Reflection

Can there be anything better than the King of the kings coming down in human form and referring to a local, debauched ruler as a fox?

Today we see the broad outlines of the power of God and His intended exercise of that power.  And any time you talk about the power of God, you’re also talking about the free will of men.

In the lament of Jesus, we see that God Himself has longed for Jerusalem to come together, to be a shining light guiding all the world in truth and love.  But man is fallen.  It’s not just that the Jews were a little off-course, either:  When God would specially send them messengers to correct that course, exhorting them to return to the Lord their God, these same messengers – the prophets – were abused and killed.

It is amusing, then, when Christ the Prophet is cautioned that Herod wants to kill Him.  Of course Herod wants to kill Him.  That is what always happens.

But wait.  Why would an all-powerful God consent to have His prophets killed for doing His work?  Why would God permit His own Son to be killed?  Why would God even permit all of this sinfulness and wandering away at all?

The philosophy unfolds at length, but the answer is simple enough:  Love.

St. Paul lays it out:  If God is for us, who can be against us?  If we are loved – which is a love even to humiliation and death – by the all-powerful Creator, what hard or terrible thing could separate us from that love?

Name anything.*

Indeed, the only thing that could is one’s own free will.  And that is how their came to be fallen men, because God made free will inviolable.  And the reason for that is because free will makes love possible.

When God loves us (always) and we love Him (too seldomly), we have the pinnacle experience of life.  We will have the New Jerusalem.

*That is how you know there is a good God, and that there is no problem of evil to challenge His existence – redemption is possible through all things.

Memorial of Saints John de Brébeuf and Isaac Jogues, Priests, and Companions, Martyrs

Reflection

There is the now iconic moment when Pope Francis was asked about gay priests, and he replied, “If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge him?”

And this is often, unjustly, reduced to “Who am I to judge?”

It’s unjust because that’s not exactly what Francis was saying.  He did judge the priest, on two criteria:  That he seeks God and that he has good will.

I suggest to you that Francis was echoing – though not precisely repeating – our Lord’s words today in the Gospel.

Notice, someone brings to Jesus a worldly concern:  My brother isn’t willing to share!  Surely this violates the principles Jesus teaches, and Jesus will say something!

Likewise, see that the concern of the reporter to the Pope is a worldly one:  One’s sexual orientation.  The reporter thinks it is a real conundrum, a trap if asked the wrong way.

Jesus and Francis both realize that they are being cast as judge in these contentious worldly disputes.  Now, here’s the interesting point:  They are judges.  They are responsible for maintaining order and discipline among believers.  That requires approving some things and disapproving others – judging.

Indeed, we have seen how Francis does have criteria for judging the hypothetical gay priest; Jesus, as well, has criteria for judging the dispute before Him.

Then he said to the crowd,
“Take care to guard against all greed,
for though one may be rich,
one’s life does not consist of possessions.”

In other words, Jesus is not the arbiter of worldly disputes; for Him, even if you have a legitimate claim to some possession, it might still be bad for you to have it.  He is the judge of the heart – and His criteria is that one guards against greed.

Indeed, greed exists – and only can exist – where valuable things are finite.  They are made valuable because of their scarcity.  No one is fighting over his share of oxygen, critical though it is for life.

But where Jesus is judge, the important thing is the state of one’s soul.  He judges – and will judge – that you have come up short if you are ruled by greed.  Better to be generous, which is enabled by valuing things properly.  The ultimate thing of value – grace – is exceedingly abundant (upon request) and so there can be no greed about it.

Just so, Francis cuts to the heart.  Surely the point is obvious:  As a professed celibate, sexual orientation is ephemeral to the vocation of a priest, straight or gay.*  The reporter’s concern is worldly.

What does matter – his criteria – is that the gay priest seeks God and has good will.  Why these criteria?

Like avoiding greed, seeking God has the effect of improving one’s worldly situation.  You may feel that you are losing, emotionally, if you are not practicing your sexuality; but Francis says the important thing is altogether different.  The reporter pointed down at the problem, and Francis pointed up at the answer.

This ability to look up for an answer, in spite of the troubles below, is called faith.  And that is St. Paul’s great admonition in the first reading.

“Abraham did not doubt God’s promise in unbelief;
rather, he was empowered by faith and gave glory to God
and was fully convinced that what God had promised
he was also able to do.”

Let us seek God and cultivate good will.

