Reductio ad Absurdum
by
Tom Neven
on Apr 17, 2008 at 4:38 PM
Believing that a right to abortion trumps all other considerations leads to today's absurdity in the Senate.
While Pope Benedict XVI's historic visit to Washington received wall to wall coverage, Sen. Barbara Boxer briefly held up a Senate resolution welcoming the pontiff because she objected to language about how the pope values "each and every human life."
It's not surprising that Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is the force behind the utterly silly hold-up, but I have to say that I'm disappointed that Sen. Sam Brownback relented.
What have we come to that it's controversial to respect "each and every human life"?
1. Brendan had the following to say on Apr 17 at 5:21 PM:
Does this mean that they now agree that embryos are human life?
2. Jacob had the following to say on Apr 17 at 5:23 PM:
It's a simple case of some people caring more about their own life than the lives of others.
3. Sarah had the following to say on Apr 17 at 5:29 PM:
I apologize in advance for the rant and rave void of anything constructive that this post will be. I just don't have any other words without writing a book.
The event with the resolution just furthers my intense frustration with American politics/politicians that was violently awakened from a dormant sleep after last night's Democratic debate between Senators Obama and Clinton.
It's been a while since I've gotten this riled up. But at dinner, my roommate took away from me the newspaper I was going to read that featured front page coverage of the debate. She said I would get too upset. Glad she's looking out for my blood pressure level.
But seriously - is this what we pay our elected officials to do? To argue over how to welcome the Pope?
And it may be disappointing that Sen. Brownback relented, but it may be for the best, for this is probably not the best time or place for an argument over the ideology and philosophy behind valuing life.
4. Josh had the following to say on Apr 17 at 5:41 PM:
More likely she was objecting to the insinuation that everyone who doesn't agree with him doesn't respect "each and every human life". Which, in all fairness, is understandable.
5. John the Aggie had the following to say on Apr 17 at 5:46 PM:
Sometimes I get tired of how hard we try to accommodate all political views. I'm all for open discussion of issues and weighing all sides, but I just don't see how you can be a Christian and a full-platform Democrat. Sorry, I know people are going to get angry. I just couldn't not say this.
I've talked with liberal Christians, heard their viewpoints, wrestled with the questions they raise in my own heart... and always come back to the conclusion that they are way off-base.
Not that all Republicans are somehow spotless and saintly - they've fallen far short at times too. However, I think the Right is reconcilable with Christianity, but I'm not as sure about the Left.
6. John the Aggie had the following to say on Apr 17 at 5:51 PM:
And I might add: I'm not at all implying that a Democrat cannot be a Christian. That would be absurd.
Way back when, many Christians thought the earth was flat and that slavery was OK. These beliefs didn't prevent them from being Christians, they just made them wrong.
7. Adam had the following to say on Apr 17 at 5:58 PM:
Personally, and this is completely being honest, I don't see how you can vote Democrat and be a Christian for this reason. Abortion! There have been 40 MILLION Americans MURDERED since 1973. That is approaching 7 times the number of Jews who died during the holocaust. The biggest Democratic platform element is the war in Iraq. Which has claimed barely 4000 in several years. Over 4000 abortions happen Daily in the US. As a Christian, no matter what else you believe, you cannot vote for support of abortion. Before economics, before the war, before social security, the right to life comes first. And if you are a logical person and a Christian, then it is a fallacy to support abortion in any form. Not to say Republicans are better, but they are closer to the truth. Jesus isn't running for office, but if He was, I guarantee he wouldn't support abortion.
8. PLH had the following to say on Apr 17 at 6:07 PM:
Well, perhaps Senator Boxer doesn't get it (and many other Senators on both sides of the political aisle), but thank God for the Pope! Few other religious leaders get the same media and deliver the same consistent pro-life message-respect for the unborn, elderly, disabled, immigrants, supporting peace. Praise God!
9. alex had the following to say on Apr 17 at 7:57 PM:
I think she was pointing out the pro-abortion standpoint that keeping a baby that the parent(s) don't want is somehow not respecting the mother or fathers life. Not that I agree, but you see the ridiculousness that she was insinuating.
