I get the point that’s being made, but are there any times when it IS appropriate to compare abortion to other human injustices like slavery or the Holocaust? There are similarities between them and abortion so it seems like that would be a good way to make a point about how we dehumanize groups in order to justify abusing them. Or is it better to just keep the two separate?
Excellent question. I've been thinking a lot about that question and I still have more thinking to do. I expect I will write about it when I'm more convinced one way or the other. Right now I'm planning on not comparing abortion to the Holocaust when I'm having conversations with pro-choice people, at least for pragmatic reasons. I don't need that comparison to convince people that abortion is wrong. Abortion is bad enough on it's own merits, and I've seen too many pro-choice people get distracted by the comparison and suddenly that's all they want to argue about. I think I would need to be persuaded that pro-life people should use the Holocaust comparison when talking to pro-choice people, and I'm open to that argument.
I think what's more effective is to simply describe... "Abortion is killing. It kills babies at a rate of x." And maybe if you want you could then say "to put that in context, the holocaust had a death rate of x, 9/11 x, insert other tragedy and rate here".
My concern is that we are not disturbing and shocking enough to others. And who is being rude? What is “being rude”? The magnitude of worldwide Intrauterine Childslaughter dwarfs most genocides and wars combined. When we contemplate the horror of it, then this mass killing becomes the new archetype for human destruction, death , murder. How can we avoid comparing other evils to it?
I think I need to understand your concern better. Why do you think that the pro-life movement is not disturbing or shocking enough? And since you asked, this is the dictionary definition of being rude: "discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rude?s=t
I'm thinking of "rude" as "making others uncomfortable". And I am not asking that we be more shocking or disturbing just to be shocking or disturbing. If we really do see the world differently, if we have actually internalized and integrated a set of values, what we call Natural Law, also informed and supernaturalized by the perspective grace should give us, and our affect also undergoes conversion, then I think we will seem very odd. I believe we underestimate how others naturally place greater importance on issues they see others sincerely passionate about, even if they do not agree fully. Often as not, it is the emotional weight of an attitude that causes others to take it more seriously. Most people could not understand why, if we believe as we say we do regarding abortion, we do not show more anger. Yes, anger is usually counterproductive, but showing little or none may indicate (falsely) that we have some other "agenda" we really care about, and that the defense of innocent children does not mean to us what we say it means to us. There is an emotional resonance or empathy. If we all see a child being beaten to death and cannot reach it to help, then what do we feel together, how do the feelings of some move others to feel similarly or more deeply? What is the distress we ought to feel over the ongoing slaughter of children? If we felt in accord with what we know, that resonates naturally within the larger group. This is part of the moral training of a child, this emotional empathy for joy and distress. (sorry, I am wandering somewhat).
That's actually a really helpful clarification. We agree more than I thought we would when I read your first comment. I am not arguing that pro-life people should avoid every single thing that could be interpreted as "weird." You're right. We live in an age where apathy is cool, at least to some people. So if someone thinks I'm weird, the question is, why do they think that? If they think I'm weird because I'm working full-time to educate on a civil rights issue, then I'm fine with that. But if they think I'm weird because whenever I talk about the issue, I'm really off-putting and make them not want to talk to pro-lifers anymore, I should at least question my communication techniques. Sometimes we have a debate where we ask zero questions, we don't really listen to what they have to say, (since we're right and everything,) we fail to state any points of genuine common ground, and sometimes use language that distracts the person, making it more harmful than helpful to a good dialogue where people change. Can we agree that there are some things that make us seem weird that we should avoid?
Thanks, Jim! I'm definitely open to having wrong views on this. Thanks for your passion for the unborn. If only more apathetic people could be more like you.
I'm curious. Not saying I disagree with pro-life or anything, and this is straying a bit, but I was just curious on your opinions since you all seem very passionate about this. What is your argument for the slaughtering of animals when you seem so opposed to the death of humans? (I'm not saying I am for the death of humans. I am vegetarian, by religion, and am just curious about what your reasons for not being may be). If you do not believe that humans have the right to determine whether unborn humans get to live or die, what gives humans the right to decide whether animals live or die?