*This is not to say that priests do not struggle with issues of sex or sexuality.  The discipline of the Catholic priesthood, ideally, makes it irrelevant.  Whether it is practical to depend on this is a subject for another day.

Reflection

Judgment weighs heavily in today’s readings, and indeed weighs heavily in the modern consciousness.

(Hypocrisy ahead)

The modern mind finds comfort in avoiding judgment – nay, in asserting that judgment shall not be tolerated! – and, interestingly, assumes that Jesus agrees.

It must be disturbing, then, to read what Jesus has to say.

Woe to you Pharisees!

This “Woe!” strikes most people as archaic.  No one says “Woe” anymore – probably because they are too busy avoiding judgment and judging, and judges.

Yet it is terribly powerful.  It is not simply a casting of aspersion or a heaping on of shame.  It is a declaration of utter failure to meet God’s standards – indeed, of condemnation.  Far from avoiding judgment, Jesus jumps in with both (pierced) feet.

You pay tithes of mint and of rue and of every garden herb,
but you pay no attention to judgment and to love for God.

Paying a tithe was – and is – an outward sign of devotion to God and His commands.  It is good in and of itself.  The trap, as our Lord pointed out, is that we sometimes value the approbation of others who see us tithing more than the virtue of tithing itself.  Indeed, such a person “has his reward.”

So Jesus acknowledges that the Pharisees did meet this exacting standard of God’s law.  They were doing something right.  But they spoiled it – how?

The modern mind leaps by ellipses:  “You pay no attention…to love for God.”  And this they further associate with love of neighbor, which then only means some light charity for themselves and a heavy burden on others.

But what is this?  “But you pay no attention to judgment”.

It is also translated “you neglect justice,” which is nothing more than ascribing to each what properly belongs to him.  In other words, judgment.

Now, why does the modern mind resist judgment so assiduously?

First, because it confesses no fixed moral code.  All moral goods are flexible – every word can come to mean its opposite if there is enough honey on the tongue.

Second, because in the absence of an objective moral code, the only remaining standard is social justification.  Thus, to be judged as unworthy by others, or evil, is the most severe punishment.  Better that no one should judge anyone!  And so a devious compact is implicitly signed.

This, I say, is just as evil in the Lord’s eyes as judging unjustly.  The answer to poor judgment is not “no judgment” – it is better judgment.  Perfect judgment, if you can get it.

These you should have done, without overlooking the others.

This statement captures why Catholicism is neither conservative nor liberal.  Jesus does not say that tithing is meaningless, just as he does not say that the Old Testament is useless.

Rather, he chooses not to wash before the meal because he wants to provoke a conversation, and ask the Pharisees:  Why do you wash before a meal, if your hearts are unclean?

It points to a hypocrisy; it does not give license to its opposite, which is also hypocrisy.  (That is, feeling no malice in your heart, yet neglecting to be generous to the poor).

Both!  Both are needed!  Neither is disposable.  Be generous with your heart and your wallet!  Be charitable with your words and your actions!

In the first reading, then, St. Paul has done what I have tried to do, only better.

We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true.
Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things
and yet do them yourself,
that you will escape the judgment of God?

See, there is judgment that is true.  That perfect judgment we’re looking for, it comes from God Almighty – and fortunate for us that the One holding all the power also possesses all the justice!

That being the case, we only have to trouble ourselves…about ourselves.  And yet we cannot, and we lay burdens on each other because the other does not meet our own, private standards.

What is most interesting, to me, is the role of psychological projection.  That is, you are most likely to see in others precisely the sin you are guilty of.  Just when you are most sure that someone is evil, that they have committed some terrible offense – right then, check and see.  Is this something you are guilty of?  Do you struggle with the same evil?

It is quite natural, after all, to ascribe to others that which motivates you.  I may compliment a woman’s dress, and all you hear is:  What?  Go ahead and answer.

Now, what are the odds that you have correctly identified my motivation?

It is a reliable rule, and I have seen it play out with the dumb and the intelligent:  If I make a “wrong” move, and I am accused of some great fault, I can reliably determine what sin my accuser is guilty of, or where his weaknesses lie.

And if you’re paying especially close attention, you may think I have now contradicted myself.  After all – is judgment virtuous, or not?  On the one hand I say it is wanted in modern life, and on the other, I say that we are prejudiced (by our own sins) in our judgment of others.  Well, which is it?