10. S had the following to say on Apr 17 at 8:11 PM:
Adam - I appreciate your opinion. I, however, feel it is important to take a look at all the issues. If you still come out with the same candidate, then great. But, personally, I would not feel comfortable basing my vote on solely one issue.
11. Lydia had the following to say on Apr 17 at 8:25 PM:
I came across a very disturbing article that further details the crisis we are in today with the abortion issue: a Yale student is using abortion as art. This really upsets me and is such an illustration of what happens when liberties are taken too far. I do hope that it will spark outrage even among the "pro-choice" and bring truth to an ugly issue that cannot be cast in any other light.
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24513
12. JMarie had the following to say on Apr 17 at 8:39 PM:
Okay, this is kinda off topic, but it reminded me of the newsletter I got today from Feminists For Life:
"[April 17, 2008 – Alexandria, VA] According to an article published in the Yale Daily News, an art major’s senior project, which will go on display with other projects April 22, documents a nine-month process in which she artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” and took abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriage. The installation will feature blood from the abortions and videos of the student miscarrying. She told the Yale Daily News she was unconcerned about the medical effects of the process and did not consider it necessary to consult a doctor."
Wow...what have we come to?? I just don't even have words for this.
13. JB had the following to say on Apr 17 at 9:02 PM:
Alex,
I think a better reading would be that Sen. Boxer does not believe that an abortion terminates a morally significant human life. The phrase Sen. Brownback used often refers to the abortion debate and implies, contrary to the belief of Boxer and many others, that a fetus counts as a human life.
14. JMarie had the following to say on Apr 17 at 9:30 PM:
UPDATE: The so-called art project referenced by Lydia and myself in posts 11 and 12 was "a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman's body." I'm not sure what this student's point was, but to even suggest such a thing is just sick. The whole bizarre story is being discussed on Slate.com.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/
15. Sarah22 had the following to say on Apr 17 at 9:55 PM:
Just proves how stupidly smart a lot of highly praised Ivy League students are...
Also I'd like to point out that I don't really think she induced spontaneous abortions (i.e. miscarriages)...the method she used to "impregnate" herself is far from scientific and doesn't usually work and the herbal supplements she used have never been proven to actually cause a miscarrage...not to mention that she has no medical proof that she was ever even pregnant...more likely they were just regular menstrual cycles and the blood that comes along with them (sorry to be graphic)...the core concept is sick and degenerate...but the worst part is that she obviously concocted this to sensationalize the media...and it’s working...
It's sickening that this is even getting attention...that girl desperately needs our prayers...
16. Lauren T. had the following to say on Apr 17 at 10:22 PM:
I believe the Yale student has now stated the abortions are faked. She is creating a fictional situation to spark some kind of bizarre discussion.
http://www.yale.edu/opa/
Me, personally, my absolute opposition for abortion aside...who in their right mind would put themselves through multiple abortions this way? Even if you have no ethical qualms, miscarriages are pretty painful. That's a terrific amount of punishmen for a woman's body to take. Multiple self-induced back-to-back abortions? Insane!
So when I first read the story, I thought "is this some kind of obscene joke?"
Apparently so. Only it's not funny.
As for Barbara Boxer, that was a ridiculous thing she did. All life isn't precious? If all life isn't precious, can we pick which is more so? Should we suppress the rights of those who aren't as worthy by, say, considering them legally only two-thirds a person?
Seems to me we did that before.
Now that practice of favoring one "type" of person over another got a name and a pretty nasty one. Starts with an R; and it's not "Republican".
Is there some term we can create equivalent to "racist" indicating people who unfairly favor one stage of life over another?
17. Josh had the following to say on Apr 18 at 12:47 AM:
On another note, I feel slightly deceived by the article being named "reduction ad absurdum" after discovering that it had nothing to do with the actual content.
18. PLH had the following to say on Apr 18 at 6:01 AM:
JMarie, I received that email too, but also received another one saying that it was a stunt and the student actually didn't go through with it. Still, one has to wonder what she was thinking.
On another note, maybe' I'm the only person, but I am heartened by recent events. Despite Barbara Boxer's actions, how many people have really been paying attention to her verses the Pope? It's clear far more Americans respect and love the Pope-a figure with a clear and consistent pro life message.
