Aborted Reasoning

Yesterday, I had the questionable pleasure of driving by a small abortion protest in front of a local medical building. Two men and a woman were each holding signs while one of the men used a bull horn to shout something from the sidewalk. One of the signs in particular, caught my attention. It read, “God Chose That Baby“.

In the wake of the recent Todd Akin debacle, I’ve heard a number of so-called Pro-Life advocates claim that abortion is always wrong. This troubles me. I agree that life is precious, but the mother has a life too. And life is much more than being physically not dead. I would never advocate for abortion as a casual form of birth control, but drawing hard lines around exactly when pregnancy is too much for the mother to bear is beyond my pay grade. Choose life? Sure. But whose? And at what quality of life? I’m not qualified to make that decision, and frankly neither are you… or the government.

But the sign started the wheels turning in my mind. A Pro-Life friend recently explained that when God conceives a baby, He has a plan. If the mother dies, or is physically or mentally traumatized or disabled in the process, that’s tragic. But it’s still part of the plan. If God means for the mother to survive, she will. It is not for us to intervene. Hmmm… And then, the apparent worldview of these folks clicked into place for me… and then quickly went all askew.

While I don’t agree with the position, I can at least respect a position that says God plays an active role in our everyday lives. He chooses the key events of our lives, and we are not to meddle in His affairs. He has a plan. It’s not possible to know what it is, but He has one. At least I can respect the position if the person actually lives their life by that philosophy. But I can’t see how that’s so.

According to this philosophy, there’s no reason to seek medical intervention on anything, not just pregnancy. If you have a heart attack, God meant that for you. If you were meant to survive it, you will. To expect that God’s plan included a paramedic with a defibrillator makes no sense. It would then be equally reasonable to assume God’s plan included a pharmacist with a morning-after pill.

If, in fact, God did choose that baby, who among us can say what for? God sent his own son to die for us—to teach us something. Is it so farfetched that he might send an embryo to die for a person or a family to teach them something? There are several references in the bible to men being called to a destiny from the womb. Who is to say fulfilling that destiny requires reaching adulthood? The simple reality is, you can’t say there is a plan; no one knows what it is; but that thing there is definitely not part of it.

The only rational counter argument is that there is something special and sacred about the life of a child. That the value of a child’s life is always above and beyond the value of anyone else’s life. But (since we can’t know the plan) this valuation would have to be supported by the bible, and that’s not at all clear. Jesus may have loved the little children, but Abraham was told to kill his own son, and Deuteronomy instructs fathers to have their non-virginal daughters stoned to death. Further, the bible says nothing about abortions. The closest it comes is in Exodus when it is stated that if you strike a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage, you must pay a fine to the woman’s husband. God’s plan for the life of children is a bit cloudy at best. Clearly, “Thou shalt not kill,” is not quite the black and white rule you might assume.

Perhaps you believe that God chose that baby. But it seems that unless you’re purporting to know God’s unknowable plan for it, you’re a hypocrite.

The Mythical War on Religion

Religion is under attack in America—at least this is part of the ongoing narrative from the far right. It fits with the themes that Obama in particular and liberals in general are out to destroy the foundational institutions of the country.

It is in the context of this narrative that Michelle Malkin gets her panties all in a bunch over the new Health and Human Services directive that all employers must abide by federal guidelines to include legal contraception as part of their employee medical insurance, including employers such as church run hospitals, schools, and universities. (The churches themselves are still excluded)

Somehow, this translates to a government mandate that churches have to pay for abortions. Bishop Paul Loverde didn’t mince words when he called the U.S. Department Health and Human Services order “a direct attack against religious liberty. This ill-considered policy comprises a truly radical break with the liberties that have underpinned our nation since its founding.”

Before I call “bullshit”, let me connect the dots. Since the late 90’s, legal contraception has included Plan B or the morning after pill. If you’re of a mind to view an unimplanted fertilized egg as a baby, then this becomes abortion. So do a lot of other things, but that’s not important right now. Further, strict Catholic doctrine holds that contraceptives of any kind are not allowed. Hence the claim that the HHS directive is an attack on religious liberty. Oh, and the HHS is part of the executive branch of government, so this is an order by Obama, who is evil and out to destroy us, one baby at a time.

Ok, all together now… “Bullshit!”

It is this sort of conflation that gives Conservatives the reputation of snake oil salesmen. There are arguments to be had here, but this ain’t one of them. For example, you might reasonably argue:

Plan B should not be a legal contraceptive
HHS should not require contraceptives to be covered by employee medical insurance
The government should make no regulations on medical insurance

Fine. Have those battles. (Actually we did have those battles, that’s how we got here.) But recognize, the actual argument being made is that religious run organizations are exempt from following the law in cases where they disagree with it. It’s wrapped in the cloak of religious freedom because that issue gets people not really paying attention (and that’s a scary big bunch of them) all in a tizzy. The larger point gets muddled because the word “abortion” is tossed around, and everyone loses their frickin’ mind.

But suppose the fictional Church of Bob declares that all girls be deflowered by the minister upon reaching menarche. Pretty clearly no sane person would advocate that the church get a child abuse waiver because it’s part of their doctrine. What if the Gospel according to Bob dictates that no followers will pay taxes, or no followers will enter the military?

The point being that in this country, it doesn’t matter (or at least it’s not supposed to matter) who you are or what group you belong to. The law is the law. Follow it or pay the consequences. Work to get it overturned. But are we really going to sit by and argue that any person or group should be exempt from any law because they don’t agree with it?

Try that the next time a cop pulls you over. “Gee Officer, you see… the thing is… I don’t believe in speed limits.” If that doesn’t work, try claiming that speed limits cause abortions.

Women at Gunpoint

We narrowly averted a government shutdown Friday over what basically boiled down to funding for Planned Parenthood. What’s clear from the guests on the Sunday talk shows this morning is that this issue will rise once again when we get to debate the debt ceiling in the coming months.

The notion this is remotely a fiscal issue is beyond comical. The total Title X outlay for Planned Parenthood is about $80 million per year, which is not even noise in the scope of the federal budget.

To their credit, the GOP has been reasonably direct about this being an attempt to restrict abortion. Yet abortion only amounts to about 3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood, and the Hyde Amendment already makes it illegal for any federal funds to be used for any abortion related activity.

To that end, opponents have been arguing that defunding Planned Parenthood to keep federal monies from being used for abortion is redundant. The Republican response has been that the funds are fungible. That is, once Planned Parenthood gets the money, they can’t assure how it will be used. And while Planned Parenthood could certainly be held accountable after the fact for misusing funds, they need to make 100% sure up front that there is no illegal use.

The right’s desire to prevent loss of life at all costs rather than prosecute it after the fact is laudable. So it can only be assumed they would also support banning guns. After all, much like the Planned Parenthood funds, guns have legitimate and beneficial purposes. However, it’s possible to use them illegally as well. Once guns are out there, their use is fungible. In order to be 100% sure no one does anything illegal with a gun, clearly they must be banned.

After all, a good argument is a good argument. If this is the game they want to play, let’s go all in.