Abortion: Curtain Call

Introduction

As any of my previous readers can attest, I often blog while I’m angry. Usually I take to my blog to vent about a major issue that is important to me. My method is often a mix of logic and politics, and then I show how it connects to the Bible. Well, this post is different. This will be my first post calling someone out. Me, an internet nobody, will be burning someone a the stake to show what's wrong with a movement.


But who could it be? The CEO of Planned Parenthood? An author of a neo-feminist website like Jezebel? I'm out of examples so I'll just tell you: Abby Johnson. If you're not familiar with her, she was an employee of Planned Parenthood, saw the light, repented, and is now a major voice in the Christian pro-life movement.

Lest I sound as if I am referring to my own faith in the third person, I mean this distinction for a reason. The pro-life movement can be classified as religious or secular. The most active voices I hear under the religious banner are Christians, which makes sense due to the prevalence of the faith. In this post, I will be contrasting these two main branches, the Christian vs secular pro-life movements.


The Background

If you're familiar with both secular and Christian pro-life groups, skip to the next section.

The main pro-life message is "Life begins at conception." Indeed, the most heated debates are "What counts as life?" Is conception immediate? After the zygote is implanted on the uterus? The main idea is not to destroy potential life. After all, conception occurs but for some reason pregnancy doesn't occur, then that's that. The pro-choice logic of "Well you don't know," is begging the question. Generally, but not in all cases, this "wait and see" approach means things like Abortion and Plan B are out of the question.

The Christian message is usually "life is sacred, thou shalt not kill, Jesus loves you, please reconsider." Or some such form. When I see Christians back off from all four of these factors (or three if you combine the first two), I get anxious. It's the same feeling I get when Christians say to put aside disagreements on doctrine. After all, if putting aside doctrine was so easy there wouldn't be so many denominations.

Go to Abby Johnson's Facebook page. Scroll down if you're reading this at a later date to posts on 14 November. It's right there. I'll even quote the first sentence "If there was ever a time for ALL people of faith to put down their disagreements on religious doctrine, it is now." This is a problem.

Consider that Johnson is a Catholic. If I remember correctly, this means no contraception. So my issue is, what does putting aside doctrine have to do with anything? Some denominations allow contraception, but none that I am aware of allow abortions or Plan B. Additionally, as far as I remember, all denominations are against premarital sex. Catholic doctrine might have material from Popes and other high ranking members of the church, but the message is still the same across Christianity. This isn't to mention the dangers of ignoring doctrine.

It's always a bad idea to ignore doctrine because "set aside" really means ignore. We can't be ignoring the part about being pro-life by default as Christians, after all. I'm guessing if I went to a Catholic church, they wouldn't just set aside doctrine at my demand as a Protestant. There would be no point in being Catholic, or any denomination, if things could just be set aside.

This is all unless she is referring to other people of faith. Are we talking about the “not-mentioneds” like Muslims and Jews? Does it include pagans? If so, this is even less reason to not put aside doctrine. Unity in the pro-life movement is good, we don’t have to set aside doctrine to do it in any case, whether Christian and Atheist, Christian and Muslim, or any pairing.

The entire quote is either dangerous or vacuous. I'm not the FB status police, but there's more to this.


Problems in Paradise

I have taken the liberty of taking a comment on the thread of the aforementioned status (grammatical mistakes in original):

I think the focus needs to be more on not having a woman get to the point where she feels like she needs an abortion. we have no paid maternity leave. not a lot of single moms have a good support system (including child care and housing options). we shame moms who are young, single by telling them they should have kept their legs closed if they didn't want to get pregnant- saying nothing about the man who impregnated them. we tell our girls to say no, but not how to say yes with using protection, we deny our daughters birth control by insisting they take a purity pledge and when they suddenly end up pregnant- wonder why. we have girls who are in abusive relationships, parents who will disown their daughters over a teen pregnancy. women who are up over their heads in student loans who were raped at a party and can't pay their rent let alone raise a child. doesnt take a genius to figure out that socially we have a lot of work to do. instead of just focus on how to save the babies. save the women who have the babies.

It has some good points. Johnson herself liked the comment and replied that she completely agrees. It's the completely part that sent me into mental convulsions.

