Desperate Houseflies: The Magazine

Feel free to pull out your trusty fly swatter and comment on what is posted here, realizing that this odd collection of writers may prove as difficult to kill as houseflies and are presumably just as pesky. “Desperate Houseflies” is a magazine that intends to publish weekly articles on subjects such as politics, literature, history, sports, photography, religion, and no telling what else. We’ll see what happens.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

My Thoughts on Abortion, Revisited

In response to one of Al’s recent posts, I wrote the following about abortion:

[Characterizing pro-choicers as that rather than “pro-abortion”] is similar to other "necessary evil" issues such as war and capital punishment. No one wants to be known as pro-war as a general matter, because it is acknowledged that war entails some destruction of human life. But people argue vociferously for it in certain circumstances, notwithstanding that it destroys life. Similarly, most people are not pro-capital punishment for the sake of it, or for every crime. It is considered desirable or permissible only within a defined set of circumstances. And I think with respect to both issues there is a near-universal agreement that it would be better if war and capital punishment did not happen at all.

This comparison to war and capital punishment was intended to lead to a general argument about abortion that we tolerate other things that are not strictly "pro-life" (in a broad sense) in certain circumstances, and that there are similar justifications for allowing abortion in some circumstances.

The place where we see this most clearly is in examining the exceptions that even otherwise anti-abortion people favor. My understanding is that most people who are against abortion are in favor of exceptions for rape, incest, and the mother's life. (I’m not sure of exact numbers, but I think it's a majority). Just as there are relatively few people who are absolute pacifists, no exceptions, there are relatively few people who think that the fetus trumps all else at all stages, in all circumstances.

These three particular exceptions reflect particular views of when it is permissible to end a fetus’s life in service of another goal. The rape and incest exceptions reflect a view that women or girls who did not participate willingly in the sex act that led to conception should not be forced to bear a child that is the product of that forced (or coerced) sex act. There is no getting away from the implications of this view: essentially, that bearing a child is a deserved punishment for having sex. Otherwise, why this particular exception? There are any number of other exceptions that would seem to make equal sense. If financial concerns don’t permit a woman to take proper care of a child (arguably hurting the child after and often before it is born), why not an exception for income level? If the concern is characterized as, “it would hurt too much to see your rapist or molester’s face in your child,” why couldn’t that hurt be equally at issue in a situation where, for example, the father abandoned the mother? No, the only interpretation that seems credible to me is that the rape and incest exceptions exempt the “innocent” woman from the punishment of bearing a child because she is not culpable for having become pregnant. [I'm not saying that individuals consciously think this. Most probably don't, but subconsciously this is what motivates the feeling that the exception is right].

The “life of the mother” exception is supported by a similar view. Here, where a woman’s life is threatened by a pregnancy, we will allow an abortion because while the mother is culpable for having become pregnant, she is not required to forfeit her life for it. This would be too severe a punishment. Of course, there are other reasons to support a “life of the mother” exception, and I think it’s safe to say that support for such an exception is nearly universal. This is an acknowledgment that when push comes to shove, we are forced to acknowledge that we value the life of an adult or adolescent more highly than that of a fetus of any age. And all but the most virulently anti-abortion folks will, in the end, admit that.

Cases in which a woman’s life is threatened by a pregnancy and in which an abortion will alleviate this threat are probably few. That exception is always talked about not because it is common, but precisely because it is uncommon – as most people feel that abortion should be. It delineates the end of the continuum at which a majority of Americans would feel comfortable allowing abortion as a lesser of two evils. But what people are uncomfortable with regarding abortion, I believe, is the idea that permitting it leads to the wanton and careless destruction of life for any reason at all.

So, one might conceptualize the other end of the continuum as this example: a late-term abortion, say in the ninth month of a normal, healthy pregnancy, because the woman suddenly decides that she does not want the baby. That pretty much encapsulates the nightmare scenario where the vast majority of people would say that the “right to choose” has gone too far. This is because we correctly perceive that there is value in the unborn fetus, especially at this stage so close to birth, and that this woman has no legitimate competing concern that would weigh in favor of allowing her to choose to end the fetus’s life. Like the “life of the mother” scenario discussed above, I would bet money that this scenario has almost never happened during the history of legalized abortion in this country. But it is useful because it demarcates the other extreme on the continuum. It is this scenario that is disquieting to most people, and it is for this reason there is broad support for bans on so-called “partial birth abortion.” In truth, the support was for bans on late-term abortion rather than the D&X procedure targeted by the law, which is sometimes also performed in the second trimester. (There were other problems with the law too, but I won’t get into that here). The point being, we clearly value the life of the viable fetus highly, and the only value that can compete with this is that of the life (or perhaps health) of the mother.