I turn the question back to you:  Can you not see your way out of this?  Both!  Both are needed!

Drawing to a close:

Common Argument #10: Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for things they find morally disagreeable.

Your Response: By that rationale, America also shouldn’t have a military, since that’s funded by taxes, and many taxpayers find American foreign policy morally disagreeable. Also, the Hyde Amendment prevents most public funds from going toward abortions. But that’s a moot point, because these are two separate arguments. Believing that abortion should be legal doesn’t require you to also believe that taxpayer dollars should fund abortions.

Again, he’s right, but then this is an odd argument to bring up.  Perhaps he has encountered it in his own discussions – and perhaps, in the course of those discussions, it somehow becomes relevant.

Naturally, the best response is to effect some change, which is why there is a March for Life every year, and which is also why abortion is one of the only issues on which Conservatives have gained ground over the last few decades.

Common Argument #11: What if your mother had aborted you?

Your Response: Well, if I’d never come into existence in the first place, I probably wouldn’t have any strong feelings on the matter. Anyway, I love my mother very much and respect her right to make whatever decisions are right for her body and life.

Well, again, this isn’t much of an argument one way or another – it’s rhetorical at best – and probably added to make Millstein’s list look more substantial.  Debunking 11 arguments sounds a lot better than debunking 6.

But have a second read of Millstein’s response.  It’s a bit stupid, no?  In fact, he has given that much more power to the meme, “Now that I’m born, I’m pro-choice!”

If I were a typical Progressive, I would tar him for his lack of compassion, and lynch him as fetalphobic.  We who resist the Progressives, however, prefer the use of reason.

Does he (retroactively, of course) respect his mother’s right-to-life when she was a fetus?  No?  Huh…one wonders what would have become of all of this praise-worthy love and respect, if his mother had been aborted, and he never conceived.

Progressives pretend that arguments end wherever they (arbitrarily) decide that they end.  But Biology determines that they end elsewhere.

And the fact is, absolutely nothing comes of it.  That is why it is part of the culture of death.

In the culture of life, untold bounties of goodness, love, respect, and intelligence are realized.  Millstein has just enough of these things to fake like he has them all.  And I honestly hope he can be open-minded and open-hearted enough to fulfill them.

Into the home stretch…

Common Argument #8: What if Winston Churchill or Martin Luther King had been aborted?

Your Response: Are you saying abortion policy should be influenced by how good of a person a fetus ends up becoming? If that’s the case, what if Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot had been aborted?

Are you saying it’s ok to abort people who would have been good?  (Rhetorical questions can always swing back around).

Granted, this is not a particularly effective argument, neither intellectually nor emotionally; Millstein is correct about that.  But let’s answer the rhetoric:

It would have been wrong to abort all of those babies.  At the moment they were (hypothetically) aborted, they were innocent.  It is always wrong to take an innocent life.

Now, there may be an argument in suggesting that the abortion of Joseph Stalin would have been a lesser evil, compared with the evil he did; and there’s the elephant in the room – what is the role of free will here?; in any event, none of this would make abortion good.

Common Argument #9: Many women who get abortions regret their decision later on.

Your Response: This is a pretty common argument. As with shaming of teen moms, it pops up in subway ads…

…and anti-abortion rallies.

We bet you do, dude.

This is a bad argument. Should the government ban people from doing things they sometimes regret? Think of everything you’ve ever regretted — not moving after college, dating the wrong person — and ask yourself if you wish there had been a law to prevent you from doing that thing. You probably don’t, because you probably believe people should be able to choose their own paths in life regardless of whether they regret those choices later on. I agree, which is part of why I’m pro-choice.

Again, Millstein is correct:  As an argument for banning abortion, this is a bad one.  And while I have never seen a man holding that particular poster, it’s at least a legitimate (albeit lighthearted) criticism of men entering the abortion debate.  I’m not aware of any others.

And so – again – we will not seek to revive this particular argument, but deduce what it was pointing at.

Namely, people tend to regret bad decisions, not good ones.  They regret them when the look back and realize the decision was the wrong one.

It is interesting, therefore, that Millstein cites this as a reason why he’s pro-choice:  He thinks people should have room to make bad decisions (one presumes, in order to learn from them).  First, someone may want to warn him that he’s starting to sound like a conservative…

Second, I fully agree with the principle, to an extent.  And our justice system is based on the notion of proportionate punishment (certain grievances notwithstanding).

