In an number of previous essays the notions of Bertrand de Jouvenel regarding political theory have been utilized. One of these ideas in particular is that government is rightly formed for a particular society and culture when its authority is freely granted by the people, that is it utilizes the authority granted to it by the people and does not have to resort to coercion. This idea of government does not stem from rights or freedoms and the “standard” contract terminology stemming from Hobbes/Lockean political philosophies. Limitations on government stems from both the withholding of authority and that what actions and freedoms state may grant to a person, does not by that granting make that action ethical or moral. For example, the Roman state (and in fact many states) granted the power of life and death to the state over individual citizens. For over 200 years, Christians were put to death for their faith under this power granted. That however, did not make it ethical or moral for a particular Roman to do put a Christian to death. Or more plainly, it was within the boundaries of Roman rule to put a Christian to death but it was unethical for individual Roman to do so. Nero as Emperor could execute Christians as such but it was unethical for Nero the man to do so.
Christians for just slightly under two thousand years have opposed abortion. A statement regarding abortion made today of and by those against abortion that fixes the idea that the act of abortion is a equivalent to murder and the actor be it the mother or the doctor, is equivalent to a murderer is not unheard of in pro-life circles. Some pro-life activists “go this far” and those criticizing the pro-life Christian position remark that this should be a logical consequence of ascribing personhood to the fetus. It is not necessary to ascribe full or even partial “personhood” to a fetus in order to oppose abortion. But even granting that, a view of government as expressed above combined with Christian ethics does not necessitate that step of equivicating abortion with murder.
In today’s modern Western states, America and Europe (West and East), it is clearly the case that the authority to regulate and therefore to permit abortion and regulation of abortion has been granted by the people of those states. In the US for example, Roe v Wade via the Supreme Court exercising authority granted by the people has clearly demarcated all abortions as legal and permissible. Therefore by the political meta-ethic noted above politically/legally speaking abortion and the actors involved in abortion (doctor, mother and other decision makers) are acting rightly in the political arena.
Now just as clearly in the light of Christian tradition this is not ethical, but a sin. I know of no teaching which contradicts this within Christian tradition or history. Some of the very earliest Christian doctrinal writing, e.g., the Didache, speaks strongly against abortion. Opposition to abortion started early and remained from the beginning. The question then becomes who do we as Christian deal with others in and out of our local community who sin. Two things are crystal clear on this regard. We must love them. And recalling St. Paul’s words to Timothy recall that, “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am the foremost.” That is to say that of those around us who sin, and that includes all of us, it is ourselves, our own sins which need concern us before all others.
So what is a Christian to do in a democratic institution? This much seems clear, within the context of political discourse and methods (those setup within the authority of the government in question) one can work toward minimizing those things one finds wrong so long as one uses the methods accepted within and sanctioned by the authority of the state. As for those in involved in the industry and those partaking of its services; well they are sinners just like you, except that their particular sins are far less important than your own.
Finally, I think the application of these arguments used above regarding abortion can be extended to ESCR, euthanasia, and other practices within our societies which arise (and have arisen) due to the increasing biotechnological prowess our civilization acquires.
As a coda: For any who might be interested in the political philosophy of Bertrand de Jouvenel, Danial Mahoney has a succinct little summary (Bertrand De Jouvenel) although translations of Sovereignty, On Power, and A Pure Theory of Politics are also available.
Just remember that you don’t speak for all Christians. Even a majority of Catholics in America are pro-choice.
In the US for example, Roe v Wade via the Supreme Court exercising authority granted by the people has clearly demarcated all abortions as legal and permissible.
False, Roe did not mark all abortions as legal and permissible.
Therefore by the political meta-ethic noted above politically/legally speaking abortion and the actors involved in abortion (doctor, mother and other decision makers) are acting rightly in the political arena.
Leave aside the fact that you have not even read Roe. Assume you are correct about it. You previously defined government as:
One of these ideas in particular is that government is rightly formed for a particular society and culture when its authority is freely granted by the people, that is it utilizes the authority granted to it by the people and does not have to resort to coercion.
