Just for grins I thought I’d parse a pro-legalized abortion piece by a theological liberal. He mocks the unborn and those who grieve over their deaths. It was called Dead Baby Jokes. Classy.
It is basically a gigantic irrational argument, as in, “You don’t care about ____ like he does, and ____ is more important than protecting the unborn and their mothers, so you are bad.” As I have addressed separately, pro-lifers care for the the born and the unborn even though one can protest an immoral act without having to take responsibility for it.
You know, Marshall Art and Mom2 enjoy weeping and wailing over the deaths of millions of “unborn babies” through the government-permitted practice of abortion on demand.
Gee, since the government permits it then abortion must be OK. If legal, then moral. Check. Good think that William Wilberforce didn’t use that reasoning.
As I do not share their grief over the not-yet-born, but am concerned with the lives of very real, very born children, I thought I would give notice to this article that was highlighted by Digby:
An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.
American babies are three times more likely to die in their first month as children born in Japan, and newborn mortality is 2.5 times higher in the United States than in Finland, Iceland or Norway, Save the Children researchers found.
Only Latvia, with six deaths per 1,000 live births, has a higher death rate for newborns than the United States, which is tied near the bottom of industrialized nations with Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia with five deaths per 1,000 births.
He’s “concerned,” which in pro-legalized-abortion-speak means that pro-lifers aren’t concerned.
Of course, one could dig into why those differences exist. My guess is that many of those issues in the U.S. occurred where Democrats had virtual monopolies over the politics and education system for the last 50 years. Either way, I’m not sure why one social ill means that it is now OK to crush and dismember the unborn. Is there any reason we can’t address both situations?
The joke, of course, is that so many on the right piss and moan concerning abortion while our nation blithely permits the deaths really born children.
Are the “really born” children crushed and dismembered because they are unwanted, are potentially disabled, are female, etc.? That would make any comparisons more apt. Do “we” “permit” those deaths? Did someone ask permisson to kill those children? What a leap of logic!
We grieve over terminated pregnancies, but turn our eyes and silence our collective outrage when real children die due to inequities in the delivery of health care that are directly related to socio-economic inequality.
“We” do? Check out most major charities and hospitals and you’ll find that orthodox Christians founded them. If we would just redistribute more income this would solve all the problems, right? (The covetous Left never tires of that strategy).
Weeping over aborted fetuses (feti? I am never sure how to make a plural of a Latinate word in English) costs no one anything, entails no risk, and threatens the established social and economic consensus not at all. Redressing the imbalance that is demonstrated by the fatality rates of newborns, however, would pose all sorts of risks to our current status quo. This, I contend, is the difference.
That and, perhaps, a slightly warped moral compass that prefers the theoretically alive to the very real alive.
So Geoffrey bravely does . . . well, I’m not sure what he does but he seems to think it is risky. Again, he makes a false dilemma of saving the unborn vs. saving the born.
Speaking of warped moral compasses . . . go watch some videos of abortions and then tell me the unborn aren’t “really alive.”
Those who are not yet alive have only a theoretical demand upon our care and concern. Those who actually have been born, however, come situated with all sorts of racial and socio-economic baggage that allows us to ignore their plight because we can deem them of less worth, and therefore less in need of our concern.
Oh, the race card! What a foolish argument. The black community has a highly disproportionate number of abortions. Margaret Sanger would be happy. You’d think that the KKK would be happy but even they are pro-life. Seems to me that if you want to bring race into it then the ones supporting pro-legalized-abortion have the most to answer for.
Geoffrey also judges others who don’t support the same charitable enterprises that he does. I try to remember that we are all part of the body of Christ, but we have different gifts, talents and preferences. I don’t mock those who favor one charity over another and I don’t act like helping the elderly means not helping the young, or that helping the unborn and their mothers means not helping others.
Since the posting of this Digby piece, I had the good fortune to listen in on a similar discussion regarding infant mortality in the US. The point made was that there’s a distinction between death by disease and death by murder and the stats might not reflect that. So something else to lament is the rate at which kids are killed by their parents AFTER they are born. To me, this is equal to the abortion situation as the children died by willful intent, whereas the others are dying by illness. Yet I do not claim that I care more for one than the other, only that one causes far more outrage for it’s selfishness, cruelty and lack of necessity.