Jake, you have a fantastic way of asking questions. You seem truly curious and interested in the way you wrote that, and few people are able to get that to come across online. It's a great question. There's a few things going on for me. First, I'm a Christian, so I believe that when Genesis 1:26 says, "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," that means that God did something special with human beings that He didn't do with other animals. Then verses 26 and 28 both say that God gave man dominion over the animals. For these reasons, I don't believe that animals and human beings are equally valuable. Does that mean we should mistreat animals? Absolutely not. It's wrong for independent reasons to cause gratuitous suffering to another creature who can suffer. Practically speaking, that means I have a pretty big problem with the way we treat lots of cows and chickens who are bred to be slaughtered. Then you have animals that are more self-aware, like gorillas, chimps, whales and dolphins. I'm still processing what I think about them. I don't think they have equal value to human beings, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't kill them or keep them in captivity, except for special circumstances like preserving their species or something. "The Cove" and "Blackfish" had a stronger impact on me than I expected they would. So that's a brief thumbnail sketch of where I'm at right now. I'd definitely be interested in your take, and I'd be glad to try to answer any follow-up questions you have. I think animal rights is an important topic that many of my friends don't take as seriously as they should.
@ Josh Brahm, I have a question for you, I read an article on the Life Training Institute website which made the argument that a pro-choice person who supports a woman’s right to kill her unborn child, must also support a woman’s right to do anything she wants to her unborn child, including causing intentional harm. Now I could just be taking what I read out of context here (and I’m really not trying to advocate for the mistreatment of animals) but I think that the same argument could also be made for the animals we use as food. If we support killing animals for food, even when we don’t need to eat them in order to survive, then can we say that it’s wrong to mistreat them? If our rights over animals allow us to unnecessarily kill them, then why would they not also allow us to mistreat them since I could argue that killing them is worse than mistreating them?
I'm not sure that LTI has actually said that "a pro-choice person who supports a woman’s right to kill her unborn child, must also support a woman’s right to do anything she wants to her unborn child, including causing intentional harm." I would want to see the link. There are certainly a few pro-choice arguments that may have that problem, but not all of them. I won't go more into that until I see a link because I don't want to come across as fighting with LTI on something they probably didn't say. On to your animal rights question. For clarity's sake, let's separate out harder cases in the animal kingdom: whales, dolphins, gorillas and chimps. (Not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea.) For animals like cows, pigs and chickens, here's your question: is it worse to kill them or mistreat them? It seems to me that this depends on the definition of "worse" and what kind of killing and mistreatment we're talking about. Let's assume by "worse" you mean worse for the animal. I would argue that a swift death is better for the animal than years of mistreatment, housed in cages so small that they can't move around.
Took me a while to find searching through my old favorites (I have a lot of them). As I said, I may be taking the argument out of context. And I know that I am trying to compare two completely separate issues, but it seems to me like the reasoning in this argument and yours are similar. Of course I could be wrong and if I am you will be able to set me straight. LTI website. http://www.prolifetraining.com/FiveMinute12.asp There was also this which talked about it in more depth. Not on the LTI website but a link provided in LTI blog archives, “SUFFER THE VIOLINIST: WHY THE PRO‐ABORTION ARGUMENT FROM BODILY AUTONOMY FAILS “ by Richard J. Poupard http://www.equipresources.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/JAA025.pdf In his paper Poupard also states that “Death, in fact, is the ultimate harm.” (with emphasis on ultimate). I generally agree with that statement BUT he is talking about a human being and not a non-human animal. I’m not sure how death can be argued as the ultimate harm for humans, but not for animals. I haven’t gotten that far on this issue yet. Assuming the animal is going to be killed either way, then I may agree that a swift killing is better than suffering for years then being killed, if that's an option. But even if I conceded that point, it doesn't answer why it's ok to kill them, but wrong to harm them. I'm not completely sure about that yet. I would also argue that the reason we cram chickens into tiny cages is because we have set them aside as food and they really serve no other purpose than to be killed for our enjoyment later. It's even likely that they wouldn't be in that kind of treatment if not for our demand for them as food in the first place. That's very different than animals that we have invited into our homes as pets and companions. Also, I'll make sure that I always provide links form now on and I am sorry for not doing so in the first place.