But in between these two extremes – a really compelling reason to abort a viable fetus, and no reason – lies the first and perhaps part of the second trimester. It seems reasonable to me, and I imagine that many would agree, that the value we place on the fetus as weighed against competing concerns increases at each stage of development. Thus, early in the pregnancy, the fetus's right to continue developing may be small enough that it should yield to competing concerns. Then the question becomes, how early? Since the development of an embryo and then a fetus is a process, different people would draw the line at different places. But at some point, drawing a line at all seems absurd, because how do we know that we’re drawing it at the right place? The answer is that we don’t, and we can’t really delineate a precise moment that serves as the line of demarcation between an excusable destruction of an embryo or fetus and what seems to many like infanticide.

That’s what makes the pro-life view that “life begins at conception” so attractive – ever-elusive certainty. The purported ease of drawing that boundary between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. But the problem for me with that boundary is that between 30 and 70 percent of conceptions never make it to implantation. Prior to implantation, the fact that a conception has occurred cannot be determined with current medical technology. Even after implantation, a significant percentage of early pregnancies are lost to miscarriage – the numbers on this are impossible to know with certainty, but if you include women who never knew they were pregnant it probably tops one-third of all pregnancies. Early pregnancy is such a fragile process, and so often does not progress for natural reasons, that in my view the right of the embryo at this stage is quite negligible, which is why I find objections to Plan B, in vitro fertilization, stem cell research, and other “embryo-killing” practices utterly without merit. It is simply absurd to conceptualize each of these lost embryos as a full human being and to mourn that loss as if it were equivalent to the loss of a friend or loved one. And, in fact, people typically don’t do that. Miscarriage can be upsetting – but as I have argued in a previous post, what’s upsetting about it is the disappointment of losing the expectation of having a baby, not the loss of an actual baby. Because early miscarriage is not the loss of a baby. That’s why it’s called miscarriage and not stillbirth. I’ve been through it, and I have to tell you, as much as I want children, I am rational enough to call a spade a spade – or in this case, an embryo that was so flawed that it stopped growing. It was not a baby. I think at some level most people understand this.

But another reason people have discomfort with the idea of abortion, even at the earliest stages, is the idea that the competing concerns of the woman are not weighty enough to tip the balance and that, in general, the reasons that women have abortions are not good reasons. Some people believe that there are no good reasons that don’t have to do with the mother’s physical health. That’s a legitimate view. Personally, I have a different view. I honestly believe that many women who have abortions do so because they want to be good mothers, to future children or to children they already have. Nothing about an unplanned pregnancy can be characterized as “good.” All anyone wants to do in such a situation is make the decision that is least bad. In some cases, abortion might be the least bad option.

That’s wrong, the argument goes. Most women who have abortions do so out of selfishness and convenience. They should never have gotten pregnant to begin with – they were careless and irresponsible. They shouldn’t have been having sex if they couldn’t deal with the consequences. This is another thing that worries people about abortion: the idea that it is used “as a form of birth control,” i.e. that people feel free to be irresponsible and allow pregnancies to happen with the idea that abortion is their backup. Probably some do, although I imagine that unplanned pregnancy more often stems from ignorance than willful irresponsibility. The amount of information that is not generally conveyed to young women about their bodies is staggering. If this information was more broadly known, I have no doubt that many unplanned pregnancies would be prevented.

To end this post, I initially wrote a paragraph detailing specific policies I support, but I am omitting it because I think it might distract from the rest of my thoughts. In essence, I think that prevention of unplanned pregnancy should be the paramount goal, but early abortion should remain available. And, for pete’s sake, motherhood and children should not be conceptualized as a punishment for having sex, even implicitly. That’s a screwed-up concept that should be abandoned. Oh, and finally, please don't read anything into the fact that I'm posting this on June 6, 2006. The devil is not speaking through me. It is purely coincidental.

17 Comments:

Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

"...please don't read anything into the fact that I'm posting this on June 6, 2006. The devil is not speaking through me. It is purely coincidental."

