Misconstruing the arguments: Was Monday At The Bar. Misconstruing the law

On September 6, we posted this item noting how the arguments about the new Texas law on abortion are misconstruing what really happened in regard to that aw.:

Lex Anteinternet: Monday At The Bar. Misconstruing the law: If you listened to the weekend news shows you are now fully up to speed on all the left of center angst, or feigned angst, over the new anti...

But almost as misconstrued are the "progressive" arguments that are inserted as "policy" arguments, if they can be called that. The degree to which these fit a certain pattern, is not only notable, but frankly shocking.

Regarding the argument over abortion, it all boils down to two basic arguments, of which there are subsets.  Basically, you either 1) feel that people shouldn't kill other people; or 2) you feel that killing people for convenience is okay.

Now, that sounds extreme, and we will get into that,  but this is somewhat simplistic.  We'd note that most people who don't believe people should kill other people do hold there are exceptions, such as in self-defense, or the extension of self-defense when it's done in the course and scope of a public officer's duties (military and police).  And we'd also note that almost nobody actually states that they're for killing people based on convenience, and probably a lot of pro choice people have never really stopped to think about the nature of their argument in this regard.

But beyond that, that's pretty much it.  And that takes us, although it's out of order, to the first principal of this. There aren't really any exceptions.  

We'll get to that in a minute. But first, the big question.

Is a fetus a human being?

Is a fetus a human being?

Maybe in 1973 when Roe v. Wade was simply made up by the Supreme Court, this could be fairly debated.  It seems to be the case that the mushy Roe opinion basically determined that for the first "trimester" a fetus wasn't a human being because. . .well, it depended on its mother.

That was always a way stupid way of looking at things and not supported by facts or science. A baby depends on some maternal support at least for a few years after it's born, for one thing.  And viability isn't a good argument for preservation of life.  There are thousands of impaired human beings who aren't "viable" in the full sense.  If Roe made sense when in 1973, Hitler's campaign to murder the impaired in Germany made just as much sense.

What the court was trying to do, if you want to give it perhaps considerably more credit than it deserves, was to create some sort of strange argument that prior to that time the forming human wasn't quite human, and not endowed with humanness.  

People made that argument for a long time, but hardly anyone does now  Science has come to far, and we know that a fetus is a human from the instant of conception.  We can't escape that, and nobody tries to.

So what we're really arguing about is killing for convenience.  When can we kill people because we find them inconvenient?

Most people, we'll note, will not openly resort to that argument as it sounds too brutal, because in fact it is.  Indeed, many of the same people who are "pro-choice" are very much against killing people, and indeed sometimes anything, under any other situation.  They've separated the reality of human life in this are from their argument of convenience.  And that's been made easy by fifty years of mushy thinking on the topic, inspired in no small part by the mushy thinking of the Roe era, and the court decision itself.

But mushy thinking rarely leads to a correct decision.  Honest thinking on the topic, particularly one that involves life and death, is mandated by the argument itself.

You can't really hold to exceptions if you believe killing people is wrong, and you really can't limit it that much if you are okay with killing for convenience.

The anti-abortion must be "never" in answer to that question.  The pro-choice person's argument ought to be "lots of times", although they'll rarely make that argument.

Again, this is out of order, but let's make it plain.  If you believe killing people is wrong, not only is abortion wrong, but the death penalty is wrong.  That's just the way it is.

The exceptions most would hold to would be in self-defense of yourself, and in self-defense of the public, such as in the role of policing or legitimate war.  But those exceptions, we'd note, are really limited.  Indeed, a person sincere in this view really can't take the position that every time there's a war soldiers may kill in it.  Only in a just war, which are limited in number.

You really have to take the view that killing for convenience is okay if you are for abortion.

On the flip side, all arguments about abortion made by its proponents tend to desperately camouflage the real issue, as the real answer is extremely disturbing if you are okay with abortion.

As a fetus is a human being and abortion kills it, if you are for abortion, you are taking the position that killing people is okay for convenience.  The only question is where does the convenience stop.

Pretty clearly, that line is difficult to draw and is by social construct only.  Euthanasia is a close second to abortion and some abortion proponents are okay with it.  The death penalty ought to be okay with anyone who is for abortion, as convicted prisoners are inconvenient.  Indeed, the old common law application of it, which was for any felony, would make a lot of sense in this context.

