But if this is your true response:
I have been pleasantly surprised that many pro-lifers are expressing the notion that “the real work starts now.”
It's likely you've spent too much time taking pro-abortion talking points at face value. Because the false pro-abortion narrative that abortion opponents don't care about anyone (including even the unborn) is a boldface lie. I've not been in a church since I became Christian that didn't do what it could to help the unborn, the born, the mother and, sometimes when they're really crazy, the father as well.
Just once I'd like to see someone repeating that lie provide actual stats showing that pro-life activists don't care, or care less than pro-abortion activists. Oh, and that doesn't include the old slick trick of assuming liberal economic and social policies are the only path to salvation, so anyone who disagrees must hate poor people and minorities.
BTW, I don't care for this sort of thing either:
Unfortunately, I’ve also seen some self-described pro-lifers celebrating the news in a triumphalist and callous way.
Triumphalism? Over the possibility of hindering the wholesale mass slaughter of unborn children (Biden's words)? Please. As if the other side is all about humility and modest discourse. To my eyes, it's the usual 'Gee, I must find something bad to say about the opponents of death.' That always strikes me as the first step toward entering the modernity camp of death and debauchery. Plus, if I'm going to be triumphalist or callous in my reaction to something, let it be over the possibility of saving innocent life.
Nonetheless, the old 'of course the Left can fire verbal nukes at dissenters, but how dare you fire a pea-shooter in return' template is another way of saying we're really on the side of the nuke shooters. I don't think the faithful should do what we call wrong just to win. I do think, however we should be honest about what we're fighting and stop acting like tea cosies and lace napkins are the appropriate response to an assault by Tiger tanks.
If the good Dr. Gabriel actually wants the forces of good to succeed, then please stop embracing the usual approaches of failure that have defined so much of the children of light over the last many generations. That couldn't help but be a good place to start.
This was my big issue with Deacon Greydanus' words you posted the other day. I like your nukes vs pea-shooters analogy.
ReplyDeleteRemember that meme I sent you once about the whole "if say this you'll do what I want." It reminds me of that. Only the apparently sequel to it are all the people that it works on.
That or the Left has really learned how to weaponize "love your enemies." "If you loved me, you'd let me get away with whatever I want!" kind of deal.
Yep. Love simply means accepting leftwing narratives. It's maddening, because it's so stupid and lame, and yet you hit a brick wall with people who immediately throw it back at you for somehow hating children if you don't affirm the latest leftwing idea to do with children.
DeleteThey peddle the notion that you 'don't care' about children if you do not favor open-ended doles for people who are neither elderly nor disabled and if you don't favor using tax money to create more jobs for people holding MEd and MSW degrees.
ReplyDeleteI've often noticed that the approach is to write a big check and not worry about results. If things get worse, right a bigger check and don't worry about results. And if anyone questions this approach, it's because they hate kids, or poor people, or the elderly, etc.
DeleteTo be fair, if Roe is overturned (I still half expect the rug to be pulled out from under us), there will be a real temptation for some to declare victory and go home, and for others to think that only mopping up remains after such a victory. Such would likely have been the case if Roe had been overturned before 1980, or *maybe* even before the end of the Reagan administration, but certainly not today.
ReplyDeleteOverturning Roe is only one step (though an important one) towards the modest goal of "providing legal protection for the unborn." That goal is itself more important than is usually acknowledged, because as long as abortion is protected under the law, each abortion is not merely a private crime, but a murder endorsed, supported, and even encouraged by the nation as a whole. It is a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance, and it falls on us as a nation, not merely on the few directly involved.
And yes, in a post-Roe society there will be a need for "adequate healthcare, maternity leave, financial and material support, and housing and educational opportunities;" there *kinda* is a need for those already. Do we need to add "clean air and water?" How about "safe streets and adequate police?" But all these are material considerations to which Leonid Brezhnev and Fidel Castro might well have agreed. Is that the limit of our vision?
It had better not be. If the right of the unborn to be *born* is only begrudgingly observed due to fear of legal consequences, this will still be an abominable nation of wannabe child murderers. We need more than legal protection for the unborn; we need a nation transformed by the renewing of the minds of its adults.
I came across a link a couple of weeks ago that claimed that Padre Pio had prophesied that, "The Russian people will be converted. Their total conversion will happen very fast. The conversion of the United States will be slow but sure." Obviously, neither conversion is in evidence yet, but somehow this has the feel of authenticity to me, and it gives me hope. Honestly, it is the only real reason I have to suspect that "the United States" will survive in any sense more real than the Roman Empire survived in the Holy Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, or the Russian Empire -- all of which claimed to somehow be the same entity established by Octavian, but which Octavian would certainly not recognize. The link is here: https://thepathlesstaken7.blogspot.com/2022/04/padre-pio-russian-people-will-be.html.
"adequate healthcare, maternity leave, financial and material support, and housing and educational opportunities;" there *kinda* is a need for those already.
DeleteAbout 40% of the expenditure on medical care and long term care is as we speak financed out of public treasuries. There are scads of problems with the financing and trade in medical services, but these are orthoganal to the question of abortion. About 90% of the expenditure on primary and secondary schooling in this country is out of the public treasury and the ratio of budgets to domestic product has remained constant for more than fifty years even though the ratio of school age youngsters to the rest of the population has declined by nearly 40%. Tertiary schooling is not financed in toto out of public treasuries, but it is extensively subsidized. There is tremendous bloat in education at all levels and addressing this is also orthoganal to the question of abortion. The effect of 'maternity leave' is to impose costs on third parties, generate inhibitions to hiring young women, and gum up the labor market. As for 'financial and material support', that's code for more money public bureaucracies which provide or finance expenditures for housing and groceries and for open-ended doles for those neither elderly nor disabled (and for the 'case workers' who traffick-cop these benefits). Anything other than matching-funds for earned income, adoption and foster-care services, and (perhaps) subsidized day care is asking for trouble.
