I talked about how atheists can be prolife and one can and often should frame prolife arguments in a way atheists and secular people can accept. But what about the other direction. Can being prochoice lead you to atheism? I can see that happening. Either a human person is created by God for a purpose or not. If you are making a choice or supporting a choice to end that life based on the common things abortion decisions are based on then you really have accepted that this child was not created by God and is not loved by God. It would make no sense. If you are worried about money or worried about how you friends and family will react or how it will effect you relationship with the child's father or any of the common reasons why women can't see themselves carrying a pregnancy to term then what are you saying? You are implicitly dismissing the suggestion that some bigger question is at play here. That God has created a human person with amazing potential and immense dignity. That God can make this person beautiful even from a less than ideal situation. So the fact that the money is tight right now and nobody is popping any champagne corks when they heard about the pregnancy is nothing compared to the fact that God has a long term plan for this child.
So if you want to have the abortion you are almost forced into a materialist world and life view. That is that what has happened is purely a series of biological processes and nothing more. There is no greater reality to consider. But if one human person is merely a bio-chemical phenomenon then we all are. If a mother's love for a child does not point to something deeper than brain chemistry then what does? The only logical place to go is to believe all of that is in our mind. That is atheism. That meaning and goodness and virtue are all just things we make up as humans and not things we sense of a deeper reality that is God.
I think the Catholic understanding of mortal sin makes a lot of sense here. Most of the time it is not that atheism is so appealing as a philosophical position. What is appealing is sin. Whether is it abortion or sexual sin or whatever sin you must embrace. Sin when it is fully grown leads to death. When you try and address the big questions of life and you have one serious sin you are not willing to let go of then that will make Christianity impossible. So holy living flows from faith but sin does not really flow from lack of faith. It mostly goes the other way. Sin comes first and destroys our faith.
This is why rational discussion about faith can become difficult. If someone is in the power of a mortal sin they will not be able to see the logic of the faith. So a simple prolife argument becomes impossible for them to accept. Logic is not enough. They need God's grace to break the power that the sin has over them.
At the very least, the decision to abort is often coupled with a sense of abandonment and despair ("I don't have any choice") ... perhaps not atheism but a simple loss of faith that can lead to such a denial? I don't see being just being pro-choice as sufficient cause for atheism; God knows the CFC are more than willing to jump through any number of mental hoops to reconcile faith in Christ with killing children. I would suggest, however, that atheism makes it harder to be pro-life, because to be pro-life you have to postulate an absolute dignity of human life, and the atheist usually has no cosmological framework to support that value.
ReplyDeleteWhat is atheism? There are many forms. There is the explicit denial of the existence of God. There is also an implicit denial. I believe in God but I am not willing to make life choices that count on God. I believe in God but I continue to live in a way that I know is offensive to Him. To me that is still functional atheism.
ReplyDeleteI think a lot of atheists and CFC types are pro-choice because it is fashionable. In that sense it is hard to be prolife. Atheists morals with no foundation all the time. What is one more? You can have beliefs with flimsy foundations. You cannot do things that contradict your foundation. That is what a Christian does who has an abortion.
Saying "I don't have any choice" is just another way of saying you cannot put your life in God's hands. That option is always there for people of faith. So what good is God then if when I am in crisis I am on my own? If I make big decisions like I would if He wasn't there.
Gentlemen,
ReplyDeleteI would ask that both of you reconsider calling those people who accept abortion as pro- choice. Pro- choice is a positive term and they use it to try to dignify their position. They should not be called pro-choice, but pro-abortion. Furthermore, their desire to bring about laws forbidding heath care providers from refusing to participate in an abortion confirms that they are not pro-choice but anti-choice.
Peter
Peter
I understand all that. But we have to use the language as we find it. When a name sticks it is pretty hard to use another name. You keep having to explain who you are talking about.
ReplyDeleteThere is something to be said for allowing a group to name itself. Using the name does not endorse all the assumptions in the name. When I refer to the Latter Day Saints I don't mean that all of them are guaranteed heaven. I know that is what the name says but they chose it. I didn't.
If a non-Catholic wants to reject the name Catholic saying it is a positive term us Catholics use to try and dignify our position. If they the use some other name that they declare to be more accurate and I hate. How would I react? I would think it pretty uncharitable of them to think they have the right to rename my church.