What does it say when taking an innocent born life is punished severely, but taking an innocent unborn life is “a common medical procedure”?

The regret – as many women explain – is a recognition not just that their abortion was a bad decision, but a profoundly bad decision.

As I say, Millstein is still correct.  Regret is perhaps indicative of having done something wrong – it might even reach the level of certainty, with any given individual – but it can’t reliably tell us how grave an act is, or whether it should be illegal.

More from Seth Millstein:

Common Argument #6: When abortion is legal, women just use it as a form of birth control.

Your Response: Do you have evidence of this? Considering that contraceptives are cheaper, easier, less painful, less time-consuming, less emotionally taxing, and more readily available than abortions, it seems odd to suggest that women who’ve already decided to use birth control would select abortion as their preferred method. It’s more likely the opposite: Historical and contemporary data suggests that women will seek abortions regardless of whether or not they’re legal, but that when birth control and contraceptives are more widely accessible, abortion rates go down.

…and…

Common Argument #7: Abortions are dangerous.

Your Response: When performed by trained professionals, abortions are one of the safest procedures in medicine, with a death rate of less than .01 percent. The risk of dying while giving birth is roughly 13 times higher. Abortions performed by people without the requisite skills and training, however, are extremely unsafe. An estimated 68,000 women die every year from back alley abortions, which are generally most common when abortion is illegal and/or inaccessible.

If you’d like to examine the health impact of banning abortion, consider Romania, which banned abortions in 1966. That policy remained in place for just under fifteen years, during which time over 9,000 women died from unsafe abortions, and countless others were permanently injured. That’s around two women dying every day. When the policy was reversed, maternal mortality rate plummeted to one-eighth of what it was at its peak under the no-abortion policy.

The negative health effects of prohibiting abortion don’t end with the mothers. Romania’s abortion ban sparked a nationwide orphan crisis, as roughly 150,000 unwanted newborns were placed in nightmarish state-run orphanages. Many of those orphans now suffer from sever mental and physical health problems, including autism, reduced brain size, schizoaffective disorder, and sociopathy.

When abortion is illegal, it becomes exponentially more unsafe for both women and their children. You may not like the fact that women will seek abortions even when they’re illegal, but it is undeniably a fact nonetheless.

Let’s do something unusual, and grant him everything he’s said here.  What of it?

Abortion is still wrong, because it is the taking of innocent life.

In a link Millstein provided, there is heavy emphasis on “unintended” pregnancies.  Again, this is merely a confession of foolishness:  Pregnancy is always possible when sex occurs.  Whether intended or not, one should understand the possibility of pregnancy.  (Millstein and others speak as though people might die if they don’t have sex.  Obviously, it’s quite the opposite).

Now, we can distill these two sets of objections – which are both off-point, but we will take them anyway – to the notion that, given pregnancy, a significant percentage of women will seek abortion, regardless of laws.  And when abortion is illegal, those who nevertheless procure abortions are at greater risk of death.

In the first case, it seems to me that this will always be the case, to the extent that there will always be a non-zero murder rate in the world.  We don’t have to like it, but there appears to be nothing we can do about it.

Now, if the fetus is a human life, I still see no reason to legalize taking that life.  Just because it is bound to happen anyway, does not mean we should just let it happen.  No more than we would just let another person be mugged.

Take the mugging example further, as pro-choicers are wont to do:  Imagine the mugger has a family to feed, and they are starving.  Not only is he out to take some wallets, but he will even do so recklessly.  He just will; there is no preventing him.

Do we then grant him the legal right to mug innocent people, simply because, otherwise, it might be dangerous for him?

(And if you are a Liberal, you might be saying that this is a good case for government assistance.  This is where I say, “Is that so?”  Reflect and grieve – you should be pro-life.  Liberals should own this cause, the cause of the unborn, but you’ve let your hearts be hardened).

No, neither of these arguments has the least effect against the cause of the unborn, because they completely lose sight of the point.  And even if we agree to squint along with him, Millstein’s arguments aren’t consistent with other universally accepted ethical principles.

Next couple of arguments…

Common Argument #3: But I’m okay with abortions in cases of rape.

Your Response: Why only in those cases? Are the lives of children who were conceived by rape worth less than the lives of children who were willfully conceived? If preserving the life of the child takes primacy over the desires of the mother — which is what you’re saying if you if you oppose any legal abortions — then it shouldn’t matter how that life was conceived.