LOL!

Thanks, Sandi.

As always, I'm continuing to develop my thoughts on the issue.

I happen to think that prevention talk makes TONS of sense. And your piece on conceptualizing motherhood/children as punishment for having sex is wonderful stuff.

I'm still working on when/where/how abortion should be available. That's a tough one for me still. But I appreciate your argument.

I'm currently leaning toward the Hauerwasian thought that this decision isn't even so much my ballgame.

But I'm still thinking...

1:59 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

I'm currently leaning toward the Hauerwasian thought that this decision isn't even so much my ballgame.

Leaning toward being politically withdrawn, eh? (Or in this context, I guess "politically abstinent" would be the better phrase.)

Nice post, Sandi. Very thoughtful. I, too, think you're definitely onto something with the punishment concept. Truth be told, most conservative Christian parents see legal abortion as a threat to the virginity of their daughters at least as much as a threat to the unborn. They see the removal of the abortion option as a way of holding their children's (daughters', actually) feet to the abstinence fire. Abortion isn't really the target; sex is. Promoting life isn't really the goal; preventing sex is. That's why the opposition extends to things like Plan B, and why we see Evangelical Protestants moving toward the traditional Catholic stance on contraception in general. It's also why the only sex-ed they'll tolerate is abstinence-oriented; that's a strategy best suited to preventing sex, not to preventing abortion.

The return of the shameful teen pregnancy of yore -- the punishment -- is seen as a general deterrent to the crime of sexual activity. Or that's how they hope it will work, at least.

I should add I think this is largely, though not entirely, subconscious.

2:43 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

I won't inflict another long Hauerwas article on you guys, but in his essay, "Sex in Public: How Adventurous Christians Are Doing It," he told of his first year teaching at Notre Dame in 1970. Some students asked him what the "Christian ethical position" should be concerning whether doors in the dorms should be shut during visiting hours by members of the opposite sex. He said, "...all I could think to say was that I supposed closing the door was better than getting grass stains."
:-)

Anyhoo, I guess I am leaning toward "political abstinence" right now - but mostly because of lack of a better choice than the ones out there right now.

3:20 PM  
Blogger Sandi said...

Juvenal,

I completely agree that for some people -- probably not the "true believers" who picket clinics, but the rank-and-file social conservative -- wanting to put the kibosh on sex is a big part of the opposition to abortion. And, by extension, it's the whole idea of women having as much control over their own lives as they now do, in this and other areas, that freaks out the very traditional.

I didn't mention this in my post because I wanted to try to address the concerns of the people who actually think that abortion is murder without being caught up in the whole abstinence deal. How many of those there are is a good question.

3:23 PM  
Blogger DeJon Redd said...

Howdy Team-Houseflies,

I’m going through some of the Air Force’s "great" military education at the moment (Capt Midknight and Duane will appreciate the term “SOS.” And no, Joe, I’m not sinking.). Point being … I haven’t checked the blog twice in the past two weeks.

Time forces me to be direct. No tonal inferences intended, and I regret I’ll be forced to speak and run.

I take quite a different opinion than Sandi when she states, “I honestly believe that many women who have abortions do so because they want to be good mothers, to future children or to children they already have”

I think this portion of the discussion really draws out one of the differences in our views. From the second-hand experience I’ve had with abortions, and friends making the decision this, your assertion just does not ring true.

These would be mothers are not thinking about motherhood in the least bit. In my view, they are eye-ball deep in cognitive dissonance. They desire the intimacy of sex, and are stressed, shocked and panicky when it results in pregnancy.

I have no intention to knock the intelligence of my friends that have followed this unfortunate thought pattern. I’m just calling ‘em how I see ‘em.

I’d love to dig deeper in to the in vitro portion of the issue, but time won’t allow it.

I don’t have hard facts, but I just don’t see the women longing for motherhood filling up the abortion doctors’ waiting rooms.

Until you show me I'm wrong about the doctor’s clientele, I believe your ideas address an altered and unrealistic version of the real abortion dilemma.

I appreciate your critical view of the "pro-life" line of thiking. It certainly has its flaws.