But we have to use the language as we find it.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, and so do the pro-aborts and the media. We call ourselves pro-life, but do the pro-aborts call us that? No, they never do. Does the media call us pro-life? Never, they call us the anti-abortion faction.
When a name sticks it is pretty hard to use another name.
Maybe, maybe not, but even if you are correct, this hasn't stop the pro aborts from adamantly denying to call us by the we we have chosen for ourselves. They understand the importance of not doing so.
If a non-Catholic wants to reject the name Catholic saying it is a positive term us Catholics use to try and dignify our position. If they the use some other name that they declare to be more accurate and I hate. How would I react? I would think it pretty uncharitable of them to think they have the right to rename my church.
This is not the same thing as calling somebody a pro-choice group when they display that they most definitely are not. They have cunningly called themselves pro-choice to try to make their pathetic stance appear as dignified and I respectfully submit that many in the pro-life movement have fallen for it.
I will not call them pro-choice. They lie, by calling themselves this and I will not help perpetuate this lie. They are anti-choice.
Peter
I should also add, that even if the pro-aborts were to grant conscientious objection, I would still not call them pro-choice because this name, as I mentioned before, is a ruse to try to fool people into thinking their stance is dignified and noble.
ReplyDeletePeter
I disagree, and so do the pro-aborts and the media. We call ourselves pro-life, but do the pro-aborts call us that? No, they never do. Does the media call us pro-life? Never, they call us the anti-abortion faction.
ReplyDeleteThat is not the point. What do people hear when you use the term pro-abort? Would they include President Obama in that? My guess is no. They would think of somebody out of the mainstream. I want to be clear I am talking about the widely-held and widely-defended position that abortion should be legal. So I use the term that is widely-used to refer to that position.
Maybe, maybe not, but even if you are correct, this hasn't stop the pro aborts from adamantly denying to call us by the we we have chosen for ourselves. They understand the importance of not doing so.
Yes, both sides play this game. I don't. I am more focused on ideas that on subtle marketing strategies. Clarity matters.
The other objection I have is where does it end? Can I call Jehovah's Witnesses by their real name? They are not really the best witness for Jehovah in my opinion. I could rename every movement out there. Would that be helpful?
This is not the same thing as calling somebody a pro-choice group when they display that they most definitely are not.
Why is it not the same thing? If someone says the Catholic church most definitely isn't Catholic therefore I am going to call them Romanists. To me that is choosing to rename an organization based on your opinion.
I should also add, that even if the pro-aborts were to grant conscientious objection, I would still not call them pro-choice because this name, as I mentioned before, is a ruse to try to fool people into thinking their stance is dignified and noble.
They are highlighting the Catholic truth that they use to destroy another Catholic truth. So they are admitting indirectly that if they highlight what they are really about that would hurt them. It is like calling a product life insurance rather than death insurance.
PS Peter. We are on the same side on the bigger issue. We can't lose sight of that. I appreciate you coming to my blog and sharing your thoughts. I just worry about the danger of getting bogged down in criticizing other prolife people over minor issues. Energy spend doing that is energy spent not fighting the real battle.
ReplyDeleteGod bless you
Randy,
ReplyDeleteWhy is it not the same thing? If someone says the Catholic church most definitely isn't Catholic therefore I am going to call them Romanists. To me that is choosing to rename an organization based on your opinion.
Because I am not renaming their organization based on my opinion. Renaming in this case helps expose an attitude/idea for what it is and what the overwhelming majority of the holders of this attitude have most definitely proven themselves to be- anti choice. Because as you write above, "clarity matters". Calling them pro-choice helps their cause. Truthfully rebranding them helps hurt their cause by playing a part in bringing the truth into the open.
Randy, I frequently read your posts and I must say that I don't ever remember disagreeing with what you have written before. In this case we simply have a difference of opinion (from one angle) on how to best deal with a serious issue.
Peter
Almost forgot:
ReplyDeletecriticizing other prolife people over minor issues.
I thought I had chosen my words properly in order to avoid criticizing. I thought I was offering a suggestion and decided to give reason for my point of view. No offence intended and my apologies if offence was taken.
peter
Because I am not renaming their organization based on my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAren't you? I agree with your opinion but the point is the people who are in the organization do not agree.
I understand all your points. You don't want to endorse the culture even in term of the words you choose. But if we can't speak the culture's language then we can't reason with it. So there are dangers on both sides.
I will try and use the term pro-abortion more. It is not that likely to shut down conversation and it is clearer.