In all possible seriousness and sincerity, I thank the author for this bit of cogency.  He’s exactly right.  If you’re ok with abortion in the case of rape, you’re simply walking an incoherent middle ground.  You’re on the fence, and the discomfort follows accordingly.

Common Argument #4: If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Your Response: Go home, Todd Akin, you’re drunk.

This is a distraction, but I understand why it was included.

Fisking the response:

Common Argument #5: Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion.

Your Response: This implies that the only reason a woman would want to get an abortion is to avoid raising a child, and that isn’t the case.

Our friend relies a lot on implication, and not enough on the actual words used in his own presentation of the argument.  It’s like a rainbow strawman – if you’ll just look way over there, and perhaps squint, you’ll see this argument is just fraught with implications.

Whether or not a pro-life person felt this way, whatever follows is already off the rails:  Adoption is a viable alternative to abortion.  As anyone who was given up for adoption, instead of being aborted.

Depending on the circumstances, the mere act of having a child in a hospital can cost between $3,000 and $37,000 in the United States.

A fair point, but if we’re on the subject of adoption, the adoptive parents will often help with or cover these costs.

Giving birth is dangerous, too: In the United States, pregnancy complications are the sixth most common cause of death for women between the ages of 20 and 34.

It is true, and the risk cannot be waved off.

Let the honest mind consider:  Many things a young woman may be doing – in addition to risking pregnancy – are associated with risks.

In fact, the greatest danger to women in this age bracket is death by unintentional injuries – in the younger subset, this risk is greater by a factor of 14; for the older subset, the greater risk approaches a factor of 10.

Now, if Millstein is out there, un-unintending lots of consequences for the sake of women’s health, then we might work our way down past suicide, cancer, heart disease, and homicide before we get to complications in pregnancy.  (But this is rhetorical reasoning, fitting for a Progressive, but not for us).

My question is first:  What level of risk would be acceptable?  And isn’t that always an arbitrary number?

Would we say that, once the risk is 5%, then the mother has a greater right-to-life than the child in her womb? 10%?  51%?

My question is second:  Isn’t this beside the point?  We have already seen how pregnancy is not an arbitrary consequence of sex, but a well-established and perfectly natural one.  Even when pains are taken to prevent it.

And so, if a woman wants to avoid the sixth leading cause of death in her age group, she might do well to avoid sex.  Once all of that is said and done, the crux of the argument rests with the fetus’ right to life.

Even before birth, there are costs to pregnancy. In addition to the whole “carrying another human being around in your stomach for nine months” thing, many women, particularly teens, are shunned and shamed for their pregnancies — not only by friends, families, employers, and classmates, but also by advertisements in the subway. There’s also the risk of violent retribution from abusive partners and parents.

While I have heard testimony that conditions are much better than they used to be, and in fact, teenage pregnancy is on the decline, this is an honest and deserved concern.

We should work on this.  I don’t know how, or exactly what the answer is.  I just know the kinds of things I would do in a given situation (or I like to think so).

Cutting to the chase, however – how much shame justifies the killing of innocent life?  Is there an objective measure for this, or should we accept the subjective sense that the shame is “too much” and approve the taking of an innocent life?

As for violence, whether one is pregnant or not, there are measures that can be taken; in the context of an argument, this is a red herring at best.  At worst, it is the same problem a non-pregnant woman faces in an abusive relationship, and one imagines the answer, if there is one, is the same in both cases.

It is awful beyond words, I grant you.  But so is abortion.  Let’s find a way to save both lives.
In short, there are a lot of reasons a woman might seek an abortion. Adoption doesn’t address all of them.

I am tempted to parse this for Millstein, because I am kind*.  One imagines it made sense to him.  But it’s late, and we must leave Millstein some margin to come side with the angels.

*Keep your humor – I’m being facetious.

See the first post to get your bearings.  Not strictly necessary.

I said before that Millstein is a step ahead of the usual arguments, but in this case, it’s only because he uses more words than most memes.  There’s something like bait-and-switch going on here, but in a burst of verbosity that seems uncharacteristic for him, the writing is not quite tight enough to accuse him of it.  It approaches word salad.  “Word bruschetta,” perhaps.

Myself, I have no trouble being verbose as the need arises, and here it does.  Indeed, I will “fisk” this one, gently, so as to better answer it.  Millstein in italics, myself in regular type.

