Arimathea | Philosophy | Prolife per Bonald | Comments
Page views: 2498799
Total entries: 1461
Total comments: 225



Tuesday, March 15, A.D. 2016
Prolife per Bonald

I recommend Bonald’s article on the Roman Catholic prolife scene: “I’m not pro-life; I’m anti-abortion.” It is characteristically sensible. Bonald raises a great point for those Seamless Garment types:

. . . No one complains that environmentalist organizations don’t devote any of their attention to making health care affordable, or that the National Rifle Association has no plan to end homelessness, or that the Anti-defamation League isn’t doing anything to fight pornography. There are a lot of ills in the world. Doesn’t it make sense that we allow a division of labor, with multiple organizations to tackle different issues, each one drawing the support of those who–for whatever reason–feel particularly passionate about a particular issue? If someone decides to spend his life introducing lower-class kids to Shakespeare, or something like that, would we reproach him for not also having a scheme for world peace? Why, then, are we so hostile to someone wanting to devote his attention to what he believes is mass murder? In any case, it’s not true that anti-abortion activists qua individuals have no interest in other issues. The question is whether anti-abortion organizations qua organizations should have such interests. I say the answer is no.

Demanding pro-life organizations take on a raft of other issues would surely compromise their main purpose. It unnecessarily divides people who agree on abortion but disagree on other issues. What’s my plan for eliminating the scourge of unsupported unwed mothers? Shotgun weddings. Should I demand the folks at The Distributist Review get on board with this before we work together against abortion? Only if I don’t really care much about abortion. More importantly, the original purpose of restricting abortion would quickly get sidelined by the other issues. If we can’t criminalize abortion until all expectant mothers have the support they need, then criminalizing abortion has stopped being a genuine policy position and become an eschatological hope. Even if we decide to pursue both ends in parallel, abortion would quickly be dropped, because organizations would start admitting members who don’t take the “pro-life” position on abortion but make up for it by being “pro-life” on many other issues.


Posted by Joseph on Tuesday, March 15, A.D. 2016
Philosophy | EthicsPoliticsPermalink

No one has a right to bring me into this horrible world, especially not via this demeaning, animalistic drive. Life sucks—why is suicide not allowed as a Christian? Why am I forced to live this joke of a life? I hate it. Almost every minute. What are we here for? Aquinas and Augustine simply wrote most of their times, they hardly noticed they were alive; and as an atheist, I thought myself that only as a genius would I be able to live. And even then, why even continue? I see no advantage of existence over non-existence; maybe in heaven, this makes sense: eternal bliss, yes, that I could understand. No suffering _at all_, no ennui, no pain, not even the slightest. But down here, on earth? With the prospect of ending up in hell forever? Nope. Blessed are those who never saw the light of day. Jeremiah 20:14-18! Ecclesiastes 4:3! Philippians 1:20-23!

Posted by Ugly hunchback, genetic dreck on Thursday, March 5, A.D. 2020
Previous entry (all realms): The Last Anchorite
Next entry (all realms): Horowitz on the Mob

Previous entry (Philosophy): Mahoney on the Healthy Boundaries of Democracy
Next entry (Philosophy): Horowitz on the Mob
Leave a comment

Christian / First Name: (required and displayed)

E-mail: (required but not displayed)

Location: (optional and displayed)

Web site: (optional and displayed)

Please write your commentary here: (Click here to add Smileys)

Please submit the word that you see below:

Your comment will be posted after Joseph makes sure that it is neither spammy nor unpublishable.