« Fascists in the American Legion? | Main | David Simon and the Audacity of Despair »

Juno's Politics

02 Jan 2008 03:30 pm

[This post contains spoilers] I keep thinking about Ross's post on the politics of Juno and his contention that:

None of this means that movie is a brief for overturning Roe v. Wade; far from it. But like Knocked Up, it's decidedly a brief for not getting an abortion.

I really don't know. I mean, consider alternatives. There's no way to make a movie about a single woman and her unplanned pregnancy if you make the unplanned pregnancy end with an early abortion the way most such pregnancies end. But it can't be that the mere act of telling the story of a non-abortion constitutes a "brief" for getting not getting an abortion. And much of the plot of Juno is consistent with everything going awry after Mark and Venessa break up. If things had gone awry, you would have wound up with a very different film in terms of this alleged anti-abortion message -- you'd have something about how even leaving aside the inconvenience, etc., adoption is no panacea.

Instead, that all ends up happily and Juno even finds true love. But it's that -- the positive outcome rather than the portrayal of the decision itself -- that lends the film something of an anti-abortion quality. Like Knocked Up it's a film where a woman decides not to have an abortion under circumstances where an abortion seemed like a likely outcome, and then despite some difficulties it all winds up well in the end. But is this really a political message, or is it just Hollywood sentimentality? If it's the former, then it winds up being a pretty dumb message.

It would be a message that posits that the whole phenomenon of abortion in the United States is a kind of giant analytical error on the part of American women -- tons and tons of them are getting pregnant and having abortions because they think carrying the pregnancy to term would have very bad consequences for their lives, but actually they're mistaken. You might think your unplanned pregnancy would hurt your career as an on-air television personality, but really it will advance your career! You might think your parents will be mad and your friends will ostracize you, but really they'll all be supportive! Best of all, sticking with your unplanned pregnancy is solid ticket to love and marriage! But at the end of the day, it's really just silly to suppose that any huge proportion of abortions are mistakes like that.

The crux of the political problem for the anti-abortion movement is that pro-life activists think that a woman should be legally required to carry her pregnancy to term whether or not the consequences of doing so are likely to be negative. If making an effective "brief" for not having an abortion requires you to just posit that the non-abortion path will work out super-well, then you're simply not engaging the argument. Juno's family and friends are helpful and supportive and good for them and good for her. And Alison Scott's employers are enthusiastic about her pregnancy. But what about teenage girls whose parents aren't helpful and supportive? What about women whose careers really would be imperiled by a pregnancy? Those women are the real subjects of the abortion controversy and I don't think Juno or Knocked Up really has anything to say about them. Which doesn't harm them as light comedies, but does, I think, totally undermine efforts to construe them as having important political messages.

Share This

Comments (89)

Can you fix the italics, please?

"There's no way to make a movie about a single woman and her unplanned pregnancy if you make the unplanned pregnancy end with an early abortion the way most such pregnancies end."

Why not?

There's no way to make a movie about a single woman and her unplanned pregnancy if you make the unplanned pregnancy end with an early abortion the way most such pregnancies end.

Huh? Think, say, Fast Times at Ridgemont High?

Matt, seriously, preview before you post. It takes thirty seconds.

haha. !!! !!!

This is unreadable.

does this help?

And... fixed.

An alternative good plot device for a movie would be one in which the woman has an abortion, then realizes what she has done and spends the rest of her life trying to atone for it.

I think that movies like this do serve a point in that women who choose abortion are in fact, in many cases, making a tremendous analytical error. They are trying to avoid the negative consequences of giving birth while not realizing that abortion will also carry with it terrible negative consequences- primarily the guilt and sorrow that will last the rest of their lives. The women who have abortions are victims almost as much as the babies.

The problem is that a depressing movie about how sucky someone's life is after they have an unplanned kid wouldn't make much money.

But like Knocked Up, it's decidedly a brief for not getting an abortion.

That's really just stupid.

Knocked Up has no abortion message, one way or another.

It's a comedy that would not have worked - for several reasons - had the female lead decided to terminate her pregnancy in the first 10 minutes of the film.


"Fast Times" isn't about the pregnancy and abortion, even those things are major events, the way "Juno" and "Knocked Up" are about pregnancy.

(I always thought "Fast Times" was about Phoebe Cates climbing out of the pool, wasn't it?)

Ross thinks the movie is a pro-life brief because that's his own position and it's what he wants to see. But if the delivery had been screwed up and the kid ended up with CP, would it be a brief for malpractice suits?

Politicizing everything is stupid.

Hector,
I'm going to run a spear through your throat and drag your lifeless corpse behind my chariot around the Family Research Council headquarters.
Love,
Achilles

It seems to me that any movie where a sympathetic character makes an autonomous choice not to get an abortion is likely to be claimed by both sides of the controversy . . . because it provides imperfect support for each position.

"See, she's smart, and she figures out that getting abortion is the wrong thing to do."

"Actually, what you have there is a woman making a CHOICE."

and around and around we go . . .

They are trying to avoid the negative consequences of giving birth while not realizing that abortion will also carry with it terrible negative consequences- primarily the guilt and sorrow that will last the rest of their lives. The women who have abortions are victims almost as much as the babies.

I'm afraid that when your argument revolves around attributing emotional responses to other people, you've painted yourself in a corner. Here is a fact that many pro-lifers simply refuse to accept: many, many woman have abortions, and doing so is unquestionably a net-positive for their lives, and they don't regret it. That's not dispositive of the larger question of abortion. But it is a fact, and it is one that eliminates the absurd notion that no one ever benefited from getting an abortion, or for their partner getting one. Many have, and they will continue to.

Freddie makes the point I was about to make, but in a much, much nicer way than I was about to do it.

I agree that this is a liberal pro choice movie in the sense that it explores all the issues involved, both the pro and con of all the key decisions that have to be made, (terminate or not) (keep or not) (how to talk about it to others etc.) (show emotional cost). Because it shows both sides of the choices, because choices are made it is a liberal movie.

I keep on hearing from women who are against abortion how bad it is, and my response it, well, you're a woman and a woman's opinion doesn't matter to the forced pregnancy people. Or to quote the bumper sticker, "Against Abortion ? Don't Have One."

Ooo no, a woman's career will be set back and her friends and family won't like her.

Why no mention of the fact that pregnancy and childbirth can cause permanent health complications and even death (the numbers for maternal mortality for live birth are on the rise and there are several poorly-understood potential complications during pregnancy that EVERY pregnant women is potentially subject to and should never be put at risk for against their will).

Too bad Hector can't get pregnant...

Watching Juno and thinking that the main message is that abortion should be illegal is like watching Weekend at Bernie's and thinking that the main message is that cremation should be illegal.

"pregnancy and childbirth can cause permanent health complications and even death"

So can getting out of bed in the morning.

Mike

Anybody seen Citizen Ruth? Still my favorite abortion movie.

There's no way to make a movie about a single woman and her unplanned pregnancy if you make the unplanned pregnancy end with an early abortion the way most such pregnancies end.

not exactly, but the fact that abortion is legal in this country and occurs fairly soon in the pregnancy would make it a lot more difficult to make a really engaging movie that ends in abortion.

The more I think about it, the more I think movies like Knocked Up and Juno only really make sense if you conclude they're not actually about pregnancy at all. Knocked Up is really about Seth Rogen's character FINALLY getting his shit together and growing up--the pregnancy matters only in that it's a catalyst for that growing up and provides fodder for some jokes about how pregnant women are emotional and birth is gross! The baby, and even the Katherine Heigl character, is incidental. Juno is more about pregnancy--although probably more with the Jennifer Garner character, who isn't pregnant, than the Ellen Page one, who is. In Juno's story, the pregnancy serves more as a physical manifestation and representation of the trials of being a teenage girl, and of the journey from childhood to adulthood. In that respect, I think it's brilliant--unplanned pregnancy captures so many of the fundamental issues of being a teenage girl: sex, body image, fear of judgment by peers and adults--and as her parents' greatest fear for her, it sort of encompasses a whole range of other potential teenage problems.

But, ultimately, I don't think either of these movies was really "about" unplanned pregnancy, so trying to draw political conclusions about abortion from them seems foolish.

Oh, and the Pro-life part of the movie is how the abortion clinic is portrayed as the GROSSEST PLACE EVER that "smells like a dentist's office" and has bored gameboy playing Goth-bitches handing out flavored condoms.


I agree with Otto, why not? In fact, why not have a movie where a young woman is a major character with no decent insurance, decides to take the kid to term, and dies from complications? The rest of the film could follow the guy who got her pregnant and see how he deals with it.

I have seen a couple of decent foreign films where the decision was made to keep the kid, and the lives of the poor ass mom and dad went totally to hell afterward. Pessimistic, but kinda real.