Flame me, and I'll see it ASAP.
Cheers,
-D-

6:45 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Now even Captain Midknight is ragging on Hauerwas. Sheesh! If you guys think its bad trying to read him, I bought the Hauerwas Reader, 31 articles filling 700 pages of this stuff. I only have 4 articles left! (And I share Capt's relief at Sandi's confusion with him, too. I've been walking around confused for several weeks now, and I'm glad to know it has similar effects on people far more intelligent than me!)

I'm going to post the last part of his Abortion Speech this Sunday, and I am PARTICULARLY interested in Sandi's reaction to how he chooses to close his random thoughts!

7:26 AM  
Blogger Sandi said...

Dejon,

I am sorry to hear about your friends who have had abortions -- I remember you mentioning them before. Note that I said "many," not all. I'm sure there are a range of reasons that women choose to terminate their pregnancies, and some of them are not well thought out and would strike the average person as selfish.

However, with respect to the desirability of keeping early abortion legal, I'm not sure that the reasons matter. I think the bottom line is that forcing someone who doesn't want to be a parent to become a parent is a recipe for abused, unloved, and neglected children who will grow up emotionally stunted and are more likely to become criminals and abusers themselves. (Studies have repeatedly shown that unwanted children are more likely to become criminals, and this is the case even controlling for other factors such as economic status and education -- see sources cited by Levitt in the Freakonomics chapter on abortion).

I'll go ahead and answer the next question, which is: why don't those women give their babies up for adoption, since there are plenty of infertile couples who want them? When I was faced with this situation, I never for one second considered having the baby and giving it up for adoption -- that was out of the question. I would have had it and raised it by myself if I had not had an abortion. I think people who suggest adoption as the panacea don't really understand the extent to which it causes permanent emotional scars (often for the child as well as the mother). Or maybe they do -- for those who conceptualize pregnancy as punishment for sex, this is the perfect solution because the punishment is lifelong emotional pain and separation from the child. I don't think a return to the days of faraway group homes for unwed mothers where their babies are taken away right after the cord is cut is the solution.

So, I don't think the debate is that different if some women who have abortions are young, selfish, naive, or whatever. And I certainly would not advocate any kind of differential access based on a subjective review of a woman's stated reasons (hope I didn't seem to imply such). Indeed, it may be that the women with the "worst" reasons for having an abortion are the ones who need one the most. I would not have a problem with having some type of state-required information about contraception given to women seeking abortions, though. (Preferably with some samples included in a goodie bag). That might help to address situations like that of your friend who has had more than one.

7:27 AM  
Blogger Sandi said...

Here is a link to a fact sheet from the Alan Guttmacher Institute on abortion statistics that was published or updated last month.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

It indicates that 60% of women who have abortions in the United States are already mothers. The majority are young (under 25).

7:46 AM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

So given those numbers, in 2002 close to 1 million of the 1.3 million abortions performed occurred because the woman did not feel she could adequately care for the child (either financially or time-wise or often both).

Once again, given such, prevention talk still makes TONS of sense. That should be a given.

After that, however, it seems to me that the sides should break out into (a) simply making abortion available for those who are left, or (b) changing societal conditions that lead to the overwhelming problem of being unable (time/money) to care for children.

Any option we'll call "(c) simply make abortion illegal" doesn't seem to be a rational option given the problem.

I vote for "b"

8:32 AM  
Blogger Sandi said...

I agree that "b" would perhaps be ideal if you start from the perspective that any abortion, no matter how early, destroys something that is highly valuable. Even conceding such, the problem with "b" is that it won't happen. Not with the kind of unrestrained capitalism we have going on here, and not in any place where the dominant paradigm is "if you're poor, you deserve it because you're dumb, lazy, and bad."

But there again, I don't want to neglect the women's equality aspect of this issue either. Legalized abortion, and in general giving women some measure of control over reproduction, was a central part of and a precondition for women’s equality. Fortunately, because contraception is relatively cheap and can be made widely available, abortion should not need to be used that often. However, if you look at the Alan Guttmacher paper, you will see that 54% of women seeking abortions report that they were using birth control at the time they got pregnant, albeit not perfectly. Even if a large number of the imperfect use folks could be eliminated, all methods do have a failure rate and even someone who is conscientiously using birth control can become pregnant. Because of that, I would not be in favor of a ban even if access to and education about contraception was perfect.

9:06 AM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

If you are a Christian, I don’t see how you can avoid the position that sex outside of marriage is considered “wrong” or “sinful” by the standards of the scriptures we claim to go by.