So do such things as nuclear war or even genocide, really.  

Now, hardly any "pro-choice" person is going to argue that, as they haven't thought it out in this fashion. But that's where it really leads.

The false flag arguments

• "The 13 year old victim of rape or incest"

What you tend to hear about instead is the "13-year-old victim of rape or incest".  

That's because it's a horrific moral situation which presents a moral response.  Ironically, that appeal to emotion is made by the pro killing folks, who otherwise seem pretty immune to emotion in this area.  That suggest this argument is a false flag.

It's interesting strikes back to the "old law", which sanctioned death as a penalty for a lot of crimes, although it skews it a bit, and it also hearkens back to our distant ancestry as an argument.  Therefore, in making this appeal, an appeal to some really ancient, pre-Christian, principals are urged, showing how deeply ingrained they are.

Part of that appeal is the old law sanction of death to the transgressor, although the mark is missed in this case and hits the fetus.  Rape was punishable by death at common law, and going back even further, it was certainly punishable by death in primitive societies.  Rape and incest are crimes that authorities will still allow for a lethal act of retribution in some circumstances even now.  Indeed, while its certainly not a current example, one of my high school colleagues killed her father after years of enduring rape and the authorities made no effort to prosecute her whatsoever.

The second part of that is a darker part of our past, which is both the historical motivator to rape and the ancient reaction to it.  It gets into people's instinct for self-preservation as well as our loyalty to our family and tribe.

Rape is a horrible crime, maybe the worst of crimes, but its also something that was historically common when one tribe raided another. Indeed, it still is.  It's been a major feature of modern warfare in northern Africa in recent years.  Bizarrely, it's a genetic way for the victor to not only claim his spoils, but spread his DNA as the conqueror.  Inside the tribe, however, such things are a horror.  Simply killing the offspring of such unions was not uncommon, as well known.

About 5% of rapes, as defined in our society, result in pregnancies.  But those tend to be concentrated in interfamily and known perpetrator situations.  I don't know the reason for that, but it probably is due to the frequency of the assaults.  I.e, most human sexual acts don't result in pregnancy and therefore most rapes wouldn't .   A normal young couple that is simply having sex has a 1 in 20 chance of getting pregnant.  I.e., a couple acting with complete disregard to the results has a 5% chance of getting pregnant from one act.  Therefore, the percentage in rapes is just about the same.  Added into that, couples seeking to get pregnant will get the advice to have sex frequently, which is also why of course victims of incest and rape from close contacts is more likely to result in pregnancy than other rapes.

A grim topic to be sure.

As part of that grim topic, a normal person doesn't even want to think about this, for obvious reasons, and therefore the resort to the ancient law is easy to make.  It's just programmed into our DNA.

The thing is, of course, is that it also runs counter to our Christian morality, and even though thousands of people who aren't Christians, and even many who are, will bristle at the thought, Western society is basically Christian.  Indeed, wherever Western societies have been, and had a major influence, large elements of Christian thought have come into those societies.

And even in pre-Christian societies the leeway on killing the offspring of such horrors was limited.  Rome gives us the bizarre example of the "rape of the Sabine women" which is one such example, albeit a very strange one.  But others would suggest that it's probably the case that every living human being today has at least one or more ancestor who came into existence this way, which means that we all have ancestors who perpetrated the horrible act. That doesn't excuse it in any fashion, it's just the truth.  Indeed, one of my close friends is aware that his grandmother or great-grandmother, I've forgotten which, had her first child, his ancestor, as a product of such an act when she was employed as a domestic servant.  She had the baby, and a male friend of her married her prior to the baby being born, raising the child as his own.

Not good argument can be made for compelling a woman who becomes pregnant in this fashion to raise the child. That would be absurd. But in the calculations of life and death, its' hard to make out a rational argument that those who innocently come into being in this horrible fashion should be killed.  It's too close to the old old law that held that the infants themselves could be slaughtered, or even the women for having "dishonored" the tribe.  Wants death starts being meted out, it's hard to draw that line where you stop it, as in the end, you are back to the fact that there's really not much of a license for people to kill other people.

• No man should be able to tell a woman what to do

A common feminist argument is "it's my body" and "no man should tell a woman what to do with a woman's body".

The problem with that is that the entire topic comes about due to two bodies producing a third.