Knocked Up is really about Seth Rogen's character FINALLY getting his shit together and growing up--the pregnancy matters only in that it's a catalyst for that growing up and provides fodder for some jokes about how pregnant women are emotional and birth is gross! The baby, and even the Katherine Heigl character, is incidental.

This sounds right to me (haven't seen Juno). The fact that Ross can see the film as "about" abortion at all, let alone as a brief for not getting one, says nothing about the film and a great deal about his own preoccupations.

Having seen Knocked Up, I don't think it had an anti-abortion theme - by the end of the movie you can't help wondering why the hell Alison didn't have an abortion!

And the fact that they couldn't even explain Alison's thought process, against all other pressures, which resulted in her keeping the baby made it simply seem unrealistic...

It would be a message that posits that the whole phenomenon of abortion in the United States is a kind of giant analytical error on the part of American women -- tons and tons of them are getting pregnant and having abortions because they think carrying the pregnancy to term would have very bad consequences for their lives, but actually they're mistaken.

As liberals, I don't know if we should be so offended at claims that somebody is making giant analytical errors. I happen to think that there are a great deal of analytical errors that we making on a policy level--militant foreign policies that weaken our nation's position, or coercive interrogations that make us less safe. We also tend to be skeptical about the rationality of market institutions, and meddlesome with dietary and drug regulations. Human reason is fallible and frequently rationalizing rather than rational at all levels, and there are probably quite a few cases where people in a given situation will make bad decisions about the consequences of a given action in a systematic, predictable, correctable way.

I don't want to restrict abortion, I'm not sure whether abortion is a good idea or not and I certainly don't think it's in the same category of Obviously Stupid as, say, smoking would be, but instances of widespread systematic analytic error in consequences are pretty common in the human race

Why no mention of the fact that pregnancy and childbirth can cause permanent health complications and even death (the numbers for maternal mortality for live birth are on the rise and there are several poorly-understood potential complications during pregnancy that EVERY pregnant women is potentially subject to and should never be put at risk for against their will).

This is why, of late, I have started the notion that I'll join forces with the enforced pregnancy folks as soon as we have mandatory testing of blood types and force people to give away a kidney, portion of their liver or their bone marrow if it could save a life. If the argument is going to be that fetuses are fully developed human life and therefore must be protected at the risk of another, then the same should be true across the board. Also, hospitals should be required to provide every possible life-saving intervention no matter the cost or likelihood of positive outcome, because if financial considerations should never come into play when considering the fate of that holy fetus, they certainly should likewise not come into play for any other human being.

These people are full of crap. It's nothing to do with saving "babies." It's all about making sure that icky sex has consequences. It's why they'd rather have their own daughters die of cervical cancer than have a vaccine that might "encourage" them to have sex. Because every horny 14-year-old is thinking, "Oh, I'd better not since I haven't had that Guardisal."

"the Pro-life part of the movie is how the abortion clinic is portrayed as the GROSSEST PLACE EVER that "smells like a dentist's office" and has bored gameboy playing Goth-bitches handing out flavored condoms."


Because, as everyone knows, abortion clinics in the real world have surpassed Disney World as "the happiest places on Earth" where charming and clever liberal arts majors play Bach on the harpsicord, the scents of pine and lavender permeate the air and the doctors routinely perform abortions for free because, after all, who would deny a woman the right to control her body just because she can't come up with a few bucks?

Mike

Juno is a clever, funny movie - but it makes the birth option seem MUCH too easy.

This is a kid in high school. Does she have classes? homework? college or career aspirations? a job? You wouldn't know it from the movie. School is a place where some kids do sports and others chat in the hall. The pregnancy doesn't interfere with her future at all because she's not shown as doing anything in her present to prepare for that future.

Plus, Juno never has a moment of self-doubt, never is at a loss, is never intimidated, afraid, angry, or hurt. She wisecracks like she's walked out of a screwball comedy. She doesn't do drink or do drugs, and neither do her friends. She bears the same resemblance to a real teenager as Stewie does to a real infant (except of course that where Stewie is evil, Juno is the incarnation of goodness). That's why she's such an entertaining character.

When you compare Juno to Bleeker, who is a much more believable high school student, you see the weakness at the heart of the movie. He is a genuine teenager. She is a superhero. What's the basis of that relationship?

As a middle-aged parent of high-school aged kids, I think, frankly, that this movie is made for baby boomer parents like me. The parent-child relationship is rock-solid, by far the strongest relationship in the movie. The daughter is sassy, smart, self-confident, self-aware, mature, and responsible. The dad is wise, patient, emotionally available, and unperturbable. The step-mom is supportive and loyal. This is the ideal family from the point of view of baby boomer parents, and in particular dads.

In short, Juno is a wish fulfillment fantasy for people like me. Which is of course why I enjoyed it. But I'm very skeptical of the implication that having a baby is really pretty easy after all.

Somehow the celebration or valuation of mere autonomy in abortion-related movies doesn't strike me as sufficient to save most of them from the charge of leaning to the pro-life side.

Just about every work of drama is filled with people exercising their autonomy and making choices. But the fact that some choice is an exercise in autonomy is not equivalent to the claim that the choice is not subject to moral or prudential appraisal. People can, in acting autonomously, do things that are right or smart; they can also, in acting autonomously, do things that are wrong or foolish. And generally filmmakers, dramatists and novelists have no problem with portraying both of these possibilities, by portraying some characters and their actions is such a way as to exalt them and portraying other characters and their actions in such a way as to condemn them.

What I want to know is has anyone ever made a movie in which a woman chooses not to get an abortion, and that decision is portrayed by the filmmakers as a bad or foolish choice? I can think of a few real life circumstances where people have made the choice not to have an abortion, and things have turned out rather poorly for them. In some of these cases, I am inclined to say that the person made a foolish choice. How come that kind of depiction never makes it to the screen? It seems to be presupposed that abortion decisions are unique in that it can somehow never be the case that a choice not to have an abortion is a wrong choice.

There are innumerable films, fictions etc. where a woman with prospects for great achievement or fulfillment throws it away to follow some dumb or malevolent guy, leading to her tragic ruin or failure. In many cases, it is quite clear that the author's moral purpose is to say "here is some of the bad stuff that can happen if a good woman falls in with a bad man and makes bad life choices." No morally alert viewer is expected to view the actions and say, "well going with the scumbag was cool, because she did it autonomously". How come there are no movies in which a decision not to have an abortion is portrayed in the same light? Where are the edifying moral lessons about good women who fall into bad pregnancies and make the bad life choice to o with the pregnancy. At least, I can't think of any such movie.

The fact is, it is invariably the case that whatever gyrations the filmmaker has to go through to keep the heroine from having an abortion; and whatever discursive service is or is not paid along the way to the "pro-choice" glories of choice, autonomy and abortion rights, they always seem to find some plot device to save the heroine in the end from the horror of the abortion clinic.

For "simply not engaging the argument", read "reframing the argument" and you have exactly why it's a pro-life movie.

This is how culture engages in debate -- not by answering the strongest objections to a position, but by creating narratives that exclude the other side.

But what if the clinic had been neither as it was nor the positive straw-man just knocked down with such vigour and zest? What if it just looked like every Planned Parenthood or W[oyi]m[m][eiy]n's clinic in which I've ever spent some time: drab, functional, staff about friendly and efficient as any other doctor's office.

What if she had found another patient there with whom to speak, anyone from someone more ill-at-ease with the situation than Juno to someone who _hadn't_ had an abortion the last time and who has apparently suffered thereby?

Propaganda of the image: abortion==clinic==rilly unkuhl place v. no_abortion==spunky_girl_finds_true_love.

But then again, lots of plots in (say) romantic comedies don't reflect reality, and their characters act in ways that usually don't work that well (or not nearly that well) in real life.

Hey, how about a movie about a simpering, virginal busybody who obsesses constantly about what happens in other people's medical care, incessantly noses into their autonomous decision-making while hiding behind a thin veneer of pseudo-morality, and justifies it all based on tired old 1st century superstition?

It'll be a blockbuster!

Gee, it's amazing to see the animus that some people have towards the idea that anyone, anywhere, could make the choice to submit to fate and resolve to keep their unplanned baby. What a horrible fate.

Why do I get the feeling that the pro-abortionists posting in this thread are totally incapable of understanding the meaning of Christ on the Cross. Of course pregnancy isn't easy. The right choice in life is seldom if ever easy. When Christ decided to go through with the Crucifixion, that wasn't easy either.

If it isn't clear enough already, I'm on the left politically, and I think that society should ensure that every pregnant woman is provided the necessities of life including job security, education and training, nutritional and health assistance, decent housing, etc. all the services of the welfare state and then some, as well as social and emotional support. But all of our efforts to pursue justice and charity should not ignore the need to protect the unborn child and to honor the natural link between pregnancy and childbirth.