Maternal leave and support for mothers in general is a good thing. As a conservative, I want such matters taken care of responsibly by business that hire women, but I can see how the more liberal viewpoint is taken. If a business does give leave, it's usually not much. Method aside, the fact is that it's ridiculous to expect a woman to have a family and work the whole time, even while very pregnant. I have no fancy solution for this; I'm just saying I agree. The same goes for support and quality child care.

As for shaming single mothers, I agree that it isn't a very Christian response, which is implied in the comment. On the other hand, as Christians we're not supposed to have premarital sex. Period. Call it as it is. That doesn't mean you don't love the heck out of the single mother and her child and help if possible, but dammit, don't lie. I do agree that if a woman wants to have sex, she should use protection, though as you know I am against things like Plan B*. So here we are, already ignoring doctrine, as in the Bible, as in regardless of denomination.

This is the part where someone says "But Lu, maybe Abby doesn't agree with that part." To that I say "Great, then she should unlike the comment I reproduced, edit the reply comment to only agree with the relevant parts, and get rid of the doctrine part of the status while she’s there."

Moving on with the comment dissection, abusive relationships, being cast out of a family, and rape are touchy subjects. While I am firmly against all three, they are somewhat red herrings. If a woman is raped (God help the rapist, because I won't), or abused (same comment for rapists), I wouldn't want them to have an abortion. Why do we have to set aside doctrine to help them? And how can the person making this comment say how horrible abuse and abortion are, but say use protection? It’s a big mixed message.

May as well drop the Christian part and join the secular pro-life movement. Following the quotes I’ve used, that’s the bottom line.

Closing

If Abby Johnson means what she says, she should continue being Catholic but drop the Christian label from her work. Doctrine is core to Christianity and cannot just be set aside. If a denomination has to set aside doctrine to do pro-life work, it isn't Christian; the same goes as far as interfaith pro-life work.

Endorsement of the popular "If you're going to do it, use protection" is ludicrous. That's what non-Christians are doing with mixed results. It's a bad idea for a Christian and since methods can fail, it's a bad idea for pregnancy. In fact, proposing help sources for pregnant women and that old tagline about protection are the hallmark of the "They're going to do it anyway" approach. Isn't that what got us here in the first place, Christians or not?

Create the resources, yes, but be consistent. Be Christian, or don’t bother. Endorse opposing ideas (use protection vs don’t do it at all) and modern political correctness (put aside doctrine/our differences when it’s not necessary) and you may as well leave the church.



*The research says it doesn't cause abortions is from places like PP; it's not that I'm giving my view the default win because it says the opposite. It's that I'd rather be cautious about something so absolute.

That One Thing

Notice my posts? I mainly cover abortion, LGBT stuff, and evolution. I think I’m missing something, something a bit less mainstream but a bit more in need of coverage. If you answered “mojitos,” then you’re a good guesser, but you’re wrong. No, I’m talking about pornography. For years I’ve debated on posting about this issue. For one, it’s not too popular to sit down and criticize it, especially in today’s more sexualized society. Sadly, it’s also “Christians,” the “puritanical” ones, that make it difficult. As if not speaking about it will make it go away. Or maybe topics about sex are icky. Whatever the case, the main thing preventing me from posting is my future career as a teacher. Now that employers will stalk the crap out of a potential employee through the internet before hiring, I’ve avoided this and other subjects. As can be seen here, I’ve decided to take that risk, along with any other backlash that may come up.

Enough about me. Anyone reading this post is probably wondering how this post will be any different than other posts by Christians about pornography. If you read my last post, it will differ in two ways: first, to make a “secular” argument and show how it supports Scripture instead of the other way around, and secondly, to use real situations and effects of the matter to show the human condition. After all, if porn wasn’t appealing to people or filled a need, I wouldn’t even write about it. It’d still be disgusting and manipulative, but then I could leave it to rot and not worry about legality or other arguments.

To sum up a thesis, I intend to cover two points. First, what is porn? Is it just stuff hidden away or is it more prevalent? And does the content even matter? Second, what effects does it actually have? Is it actually harmless and some people just have a problem with sex, the internet, etc, or does porn have negative effects on the brain?