No apology necessary! On bodily rights arguments, I'd recommend you check out this speech and/or paper, both of whom explain the difference between two categories of bodily rights arguments: the "Sovereign Zone argument," and the "Right to Refuse" argument: http://joshbrahm.com/dfg/ I think Poupard's Thalidomide argument is a very helpful response to Sovereign Zone arguments, and my brother Tim adjusted it to make it even stronger, in my opinion. You can read Tim's article here: http://www.timothybrahm.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone/ I wouldn't personally use the Thalidomide argument in response to the violinist case, which would fall under the Right to Refuse category, because the Right to Refuse argument is not that a woman has the right to do ANYTHING she wants with her body. I think Thomson could argue that you have the right to unplug from the violinist but you don't have the right to inject drugs into the violinist that will mutilate his body. Having said that, there are several very good responses to the violinist in the LTI link above, namely the responsibility objection, the parental obligation argument and the difference between unplugging and actively killing. There are downsides to all of those arguments that I go into in the DFG speech/paper, but that doesn't mean they are bad arguments that shouldn't be used. You should just know the potential weaknesses and be ready to respond accordingly. On animal rights, I think you could argue that death is the ultimate harm for humans but not for animals. You could argue that using Don Marquis' "Future Like Ours" argument: http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf
I believe thought provoking is good. It is not forceful, but it makes one think what is acceptable in their heart. I'm Christian and I know I am turned off when someone says forcefully that what they are saying is right or wrong. I walk away. If the issue is forced I tend to close my ears. But to raise questions to make them think for themselves what is right, or to look beyond society's ways. John haggee mission. Has a quote " if we can't declare someone dead until their heart stops beating; than why can't we declare them alive when it starts beating". This made me think further. I'm pro life but what is "my" reason to pro life. I believe God gave us a purpose and he is faithful to fulfill it. However, he gives us free will. He hopes that we will receive all he has for us. But sometimes we get scared dont we. I believe once the cells join it has a purpose. To grow to a baby with a beating heart and to do something wonderful like learn to walk. To love another. To feel joy to feel sadeness. To live. I have been assaulted. And although I am Pro-life I dont know what I would have done had I become pregnant from it. This is where compassion must outweigh our human sized opinions. An opinion is only a way for us to justify ourselves, no one else. Someone feeling immense shame from rape amd then carry a baby. Yes they could adopt it out. But if they feel judged, attacked, they will hide it and live in shame from something that was not their fault. And it is best to empower. That being God does not condemn his children we have no place to to condemn. Someone's choice from something they cannot understand but the person going through it. They feel demeaned as it is and to put guilt trips just causes more shame. If it has been done they need to heal and that can't happen if our society continues to shame the victim. Forcefulness causes cowering and turning away causing the exact problem you are trying to stop. Like I said I'm pro life but than that happened to me and I did think "what if I'm preganant" and I'm glad that I did not have to know what choice I would have made. But many have to make that choice and then shamed further because of it. We need to help them to heal and move forward and lift them from a place of shame to a place of hope.
CBR and even JFA are known for displaying images of abortion victims next to images of Holocaust victims. Do you feel this is inappropriate and/or ineffective? Should these groups rethink their approach?
That's a good question. I'm still thinking about it. My views on it have been challenged recently and I'd rather not comment until I've thought about it more.
I'm interested to hear your response to this if/when you have a chance to formulate it fully, because I also thought the same thing as "Guest" even before I read this FTV article.
I love this piece. It is true. One of the most painful things I hear over and over in pro-life logic is a repetition of comparison to genocide even when the logic is falling on the ears of someone who doesn't believe that fetuses are babies. If someone doesn't believe that a fetus is a baby, then your first job is to get to the root of that logic. No walls are going to crumble without first knocking out the foundation. If we keep comparing abortion to genocide when our audience doesn't think that they are people, we're just going to sound like idiots, making the same debate mistake over and over again. Love the "Don't be weird." Wish that was every Pro-life advocate's motto. Wonderful piece.
Great thoughts, Kasey. We would communicate so much better if we were careful not to question beg when discussing this issue. (Or any other hot topic, for that matter.)
Absolutely. You could quote several paragraphs and then link back here for the full article. The only thing I don't like is when people copy and paste the entire article on their site, which doesn't give people the chance to explore my other articles or subscribe. Thanks, Susi!
I agree that all deaths should be taken seriously as the tragedy they are. However, I do find it impossible to stop thinking about abortion precisely because I see it as no different than other cases of death. The sex slavery thing bothers me on multiple levels. I want to end all the evil in the world. I am angry that it has been happening long before I existed and don't know why people tell me that there is nothing I can do. I get highly emotional about it and am glad I am behind a computer screen where they can't really see how I feel. I have to try to speak some truth into this world of lies.
Speaking as a pro-choicer who has had an abortion, the constant comparison of abortion to mass murders makes me think you guys aren't telling the truth when you say you don't want to prosecute women for murder under an abortion ban.