I'm writing a book in my leisure hours, incidentally, it has a couple of minor characters who have unplanned pregnancies. One of them chooses abortion, and has a subsequent life full of pleasure, wealth, and power. The other chooses to keep the baby and suffers greatly for it. But in the end, the one who chooses rightly is spiritually rewarded, while the one who chose abortion condemns herself to Hell.

Gee, it's amazing to see the animus that some people have towards the idea that anyone, anywhere, could make the choice to submit to fate and resolve to keep their unplanned baby. What a horrible fate.

Why do I get the feeling that the pro-abortionists posting in this thread are totally incapable of understanding the meaning of Christ on the Cross. Of course pregnancy isn't easy. The right choice in life is seldom if ever easy. When Christ decided to go through with the Crucifixion, that wasn't easy either.

If it isn't clear enough already, I'm on the left politically, and I think that society should ensure that every pregnant woman is provided the necessities of life including job security, education and training, nutritional and health assistance, decent housing, etc. all the services of the welfare state and then some, as well as social and emotional support. But all of our efforts to pursue justice and charity should not ignore the need to protect the unborn child and to honor the natural link between pregnancy and childbirth.

I'm writing a book in my leisure hours, incidentally, it has a couple of minor characters who have unplanned pregnancies. One of them chooses abortion, and has a subsequent life full of pleasure, wealth, and power. The other chooses to keep the baby and suffers greatly for it. But in the end, the one who chooses rightly is spiritually rewarded, while the one who chose abortion condemns herself to Hell.

"What if she had found another patient there with whom to speak, anyone from someone more ill-at-ease with the situation than Juno to someone who _hadn't_ had an abortion the last time and who has apparently suffered thereby?"


Why must a movie that has a teen pregnancy in it, MUST in some way echo or outright comment on the abortion debate in politics? Why is a woman choosing NOT to abort seen in any way as a statement against the right to choose?

Mike

Hector writes: "Why do I get the feeling that the pro-abortionists posting in this thread are totally incapable of understanding the meaning of Christ on the Cross. Of course pregnancy isn't easy. The right choice in life is seldom if ever easy. When Christ decided to go through with the Crucifixion, that wasn't easy either."

It was a whole lot easier than it would have been for a human being who actually existed, because a Blockbuster weekend later (only Christians and Blockbuster think 40 hours is three days) Jeezus was cavorting around Jerusalem with a toaster-sized hole in his gut (Night of the Living Rabbi!) and speechifying. Or so says the legend.

Many right choices in life are indeed easy. Choosing not to step in front of a bus is easy. Choosing not to vote Repiglican is easy. Choosing not to make national policy decisions based on malignant mythologies is easy, too. For me anyway.

I'll cop to not understanding the meaning of Christ on the Cross. I don't get the meaning of Vishnu on the Lotus, Zeus raping a swan, or snakes talking to Adam and Eve. Doesn't make any sense to me whatsoever. Movies, I get. Religion is all jibber jabber to me.

Hector: If you think any woman who chooses an abortion condemns herself irrevocably to Hell simply by doing so, you clearly don't understand the meaning of Christ on the Cross either. At least how I was told it, there's the matter of Grace...

Hector,
Your book sounds like the work of a true fiend. I'm sure the "Left Behind" crowd will love it.

Hector--your belief in your mythology has no effect on me. I might as well be listening to someone babbling in Martian.

I don't know if we should be so offended at claims that somebody is making giant analytical errors. - Consumatopia

OTOH, it does seem that many in the anti-abortion movement do think that so many women do make giant analytical errors. Which strikes me as odd for a movement in bed with (if you'll pardon the pun) those having an economic philosophy that says that markets, composed of people making a bunch of decisions based on some or other analysis, always function.

So is it that all tje analytical errors in markets cancel out? Is the differing standard simply misogyny? Is it politics making strange bedfellows? Or what?

What pissed me off about Knocked Up was the fact that hardly any of the women I know who possess extreme intelligence and success would consider NOT having an abortion after a sexual tryst with a total loser. Yeah, let's give up my career so I can take care of a newborn and a 30+ year old infant. Man, you can tell movies like this weren't written and directed by women. I wonder when they are going to make a comedy about a woman who gets pregnant and the man tells her to go fuck herself and her fetus? How many times have you heard of THAT happening, people, especially to teenage girls? Hollywood is always about a century behind the times anyway, and ever hypocritical (how many times has some starlet or ingenue been given illegal abortions during the studio system days so that the studios could hang on to a hot property they had developed?). I keep remembering a quote I heard once (can't remember the author, tho): "If men could get pregnant, abortion would not only be legal but mandatory and retroactive."

Oh, no, I don't think _all_ women who commit sins condemn themselves to hell by doing so. all of us are sinners, after all. I'm sure that I commit sins fairly often, like Jimmy Carter- lust in my heart and all that. COmmitting sins doesn't condemn you to hell. Only deliberately cutting yourself off from God does that.

Furthermore, having an abortion is generally, on the part of the woman, something done out of ignorance, not malice, and therefore doesn't really count as a sin (since the element of intent is absent). I know people who have had abortions, they're not bad people.

It's not outside the realm of possibility though that some woman, somewhere, has had an abortion, and that abortion led her to reject the whole Christian mythos, and ultimately to reject God, and to harden her own heart. _That_ can certainly condemn oneself to hell, wouldn't you say?

There's no way to make a movie about a single woman and her unplanned pregnancy if you make the unplanned pregnancy end with an early abortion the way most such pregnancies end.

Actually, have you seen Waterland, based on Graham Swift's brilliant novel? Get thee to the local video store and rent it. It's a terrific, thought-provoking movie that also happens to hinge on a single woman's termination of an unplanned pregnancy. And like Juno, apparently, it's a bit of a Rorschach Test. (It also has a terrific cast.)

It's all about making sure that icky sex has consequences. It's why they'd rather have their own daughters die of cervical cancer than have a vaccine that might "encourage" them to have sex.

Bingo.

Hector gave me the first laugh of the thread.
See you in hell, pleasure lovers!

The movie is called 'Juno' instead of 'Juno's Baby' for a reason. As Juno herself says at the end, the story was 'procreate first then find true love'.

Minor Quibble but...

Mr. Yglesias, as hesitant as I am to recommend the use of ALL CAPS to anyone, have you ever heard of the strategic placement of the term SPOILER in a description of a recently released filme? (In this case JUNO).

SPOILER:

Did you have to mention that "Juno" has a happy ending?

It's hardly up there with "Rosebud is really his sled" or "You think those talking apes are freaky, just wait till the find the Statue of Liberty."

But still... haven't seen it.

Furthermore, having an abortion is generally, on the part of the woman, something done out of ignorance, not malice, and therefore doesn't really count as a sin (since the element of intent is absent).

In case anyone doesn't understand what Amanda Marcotte means by "denying the agency of women" -- that's it, right there.

Re: You might think your parents will be mad and your friends will ostracize you, but really they'll all be supportive!

Parents getting mad maybe, but how many people have friends (please look up the meaning of that word!) who would ostracize them over getting pregnant. The days when being "in a family way" were a source of social shame are long, long gone. Any "friend" who would mistreat someone in those cirumstances was not a friend to start with and would have shown those true colors sooner or later.

"The crux of the political problem for the anti-abortion movement is that pro-life activists" have to decide who to send to jail after an abortion happens.

Hmmm - I thought Juno was about adoption. Could be because I'm an adoptive parent; and by that, of course, I mean "exactly because I'm an adoptive parent". It's hard not to put your own MO onto a movie that deals with such a tricky issue. That said, maybe you should be self-aware enough to know that you might be be projecting. (For what it's worth, it's a perfectly lovely movie about adoption)

So, you're saying that Life is no cure all? (That sounds like something from Peter De Vries.) A partial, crabbed life is what we all have. As the saying goes, it's better than the alternative.

Why do I get the feeling that the pro-abortionists posting in this thread are totally incapable of understanding the meaning of Christ on the Cross.

Can't speak for everyone, but in my case it's probably because I don't "understand the meaning of Christ on the Cross." And you know what, I'm okay with that. What bothers me is people telling me that not doing so means my opinions are immoral or invalid. I don't care what your politics in general are, it's offensive when you say my position is wrong because I don't believe in your religion. If that's all you've got please butt out (and pseudo-psychiatry about women regretting decisions for the rest of their lives doesn't count. Even if that was true, people -- even female ones -- are allowed to make decisions they regret.)