19. Michele Samuelson had the following to say on Apr 18 at 7:53 AM:
Sarah said: And it may be disappointing that Sen. Brownback relented, but it may be for the best, for this is probably not the best time or place for an argument over the ideology and philosophy behind valuing life.
I'd say that with the leader of one of the largest sects of Christianity making a rare visit to the United States, this is exactly the best time and place to have that discussion. I think the line in the sand needs to be drawn, and Senator Boxer and her ilk should be made to choose a side. She apparently believed that this resolution was capable of making it seem like people were choosing sides on the issues, which is why she fought Senator Brownback on a piece of "legislation" that isn't even truly significant (most legislators don't even bother to read the many hundreds of ceremonial resolutions that get brought up in a legislative session).
20. Michael had the following to say on Apr 18 at 9:04 AM:
Just an aside: the Yale thing is a hoax. You can read about it at msnbc (and probably dozens of other places).
21. Adam had the following to say on Apr 18 at 9:43 AM:
S...I understand your concern on basing a vote on sole one issue. And if both candidates are pro-choice, then you don't really have a choice so go with what is closest. What I'm saying though is that if there is an option to pick a pro-life candidate over a pro-choice one, then that is the only viable option. Yes, that is one issue, but that is exactly the point. Any way you try to classify the issue, the right to life supercedes all other rights. And obviously if you agree with other elements of the Democratic platform, then it wouldn't be comfortable to vote against that based on this one issue. But in my opinion, it would be more uncomfortable to answer to God in the end about why you didn't do something as simple as a vote to try and bring such a genocide to an end.
22. Tom Neven had the following to say on Apr 18 at 10:04 AM:
Josh (#17)
The title "Reductio ad Absurdum" is perfect, since Sen. Boxer's maneuver is the reductio ad absurdum of the pro-abortion position.
23. Josh had the following to say on Apr 18 at 11:23 AM:
Tom (#22)
Hmm, I dunnno, I'm still not seeing it. If Boxer was doing a proper reductio ad absurdum she would assume the opposing position and show how it leads to absurd conclusions. Since she's presumably pro-choice she obviously didn't do that, and it doesn't sound like anybody who was pro-life attempted reductio ad absurdum either. I think the most you can say is that Boxer acted irrationally given the situation.
24. Katie B had the following to say on Apr 18 at 12:36 PM:
talk about being over sensitive. Apart from the issues of abortion, this is just silly. And objecting to the popes value human life, well what do you expect, he's the pope for heavens sake, valuing human life is his job, born or not, because it is Gods creation.
This is very childish. Though I understand brownback's concession, while this is a great oppourtunity to bring the discussion to another level, it wouldnt help to cause a huge rucus about one issue, as that would make discussion more difficult and less objective.
side note, I agree with Josh that the title was disapointing, latin gets me excited by its deeply theological and acedemic connotations, then to find that its really about some new ridiculousness in washington was a let down. Though the phrase itself was appropriate.
25. Holly had the following to say on Apr 18 at 12:37 PM:
Adam, I think you might be selling your vote for much too low a price. People who SAY they are pro-life, but do nothing about the abortion issue are using you. That's the long and short of it, friend.
We've had "pro-lifers" in powerful positions for quite a while now, and nothing has happened. But we're still going to vote for them? Because...? Because they're pro-life, of course. But what good does it do?
I very much respect your faithfulness and your desire to protect the babies. But if we keep voting for "pro-life" people that don't do anything, what's to stop people from just giving lip-service to the issue to win our votes, and then continuing with whatever they really wanted to do in the first place? That's what I've been seeing.
26. Adam had the following to say on Apr 18 at 2:22 PM:
Holly, I completely agree with you! We have to be sure that these people do exactly what they say they will and we have to pay attention to what they say and then what they actually do. Many times they don't follow up onn their promises, so we need people like you to be observant and call them out.
27. Tom Neven had the following to say on Apr 18 at 2:38 PM:
Josh (#23) and Katie B. (#24)
You're using the principle as it exists in formal logic. I'm using it in its literal meaning: Boxer's stunt is the absurd natural conclusion to "pro-choice" thinking; "pro-choicers" are so threated by any statement that in their extreme reasoning undermines their position that they fight every example, no matter how neutral or bland. It's the same reason "pro-choicers" fight the "support life" license plates in the various states.
