find myself agreeing (sort of) with Jesu on this one, although I still vehemently object to her characterization of this as "pro-life".

Come off it, Hapax. It isn't I who defines being pro-life as being pro-forced pregnancy and against women's right to make decisions about our own bodies: it's the majority pro-life movement. I do them the courtesy of using their name for themselves. You may wish pro-life meant something different, but it's the pro-life movement you need to change, not me.

Magistra: Since I'm a British Christian and not well up on these debates, on what grounds do (some) American Evangelicals oppose abortion? Do they also oppose contraception?

Yes: and their opposition gets more stringent the more likely a form of contraception can be practiced by a woman without her male sexual partner knowing about it. "Plan B" is anathema: the woman can take it hours or even days after intercourse. The daily contraceptive pill is almost as bad: it too can be concealed. IUDs, which can be fitted without the man's knowledge, are just as bad as the pill. The preferred method of contraception is the "rhythmn method", which only works if both partners are aware it's being practiced and are fully cooperating.

[Francis]

Being pro-life is essentially all about hating women and wanting women to be kept in an inferior place: some Catholics like that, and many American evangelical Protestants.

And being pro-choice is about being a stupid slut who is willing to kill others to avoid taking responsibility for the consequences of actions.

There. Now we've got the stupid and insulting cliches out of the way, can we return to the scheduled discussion? Or will this attempt work about as well as intentionally triggering the corollaries to Godwin's Law does?

Anyway, the historical Church has been against infanticide for about as long as it has been around (and the general Roman version of abortion was post-natal exposure - i.e. infanticide). I fail to see why it is remotely surprising that two highly authoritarian groups who consider themselves to be in tune with the early church and which are politically ambitious should come down on the same side of what is normally seen as a right-or-wrong issue.

(As for contraception - given that my views are that trying to restrict contraception is in itself a sin that destroys the possibility of charity (i.e. a mortal sin in Catholic theology) and that lying about such issues in God's name is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit* - so I'm too immoderate on this issue to see why anyone would oppose one of the most major public health works ever).

* My understanding of the term "Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit" is lying as God's representative and thereby doing harm to others...

[Francis]

Come off it, Hapax. It isn't I who defines being pro-life as being pro-forced pregnancy and against women's right to make decisions about our own bodies: it's the majority pro-life movement

Stop confusing the shock troops with the rank and file - it's the same thing that gets the left written off by the moderates left, right, and centre (pun unintentional). The majority of vocal pro-life activists would appear to be as Jesu describes (and as a litmus test for this I use the issue of contraception). However, the pro-life movement has done a sufficiently good excercise of branding, there is a sufficiently strong inherent appeal, and the pro-choice movement has done a sufficiently good job of shooting itself in the foot that the majority of those who want to prevent abortions and hence identify as pro-life do not believe as Jesu claims.

[Jesurgislac]

Francis, people who identify as pro-life want to make abortion illegal.

They don't want to prevent abortions. Preventing abortions is not done by making abortion illegal.

I will grant you that there are desperate idealists who are pro-choice (like Hapax) who wish that pro-life meant something other than the movement to make abortion illegal. But, it doesn't.

Planned Parenthood does more than any pro-life organization in the world to prevent abortions, and no one would call Planned Parenthood a pro-life organization.

The argument that people who want to make abortion illegal (pro-lifers) make that this is all about SAVING THE BABIES and not at all about their hatred and contempt for women has been repeatedly refuted, to boredom: but I'm happy to bore people with it again.

[Francis]

Francis, people who identify as pro-life want to make abortion illegal.
...
I will grant you that there are desperate idealists who are pro-choice (like Hapax) who wish that pro-life meant something other than the movement to make abortion illegal. But, it doesn't.

I think I spotted a True Scotsman fallacy there...

In fact, the Hapaxes (Hapaces?) of this world are IME far, far more common than the maniacs waving placards and trying to get aboriton banned. They simply aren't half as vocal. (This ties into a long running argument I have with a lot of the left - the Left isn't half as careful with colateral rhetorical damage as the right (if Ann Coulter calls you scum, you're probably already in the camp that thinks she's evil - whereas I don't believe that the Hapaces are actual enemies fo the pro-choice lobby)).

For that matter, the majority of people I know who identify as pro-Life are themselves feminists, none want abortion banned (simply eliminated) and all support contraception.