I don't think there is great animus here from the "pro-abortionists" because there are no "pro-abortionists". Presumably, such a person would be upset if anyone chose to go through with a pregnancy, planned or not. And that imaginary person would probably be outraged by these films, or any film in which a woman chose to have a baby when she could have had an abortion. But the term pro-choice is not a euphemism for "pro-abortion" -- it actually means something (pro-life, on the other hand, is often -- not always -- a euphemism for anti-sex, or more specifically, anti-women-having-sex, or in the example Thlayli cited, just plain anti-women). Alison and Juno had the choice to have an abortion, and chose not to do it. That's fine with anyone who is pro-choice. There is some contention with the unlikely happy endings, but I don't think there has been a real animus expressed here. No one is condemning these characters for doing the wrong thing because the odds were against it working out as well as it did, they (we) just think that any potential "pro-life" interpretation of the film is negated because the events depicted aren't extremely likely in the real world. And they are supposed to be comedies with contrived happy endings and no overt political message, so it's not a big deal, even if some people take them too seriously. If you want to draw animus, make a movie where no one is allowed to have an abortion and everyone is happier as a result. I will unashamedly denounce that film.

It's not outside the realm of possibility though that some woman, somewhere, has had an abortion, and that abortion led her to reject the whole Christian mythos, and ultimately to reject God, and to harden her own heart. _That_ can certainly condemn oneself to hell, wouldn't you say?

No, I wouldn't. First, I doubt people abandon religion because they had an abortion; if they really felt so much guilt about it as you claim, wouldn't it be more likely that they would try to atone for it by being more religious? Maybe "some woman, somewhere" would figure the devil's already got her, so why not enjoy yourself while you can, but not many I would think. Even if they did, I don't think they would go to hell, but that's not something we can have a meaningful argument about, is it? And again, I'm offended by the implication that "rejecting God" would lead you to have a "hardened heart." I have a hell of a lot more compassion than any GOP politician you can find.

I used to have some sympathy for genuine pro-lifers, but the more stuff like this I read, the more ardently pro-choice I become. The thing is, I think Hector is trying to make a sincere pro-life case here, but he still can't avoid treating women as non-agents and treating those who disagree with him as immoral.

Ibid,

To make one thing clear, I have zero sympathy for the GOP. (Which up until the mid 1980s, incidentally, was the more pro-choice party). I've always voted either Democratic or for a left-wing third party.

I do think that the acceptance of abortion in this country has hardened a lot of hearts. All of our hearts, not just the hearts of those unfortunate women who have abortions. Abortion has made every one of us, including you and me, a little bit more callous, selfish and cold-hearted, and a little less open to love.

Quite a lot of people do indeed feel sorry about their abortions and atone for it by becoming saintly, truly virtuous women. They probably become better people than I could ever dream of becoming. But there are also at least a few, I think, who are driven to justify their abortions, and do so by shutting down the feelings of guilt and remorse in their hearts, and eventually by shutting down the spring of charity that those emotions flow from.

I don't think most of those who advocate for abortion are actually immoral people. I think that God wll have mercy on all of those who do wrong out of ignorance, and not out of malice, and I hope that most pro-abortionists that I know- and living in Blue states I've known a lot- fit into that group. But those of us who do believe that abortion is a great evil cannot stay silent, any more than we could stay silent about slavery.

I really hate being Hectored.

I am married to a wonderful woman who had two abortions before I met her. The first was when she was in college and mainly interested in partying and having a good time and neither mentally nor psychically ready for a child. The second was when she was married to her terribly abusive first husband. There was no way she was going to bring a child into that relationship, which she finally found the courage and strength to end not long after. After we got married, she had an unplanned pregnancy, and we made the decision to have the baby. We now have a wonderful 16-year-old son, and I am glad we had him.

Hector can go fuck himself.

Oh yes, my wife was adopted.

Go fuck yourself, Hector.

how does lack of a religion preclude one from having morals, hector?

Hector writes: "I'm writing a book in my leisure hours, incidentally, it has a couple of minor characters who have unplanned pregnancies. One of them chooses abortion, and has a subsequent life full of pleasure, wealth, and power. The other chooses to keep the baby and suffers greatly for it. But in the end, the one who chooses rightly is spiritually rewarded, while the one who chose abortion condemns herself to Hell."

Sounds like a real piece of LaHaye-clinging shite, Hec. Who exactly would publish a piece of pure juvenile propaganda like that? LaHaye himself, or the nuts who put out "The Turner Diaries"?

But... JUNO was written by a stripper! And she's young and kinda hot and... used to take her clothes off for middle-aged men just like the ones who review movies.

So it has to be cool, right?


I've never understood why it isn't an obvious solution for some organization(s) to provide a fund for unplanned pregnancies so the woman can afford to carry the kid to term, have it, then give it up to an adoption agency who dumps it on some people who want to adopt.

Then you only have abortions for medical emergencies, you have no "murdered fetuses" crap, you have no men and women trying to raise kids in unfortunate circumstances, you have no illegal abortions killing women - the whole issue goes out the window.

Or is this the wrong crowd for suggesting something socially rational?

It's a social health issue - deal with it that way. Leave the "moral" and political crap for the fanatics.

If you can come up with hugely expensive crap like "Social Security" or "universal health care", why is this a huge issue? It could even be financed entirely privately, for people like me who hate the government. All you'd have to do is get rid of the notion that "you can't sell kids". Well, yes, you can if you need to solve a worse problem.

People should be pleased this society isn't doing what the Spartans did - leave the kid out in the cold. If he survives the night, keep him.


Everyone seems a bit defensive on this board.

I believe women should have the ultimate choice on abortion.

But lets not deny that abortions are ugly things. As a result, we should try to create a society where women feel confident enough to have a child (state operated daycare, state assistance, more cultural acceptance of single mothers, etc...)

I guess the bottom line: there is something profoundly beautiful about giving birth to a child. And the same can't be said about having an abortion. And I don't see anyway someone can argue about that. Its just the nature of both acts.

Hector, can you express your concerns in Secular English, or can they not be comprehensibly (if imperfectly, and with some unavoidable loss of meaning) translated from Christian?

Although to be fair, parts of your argument are in that common tongue, and come across as remarkably (were one unfamiliar with antiabortion rhetoric) weak and offensive: ie, that women, especially 'bad' women, are infantile and full of (even self-) deceit, impossible to trust.

I find it funny that some pro-choice people (which I am one of) are taking issue with 'Knocked Up' and 'Juno'. These are truly pro-choice movies in which the main female characters exercise their right to choose and have the kid. My family has recently experienced a similar situation; my 20 year old niece, an unfocused underachieving immature girl, got herself pregnant by her less than secure 21 year old boyfriend. My liberal parents who are anti-abortion urged her to keep it, my liberal sister and her less than liberal husband who are Pro-Choice wanted her to choose the abortion, and I sided with them. My niece chose to keep the baby, and she married the dad two weeks before her daughter was born. We're all in love with the baby, but it doesn't change the fact that my niece is seriously putting herself behind the eight-ball in life, along with inflicting financial hardships on the rest of the family. Regardless, my niece wasn't comfortable with the idea of an abortion and she exercised her freedom of choice like Alison Scott did in 'Knocked Up'.

Even though Alison had a much better career and well-off family to help out, the movie ends with an air of uncertainty, much like the Graduate. Ben's parents were divorced, Alison's dad is out of the picture, and her sister's marriage is clearly not perfect even with two cute little girls running around. The movie is about people trying to be adults, do the right thing and the scary proposition that despite their best efforts, they may still end up hating their lives and each other. It's a cute ending, with the baby being doted on by their friends and family, but everything that came before should warn you that all that happiness could easily end.

As for Juno, she's a character who made the decisions she did knowing that her family was supportive, that her best friend would be there and that she was sure, in her young mind, that she could accept the role of being a surrogate mother. Her reaction to the idea of an open adoption should make the viewer realize that she isn't so self-assured that she wants to get annual updates about her child. In the end, things work out, but they come pretty close to ending up a hell of a lot scarier. I think of the line from 'Walking and Talking', "Do you want to see God laugh? Make a plan". Juno realizes that she isn't a superhero, that her life and future are precarious and that she needs to stop taking the people in that life for granted; that's why she finally professes her love for Bleeker.

Ultimately, there are probably a number of films that could be written about a woman (or girl) making the opposite choice. "If These Walls Could Talk" was a film about abortion in which three women have unexpected pregnancies and two of them choose to abort; one illegally and one legally, with both having 'complications'. I'm sure there will be some backlash to what some feel is the wrong choice in these pro-choice films of 2007, and some film in the near future will address abortion from that angle. Until then, pro-choicers should be happy that two films dealt with the subject at all, regardless of the outcomes of the pregnancies they depict.

Richard Steven Hack: I've never understood why it isn't an obvious solution for some organization(s) to provide a fund for unplanned pregnancies so the woman can afford to carry the kid to term, have it, then give it up to an adoption agency who dumps it on some people who want to adopt.