Not being a regular or dedicated blogger (This and TotalT’s are about it for me…busy, busy), I decided to branch out and click the link to the “Dead Baby Jokes” blog and read a few other posts as well. I can honestly say I’ve never seen a group of posts so morally disturbing. I’m thoroughly surprised that such an irrational and warped individual could actually gather a supportive following. Well, maybe I’m not really surprised, just disgusted.
Since I’m the mom2 referred to, I would like to inform the writer of that article that he does not know me at all and could not be further from the truth. I gave birth to a premature baby weighing only 2 lbs. 6 ozs. over 30 years ago and I was grieving for that baby before his birth, because all evidence was that he would not be born alive. Praise the Lord for His great mercy in giving me that son, born alive but very ill for several weeks. I also care for the children that are born naturally and are living in bad situations; and I contribute to ministries that are drilling water wells and feeding the hungry. I say this not to build myself up, but to defend myself from an ” intellect” who pretends to know me, when he knows nothing. My last work before retiring was to care for the elderly. It is a tactic often used, accuse without verification or proof to try to promote falsehoods.
Excellent post, Neil!
Okay, I have this thing for statistics… and lemme go at this “An estimated 2 million babies die within their first 24 hours each year worldwide and the United States has the second worst newborn mortality rate in the developed world, according to a new report.” b.s..
The US calculates a “live birth” differently than do other developed countries. Any time a fetus is born, regardless of gestational age, we consider it to be a “live birth” if it shows any signs of life: heartbeat (which occurs at two or three weeks gestation), movement, etc. Other countries require that a fetus be at least 26 weeks gestational age; weigh at least a pound; or be of a certain length.
What you really need to do is to factor in total mortality rate, between pre-birth mortality (i.e. stillborns) and infant mortality. That erases any differences in the reporting of live births v. stillbirths. Fact is, the US has one of the best rates, worldwide, for pre-term babies.
Okay, let’s run the numbers. My Health Law Organization & Finance class just taught me that, annually, 18,000 Americans die premature deaths for lack of adequate access to health care. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that those are ALL infants. If that were the case, lack of access to health care would result in 1.38% of the deaths that abortion does.
Oddly, 1.4% of abortions take place after 21 weeks gestation:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm
Ergo, there is pretty much the EXACT SAME number of abortions of viable fetuses as there are annual deaths from lack of access to health care. One is a deliberate act of murder; the other is, at worst, an error of omission.
Moreover, just for kicks: roughly a month after implantation (i.e. before most abortions have occurred), the embryo has an 88% chance of surviving until birth. Even assuming the worst plight for all of those aborted fetuses, there would be 1.14 million babies aborted that would have otherwise survived.
But Neil, you forgot: this was the same rationale used to deny civil rights and liberties to blacks and women. We aren’t really people, so why bother with us? Why sacrifice the rich white guy in favour of some slave? Why should a woman take a man’s job?
Once we get into the business of “favouring” one side over the other (and condemning the brutal atrocities committed against one group is hardly “favouring” them over another!), we get into a complete abrogation of civil rights and respect for human dignity. The whole concept of human dignity is that once you’re human, you have it. You don’t have to earn it through acts, deeds, or the luck to be born to a mother who very much wants you; it attaches, not through the will of another or a happenstance of Fate, but through your membership in the human race.
GRRRRRR. Okay, I’m ticked.
(Considers stepping away from the keyboard….)
My 88% stat:
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=
Bridget, thanks for the stats and the comments. I was hoping you’d weigh in. That is a great analysis of the viable babies killed vs. those allegedly “permitted” to die due to our lack of income redistribution.
Sorry to get you riled up at the end of the day!
Well, Neil, we could talk about income redistribution regimes, such as those in Cuba, China, under Stalin, and, to some extent, under Hitler. They had remarkably high mortality rates.
PJ – I clicked that link as well, and I agree with you 100%.
Theo – I want to echo Neil’s thanks for the stats.
I am going to have to avoid blood pressure checks today.
“Dead Baby Jokes. ”
To add a little levity to this discussion, it wasn’t long ago I picked up a joke book from the 80s, called something like horribly tasteless jokes. Wouldn’t you know it, there was a whole section on dead baby jokes, right between polish jokes and jokes about black people.