Not to drag Sandi's thread too far afield, but as best I can tell, our scriptures are not nearly as clear on this subject as we take them to be.

I sort of stumbled onto this when I started wondering what the etymology of the word "fornication" was (because that's just how big a dork I am) -- what it's Greek root might be, and discovered there isn't one. The word comes from the Latin, fornix, which has some surprising implications of its own, but the NT Greek word that generally gets translated via the Latin to "fornication" is porneia. And porneia, it turns out, is a very, very troublesome word for Greek scholars to define; it seems, however, to bear little relation to the modern English dictionary definition of "fornication."

10:22 AM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Hey Sandi, I don't disagree with your evaluation that "b" won't happen, but that isn't enough for me to dismiss it as my official course of action (nor promoting it as THE course of action necessarily). When it comes to "justice" (right/wrong), I'm for trying to eliminate the causes of injustice instead of conceding the victims (in this case, both the mother and fetus) - whether or not it seems to be possible.

I'm purportedly a part of a group (Christians) that base their actions on a belief that anything is possible - and that pursuing what is "right" or "just" should be pursued whether or not the end goal is ever realized or not.

Of course, the very sad thing is that this same group of people is often the greatest proponent of unrestrained capitalism and the most outspoken critics of the poor.

That doesn't affect my position, however.

6:37 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

I'm purportedly a part of a group (Christians) that base their actions on a belief that anything is possible - and that pursuing what is "right" or "just" should be pursued whether or not the end goal is ever realized or not.

Except, of course, the injustice of generational poverty. How many times have I heard "the poor you always have with you" wielded as a defense against pursuing greater justice?

For all his crotchetiness, Hauerwas strikes me as a dewy-eyed naif when it comes to the church.

6:54 PM  
Blogger Al Sturgeon said...

Good point on generational poverty. Interesting that the actual passage in the Torah says three things along those lines: (1) there shall be no poor man among you, (2) "if" there is a poor man among you, and (3) the poor you will always have with you.

I take that as almost a concession from God that His followers wouldn't do what they should in this area from the start. If so, that God's a pretty smart guy.

8:37 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

Well, I had a longish response, Cap'n, but blogspot vaporized it. Maybe I'll retype it later.

Is it just me, or has the site been having a lot of glitches in the past couple of weeks?

4:12 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

This wasn't in my lost comment, which was about scripture, but it's apropos of my lost point.

A spokeswoman for Dobson's Family Research Council had this to say about the new vaccine to prevent women from getting cervical cancer as a result of the [sexually transmitted] human papilloma virus: "Giving the HPV vaccine to young women could be potentially harmful, because they may see it as a license to engage in premarital sex."

Leaving aside the question of how many young women even know, in this age of abstinence-only education, about HPV or that it causes cancer, let me see if I have this straight. On the one hand you have cancer. On the other, the possibility of sexual activity. And they prefer the cancer.

So long as an attitude as unbiblical and pathological as that persists in churches, there's no point in approaching any sex-related issue (like abortion) from any other angle. This is the root problem. Until it's alleviated, new counter-arguments will eternally sprout to replace any that have been cut down.

9:10 PM  
Blogger juvenal_urbino said...

(Here's the comment that got vaporized the first time.)

The sources you consulted on the meaning of porneia seem to be much more confident than what I've found, Cap'n. I don't know any Greek, so I'm at the mercy of those who do. When I dug into the word, I found a hornet's nest of disagreement. The only thing the Greekophiles seemed to agree on was that the word's original meaning (in an etymological sense) was "prostitution," and that it generally means "illicit sexuality."

What it means in any particular context seems to be the subject of much debate. Just in the published English translations of just one of the passages you mentioned, Mt. 19:9, the word is translated as everything from the very specific "adultery" to the very broad "unchastity" to the very specific but very different "illicit marriage." And all of them are problematic.

From what I've read, the word itself carries no reference to a specific sexual act, aside from its original meaning, "prostitution." As "illicit sexuality" (or "sexual immorality"), the only other meaning everyone seems to agree on, it doesn't tell us what is being forbidden when Jesus or Paul forbids it; rather, it refers us elsewhere, to the texts that specifically define what kinds of sexuality are illicit or licit, immoral or moral.