It's an "obvious solution" if you think of women as incubators.

I've never met a woman who lost a baby to adoption who didn't regret doing so for the rest of her life.

While you're considering "obvious solutions", you might ask yourself why no "pro-life" organization in the US supports free access to free contraception for everyone no matter what their age, nor the mandatory provision of informative and helpful sex education in all schools, to make unplanned pregnancies (and therefore abortions) far less common. You might also ask yourself why no "pro-life" organization in the US is campaigning for mandatory paid maternity leave, free health care for pregnant women, mothers, and children, or for any other family-friendly change to the law that would make it possible for women on a low income to cope with an unplanned pregnancy.

Pro-lifers aren't interested in preventing abortions. Nor in helping women to care for children. They're focussed on forced pregnancy.

I understand that, of course.

"It's an "obvious solution" if you think of women as incubators."

No - if you think of an unplanned pregnancy as merely a medical "ailment" to be treated rationally - which most women who intend to have abortions presumable regard it.

"I've never met a woman who lost a baby to adoption who didn't regret doing so for the rest of her life."

That may well be, but in most cases of unplanned pregnancy where an abortion would be the other option, I don't see how this applies. Unless you're saying that just the fact of carrying and producing the child for adoption would immediately emotionally damage the woman. Well, that might be - but I don't see how providing an abortion changes that materially - unless you're saying that an aborted fetus is different than going through the birth experience and then giving up the child. That would be obviously true - that it is a different experience - but to what degree and what percentage of women would find that to be the case.

I suspect a lot of women would be willing to go through the experience and be willing to give up the child at the end.

It would not be "losing" the baby to adoption, it would be voluntarily giving up the child to avoid the issue of abortion without suffering any negative economic effects of having to be responsible for the child.

My point was that if you had a system whereby a woman who had an unplanned pregnancy could produce the kid without any economic impact on her, it would eliminate most abortions not for medical reasons. It would improve the supply of children available for adoption, which IIRC is not adequate.

On the other hand, I have no objection to the notion that abortion is the more efficient way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, if that's what women want. I have no belief in the requirement of every fetus to be brought to term. In my Transhuman view, human life per se has no intrinsic value whatsoever.

I'm simply saying that if society wanted to avoid the issue to some degree, providing for the support of unplanned mothers would go a long way to reduce the need for abortions.

Eventually, of course, medical knowledge will enable us to merely transplant an unwanted embryo from one body to another, or even into an artificial womb, and thus the issue will be decided technologically.

In the meantime, the only reason it's a big issue is the religious component that sees every human life as a value - except of course when they're voting to go to war or execute criminals.

And I count Ron Paul's attitude as "religious" as well, since it's probably based on Ayn Rand.

Based on current AFCARS estimates released January 2000, there are approximately 520,000 children currently in foster care in the United States. Of these, 117,000 are eligible for adoption. (US HHS, 2000)


Is this not enough kids waiting to be adopted for you, Richard Steven Hack?

I guess the bottom line: there is something profoundly beautiful about giving birth to a child.

OK. But #1, things like profound beauty, while in some ways the stuff of life, are poor criteria for public policy. #2, what bothers me about these movies and the opinions of many in the pro-life set is the refusal to acknowledge that for a great many women, an unplanned pregnancy is a profoundly ugly thing, with a whole host of deleterious consequences that negatively impact their lives for years to come. While it must be great to imagine a world that's full of wisecracking hipsters whose fears about having a baby are mostly about having to give up the bong, for most people who face unplanned pregnancy, the consequences are much larger, and are almost uniformly negative. That's what pisses me off. Not only because abortion seems to be presented as no choice at all-- and it is-- but because the choice is made by people who, because of Hollywood fantasy, don't have to make a difficult choice at all.

Jumping in again (and maybe someone already made this comment -- so sorry if I'm duplicatin' someone) when the thread may very well be dead, but it occured to me ... a movie in which the pregnant heroine had an abortion would actually be more likely to be anti-abortion than a movie where she didn't.

Why? Because movies, even comedies, generally have to have some sort of conflict. Don't y'all remember your first English class in Middle School/Jr. High folks? Necessary to any story is a conflict.

And if the woman has an abortion, in order for their to be a story, the abortion would likely be involved in the conflict. Which would provide fertile ground for the anti-abortion types to say "see, even liberal Hollywood writers know that abortion is no walk in the park" and then the anti-choicers (who apparently have never delivered a baby that they think the alternative to abortion is a walk in the park ... and who apparently think that evil abortionists are selling abortions to women with the claim that it will be a walk in the park) will make the leap to say the movie has a "pro-life" message.

OTOH, while I can't comment on either Juno or Knocked Up directly having seen neither, a movie in which the woman does ultimately go through with the pregnancy can send a powerful pro-choice(*) message about the need to have the choice available and the challenges of pregnancy/delivery/child-raising.

* Of course part of the problem with the pro-life types is that (and c.f. my comment above about political bedfellows) in spite of their alliance with market fetishists, they really don't get the concept of choice. To them, that which is not forbidden is mandatory (and note, given the reactionary agenda and its ties to profit making entities, including televangelists, the projection in their reasoning): if we don't forbid abortions, troubled women will become prey to abortionists seeking to make a quick buck killing the unborn ... if we don't forbid abortions, they'll de facto become mandatory; if we allow homosexuality to be considered a valid lifestyle choice, those recruiting for the homosexual agenda will recruit everyone into their twisted perversion and nobody'll ever get pregnant and our society will go extinct.

Maybe if they got that nobody is forcing them to have an abortion or be gay, they might change their minds?

One of the problems with art criticism and disputes over art criticism is that the line between what something is trying to communicate and what something does communicate gets completely blurred. The first - particularly in film - is pretty much unanswerable, absent some statements from the director. So whether the plots of Juno (haven't seen it) or Knocked Up are messages of pro-life politics or cases of Hollywood sentimentality and comedy, respectively, I cannot say.

Now, what something does communicate is good territory for subjective debate. As a pro-lifer, I do agree with Matt's critique of Ross here. Saying "don't have an abortion and everything will work out fine" is not necessarily a pro-life message; in fact, its really a full-blown surrender to Consequentialism. It assumes abortion is bad because - hey - if you maintain your pregnancy, your boyfriend will eventually fall back in love with you and all will be swell.

Which is not pro-life at all - or at any rate, is a crude misunderstanding of the position. It presumes the fetus to be some tool to marital bliss - a means to keeping a happy relationship. That the fetus might be considered an independent, inviolable being fails to register.

Either you believe the termination of a pregnancy is intrinsically wrong - as is the true pro-life take - or you don't.

But lets not deny that abortions are ugly things.

I deny abortions are ugly things.

But lets not deny that abortions are ugly things.

I deny abortions are ugly things.

Late term abortions are ugly things. Whether there should be restrictions on them is a complicated topic, but the being that is being killed bears substantial similarity to a born human infant. In contrast, early term abortions are like killing a tadpole; really no big deal. The idiocy / insincerity of the pro-life movement is that they don't recognize the difference between the two.

Still, however, even early term abortions are either surgical or pharmaceutical procedures, they are expensive, and they are controversial. Thus, in the ideal world, contraceptives would be effective and an abortion would be the occasional backstop.

Of course, the problem is that the same people who oppose abortions also oppose the measures with contraception and sex education that could help bring the abortion rate way down.

Dilan,

Contraceptives are widely available all over the United States and developing countries as well. I'm not aware of any country where they are illegal (except until recently Japan, which ironically had a high abortion rate as well).

I worked for three years in a developing country where as part of my job, among other things, I did discuss family planning. That included both natural family planning and chemical birth control (the pill, the birth control injection, etc.) I resent being described as someone who opposes birth control, and I don't particularly think that there are that many people who do actively oppose birth control these days. (Even the Vatican does not strongly advocate its point of view these days, it appears to realize that it has more important battles to fight, like abortion.)

The unborn child, by the way, is only a 'tadpole' if you start by denying the reality of the immaterial and immortal soul, which makes the human being qualitatively different.

Richard: No - if you think of an unplanned pregnancy as merely a medical "ailment" to be treated rationally - which most women who intend to have abortions presumable regard it.

Including all of the women who identify as pro-life who have abortions? Pro-lifer women are actually slightly more likely to have abortions, because pro-lifer women tend not to use contraception as regularly or at all.

But, if you troubled yourself to actually read what women write about abortions they've experienced, rather than deciding that they "presumably" feel, you would find - as anyone who regarded women as human would expect - a whole range of feelings. The most common single reason for deciding to abort an unplanned pregnancy is economic necessity.

That may well be, but in most cases of unplanned pregnancy where an abortion would be the other option, I don't see how this applies.