[Cogito]

I'm surprised that Dobson can still leave me aghast, but he's done it. The accusation that non-evangelicals aren't RTC's (unless we're taking a count to support the claim that this is a Christian Nation, of course) is unsurprising. But the bald-faced acknowledgment that they think "Evangelical" is a political description is amazing to me. Maybe I'm just flabbergasted that they're being forthright for once.

Speaking of dishonesty from the right, I have to agree with Jesurgislac that actions speak louder than words in the "pro life" movement. While they adopt the term "pro life," a more accurate descriptor might be "anti slut."

Bill Napoli, a N.D. state senator pushing for the draconian ban on abortion, makes the case perfectly. When asked for a scenario that would justify an exception to the ban, he said:

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Yup, he's clearly all about saving the innocent, ensouled embryos. It's not about using pregnancy as a punishment for sexual freedom.

[Jos]

Cogito,

So... do you happen to know this Napoli guy's stance on abortion for sluts getting brutally raped, savaged, sodomised, messed up and impregnated?

Or is that sort of thing not possible in his world?

[Jesurgislac]

Francis: For that matter, the majority of people I know who identify as pro-Life are themselves feminists, none want abortion banned (simply eliminated) and all support contraception.

Then they're pro-choice, not pro-life.

whereas I don't believe that the Hapaces are actual enemies fo the pro-choice lobby)).

No. Hapax is part of the pro-choice lobby, as was finally laboriously explained to me.

Trying to claim that being pro-life is not about trying to make abortion illegal (and often, secondarily, about trying to make contraception inaccessible and preventing single women from getting the support they need to take care of their child) doesn't work: the pro-life movement is about criminalizing women who need abortions and doctors who provide them, not about preventing abortions, and people who identify themselves as pro-life who want us to believe they're not part of the pro-life movement end up having a lot of explaining and justifying to do. Because the pro-life movement has won that rhetorical battle: trying to reclaim pro-life to mean anything other than being anti-choice/pro-forced pregnancy would require twenty years of reforming the pro-life movement.

[DavidD]

I carpooled with a Catholic woman in 1973 who commented on some post Roe v. Wade story on the radio by saying, "Abortion is murder." That was it, everything she needed to know on the subject. It was the first time I'd ever heard that put so succinctly.

I think what's happened since then is because evangelicals like absolutes, and an unborn child makes such an absolutely perfect victim, at least in the abstract. There's no issue of guilt, such as the supposed guilt of a woman seeking an abortion, for whom evangelicals can have little sympathy.

There's no compromise with the ideally victimized unborn for the sake of reality. The best evangelicals like James Dobson demonize any reason for abortion, even a fetus with a disease like Tay-Sachs, which promises the child a slow, agonizing death over a couple of years, his or her head filling up with lipids to the point where the child can't hold the head up. A gruesome picture for anyone who ever sees it, but evangelicals are not about letting reality interfere with a slogan like abortion being the ultimate child abuse. Actually it's not. Being a political football is worse.

[PK]

I, for one, would like to read how Fred reconciles his evangelicalism and pro-choiceness.

Also, people are apparently no longer allowed to be "pro-choice but anti-abortion" these days.

[Cogito]

First, I wish to abjectly apologize to the citizens of North Dakota for implying that this sexist asshat represents any part of their lovely state. He is of course a state senator in South Dakota.

And Jos, I can only presume that the only way to meet the burden of proof to show rape in a hearing on whether to allow an abortion is a four-fold test: presence of the hymen, victim was wearing a silver ring at the time of the attack, active membership in a local congregation, and injuries requiring hospitalization. Absence of any single element makes it too likely that the applicant is in reality a dirty whore, who is lying about the rape to obtain a convenience abortion.

[Francis]

Jesu,

Here lies the problem. Hapax is part of what you consider to be the pro-choice lobby. Those friends of mine are part of what you consider to be the pro-choice lobby. I don't actually disagree here. But you are aiming your guns too broadly - what I am saying is that the majority of those who consider themselves pro-life are at the Hapax end of the spectrum. (The majority of those picketing in the name of pro-life or who are extremely active that way are as you claim.)

But when you tell someone who self-identifies as pro-life (based partly on insufficient information, I will grant) that the pro-life movement is evil because they believe [foo] when they themselves believe nothing of the sort, you are shooting yourself in the foot by causing them to believe that you are a dangerous lunatic who is condemning them for something they have little to do with.