Common Argument #2: If a woman is willing to have sex, she’s knowingly taking the risk of getting pregnant, and should be responsible for her actions.

This seems pretty tight to me.

Your Response: You’re asserting that giving birth is the “responsible” choice in the event of a pregnancy, but that’s just your opinion.

Appropriation of The Dude aside, the author presents his opponent’s argument, then proceeds to answer…some other argument.  If anyone has information as to the whereabouts of this other argument, please let us know.

Anyway, yes – if a fetus is a human being, then it is wrong to kill her.  Doing the wrong thing is always irresponsible, by definition; doing the right thing is acting responsibly.

Ergo, if a woman becomes pregnant, the responsible thing to do – because it is the right thing to do – is to give birth to that child.

 I’d argue that if a mother knows she won’t be able to provide for her child, it’s actually more responsible to have an abortion, and in doing so prevent a whole lot of undue suffering and misery.

No mother knows this for sure.  Moreover, an inability to provide is not a legal justification for killing anyone in any other case.

The taking of an innocent human life on a hypothetical – “I won’t be able to provide for her” – is no justification at all.  The natural option in that case is to give the baby up for adoption.

But let’s look at this argument a bit further. If you think getting an abortion is “avoiding responsibility,” that implies that it’s a woman’s responsibility to bear a child if she chooses to have sex.

Only if the sex results in pregnancy, which is always a possibility.

That sounds suspiciously like you’re dictating what a woman’s role and purpose is, and a lot less like you’re making an argument about the life of a child.

No one is dictating a woman’s role, except nature.  The principle in play is that the fetus is a human being, and therefore has a right to life.  Whether the mother recognizes her natural, biological capacities or not, that is a matter of education and self-examination.  If she knows how to have sex, one assumes she is aware of the consequences of sex.  (Likewise with the male, whom we agree has a legal responsibility toward the child).

And if you’re following along closely, you will see that the argument is entirely about the life of the child.

(Huh – Forgot that he continued below the fold.  Very well.)

According to Millstein:

Common Reply: No, because women can practice safe sex and avoid getting pregnant. If she refuses to use contraception and gets pregnant as a result, that’s her fault, and her responsibility.

Your Rebuttal: Not everyone has easy access to contraception, nor does everyone have a good enough sex education class to know how to use it or where to obtain it. But let’s just suppose, for the sake of argument, that everyone had access to free contraception and knew how to use it correctly.

Even then, no contraception is 100 percent effective. Presumably, you oppose abortions even in cases where contraception fails (and it does sometimes fail, even when used perfectly). If that’s true, you’re saying that, by merely choosing to have sex — with or without a condom — a woman becomes responsible for having a child. And that’s a belief that has everything to do with judging a woman’s behavior, and nothing to do with the value of life.

(On the other hand, he hasn’t really said anything new, or unanticipated).

The short, redundant reply is:  A potential and natural consequence of sex, even when using contraception, is pregnancy.  If there is a woman who does not know this, that does not negate her responsibility.

Why not?  Because we are judging her behavior?

(Please, faithful reader, hold your laughter.  How will the Progressives listen if that which terrifies them most is happening right in front of them?)

No, we are judging the human being in her womb to be possessed of dignity.  We are concerned with the right to life.

I will never tire of series.

My bright and dreamy eyes have been directed toward a site called bustle.com, which appears to be all things Progressive.  Among its pages is a set of “11 common arguments against abortion access debunked,” or so says the URL.

I will say the author, one Seth Millstein, demonstrates an admirable economy of language and restraint on gif’s and images.  Not that they are well chosen, only that they are modest in quantity.

He’s also a step further along the path.  Much of the debate is happening in memes, and the memes cannot be reliably distinguished from drunken ranting.  Anyway, let’s get on with it, and perhaps there is yet more depth to be found.

Thus says Bustle:

Common Argument #1: A fetus is a human being, and human beings have the right to life, so abortion is murder.

Your Response: I’m probably not going to convince you that a fetus isn’t a life, as that’s basically the most intractable part of this whole debate, so I’ll be brief:

• A fetus can’t survive on its own. It is fully dependent on its mother’s body, unlike born human beings.
• Even if a fetus was alive, the “right to life” doesn’t imply a right to use somebody else’s body. People have the right to refuse to donate their organs, for example, even if doing so would save somebody else’s life.
• The “right to life” also doesn’t imply a right to live by threatening somebody else’s life. Bearing children is always a threat the life of the mother (see below).
• A “right to life” is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else’s will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well?