All the women I know who lost babies to adoption lost them when abortion was illegal, or shortly after it. Back then, it was considered normal to separate babies from single mothers as soon after birth as possible, and encourage the mother to put her baby up for adoption. I've never met a woman who did that who didn't regret it for the rest of her life - though in several instances, if abortion had been legally available, they would have opted to abort.

Unless you're saying that just the fact of carrying and producing the child for adoption would immediately emotionally damage the woman.
Well, that might be - but I don't see how providing an abortion changes that materially - unless you're saying that an aborted fetus is different than going through the birth experience and then giving up the child.

Yes. Because women are human, and not incubators.

That would be obviously true - that it is a different experience - but to what degree and what percentage of women would find that to be the case.

As far as anecdotal experience - not merely the personal experiences I've heard first-hand, but every account I've ever heard of a woman who gave up her baby to strangers and ceased forever to be the child's mother - it's about 100%, and it's very damned strong.

I suspect a lot of women would be willing to go through the experience and be willing to give up the child at the end.

All the data is against you there. Once the choice became available to women - to decide whether to abort or to keep - the number of women who were actively willing just to lose their baby forever to strangers and never be the child's mother - went down massively, and is still going down. That choice is still always open to any woman who wants it - but few do. Women are not incubators.

It would not be "losing" the baby to adoption

In what way would it not?

, it would be voluntarily giving up the child to avoid the issue of abortion without suffering any negative economic effects of having to be responsible for the child.

You really do think women are mechanical incubators, don't you?

My point was that if you had a system whereby a woman who had an unplanned pregnancy could produce the kid without any economic impact on her, it would eliminate most abortions not for medical reasons.

There is, and it hasn't.

It would improve the supply of children available for adoption, which IIRC is not adequate.

There are far more children in the United States in need of adoptive parents than there are people willing to adopt them.
On the other hand, I have no objection to the notion that abortion is the more efficient way to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, if that's what women want. I have no belief in the requirement of every fetus to be brought to term. In my Transhuman view, human life per se has no intrinsic value whatsoever.

I'm simply saying that if society wanted to avoid the issue to some degree, providing for the support of unplanned mothers would go a long way to reduce the need for abortions.

Eventually, of course, medical knowledge will enable us to merely transplant an unwanted embryo from one body to another, or even into an artificial womb, and thus the issue will be decided technologically.

In the meantime, the only reason it's a big issue is the religious component that sees every human life as a value - except of course when they're voting to go to war or execute criminals.

And I count Ron Paul's attitude as "religious" as well, since it's probably based on Ayn Rand.

Jesurgislac writes: "And I count Ron Paul's attitude as "religious" as well, since it's probably based on Ayn Rand."

Nah. Ron Paul is also a born-again fundie who doesn't think evolution is real.

Hector says: "The unborn child, by the way, is only a 'tadpole' if you start by denying the reality of the immaterial and immortal soul, which makes the human being qualitatively different."

Since there's absolutely no rational reason to think there is any such thing as a soul, we should start by denying it. You're welcome to present evidence to the contrary, but you don't have any.

Contraceptives are widely available all over the United States and developing countries as well. I'm not aware of any country where they are illegal (except until recently Japan, which ironically had a high abortion rate as well).

Um, Hector, you just proved my point. Japan had limited availability of contraceptions, and wham-o, you get a high abortion rate. Gee, I wonder why.

I worked for three years in a developing country where as part of my job, among other things, I did discuss family planning. That included both natural family planning and chemical birth control (the pill, the birth control injection, etc.) I resent being described as someone who opposes birth control, and I don't particularly think that there are that many people who do actively oppose birth control these days. (Even the Vatican does not strongly advocate its point of view these days, it appears to realize that it has more important battles to fight, like abortion.)

Hector, the battle on contraception is fought on the margins, but it is precisely those margins that can bring down the abortion rate. Abortions occur during UNWANTED pregnancies. Thus, for instance, distributing contraception to teenagers-- including more fail-safe devices like Norplant, as well as condoms-- is a really good idea. And that is exactly where pro-lifers fight.

Similarly, Plan B can prevent a lot of abortions, because it is what can be used to prevent a pregnancy when a condom breaks or there is a rape or unexpected sex. And guess what-- religious conservatives are doing everything in their power to try and make it more difficult to get.

It is true that very responsible and fastidious people have no problems obtaining and using contraception. But most abortions do not occur in that segment of the population. And the religious right seems hell-bent on ensuring that precisely the people who most need broad access to contraception might have the hardest time getting it.

The unborn child, by the way, is only a 'tadpole' if you start by denying the reality of the immaterial and immortal soul, which makes the human being qualitatively different.

Hector, you have every right to believe in your religion. But unprovable, untestable beliefs made up thousands of years ago by people who didn't know any better are not a valid basis for restricting the activities of other people.

And yes, I think the Christian conception of a "soul" is a silly idea. By saying this I am not saying that there might be many things about consciousness and existence that we do not understand; there very well may be. But given that 1/3 of the zygotes never make it into the endometrium, and 1 in 60 of them split into two beings, arguments that proceed from the idea that a zygote has a soul elevate stupid religious doctrines made up by people who didn't know any better above human knowledge.

Jesurgislac writes: "And I count Ron Paul's
attitude as "religious" as well, since it's probably based on Ayn Rand."

Nah. Ron Paul is also a born-again fundie who doesn't think evolution is real.

Actually, the last five paragraphs in my post, including the one you responded to, were by Richard Steven Hack - I thought I'd deleted them , but evidently not. Apologies for confusion.

Dilan,

Japan was a thoroughly secular country where most people are not particularly active followers of any religion, let alone Christianity. You can't blame the lack of the Pill in Japan on pro-lifers or on the Jesoids, as Moe puts it.

I would be careful about distributing anything to teenagers, given that teenagers are not yet mature enough to make their own life-changing decisions about 'the sweet mystery of life', as the Supreme Court likes to put it. But I think that on balance, distributing something like Norplant, or birth control pills, etc. is probably a good idea. I think most reasonable pro-life people would agree. Incidentally, I am not part of some pro-life 'movement', and I don't see why I should be charged with the failings of some of the more Republican pro-lifers. The Catholics who oppose birth control in all its forms, while I do disagree with them, I would also say that I respect their principles and their unwillingness to compromise them.

Condoms are a trickier issue, but shouldn't particularly be the focus of discussion given that they are one of the less effective methods of birth control anyway.

I hate to tell you, but your belief in invisible little fairies called 'freedom', 'tolerance' and 'democracy', is as irrational as my belief in Our Lord. No one can prove that freedom is a good thing or that tolerance is a good thing. You accept it as a matter of faith. Similarly, I place my faith in the divinity of Christ and in the immortality of the soul, and other things of that nature. (The fact that reason and logic have no meaning unless we have an immaterial soul, is further grounds for me to believe in the existence of a soul.)

I didn't want to get personal, but I have to say that I think that someone like St. Augustine, who you call ignorant, was for all his errors and limitations much smarter than you, and immeasurably smarter than people like Judith Thomson.

I would be careful about distributing anything to teenagers, given that teenagers are not yet mature enough to make their own life-changing decisions about 'the sweet mystery of life', as the Supreme Court likes to put it. But I think that on balance, distributing something like Norplant, or birth control pills, etc. is probably a good idea. I think most reasonable pro-life people would agree. Incidentally, I am not part of some pro-life 'movement', and I don't see why I should be charged with the failings of some of the more Republican pro-lifers. The Catholics who oppose birth control in all its forms, while I do disagree with them, I would also say that I respect their principles and their unwillingness to compromise them.

You are simply wrong on this, Hector. The SAME groups in America which oppose abortion also oppose efforts to widen distribution of contraception, especially to teenagers and poor people who are most likely to have unwanted pregnancies.

They are your allies. I respect the fact that the fact that they are wrong on this issue doesn't stain your position, but when speaking of the problems of the ACTUAL pro-life movement in this country, this aspect is extremely relevant. Not only does it mean that we get more abortions than we should have, but it also shows their fundamental bad faith with respect to settled issues of female sexuality.

Condoms are a trickier issue, but shouldn't particularly be the focus of discussion given that they are one of the less effective methods of birth control anyway.

Hector, Hector, Hector. As Bill Maher says about people who deny the effectivenenss of condoms, "I've been using these things for 35 years. The only thing I know that is more reliable is my toaster."

Condoms do break, but I can also state from personal experience that when a condom breaks, the man, at least, KNOWS IT. A vagina feels different from latex.

Thus, people who really care about birth control can reduce the risk of pregnancy quite low just by using condoms properly, putting them on right, and pulling out at the first sign of a failure.

Further, a condom with spermicide or some other secondary birth control method is a hugely effective method of birth control.