Food is something I need. Food is something that already exists. Do you think those two statements are contradictory? Do you think I have just said the federal government has to supply me with food?
DeleteGreat job, by the way, illustrating the obsession with the material. You're right there with Brezhnev and Castro.
DeleteDo you think I have just said the federal government has to supply me with food?
DeleteNo, I think you're pretending for effect that you do not understand what Barney Frank meant when he said that our concern for the unborn 'begins at conception and ends at birth'.
Great job, by the way, illustrating the obsession with the material. You're right there with Brezhnev and Castro.
You're a fraud.
I'm not sure what you two are even arguing about. Anonymous claims that our healthcare and education sytems aren't adequate. Art Deco says we have enough money, but it isn't being used efficiently. Those two statements don't contradict, and yet now you're acusing each other of being frauds and/or Castro followers. Did I miss something? This debate is confusing. Could sombody impartial please join this thread and try to explain what I'm witnessing? Because I'm confused
DeleteDonald, I'll admit I thought the same thing. I was going to request we tone down the rhetoric a bit, but when I read through the comments I couldn't pinpoint what the big disagreement was.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI think you have multiple anonymous persons commenting. One of them offers an ambiguous discussion and the other one is playing games.
DeleteArt, some appear to be having troubles posting on this comments section. I've heard from a couple that since the comments platform changed, they've had difficulties. As I said, signing some name or something after such a comment would help keep things straight. And hopefully cut down on misunderstandings.
DeleteThe opposition to public health guidelines during the pandemic demonstrate that the imbalanced approach to the principle of “autonomy” can be found across the political spectrum.
ReplyDeleteNo, it demonstrates that people don't trust the authorities. And, as time has gone on, we've learned the authorities were bull$hitting us at every turn. Are you willing to acknowledge that, Dr. Gabriel?
Dr. Gabriel is very vague throughout the whole piece of what he is actually criticizing about the pro-life movement. The main points are that pro-lifers are too "triumphalist" and that they put "autonomy" or "non-malfeasance." But what do things criticisms mean specifically? Dr. Gabriel only gives vague hints. Are there any specific examples of people who act this way? Dr. Gabriel does not give them, not even in an anonymous "if you say this then you are what I am criticizing" way.
ReplyDeleteThe only real specific points he makes are:
-Some people did not follow masking, social distancing rules or chose not to get vaccinated. He does not even make an effort to connect these activities specifically to the pro-life movement that he is criticizing. And of course he does not discuss the idea of trade-offs or effectiveness of these things at all. The idea is that if you do not blindly follow the dictates of health professionals, then you are putting autonomy over non-malfeasance. (But what to do if health professionals advocate for abortion or euthanasia, as many have?)
-Pro-lifers need to give women better "socio-economic positions" so that they will "choose the non-maleficent option." You will notice that this is 100% the type of language used by the pro-choice crowd. It is also out of step with reality; the majority of women who get abortions do not do so because they were forced into the situation due to economics. And it is out of step with Dr. Gabriel's earlier blanket dismissal of choice in situations where he believes harm can come to other. He didn't say that those who refused vaccinations should have their fears addressed so that they can choose to take them, he just characterized anyone who refused as willfully taking part in an immoral act. Yet the situation is different when it comes to abortion.
In fact Dr. Gabriel doubles down on this in the last paragraph: We must take women’s concerns about autonomy. Those who attribute all abortion to hedonism or a thirst for “baby-killing” are incorrect and unhelpful. Again he puts a primacy on autonomy, despite dismissing that in the earlier discussion of mandates. Technically it is true that not all abortions are form hedonism, but many are, perhaps most depending on how you define "hedonism." But what I find most interesting is the dismissal of it as "baby-killing." Certainly every abortion kills a baby, so what is even meant here?
And what do any of his final conclusions even have to do with Roe v. Wade, which is supposedly what the whole article is about?
It's very difficult to read this as anything but Dr. Gabriel wanting to push the left's narrative of "to make abortions rare you must follow our economic policies, and any other approach will be completely ineffective" in the face of a major legal victory that goes against this narrative.
It's very difficult to read this as anything but Dr. Gabriel wanting to push the left's narrative of "to make abortions rare you must follow our economic policies, and any other approach will be completely ineffective" in the face of a major legal victory that goes against this narrative.
DeleteBingo.
Pro-lifers need to give women better "socio-economic positions" so that they will "choose the non-maleficent option.
The majority of those enrolled in tertiary schooling are female. It's not close, either. It's a 4/3 ratio. How large does the female majority have to get to please Dr. Gabriel? Or is he talking about hiring quotas? Or is he talking about public money?
Rudolph, I must be brutally honest, but I consider 1P5 to be Mark Shea spread thin over a large area. It usually ends up with the same basic message: give credence to leftwing narratives, assume the baddest interpretation of those who lean conservative, Pope Francis is always awesome, and anyone who questions him can be put in the conservative category. They are no way as blatant as Mark, but once the endless articles and writings are distilled, it's usually about the same basic message. A message common with those who support Pope Francis/lean to the left.
Delete