28. Josh had the following to say on Apr 18 at 4:40 PM:
Gotcha Tom, I see what you were getting at with the title then. I'm a philosophy student so I probably take that sort of thing a little too seriously. You should see the fireworks that go off in my head when people use the phrase "begs the question" in its more casual form.
29. Sarah22 had the following to say on Apr 18 at 6:06 PM:
Holly: What you are stating in some sense does have merit, however I would like to point out that while you are right, the pro-lifers usually do nothing to reverse Roe V. Wade, they do limit the insurgence of extreme pro-choice laws that democrats would undoubtedly push on through if they had no opposition.
While I wish to see abortion illegal, if that cannot happen I'd at least like to see it be made as difficult as possible to happen, and that, I do believe, is something that *most* of the republicans accomplish/contribute to.
As Christians we are commanded to stand up for God’s word. Just because our stand doesn’t seem to have an outward effect doesn’t mean it’s OK to support the opposing side. What kind of logic is that? I’m sorry for sounding harsh but I’m not sure how else to say it.
I don’t agree with the statement that if neither side are really going to do anything to affect Roe V. Wade that you might as well vote how you wish. That’s not a valid argument. Abortion IS the most important issue no matter how much you want to convince yourself otherwise and there’s a lot at risk. As frustrating as it is, and as much as I can agree that the republicans have a lot of their own problems, in general they are more in line with biblical standards than the democrats, no matter how appealing many of their endeavors may be.
30. Rose had the following to say on Apr 21 at 7:41 AM:
Hmm there are some interesting points here.
I am a Christian and fairly left-wing in my political views. (Perhaps I shouldn't be here but I stumbled across this site and find it fascinating, sometimes disturbing.) I happen to think you can be a Christian and pro-choice.
Isn't the anti-abortion stance very modern idea? For centuries life was thought to begin at quickening; when the women feels the baby move for the first time. Quick used to mean alive, as in the bilical phrase 'the quick and the dead'.
Doesn't the Bible itself see harming an unborn child as lesser than harming a woman? Exodus 21: 22-5, "If some men are fighting and hurt a pregnant woman so that she loses her child but is not injured in any other way the man who hurt is to be fined.... But if the woman herself is injured, the punishment shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth."
As for being pro-life, do you really care for the life after its been born?
Those who hold right wing views are usually opposed to health care for all. I live in the UK and although the NHS is going downhill fast we do have free health care for under 18s. Why is this such a terrible thing?
Also those who condemn abortion usually condemn single mothers as well instead of supporting them.
31. IMO had the following to say on Apr 21 at 9:44 AM:
Rose,
No offense...
I don't think you are looking at an unborn child biblically [even with your attempt at using a bible verse]. Here you are talking all political and talking about our fallen health care system, instead of getting your eyes on the Lord. Does your opinion sway so easily, per the circumstances around you?
You wrote, As for being pro-life, do you really care for the life after its been born?
---The fact of the matter is that God cares about life. Bottom line. He created it. He chose to redeem it. He redeemed life through His Son. That's how much He values life.
Psalm 139:13-14a says, "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made"...
Remember that He also knit Christ together in His mother's womb...
--What translation of the bible do you have? I cannot find the phrase 'the quick and the dead' anywhere.
Anyway I just see you using a lot of "reasons" and "excuses" to keep believing what you want to be believe. If you are okay with it, then that's something you have to deal with. Hopefully the Holy Spirit, that lives in each and every believer, will pierce and break your heart with the Truth.
32. Sarah22 had the following to say on Apr 21 at 11:00 AM:
Rose: I happen to think you can be a Christian and pro-choice.
You definitely can. You can be a Christian and many other things, but it doesn’t mean your life is lining up with what God has commanded, it doesn’t mean you are pleasing God and not grieving the Holy Spirit that you are claiming lives within you and gives you life.
The bible doesn't agree with your thoughts on abortion.