I'm sorry to hear about your abortion. I can't read your tone in that comment, so I'll just say that if you're interested in resources on managing the grief that SOME women feel at some point after an abortion, feel free to email me personally at josh@joshbrahm.com and I'd be glad to share some resources with you. I think your comment is very understandable. It's one of many reasons I don't think it's generally helpful to compare abortion to genocide. If you're interested in my personal take on the "how should women be punished if abortion becomes illegal" question, I hosted a discussion about that five months ago and published it here: http://prolifepodcast.net/2013/12/184.
I'm not interested. I have no regret or grief. I have had antis tell me that women like me should be forced into "counseling" if caught trying to access an illegal abortion, which I also find chilling.
And here's the thing: Even if you, personally, are opposed to prosecuting women as murderers, you or people like you are not necessarily going to be the ones legislating and adjudicating the issue should abortion be criminally banned. This country is full of people who would be happy to throw women in jail (or worse) for abortion and such people have a knack for getting themselves into positions of authority. This is not mere speculation on my part. Women are already being arrested and prosecuted under so-called fetal protection and chemical endangerment laws, which anti-abortion activists swore up and down would not be used to prosecute women when they were going through the legislature. Tennessee is considering a bill to criminalize pregnancy http://outcomes.as we speak.
This country is full of people who would be happy to throw women in jail (or worse) for abortion Maybe because if they are right about abortion being a crime against human life and humanity, then a crime like this needs to be severely punished?
I "want to punish" any murderer, regardless of anything - because the sentence for murder is prison, regardless of any other points. If "this country is full of people who would be happy to throw" black and/or poor men and women in prison because they commit crime; and, if abortion is equivalent to murder, there is no other logical conclusion.
Right now I'm planning on not comparing abortion to the Holocaust when I'm having conversations with pro-choice people, at least for pragmatic reasons. I don't need that comparison to convince people that abortion is wrong. Abortion is bad enough on it's own merits, and I've seen too many pro-choice people get distracted by the comparison and suddenly that's all they want to argue about. I think I would need to be persuaded that pro-life people should use the Holocaust comparison when talking to pro-choice people, and I'm open to that argument.
And since you asked, this is the dictionary definition of being rude: "discourteous or impolite, especially in a deliberate way."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rude?s=t
I am not arguing that pro-life people should avoid every single thing that could be interpreted as "weird." You're right. We live in an age where apathy is cool, at least to some people. So if someone thinks I'm weird, the question is, why do they think that?
If they think I'm weird because I'm working full-time to educate on a civil rights issue, then I'm fine with that.
But if they think I'm weird because whenever I talk about the issue, I'm really off-putting and make them not want to talk to pro-lifers anymore, I should at least question my communication techniques.
Sometimes we have a debate where we ask zero questions, we don't really listen to what they have to say, (since we're right and everything,) we fail to state any points of genuine common ground, and sometimes use language that distracts the person, making it more harmful than helpful to a good dialogue where people change.
Can we agree that there are some things that make us seem weird that we should avoid?
It's a great question. There's a few things going on for me.
First, I'm a Christian, so I believe that when Genesis 1:26 says, "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness," that means that God did something special with human beings that He didn't do with other animals.
Then verses 26 and 28 both say that God gave man dominion over the animals. For these reasons, I don't believe that animals and human beings are equally valuable.
Does that mean we should mistreat animals? Absolutely not. It's wrong for independent reasons to cause gratuitous suffering to another creature who can suffer. Practically speaking, that means I have a pretty big problem with the way we treat lots of cows and chickens who are bred to be slaughtered.
Then you have animals that are more self-aware, like gorillas, chimps, whales and dolphins. I'm still processing what I think about them. I don't think they have equal value to human beings, but I'm pretty sure we shouldn't kill them or keep them in captivity, except for special circumstances like preserving their species or something. "The Cove" and "Blackfish" had a stronger impact on me than I expected they would.
So that's a brief thumbnail sketch of where I'm at right now. I'd definitely be interested in your take, and I'd be glad to try to answer any follow-up questions you have. I think animal rights is an important topic that many of my friends don't take as seriously as they should.
There are certainly a few pro-choice arguments that may have that problem, but not all of them. I won't go more into that until I see a link because I don't want to come across as fighting with LTI on something they probably didn't say.
On to your animal rights question. For clarity's sake, let's separate out harder cases in the animal kingdom: whales, dolphins, gorillas and chimps. (Not an exhaustive list, but you get the idea.)
For animals like cows, pigs and chickens, here's your question: is it worse to kill them or mistreat them? It seems to me that this depends on the definition of "worse" and what kind of killing and mistreatment we're talking about.
Let's assume by "worse" you mean worse for the animal. I would argue that a swift death is better for the animal than years of mistreatment, housed in cages so small that they can't move around.