Or to put things another way, pro-life activists are normally mysogenistic scumbags. Not all people who identify as pro-life are anything like the activists (most of them are ill-informed and normally on the sidelines). The "pro-life movement" can be taken to mean either - and where you normally mean the activists, the neutrals (who tend to think that abortion is icky and should be reduced rather than banned) hear that you are calling them mysogenistic scumbags because they identify themselves as pro-life and therefore could be part of the pro-life movement. Because they know they aren't mysogenistic scumbags (and certainly not in the way you indicate), they can freely dismiss you as a hysterical lunatic and hence go further into the pro-life camp.

Does that make sense?

[ako]

So... do you happen to know this Napoli guy's stance on abortion for sluts getting brutally raped, savaged, sodomised, messed up and impregnated?

If I have to guess, from talking to the self-identified pro-lifers I've met personally in real life (all of whom want abortion banned, all of whom, when pressed, get terribly fixated on 'responsibility' and pregnancy as punishment), I imagine he'd say how a slut wouldn't be nearly as traumatized as a virgin (because while rape, getting beaten and savaged, sodomized "as bad as you can possibly make it" and forcibly impregnated is traumatic, he probably would consider it less so than losing the 'purity' that a virgin would have just had torn away, and a slut would have lost ages ago. So she wouldn't be as messed up, and wouldn't need an abortion.

If I had to guess.

[the opoponax]

the one thing that is disingenuous about your argument, Francis, is that WE'VE ALREADY HAD IT. several weeks ago we went around and around on all the permutations of pro-life, and we established that some people who call themselves pro-life don't hold the same beliefs that those popularly known as pro-life do. well, OK. now we know that, and we know that you and Hapax are on our side and when we talk about those who want to criminalize abortion, we won't visualize either of the two of you in our heads. and we'll allow for the fact that there may be more such folks out there.

if that is not sufficient for you, something in your argument is in bad faith. either here on this board to us, or to yourselves.

[Francis]

The best evangelicals like James Dobson

O_o

I, for one, would like to read how Fred reconciles his evangelicalism and pro-choiceness.

Where do you see a contradiction? I see more of one between contemporary LaHey and Jenkins style (or Dobson style or Limbaugh style or ...) evangelicalism and Christianity than between Fred here and actual evangelicalism.

[PK]

My take on Francis' point is that pro-lifers are assumed misogynistic until proven otherwise.

Didn't we have discussions about the incivility of presuming bad faith a while ago?

[the opoponax]

the majority of those who consider themselves pro-life are at the Hapax end of the spectrum. (The majority of those picketing in the name of pro-life or who are extremely active that way are as you claim.)

this doesn't make any sense. the ones out there on the picket lines are speaking for themselves. they're there because they want abortion to be illegal. similarly with those who vote for anti-choice legislation or respond in opinion polls and such that they are in favor of criminalizing abortion, or who elect politicians strictly on the basis of their position in favor of criminalizing abortion. these people are speaking for themselves, with their actions. if they're being misrepresented, they have only themselves to blame.

i will believe that the majority of "pro-life" people are actually in favor of a woman's right to choose and simply want to prevent the need for abortions when they start actually saying that or acting like that's what they believe.

[Raka]

Francis, I have to agree with Jesu: the majority of folks that I know who would identify themselves as "pro-life" (if allowed the three choices of 'pro-life', 'pro-choice', or 'not really either') definitely support legally restricting abortion to at least some extent, almost always a greater extent than is currently the case. Every single organization I've seen that lists "pro-life" as part of its mission certainly does.

I regard pretty much everything else she generalizes about 'pro-life' to be an affront to logic and decency. But I'm with her in the above definition.

[Francis]

if that is not sufficient for you, something in your argument is in bad faith. either here on this board to us, or to yourselves.

It is neither. I know you've worked out that not all people who call themselves pro-life are in favour of banning abortion (at least not if you have a memory anyway).

What I am trying to convince you to do is to think on what that means and to use better tactics. To court the neutrals whichever label they use rather than to have them oppose you as a reflex. To start out with the assumption that people are good people until they prove otherwise (and a simple lable isn't proof in any except the most extreme cases) rather than start out with the assumption that "If you don't say you are with us, you are against us."

[Francis]

this doesn't make any sense. the ones out there on the picket lines are speaking for themselves

I couldn't agree more. You've already lost almost all of them. And were you to refer to the idiots who picket abortion clinics in specific, I would have no disagreement here.

But what proportion of the movement do you think is actually on the picket lines? And what proportion do you think just sit at home without particularly strong feelings or actions either way other than when it comes to voting.