Taking that verse you mentioned and totally twisting the context to fit your views doesn't make abortion OK.
Yes, there are plenty who condemn single mothers as you say...but it's not always pro-lifers. Many who are pro-choice are so because they refuse to step up and help care for the life they have created willingly...other times young mothers are often thrown out on the street and condemned by those who mandated an abortion and the mother wouldn't go along with that plan.
Rose, I don't know what else to say, I am always grieved when a fellow brother or sister in Christ finds abortion to be "OK". I only urge you to delve into God's word, remove your world views and see if you still feel the same way...if you have been born again and actively seek God’s will His Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth...also, maybe you should check out this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek
33. PLH had the following to say on Apr 21 at 11:02 AM:
Rose, I agree that it's disheartening when pro life people act self righteous when it comes to pre marital sex and condemn single mothers. And unfortunately many are mean spirited towards immigrants on another basic human rights issue. I don't think, however, that all pro life activists are like this and many do run pregnancy centers and try to assist pregnant women who need assistance.
34. Rachael had the following to say on Apr 23 at 3:54 PM:
PLH - meanspiritedness is no good on any issue. Sad to hear you've encountered this. I'm prolife. I don't have all my views down on immigrant issues - haven't thought things completely through. But I am interested in human rights issues and immigrants and the international community. Don't worry - not everyone is meanspirited. My guess is that there are a lot of "prolife" people who are not meanspirited.
35. Rachael had the following to say on Apr 23 at 4:02 PM:
HI Rose,
I'm prolife and wish there was free healthcare for all. I also acknowledge that I lack knowledge of specific non-biased facts in this regard of how it would actually work. I'm not sure doing it via the government is the best way, but if it is I'd be all for it. I'm really not very political. If there was a politician who was prolife and pro-socialized health care I'd probably vote for that candidate. But that's my "heart thought" w/out seriously thinking out the practical implications. If I was heavily taxed for this and consequently had to work at an additional place to make ends meet I might change my mind for selfish reasons. However, if this could be done in a way in which I could still live off my same salary I'd be more inclined to vote for it (if the candidate was prolife). That said, if I were the one making the law in this regard I'd have to seriously look at all the facts. My heart side says, 'free health care for all'....my other side says: 'what are all the unbiased facts?'
Any suggestions for unbiased (as much as they can be) books on this matter?
36. BDB had the following to say on Apr 23 at 11:34 PM:
Rose (#30) wrote:
>>Those who hold right wing views are usually opposed to health care for all. I live in the UK and although the NHS is going downhill fast we do have free health care for under 18s. Why is this such a terrible thing?<<
The problem comes when someone starts making decisions on how to make it fit into the budget. For example, under Canada's national plan, someone with metastic breast cancer would likely not get aggressive chemotherapy and expensive drug treatment - the clinical indications are that they are terminal.
A good friend of mine was given just such a diagnosis and a six-month prognosis...5.5 years ago. Because she had private insurance - and was very good at pushing back against her insurance company - she's had years of additional life. So, it may be selfish, but I see nationalized health care as something that would sentence my friend to death. Consequently, I will never vote for someone who advocates government-controlled health care, because it will lead to that kind of rationing.
I realize that it's a difficult problem, and I don't have a solution yet.
37. John Tulp had the following to say on Apr 24 at 2:33 AM:
Hopefully food for thought...
The ability to get a secret abortion for little or no money is really only important to those of us who have "drank the koolaid" of the "worldly" world, and seek to preserve this as means of allowing us recreational fornication and adultery - or a very ill-conceived marriage. We should spit out that koolaid. The more we turn away from what this "culture" tells us is normal, expected and "cool", and start thinking about what really will profit us - living according to scripture, it becomes easier to focus our attention on the right path. Think for a moment, and let's be honest. Women so vociferously "pro-choice" must want to preserve their ability to have relations with men but - through low-cost and secrecy - always be guaranteed that their own decision will be final as to whether they have any resulting child. If they knew that they were not going to have relations with men prior to marriage, the abortion issue would be moot. That is quite troubling, as they would only be having relations for their physical pleasure, not caring about the potential child, having relations under pressure from the man when they don't want to, or possibly having relations to be able to manipulate the man or men; none of these sounds very good. But what other purpose could there be to ensuring discreet and inexpensive abortions ?