I answer that…

The argument is really better phrased like this:  A fetus is both human and alive.  Anything that is human and alive has a right to life.  Therefore, abortion is wrong because it takes a human life.

And when we rephrase it that way, the first part of the objection – “a fetus isn’t a life” – falls away.  In fact, there is really no coherent way to argue that a fetus isn’t alive.  This is precisely why pro-lifers push the ultrasound – the fetus is thus revealed to be clearly human, and clearly alive.

With that rephrasing, how does the rest of his objection hold up?

• “A fetus can’t survive on it’s own.”  Right, until it’s 22 weeks or so, and medical technology is reducing that number all the time.  (Science, for the epic motherfreaking win!).  In any event, this is a non-sequitur – there’s no argument made here.
• “…the “right to life” doesn’t imply a right to use somebody else’s body…”  Well, why not?  The very same mother used someone else’s body to get where she is.  May we consider her life illegitimate, and strike her down for the past grievances of her own mother?  Why, exactly, did the claim on her life end when she was born?  (It sounds silly, but that’s actually a point that would cause a lot of trouble).
• But the real point here is that Progressives – in so many ways – want to separate themselves from reality.  The reality is that when men and women engage in sexual intercourse, the woman may become pregnant.  This objection treats that reality as arbitrary, as something the man and woman might not reasonably expect.  (See, Science(TM)).
• Moreover, virtually everyone recognizes the gravity of abortion.  Pro-choicers are fond of saying it should be rare, safe, and legal.   Well, why rare?
• And so, if abortion is a thing to be avoided as much as possible, and if a woman might reasonably expect to become pregnant as a result of sex, the choice occurs well before the human being is conceived.  And notice that virtually everyone is pro-choice about that.*

The next couple of objections run along with this one, but we will note their nuances and continue to develop the counter-objection:

• “The “right to life” also doesn’t imply a right to live by threatening somebody else’s life.”  We should make clear that “threatening” someone is usually a voluntary act, not something we could reasonably ascribe to a fetus.  The fetus is not threatening anyone; the accidents of his existence may run into conflict with the existence of another.  But the heart of this objection is really in the notion that one’s bodily autonomy cannot be compromised, which is implicitly based in one’s self-determinism and right to life.
• Thus, another counter-objection can be seen starkly here:  When there are competing claims on a right to life, who trumps whom?  Do we simply side with the stronger person – does might make a greater right?  Does the weaker have to die just because he is weaker?
• But the probability of death in abortion compared with maternal death in childbirth is nowhere near equal.**
• Therefore, it would seem unacceptable to take the life of one person to protect against the remote prospect of death for the other person.  And where that prospect is more imminent, most pro-life arguments accept the use of measures to preserve the life of the mother.
• “A “right to life” is, at the end of the day, a right to not have somebody else’s will imposed upon your body. Do women not have this right as well?”  When did their right to bodily autonomy begin, if not when their bodies began?
• First of all, somebody may legitimately impose their will on your body without your permission.  The police, for example, when you are being arrested.
• Or again, a bouncer may impose on your body if you are instigating a fight on private property.  Even a perfect stranger may legitimately impose on your body to break up a fight, or to save your life.
• No, a right to life depends on the concept of human dignity, or something like it.  This is considerably more supple than the rigidity of Progressive thought, because it implies a right to self-determination combined with certain responsibilities, like respecting the dignity of others and their right to life and accepting the consequences of our actions.
• In fact, we could go on the offensive and ask the Progressive why the fetus’ bodily autonomy is being violated.  Sure, he is dependent now, but dependency is no reason for killing.  We do not permit killing the lame, the sick, those with special needs, or infants, even if they are a great burden on us.
• And if accepting human dignity is a true understanding of reality, then anyone who is human and alive possesses it.  Or else, you will have to make quite a convoluted argument which excludes fetuses but no one else.  (And that sounds like bigotry).

*This begs the question of rape; Millstein treats this later on, so I will leave it for now.

**It is worth observing that the rate of death in abortions is nearly 100%; the rate of maternal death in childbirth is 18.5 out of 100,000.  Please understand – this is still an abject tragedy when it happens, and I am not diminishing that fact.  It is a devastating possibility.  But we are not talking about perfect symmetry here.