Additionally, condoms are a good in themselves, in that they prevent the spread of STD's. (By the way, on the condom issue, that Catholic Church you respect so much is so committed to its principles that it doesn't care that millions die of AIDS in Africa, including monogamous women who had no choice but to catch the disease from their husbands.)

Finally, even if condoms aren't perfect, they still reduce the abortion rate, because they reduce the failure rate from 85 percent down to 6 percent. That's a heck of a lot of abortions that will never happen thanks to the good folks at the Trojan Rubber Company.

I hate to tell you, but your belief in invisible little fairies called 'freedom', 'tolerance' and 'democracy', is as irrational as my belief in Our Lord. No one can prove that freedom is a good thing or that tolerance is a good thing. You accept it as a matter of faith. Similarly, I place my faith in the divinity of Christ and in the immortality of the soul, and other things of that nature. (The fact that reason and logic have no meaning unless we have an immaterial soul, is further grounds for me to believe in the existence of a soul.)

No, Hector. Now is not the time to debate enlightenment philosophy. But suffice to say, the concepts you decry as "irrational" are in fact justified by both strong, almost unarguable philosophical principle AND human experience.

In any event, they-- AND NOT IRRATIONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF-- are the foundation of our political system. If you would rather live in a theocracy, move to one. But don't use theocratic beliefs to screw American women by making abortion illegal. It is un-American to oppose liberty as "irrational".

I didn't want to get personal, but I have to say that I think that someone like St. Augustine, who you call ignorant, was for all his errors and limitations much smarter than you, and immeasurably smarter than people like Judith Thomson.

I don't think you understand what I mean by "ignorant". Obviously, Augustine was a brilliant man. But humanity simply KNEW a lot less then than we do now. That's what I mean by ignorant. For all we know, there was a man as brilliant as Augustine who lived 10,000 years ago. But without writing systems or a base of human knowledge other than oral tradition, the beliefs of such a man about the nature of the universe would clearly be unlikely to be true.

Augustine didn't know about the Big Bang. He didn't know about cosmology. He didn't know about evolution. He didn't know about biology, or microbiology, or quantum mechanics, or relativity, or nuclear physics, or fetal development, or the workings of the human brain. He wasn't dumb-- far from it-- but he, along with the authors of the Bible, were ignorant about things we now know. Which is why they made up something that you call "Our Lord" and for some reason continue to believe in even after all the premises from which its existence was conjectured have now been proven false or grossly oversimplified.

So when I say that ignorant people wrote the Bible, I am not decrying their intelligence. I am saying that people who didn't know any better about things we now know about ascribed supernatural causes that are no longer useful as an explanation. They conjectured a God because in their ignorance, it was as good an explanation as any.

I take no position on the actual existence of a God, but if She exists, She has nothing to do with the ignorant conjectures of people 2,000 years ago who didn't know any better.

" hate to tell you, but your belief in invisible little fairies called 'freedom', 'tolerance' and 'democracy', is as irrational as my belief in Our Lord. No one can prove that freedom is a good thing or that tolerance is a good thing. You accept it as a matter of faith. Similarly, I place my faith in the divinity of Christ and in the immortality of the soul, and other things of that nature"


Oh Hector, this is a rather sad bait-and-switch here.. The OT question at hand is on the (non)/existence of an immaterial and immortal soul (etc.). I presume most of us would agree that the mere existence of "freedom", "tolerance", and "democracy" is pretty taken for granted, on a common-sense level. We know that these are real things - real concepts, behaviors, practices, and institutions - unlike imaginary little fairies, which probably aren't.* The questions you toss out are actually value judgements, not matters of existence or reality like the soul issue, and have no relevance re: the soundness of such arguments.

If I, for example, I argue that the United States is (however imperfectly) a democratic country, there are specific standards and concrete pieces of evidence I can muster; likewise, in theory, for anyone attempting to disprove my argument. If one attempts to argue for the existence of an immaterial and immortal soul, one is in a much weaker position. Certainly it's quite understandable that people have often believed such a thing, given the nature of human experience, desire, and loss, but at this point it simply doesn't seem even mildly well-supported or particularly likely, although I can't really begrudge anybody such a pleasant belief. Now, some of what folks are talking about when they do soul-talk is value-stuff - that people are special and important, that life has meaning and worth, that we're "not just animals" - and some is an expression of basic human truths - that were conscious, love existence, wish for justice, and value our dearest ones beyond death, both 'selfishly'- that we would just get to see them again - and out of empathy and compassion- that they would continue existing. But if we're talking questions of fact . . .


"(The fact that reason and logic have no meaning unless we have an immaterial soul, is further grounds for me to believe in the existence of a soul.)"

Neither of these two things make sense. Why is an immaterial soul a prerequisite for logic and reason? That doesn't follow at all. I presume you're basing this on a Plantinga-style argument, which - well, see the previous sentence. And if it did, you wouldn't be able to claim secure grounds to believe in anything.

Faith isn't fact. Wishing doesn't make it so. Ought isn't is.

And do you really not understand that the politically powerful antiabortion movement is screamingly radical? Sure. most mild-to-moderate anti-abortion-leaning Americans are fine with contraception. Of course. Which goes to show how far out of the mainstream the the antiabortion radicals are. But nevertheless, the ones driving the agenda - influencing decisions that affect millions if not billions, from inflicting irresponsible abstinence "education" on American kids to stalling FDA approval of Plan B to cutting off our funding for UNFPA- are running around ranting around the "ccontraceptive mentality" and shrieking that "Pro-aborts tinkered with timing so moral women would be duped into taking the pill and so organizations like Planned Parenthood could legally receive tax dollars for their family planning clinics and population control efforts. . . . Something about Onan’s action of spilling his semen on the ground was wicked in God’s eyes . . it is not just abortion that denies life to the children God has planned “for such a time as this,” but contraception and sterilization as well . . ." etc. etc. etc. (to grab a random link or two). And of course there's the hallucinatory craziness about how vaccinating girls against HPV is a horrible, horrible thing because it's really telling them to have sex . . .

----

Y'know, I read some Augustine back in college, and what most struck me was how contemporary he seemed - the kind of (unquestionably intelligent) person produced in greater or lesser numbers in literate, urban, cosmopolitan settings, especially in times of cultural and social ferment - a genuinely bright light seen as marvelously blazing in part because of the long darkness between us and him. Of course, that's somewhat unfair (esp, to the degree that intellectual innovations become merely and historically taken-for-granted, as well as the simplistic 'darkness' trope), but still . . .

*Except in the sense that people do imagine little fairies. And make them into cute little figurines, &c.


"that were conscious"

we're conscious, we're conscious . . .! {hangs head in shame}.

Dan,

The argument that disbelief in an immortal soul is self contradictory goes something like this:

1) If there is no immaterial and immortal soul, then the processes of our mind are physical processes.
2) therefore our thought processes are physical processes have physical causes and are physically determined.
3) if our thought processes are physically determined, then at no point are we free to choose between alternative conclusions.
4) without the freedom for our minds to choose between alterntive conclusions, our minds cannot be said to be susceptible to reason.
5) therefore no reasoning is valid any more- including the piece of reasoning by which you argued that there is no soul.

I think Plantinga may have been the one that I got it from but certainly plenty of people have made the same claim. Incidentally, I don't know what 'evidence' you mean. I have never seen anything that seriously challenges my belief in an immortal and immaterial soul. On the contrary, everything I read strengthens me in my conviction. The reality of mystical experiences and of people whose souls have journeyed to the heaven or hell in vision, etc. also strengthen by belief. (If you take those accounts as reliable, which in large part I do).

Dilan,


No doubt we know many things today that St. Augustine didn't. That's why we no longer believe, for example, that the world was created complete with all its living things, by fiat, in six days. (To be fair, neither did St. Augustine). And please by the way, do him the respect of giving him his title, "Saint".

None of what we know today, however, has bearing on the core doctrine of the Christian faith, that Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, was made man, preached the gospel, and eventually suffered and died to redeem us from sin, Hell and death. Whether you believe this is quite independent of what you may believe about the origins of the universe.

(Incidentally, Christian ontological and cosmological claims are looking much healthier in the early 21st century than they did hundreds of years ago, in light of the fact that we now know that the universe had a discrete beginning, that life is a much more complex and improbable phenomenon than we ever realized, and that physics isn't even deterministic at the smallest level).

You apparently believe in a Goddess that has not revealed herself to human kind. I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that such a Goddess, if she exists, would not make efforts to contact her people for the sake of their salvation.