I guess a the man involved might think abortions are fine for similar reasons. Perhaps the families would rather see a child just never be born in certain inconvenient situations. Certainly a liberal government would see the situation as allowing these relations to function as an "opiate of the masses" and at the same time seeing the abortions as an easy antidote for any undesired consequences. How happy the citizen whose legislator protects their inalienable right to party ?
If you look up Margaret Sanger and others you will find the rather inhuman subject of eugenics and the elimination of undesirable unborn, along with the beginnings of Planned Parenthood. You will find a number of rather mixed-up, twisted individuals with rather strange bedfellows. I could only advise on very careful thought while researching this so as to not become confused about the moral issues and how they truly relate to scripture, as true history in this case is indeed immensely stranger than any fiction.
There is a lot of history and scripture that could be studied in terms of the government-sanctioned, secret, inexpensive abortion; most probably don't have enough time for detailed research.
Is an embryo a life ? If you are a parent and you experience the difficulty of miscarriage you would certainly know that it is - otherwise why would the parents be upset at all ?
Healthcare
Healthcare, along with every other material thing, can't be free. Someone has to pay for a nurse's time, a doctor's time, materials used, equipment. We should really stop staying free and healthcare in the same sentence.
Just because the government provides something, it is not free. The only source of revenue the government has is taxation, which comes from... us! Would you rather deal with the department of motor vehicles, the phone company, or Fedex ? Is the government the most efficient provider of services ? No, of course not.
Does business and industry often get way out of hand and conduct business in a vicious way that is directly opposed to scripture ? Sure. And quite frequently, they are consumed in their misdeeds.
Cheaper healthcare is what we want, but somehow to not sacrifice the marble bathrooms in some of our nicer hospitals (yes, firsthand experience), the plastic surgery, etc. Cheaper ? Why would a doctor, nurse, pharmaceutical company, medical equipment manufacturer - anyone in the healthcare industry want to get paid less than they are ? Especially now that we have this marvelous system where the patient is not paying directly with their own money ? One just needs a basic knowledge in accounting and economics to understand that we have several parties in our system, which works very well, except everyone but the patient wants to see costs go up, or is ambivalent if they do. We all pay for the healthcare through payroll deductions. That's the only way we would pay such a high bill. Indigent care is provided for by the various levels of government - we do have universal healthcare and have for some time. The states just don't like forking over those dollars to their hospitals. The politicians running today that want more money given to the healthcare industry are going to take money from us, the citizens, and give it to their corporate backers. If you search your states website, you should find some budget information out there that will astound you as to how huge the scam of our governments has become. So please, don't vote left-wing. Our governments are drowning in debt and the Pelosi's just have too good a career going to really even think about it.
At the end of the day, though, every action taken is caused by people, not the governmental or business entities, since they are only really words on a paper. I say this because people tend to point fingers at "business" or "government", as if those actual entities had any true responsibility. So it seems incumbent upon us who think that business and government are not run right to jump in and take on these roles on and execute our responsibilities in a good Christian fashion, whether that means election to Congress, selling shoes, or anything we do. The more efficiently you do what you do, the lower the cost to everyone else for your services, on a per-unit basis. Simple math.
Oh, may I just add a thought for the Christians who might consider socialism and communism, they don't work in practice. They are simply a dictatorship of the few. The only ones who don't realize this once they buy a house are the old commies that just don't want to admit they were ever wrong. If the left-wing make all sorts of promises that they have all the answers, they don't. Run from them, they merely want you to be the worker and them to be the leader (why does every world leader have a fine house and car, including the socialist and communist) ? Don't forget the term "useful idiots" that communists use to refer to the left-wing of the free world.
Some Christians go too far in considering personal wealth inherently bad. Some go too far in considering building wealth inherently good. We really find both concepts addressed in scripture; must we not consider Psalm 112 at the same time as Matthew 19 ? We should consider scripture in totality and thus avoid being "legalistic". If we just simplify and say that the Lord takes care of his own, and then consider what it means to be "his own", perhaps we have the beginnings of a good laymen's perspective.