LTI website. http://www.prolifetraining.com/FiveMinute12.asp
There was also this which talked about it in more depth. Not on the LTI website but a link provided in LTI blog archives, “SUFFER THE VIOLINIST: WHY THE PRO‐ABORTION ARGUMENT FROM BODILY AUTONOMY FAILS “ by Richard J. Poupard http://www.equipresources.org/atf/cf/%7B9C4EE03A-F988-4091-84BD-F8E70A3B0215%7D/JAA025.pdf
In his paper Poupard also states that “Death, in fact, is the ultimate harm.” (with emphasis on ultimate). I generally agree with that statement BUT he is talking about a human being and not a non-human animal. I’m not sure how death can be argued as the ultimate harm for humans, but not for animals. I haven’t gotten that far on this issue yet.
Assuming the animal is going to be killed either way, then I may agree that a swift killing is better than suffering for years then being killed, if that's an option. But even if I conceded that point, it doesn't answer why it's ok to kill them, but wrong to harm them. I'm not completely sure about that yet.
I would also argue that the reason we cram chickens into tiny cages is because we have set them aside as food and they really serve no other purpose than to be killed for our enjoyment later. It's even likely that they wouldn't be in that kind of treatment if not for our demand for them as food in the first place. That's very different than animals that we have invited into our homes as pets and companions.
Also, I'll make sure that I always provide links form now on and I am sorry for not doing so in the first place.
On bodily rights arguments, I'd recommend you check out this speech and/or paper, both of whom explain the difference between two categories of bodily rights arguments: the "Sovereign Zone argument," and the "Right to Refuse" argument: http://joshbrahm.com/dfg/
I think Poupard's Thalidomide argument is a very helpful response to Sovereign Zone arguments, and my brother Tim adjusted it to make it even stronger, in my opinion. You can read Tim's article here: http://www.timothybrahm.com/autumn-in-the-sovereign-zone/
I wouldn't personally use the Thalidomide argument in response to the violinist case, which would fall under the Right to Refuse category, because the Right to Refuse argument is not that a woman has the right to do ANYTHING she wants with her body. I think Thomson could argue that you have the right to unplug from the violinist but you don't have the right to inject drugs into the violinist that will mutilate his body.
Having said that, there are several very good responses to the violinist in the LTI link above, namely the responsibility objection, the parental obligation argument and the difference between unplugging and actively killing. There are downsides to all of those arguments that I go into in the DFG speech/paper, but that doesn't mean they are bad arguments that shouldn't be used. You should just know the potential weaknesses and be ready to respond accordingly.
On animal rights, I think you could argue that death is the ultimate harm for humans but not for animals. You could argue that using Don Marquis' "Future Like Ours" argument: http://faculty.polytechnic.org/gfeldmeth/45.marquis.pdf
It is true. One of the most painful things I hear over and over in pro-life logic is a repetition of comparison to genocide even when the logic is falling on the ears of someone who doesn't believe that fetuses are babies. If someone doesn't believe that a fetus is a baby, then your first job is to get to the root of that logic.
No walls are going to crumble without first knocking out the foundation.
If we keep comparing abortion to genocide when our audience doesn't think that they are people, we're just going to sound like idiots, making the same debate mistake over and over again.
Love the "Don't be weird." Wish that was every Pro-life advocate's motto.
Wonderful piece.
Thank you so much for speaking out about this!!! Keep up the great work! :D
The sex slavery thing bothers me on multiple levels. I want to end all the evil in the world. I am angry that it has been happening long before I existed and don't know why people tell me that there is nothing I can do. I get highly emotional about it and am glad I am behind a computer screen where they can't really see how I feel. I have to try to speak some truth into this world of lies.
I think your comment is very understandable. It's one of many reasons I don't think it's generally helpful to compare abortion to genocide.
If you're interested in my personal take on the "how should women be punished if abortion becomes illegal" question, I hosted a discussion about that five months ago and published it here: http://prolifepodcast.net/2013/12/184.
This is not mere speculation on my part. Women are already being arrested and prosecuted under so-called fetal protection and chemical endangerment laws, which anti-abortion activists swore up and down would not be used to prosecute women when they were going through the legislature. Tennessee is considering a bill to criminalize pregnancy http://outcomes.as we speak.
Maybe because if they are right about abortion being a crime against human life and humanity, then a crime like this needs to be severely punished?
If "this country is full of people who would be happy to throw" black and/or poor men and women in prison because they commit crime; and, if abortion is equivalent to murder, there is no other logical conclusion.