Yes, one of those bodies is the nine-month host for the third, but it still doesn't change the fact that an argument about "my body" shows a profound level of individualistic thought.  I.e., it takes the position that "you can't tell me what to do with my body, even if doing that kills somebody else".

This is actually the only area where this argument is actually widely made. There are others, but where they arise, it's a minority view for sure.  We do tell people what they can do with their bodies in numerous other areas, including health and safety.  No welder could go to the rig site and refuse to wear FRs for example, as it's only his body at risk.

This gets back to the sense of community, which may be why this might be a uniquely American argument.  Americans have a strong sense of individualism, even to the point that it's grossly exaggerated in American culture. There really aren't very many "lone wolves" who achieve something, but we like to think there are.

There are no women whatsoever who become pregnant on their own, of course, and that's in part why this argument makes no sense.  It almost assumes that pregnancy comes about due to autogeneration.

Of course, we've gotten used to the post contraceptive concept that a man's responsibility is over once he gets up from the bed and puts his clothes on, but that's a deeply barbaric view of the world.  Indeed, the acceptance of that view, which has come on since the early 1960s, is very strongly akin to the ancient view of rape in a way which gives rise to the primitive argument about killing the offspring.  It's not identical, but its not too far away.

And that's why the occasional effort of men to claim they have a right to voice what happens to their own offspring gets shouted down. But they do.

Now, it's true that the woman will carry that offspring for nine months, and if the mother chooses to keep her child, she'll bear far more of the burden of raising the child to adulthood, at least in the early years, than the father. But what this really cries out for is restoring male responsibility.  Traditionally men carried far more of the financial obligation, with men not infrequently working themselves to death in the process.  In stable couples, men still tend to bear far more of the financial burden.  Allowing men to have escaped this was a terrible societal mistake, and what this argument really argues for is a restoration of more of the old set of responsibilities.

Frankly, to add to it, this argument leads to a real "cop out" opportunity for men, and they frequently take it.

• If pro lifers really cared, then they'd support . . . 

You hear this one all the time, but it's blatantly false.

The argument tends to be that if pro lifers really cared about the mothers, then they'd support all sorts of social programs that are dear to the left.

The problems, they actually tend to.

If you know anyone in this camp who is really active, they tend to actually pretty liberal on social programs. They're for assisting unwed mothers in any way they can, and often support organizations that do so. They tend to be for "socialized" medicine, as it helps the poor and those in this situation. They tend to oppose the death penalty.

Indeed, some of these folks would nearly be regarded as flower children in any other discussion.  The entire argument is just baloney.

The reason I think it tends to get made is that politicians who are pro-life often are on the political right, indeed nearly always so, and they don't appear to be the most sympathetic people in the world  That can be deceptive too, however, if you know anything about them personally.  Lindsey Graham, for example, isn't somebody I generally am a fan of, but his record in supporting his sister when she was young is a model of Christian charity.  One former South Carolinian who was commonly sited as a right wing figure had adopted children that crossed racial lines.  Amy Coney Barrett, who was blasted for being a conservative Catholic when she was nominated for the Supreme Court, also has an adoptive family.

Indeed, the counter might be to ask to what degree do "pro-choice" people really directly support the situation of women in this situation.  In their minds, they no doubt do, but in reality, their help often seems to be limited to the suggestion to kill.

• Keep your Rosaries off my Ovaries

Finally, there's the common suggestion that this is a Catholic issue only and that Catholics should but out.  Expanded out, there's the suggestion that maybe this is a Christian issue only, and Christians should but out.

The argument that people shouldn't bring their religions views to an argument is a false one to start with.  On the contrary, people who are sincere believers in any religion really have an obligation to be informed by their faiths and act accordingly.

Having said that, while those who are informed by their faiths in this area and act accordingly should be admired, rather than condemned, it isn't the case that all that many citations to religion are actually made in the public argument.  Those positions may have informed many of the opponents and brought them to the debate, but they don't tend to cite them in the public debate.  And, moreover, some notable opponents of abortion have had low, weak, or no connection with religion and have come about to their position by other means.

The counter to the phrase, moreover, would argue for a complete abandonment of any moral standard.  It's the ultimate cry for convenience.  It really means "let's keep a moral compass out of this".  The problem is, when you do that, the killing really starts.