I’ve also recently discovered (thanks to this post) that there are websites devoted to dead baby jokes. Oh, how far we’ve come.
http://www.dead-baby-joke.com/
TT – no wonder why the porn addicts flock to your site. Sheesh.
SST & Neil – you’re welcome.
Theo,
Your comments echoed my sentiments exactly concerning the humanity of the fetus. I had a major back and forth with Geoffrey (and others) at my blog over the simple point of one being a person from the moment of fertilization. I went through the entire process, including the act of intercourse, which by virtue of it’s design, is intended for the bringing forth of new human life. As such, there’s nothing to support the notion that it CAN’T be another human being, except for subjective opinions regarding the lack of limbs or organs or such. I tried to be as clinical and biology 101 as possible in order to deflect accusations of injecting religion into the public debate regarding abortion. All I was concerned with was the simple point: person or not? They found me frustrating.
Marshall, go easy on them. It is really hard work to deny the humanity of the unborn. They must get exhausted with all that rationalizing.
Seriously, thanks for taking the time to do that.
Well, Marshall, I take a more biological approach: the progeny of two humans is always a human; we define membership in the species by its parents. Given that only mammals gestate their young, there is really no principled, biological distinction between the born and unborn for membership in the species. Sorry, it happens at conception.
I LOVE the “limbs” argument. By the time you know you’ve missed a period, the baby has a heartbeat. No where in medicine do we allow the termination of a human’s life when there is an independent heart beat. Whoops!
Anyway, once you have “human,” you are stuck arguing the b.s. about “it’s a human, but not a person,” which is what has been used for centuries to oppress women, blacks, and, heck, any social undesirable.
Rant over.
What is your blog address?
As to the limbs question. Regretably beings are sometimes born without some or all of them, I contend that they are both persons and humans. I assume that they do too.
SST – good point. I presume as well that people who lose their limbs in war are still humans and persons. (So not only does the Left not support our troops, they don’t even think they are human.)
I do hope I might be allowed to respond as it was my blog post that was used. I do know Neil has “rules”, and I shall try my best oto abide by them, even though I am not quite sure what they are.
First, Neil never addresses the crux of the argument I presented. It might make a difference in my opinion if I ever once saw a pro-lifer actually make an argument for adoption; for universal health care and adequate funding for education; even criticize the Bush Administration for planning to defund the S-CHIP program. Since I have yet to read a peep about any of this, I will rest my case on what I have experienced. All too much concern over all those fetuses makes little difference because there seems no concern at all ever expressed for the life of “post-birth” life.
PJ – warped? Probably. Only not in the way you might think. I am a loving, caring dedicated father of two and husband to a wonderful United Methodist minister. Iam theologically educated, dedicated to the proposition that God can never be summed up in any teaching whatsoever, but still convinced we need to make a go of it anyway (ah, the wonderful contradictions in life). I do not have a following, and would not want one if I did. What I do have are friends and fellow-bloggers who are willing to follow Jesus in his injunction not to judge others. Funny how that whole Christian stuff interferes with life sometimes . . .
Finally, Neil, you accuse me of using warped and twisted logic, yet you offer nothing – not a single instance – of evidence or reasoning to refut the point of my post. NOT ONE. Were I a cursory reader of this blog, I might wonder what, exactly your point was. It seems you had nothing but ridicule in mind, and so I shall elave you all now with this thought.
I have taken all of you – Neil, Mom2, the rest who have not been named – with both utmost courtesy and seriousness and have been repaid with the smug condescension of the irredeemably saved. I have learned a valuable lesson from this – if this is what the LORD intended, I would much prefer to lay it aside, thank you very much. As I believe that God’s love and grace are both greater than both our ideas of it, and am wuite happily Christian, I can only assume that our differences cannot be bridged. In the future, should you wish to take me to task, at least do me the courtesy of naming me, even if not linking to me directly.
I will be mightily surprised if any of this appears here. It seems Neil has a habit of banning those who discomfit the true believers with actual thought. Adieu
I was being deliberately provacative with the post title, but for a serious purpose
Hi Geoffrey,
The “rules” were on the po-mo post where I pointed out in a tongue-in-cheek fashion that it isn’t very productive to argue with people who insist that there is no truth. That said, I have made it clear that you are welcome to comment here. Every time you comment you express skepticism that your comment will make it through. Yet here we are again. How many comments of yours have I deleted?