Go after the individuals who have proven themselves to be hostile to you in deed as well as word by all means. But pry the moderates away from them rather than doing your best to force the moderates into their arms.

[Raka]

Francis: "If you don't say you are with us, you are against us."

Actually, it's "If you don't say you are with us, you are a lying misogynistic monster who considers women's lives valueless and wishes to outlaw medicine."

[PK]

Francis: Where do you see a contradiction?

Prizing one's own individual liberty at the expense of the lives of others is the opposite of what Jesus did at the cross.

[Francis]

PK, absolutely right :-)

[alsafi]

I imagine that in Napoli's view of the world, "sluts" can't be raped. The fact that they are not pure and virginal means, QED, that they were asking for it.

Francis, I fail to see anything wrong with pointing out to those who might (either uniformedly or out of a desire to reclaim the phrase) identify themselves as "pro-life" that the accepted meaning of "pro-life" is very much anti-women, pro-criminalization of abortion and/or sex, and not actually interested in reducing abortion. If they are uninformed, it is the kind and responsible thing to inform them, so they can make their decisions with better knowledge. And if they are trying to reclaim the phrase, then the responsibility is theirs to explain that this is why they are using the term in manner inconsistent with standard modern American-English usage. The tactic of trying to disempower the opposing side of the argument by making them the only ones responsible for being constantly aware of all the possible permutations of nuance in the debate isn't unique to the abortion issue, but it is meant (though not always conciously) to silence, and is not appreciated.

[McJulie]

an unborn child makes such an absolutely perfect victim, at least in the abstract.

That's it. Hypothetical children are always perfect and virtuous, unlike real children.

There's nothing wrong with opposing the Constitution

Well, I would say, there's nothing, in principle, wrong with opposing the Constitution and being open about the fact that that's what you're doing. The Dobsons of this world are sort of sneaky about being theocrats, talking a lot about how "patriotic" they are and waving flags.

But I would still say there's something wrong with opposing the Constitution, when the reason you oppose it is that it guarantees too many personal liberties and prevents establishment of a totalitarian theocracy.

I think that the evidence points to such climate change as we're seeing not being anthropogenic

Rather, I would say the evidence points to climate change being very complex. Even if it's not entirely anthropogenic, that doesn't mean it's not anthropogenic.

Anyway, when we've spent the last hundred years releasing aeons of sequestered carbon, it seems absurd to think that it wouldn't have any effect at all.

How Mel sold them a Middle Ages Passion play is a modern (pr) miracle.

Actually, The Passion of the Christ isn't a traditional passion play (although Jesus Christ Superstar is). Passion plays are about the last week of Jesus' life. TPotC is much more limited than that. It's closer to the stations of the cross* -- which makes it even more bizarre that the Protestants loved it so much.

*Although my raised-Catholic hubby who pointed this out was also torqued off by the fact that the movie got those stations wrong. "He falls three times! Three! Not six! Veronica wipes his face! She doesn't HAND him a TOWEL!"

[the opoponax]

i'm going to repeat myself here:

"similarly with those who vote for anti-choice legislation or respond in opinion polls and such that they are in favor of criminalizing abortion, or who elect politicians strictly on the basis of their position in favor of criminalizing abortion. these people are speaking for themselves, with their actions. if they're being misrepresented, they have only themselves to blame."

if you're out there voting for larger restrictions on access to abortion, or voting for politicians who run on that basis, then, yes, you are saying via those actions that you are in favor of criminalizing abortion.

if pro-lifers who are against criminalizing abortion and want merely to prevent them, they should speak, act, and vote accordingly. in my experience, they by and large do not. somebody is out there voting for these policies and the politicians who champion them. otherwise, it would not be an issue.

[Francis]

Agghhh!, stupid cross post. The absolutely right comment was about civility rather than about the cross.

Prizing one's own individual liberty at the expense of the lives of others is the opposite of what Jesus did at the cross.

Amongst other things, that depends on whether a foetus is a full human - certainly before the formation of the brain stem in the first trimester and probably before the connection of the brain in the second trimester, I for one would argue that the foetus is not another person but rather a lump of cells that might in the future grow into one.

[PK]

Francis: "I for one would argue that the foetus is not another person but rather a lump of cells that might in the future grow into one."

Okay, but you were asking for contradictions between being pro-choice and evangelical. That viewpoint is not evangelical because it completely omits the importance of Divine creative intent.

As an aside, biologically speaking, you're just a lump of cells too :)