As for freedom, democracy, and tolerance, I don't think the case for them is at all inarguable. Now is not the time for a long debate, but suffice it to say that I think the case for liberal democracy as a form of government, and for tolerance as the basic principle of society, are extraordinarily weak. Liberalism and liberal democracy are not things I have any liking for, although I accept them because in America today, you need to accept them in order to be a part of society. Freedom and tolerance, while they do have a certain value, are at best secondary goods, valuable because they make it easier to pursue the primary goods (things that are good in themselves) like love, faith, generosity, friendship, truth, honor, etc. (See Simone Weil for a better explication of that distinction).

And please by the way, do him the respect of giving him his title, "Saint".

Why? I am not a Catholic. Do you always say "peace be upon him" when discussing Muhammed? Do you criticize non-Catholic Christians who refer to Mary without calling her "Blessed"?

I should add that I especially don't feel any obligation to use the Catholic title "Saint" given the number of unsaintly people who have been given that title.

None of what we know today, however, has bearing on the core doctrine of the Christian faith, that Jesus Christ, the only begotten son of God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, was made man, preached the gospel, and eventually suffered and died to redeem us from sin, Hell and death. Whether you believe this is quite independent of what you may believe about the origins of the universe.

Sure it does, Hector, for the same reason that criticisms of the veracity of Joseph Smith's teachings call Mormon theology into doubt.

Simply put, the same books and the same people who made the theological claims about Jesus also made a bunch of claims about the nature of the physical world that are completely false. The falsity of such claims therefore has a great bearing on whether we think the core theological claims were true.

Put another way, imagine the opposite situation. Imagine that a person came out of nowhere two centuries ago and told his followers that he was the Son of God, AND told them about the structure of DNA. 2,000 years later, when DNA was discovered, it had the same structure that this person said it had. Wouldn't that be powerful evidence that this person WAS, in fact, a deity? Similarly, the presence of numerous false teachings in Christianity is powerful evidence that it is all BS.

(Incidentally, Christian ontological and cosmological claims are looking much healthier in the early 21st century than they did hundreds of years ago, in light of the fact that we now know that the universe had a discrete beginning, that life is a much more complex and improbable phenomenon than we ever realized, and that physics isn't even deterministic at the smallest level).

I am not sure what you mean in the lsat point-- I haven't seen anybody making theological claims that are consistent with quantum mechanics or string theory or the multiverse hypothesis-- but as to the first two statements, you can only get where you are going by oversimplifying and misstating the scientific findings.

The big bang hypothesis does not tell us anything about what came before the big bang. For all we know, the universe plays out a crunch-and-bang scenario every several billion years. It is also possible that the big bang had a physical cause (e.g., back to the multiverse theory). We simply do not know. But there are all sorts of hypotheses which are plausible and aren't close to being consistent with even deism, much less Christian theism. And, of course, you are leaving out that even if there is a theistic explanation for the Big Bang, everything the Bible says about the subject has already been established to be complete bunk. I don't see how it saves Christianity to argue that there is some correct theistic cosmology but that all the alleged revelations on the subject are completely wrong. Rather, it supports my position-- this stuff was made up by ignorant people who didn't know any better, no different than the native peoples who looked at the stars in the sky and saw Gods.

Similarly, yes, life is complex. But nobody's yet established that it is improbable. There is some evidence that life existed on Mars. That hardly suggests something improbable. You are making claims that are far beyond what science has actually found.

You apparently believe in a Goddess that has not revealed herself to human kind. I would suggest that it is highly unlikely that such a Goddess, if she exists, would not make efforts to contact her people for the sake of their salvation.

I am agnostic. I have no idea if there is a God. However, I call God a She because I think one of the stupidest beliefs in all of theology is that God has a penis. Indeed, the belief that God has a penis is reflective who has been in charge all these years and who got to define the characteristics of God. In a sense, the belief that God has a penis is one of the most obvious refutations of the whole concept, because only humans would trivialize the concept of God by assigning it a human-style gender.

As for God revealing Herself, that assumes that we are much more important than we are. Nobody claims that God, after all, revealed Herself to the animal population, let alone to any life that might exist in other worlds. Further, the concept of God, as I understand it, is something that created the universe and its physical laws, and did other similarly awesome deeds. In other words, it would seem that She has more important things to do than revealing Herself to a bunch of humans. Indeed, why do Christians think that God is so vain that "He" would get upset and vengeful at people for not believing in "Him"?

The concept of God does not preclude revelation, but it doesn't require it either.

As for freedom, democracy, and tolerance, I don't think the case for them is at all inarguable. Now is not the time for a long debate, but suffice it to say that I think the case for liberal democracy as a form of government, and for tolerance as the basic principle of society, are extraordinarily weak. Liberalism and liberal democracy are not things I have any liking for, although I accept them because in America today, you need to accept them in order to be a part of society.

But you don't really. They are the bedrock of OUR system. It may be the right system or the wrong system, but a pro-life ideology that REJECTS freedom as a governing principle is calling for nothing less than the end of the American experiment. Certainly, that's cause enough for those enough who DO believe in freedom and liberty to reject the pro-life view.

"As for freedom, democracy, and tolerance, I don't think the case for them is at all inarguable . . . I think the case for liberal democracy as a form of government, and for tolerance as the basic principle of society, are extraordinarily weak. Liberalism and liberal democracy are not things I have any liking for . . . "

That's all very . . . interesting, but unless you felt you just had to share (fair enough), it's completely irrelevant and part of the same confusion I was addressing. Whether or not you like them, however weak you imagine the case for their worth or effectiveness to be, the case for (say) liberal democracy existing as a form of government is, in fact inarguable. The case for the existence of an immaterial and immortal soul, etc., - however nice an idea - is, on the other hand, entirely arguable and indeed extraordinary weak. One can imagine a situation where the case for America having a democratic system of government had a similar level of (non-)support - where an important Book told us that there were elections and Congress and Presidents and such, where it made us feel happy, useful, or empowered to think about being citizens, and where there were even individuals who, when in altered states of consciousness, told of meeting or sensing such figures and institutions - but nothing more. Of course, that's not the world we live in, at least not yet.

"The reality of mystical experiences . . . vision[s] . . .

Is unquestionable . I certainly don't dispute that people have experiences that they label mystical - heck, I even had one. There's no reason or sense in claiming that such folks are deceiving others and even themselves (as you do in the case of women who have the gall to insist that having an abortion didn't destroy their lives and leave them utterly emotionally devastated). It's just that there's no obvious reason to think that such experiences are reliable sources of information about supernatural matters. After all, we don't think a lover's fancies are evidence that the beloved is really the most beautiful, good, funny, etc. person around. When my wife dreamed the other night that she was in the world of Doctor Who, neither of us took that as evidence that 900-year-old Time Lords, TARDISes, screeching Daleks, or etc. were actually real. Annoyingly, I have OCD, and waste much time compulsively checking and rechecking the stove, door, electrical outlets, etc. due to obsessive worries - but I understand on an intellectual level that this has nothing to do with actual knowledge about the gas being left on, etc., but is merely a result of physical stuff within my brain.

Even if one assumed that mystical experiences and visions might offer reliable evidence (and there's much interesting research going on about how they seem to be produced by the brain, whatever that means for their validity), one's not, of course, playing fair. Such folks have no methodology for assessing them beyond whether they concur with one's dogma of choice (or upbringing). Visions of heaven or hell, reliable, visions of (eg) Valhalla, non-Christian spirit possession, shamanism etc., false or misinterpreted.

"The argument that disbelief in an immortal soul is self contradictory goes something like this:
1) If there is no immaterial and immortal soul, then the processes of our mind are physical processes.
"

There are alternatives, but I do think that's the case.

"2) therefore our thought processes are physical processes have physical causes and are physically determined."

Well, ok, in the sense that everything is "physical" (or better yet, 'natural', but we can see where this is going . .

"3) if our thought processes are physically determined, then at no point are we free to choose between alternative conclusions."

Right into free-will land, one problem being that our ways of thinking about this don't really make sense - we have the wrong frame of reference. What does "we", "free", or "choose" actually mean in such a situation?

"4) without the freedom for our minds to choose between alterntive conclusions, our minds cannot be said to be susceptible to reason."

And here's what doesn't follow. I have to run, but even granted this crudely mechanistic vision - well, imagine thought, cognition as working on a hydraulic model - water flowing over a landscape. The course of the water (thought) will be determined in part by the shape of the land (the 'landscape' of the experience of reason-arising-from-the-nature-of-the-world-and-our-senses, or something). Depending on the nature of this interaction, there might be different outcomes - for example, a flood might burst barriers or jump banks that a trickle wouldn't (follow though analogy on your own). It doesn't really make sense to say that there's freedom for water to choose between alternate paths, but it certainly can be said to be susceptible to the lay of the land, etc.

Now, I rather doubt this is a particularly good explanation of how we work, but do you see how your conclusion isn't at all a necessary one?


Comments closed January 16, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.