To Jesus/Matthew's Jewish audience, that would of course be the Law. So what sexuality does the law say is illicit? Ex. 22, Lev. 18, and Deut. 22-24 seem to be the relevant passages (along with some repetitions elsewhere). They forbid bestiality, an array of forms of incest, prostitution, adultery, rape, and homosexual relations, all on pain of death.

What we call "fornication," consensual premarital sex, OTOH, is dealt with very differently. It is not forbidden. Rather, provision is made for the man to compensate the woman's father by paying him the bride-price, and then to marry the woman, thus making her part of his household rather than her father's, where she would have been a long-term burden. The man is also forbidden from ever divorcing her, thus leaving her without support.

In short, this is a property problem, not a sexual one. The property (the woman) is transferred from its original owner (her father), to its new owner (her lover), with a cash payment in exchange. No one is punished, so long as the property is transferred and the payment made, and she is guaranteed never to be left to fend for herself. It's also worth noting that the woman, even though a willing participant in the "fornication," is not required to do anything. She isn't punished at all (as she would be for committing a sexual sin, like adultery or bestiality, or even for defensively grabbing the genitals of another man who's attacking her husband, for which she would have her hand cut off), she isn't to be shunned or dishonored in the community, isn't barred from religious observances, doesn't have to make a sacrifice or undergo a ritual purification, and she owes no one anything. The Law says nothing ill of her at all, pronounces her guilty of nothing. She has done nothing wrong.

All of that is equally true of the man, except that he has to compensate the woman's father for his lost property value. The Law says nothing ill of him, pronounces no shame on him, requires no sacrifice, bars him from no religious observances. Once he's taken care of the property matter, he goes on just as before, a member in good standing of the community.

Maybe I'm missing a relevant passage somewhere, but as far as I can tell, that is what the Law has to say about licit and illicit sexuality; and what we call "fornication" just isn't treated the way we tend to treat it. Am I missing something? (Serious question.)

Now, happily, we no longer live in a socioeconomic system in which women are considered property. They aren't dependent on men. Women can support themselves, own property, accrue wealth, and protect their own interests in both the legal and political systems, just as well as men can. (With the proviso that we don't quite have perfect equality, yet.) It's also no longer the case that a woman's worth is seen purely in terms of her virginity. Nor do families depend on using the marriage of daughters to form alliances with other families.

All of that, quite frankly, is a major moral advance over the Israelites' society. But it leaves us in something of a quandary when Jesus forbids illicit sex acts (porneia), as to how to apply that to consensual premarital sex. The economic harm the Law presumed no longer obtains, so its economic remedies no longer quite make sense.

When Paul speaks in his letters of porneia, he's speaking to a mixed or Gentile audience. What sex acts the new Gentile converts would've understood as illicit is a little difficult to pin down. Perhaps Paul meant to point them to the Law's provisions. It's problematic to assume that, though, since he pointedly did not apply other provisions of the Law to them. OTOH, he takes the Corinthians to task for allowing one of the forms of incest prohibited by the Law, so that might be a signal that the Law was in fact what he had in mind. It seems certain that he meant, at the very least, incest and prostitution (including temple), which we know was a problem in the young Gentile churches. I think it likely he also meant sexual slavery, which was common in places like Corinth. Beyond that, I just don't know. (Adultery, of course, he dealt with separately, using the much clearer and more specific word, moicheia.)

The upshot of all this is that I'm not comfortable saying porneia means what we read in our English dictionaries when we look up "fornication." The definition we read there is the product of centuries of Christian cultural influence, and Christianity, over the centuries, has developed an extraordinary loathing for anything sexual. As a result, and in combination with the problems of our culture, we've made any kind of sex outside marriage (premarital, extramarital, or homosexual) almost an unforgiveable sin. A horror attends to it that doesn't to almost any other aspect of human life -- or even any other sin, where that term applies. As a result, we're doing horrible damage to people that need not be done, all on the strength of an English definition of a Latin translation of a Greek word that nobody seems to know quite how to define.

I do think it is therefore both unbiblical (in multiple ways) and pathological for Dobson's spokeswoman to as much as say that preventing lots of people from getting cancer just isn't worth the risk that premarital sex might rise by a percentage point or two.

(I don't think her concern was the possible increased exposure to other STDs that might happen as a result of the hypothetical rise in premarital sex. That just isn't credible, given the FRC's other positions.)

5:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Locations of visitors to this page