Just for the record, I deleted one or two from another commenter this week, but that person had made 60 (literally) in the last week and was getting very repetitive. Ask Frank the atheist how many of his I have deleted (zero). I have only banned two people from the site, and that was for repeated bizarre personal attacks and/or for constantly taking things off track. And I usually give multiple warnings before deleting comments.
I did adddress your arguments. I just used a link – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/12/18/pro-lifers-dont-care-about-kids-after-they-are-born/ – instead of repeating everything. I know E.R. doesn’t care for that (
) but I just find it more efficient.
In short, pointing out a moral wrong does not obligate you to take responsibility for the situation. If abortion is the murder of a human being (which it is), then one can speak out against that without assuming responsibility for that or any other situation.
Still, pro-lifers do all sorts of other charitable things. I don’t recall you asking what else I do (even though I don’t have to do anything to speak out against abortion). Let me know if you’d like to hear about CareNet pregnancy centers and all they do for women in crisis pregnancies.
And while I disagree with the Left’s ideas on how to best help the poor, I don’t accuse them of not caring. If they favor helping toddlers over helping the unborn, that is fine. It is just that they tend to think it is a moral good to be able to crush and dismember the unborn for any reason at any time.
If you have a preference for ministering to the needs of toddlers with your time and money, for example, that is fine with me. I won’t criticize you for not helping the unborn or the elderly or anyone in between. People have different preferences. It is that “body of Christ” thing, right?
But your whole premise was a false dilemma.
Theo,
marshallart.blogspot.com will get you there.
But you misunderstand, I think. Reading your comments are like reading mine. That’s how closely we agree on this subject.
After reading Geoffrey’s post, all I can say is “wow”. And he doesn’t think he is judgmental? I’ve got quite a few years age on him and I know that I still have a lot to learn, but he impresses me as someone thinking they have arrived.
Um, you haven’t deleted any of my comments, and I’m an atheist.
Just testing…
Neil, it seems one of my comments didn’t make it through on this thread.
Neil said: I think this comment was trapped in my filter, so I’m bumping it to the top.
“First, Neil never addresses the crux of the argument I presented. It might make a difference in my opinion if I ever once saw a pro-lifer actually make an argument for adoption; for universal health care and adequate funding for education; even criticize the Bush Administration for planning to defund the S-CHIP program.”
You seem to think that these programs are the best ways to preserve life…I don’t.
I think universal health care harms the overall quality of care and actually puts people’s lives at risk due to long waiting lines. Canada’s supreme court seems to agree.
I think funding for education is adequate, but more revolutionary ideas have to take place in order for education to improve, rather than simply more funding. Many free market advocates are passionate about this issue, they just don’t think it is a matter of more money, but of school choice.
So there are a couple issues with your argument. 1) You assume that conservatives have the opinions they do simply because they don’t care. 2) You support certain programs because they produce supposed results. Let’s call them results A. The problem with this is that you evaluate other people’s political ideals based on results A, rather than the supposed results (results B) in the conservatives mind.
Here is an example:
1) You support universal healthcare because you believe it provides great health care for everyone and saves lives, especially poor kids.
2) Conservatives don’t support universal healthcare.
3) Therefore…the conclusion is that conservatives don’t want great health care for everyone and wants kids to die.
Now I’ll do the same.
1) I am against gun control because I want innocent people to defend themselves. For instance, I want a woman to defend herself in case she is about to be raped.
2) You support gun control.
3) Therefore…you want women to be raped.
I can’t believe that after all science has learned about when life begins there are still some stubborn people who insist life doesn’t begin until live birth. And what really astounds me is that a Christian apparently has never read the Gospel that reports the baby in Elizabeths womb jumped for joy when he heard that Mary was pregnant with Jesus. Or that God told Jeremiah, “before I formed you in the womb, I knew you.” Suppose Jeremiah’s mother believed an unborn baby wasn’t really a baby, and just because she believed her pregnancy to be an inconvienience, she had him aborted?