Watch anything past 9pm, especially on cable. You’re bound to run into a sexy commercial or two. The kind I’ve encountered most are Victoria’s Secret commercials. Notice how such ads have nearly as many effects as a Michael Bay movie. Close ups, wipes, smoky effects, gloss effects, the list goes on. This isn’t to mention the come-hither looks, the body language, and the group shots (I can’t remember a VS commercial with less than three women, and honestly, I’ve tried). I refer only to number due to novelty, of which something porn offers an infinite supply.

Compare this to something more clinical. I distinctly remember a commercial because of the hilarious comment I made to my father while watching it. It was a commercial for a bra for bustier women. Despite the close up, the commercial was short with only a monologue explaining the product. While the VS commercial is sexed up by effects and directing, the latter commercial, despite having underwear and boobs as well, is simply a demonstration.

The point I’m making here is of two things, arousal and intent. While the VS commercials are about sexiness and intent to sell the product for the consumers’ (and their lovers’) enjoyment, the clinical commercial was functional despite sharing some elements. Its intention is to sell a product, yes, but also about comfort and other aspects of the product. Sure, both can be appealing, but the VS commercials attempt to capitalize on that. Some would say because of this, such ads like those of VS, regardless of product and company, are softcore porn. While that may be an extreme conclusion to some, there’s a point to which I’m leading up.

Even more revealing, pun intended, is that VS commercials and their ilk have no nudity, portray no sexual acts, and I’m going to take a shot in the dark and say that the women aren’t in those ads to make porn. No genitals, no sex, nothing like that, yet there’s a case to be made for porn here. To satiate all of the literalists out there, let’s take a look at the definition of pornography. Meriam-Webster defines it as “movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way in order to cause sexual excitement.”

Let’s be real here. The VS commercial doesn’t show naked people or sex, so it’s not porn, right? I’d argue otherwise. Even if the intent isn’t to get men turned on, it probably does. I argue that porn is, metaphysically, “any material causing sexual arousal, not limited to nudity or focus on genitals.” In softcore porn galleries, there are plenty of lewd shots without nudity or sex. Yet it’s still porn. Does removing the nude/sex pictures from such a gallery suddenly make the other pictures not porn? Obviously not. Now, not all comparable cheesecake shots are shot as pornography. But the reaction to the material is the same. If a woman is beautiful, it doesn’t take underwear shots to prove it, and if a man is searching for such material then “porn” becomes completely subjective, hence my broad definition.

This is why Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit issue fares so well. What, you thought guys like checking out expensive swimwear for their girlfriends or wives? Again, the women involved are probably not thinking of producing porn and the photographers are just capitalizing on sex appeal. Yet it is generally consumed as pornography, thus blurring the line most people see. The question isn’t “is it porn?” and becomes instead “can it be used as porn?”, classic cases of porn standing on their own still.

To make a quick disclaimer: first, I’m not calling for the outlawing of sexiness. Second, while I’m using men as the primary examples here, women use porn as well. Third, I’m not saying to use my definition legally. It’s a metaphysical outlook and thus would be a legal mess. I also digress about sexy magazine covers and the like, but that’s a different issue.

Now that we have established that porn is different in intents and perceptions, let’s look at effects porn has on the brain. Is it damaging? Or are mindless surfing, compulsive masturbation, and OCD-like behavior to blame individually or together? 

This article here has technical speak and talks about the reward deal and the chemicals involved. Plasticity does indeed seem to happen with sex addiction as related to porn (read the second and third to last paragraphs of the linked article for that specifically). Addiction to seeking material and/or compulsive masturbation are thus separate issues that may or may not be involved as well.

Anyways, I think I’ve proved my point. Porn is addictive. It makes sense that Christ warned us against adultery in the heart. He doesn’t want us enslaved to sex, which is exactly what porn does in many cases. It seems safe to say that God has it right, and that’s why He tells us sex is for marriage. Thus ends my “secular” case, leading into Scripture as a sort of “soft proof.” You don’t have to be a Christian to accept the argument, but it still supports the biblical view.

Share your thoughts, reblog. Even if you don't agree, let's get a conversation started. It could go places.