This would not make those involved in an abortion part of the ‘political arena’. If your statement on Roe was correct then you have a case where the state has not been granted the authority by the people to regulate abortion. This assertion only works if your view of the gov’t is the opposite of what you presented. If you view the gov’t as having inherently unlimited power then everything is political no matter what it is or where it happens. Your decision to wipe your ass with toilet paper that points up rather than down in the dispenser is political unless the gov’t has decided it will leave ass wiping unregulated!
So what is a Christian to do in a democratic institution?
Well let’s look at a less charged case. What can be done about the fact that while it is mostly illegal to smoke pot in the US there’s no clear law against taking a vacation to Amsterdam (or other places) and smoking it there? Two options present itself:
1. Try to expand the government’s power to include those traveling abroad.
2. Do not grant the gov’t expanded power but try to convince people not to smoke pot abroad.
Without digging too much into the analogy, it becomes pretty clear that there is no obvious case why #1 must be choosen by those who oppose pot smoking. Of course people who think pot smoking is a great idea would rather see anti-poters go for #2 rather than #1.
So Mark has just established that it is perfectly ok to be pro-life and to have voted for Obama. If you want me to give you a letter of recommendation for Obama’s re-election campaign let me know.
JA,
I’m not sure what relevance that has here. Are you thinking of presenting the logic based on Catholic doctrine by which those American catholic pro-choicers reason? My suspicion is that it is not based on their religious beliefs at all, but has other influences.
I’m unclear as to how that observation affects or connects with the political ethical reasoning I’ve presented.
Boonton,
Well, as you note the precise current restrictions on abortions (or lack thereof) is not germane to the argument posed as it is more generally based. So, let’s set that aside for now.
Yes, those taking part in abortion are influenced (and under the sphere) by governmental authority. If you haven’t noticed a number of court cases have involved abortion. They made decisions. Those decision affected public life. That authority is expressed in the law which governs abortion. This is the government authority in action. Why does that not make sense to you? (How toilet paper is dispensed on the other hand has not been subject to court cases and public law and therefore is not regulated by the authority of the state).
Furthermore, contrary to your declamation that this involves:
As I stated (I thought clearly) the state only has authority where it is granted that authority by the people freely. “Authoritarian” states using coercion directly violate this political meta-ethic. This means that the limits on proper government are culturally bound. A micro-societal example of the monastic community which has almost total authority over its members (freely granted) is an example of a very controlling state which is acting ethically within the bounds of meta-ethic I’m using.
And you’ll have to explain how that leads to your final conclusion a little more clearly because it seems to me you’ve a hole in your reasoning. It’s remains unclear why a person who finds pot-smoking harmful would vote for someone who encourages pot-smoking in general (and overseas) if they were to choose #2.
But in general I think it would be “perfectly OK” for a person who is pro-life to vote for Mr Obama if they happened to think that the (for example) these bioethical matters are of lower priority than other matters for which they believe Mr Obama better suited than the opposition. If however they think these matters are not of higher priority voting for Mr Obama makes no sense.
Mark,
I was responding to sentences like “Christians for just slightly under two thousand years have opposed abortion” and “So what is a Christian to do in a democratic institution?”
My point is that you are attributing to Christians a belief held by you and indeed the Catholic clergy, but not by “Christians” as a whole. Not by a long shot. Now you can go ahead and think that the Vatican gets to decide for Catholics whether they are pro-choice or not, but actual Catholics disagree in extraordinarily large numbers.
This is not a minor nitpick. You’re offering up your authoritarian view of Christianity as the only Christianity when it is obviously not. This leads to ridiculousness like questioning the Catholicism of Pelosi and Kerry, et al, even though you never question the Catholicism of Republicans who are, e.g., pro-war and pro-death-penalty.
JA,
I’m speaking from a point of view of Christian tradition, philosophy, and theology. Clearly individual Christians throughout history have veered from Christian doctrine. I don’t think that’s a radical notion but more a more obvious one.
You are right, Catholic (and Orthodox) doctrine and teaching speak against the death penalty and unjust war. So, then take that issue and follow the logic in the above. It would instruct the Christian to regard in two ways. As a legal issue for which I suggest the meta-ethic above leads one to not blame “as murderer” those who take part in the system, but to hold that individuals are accountable for their actions and that those juries, prosecutors, judges and so forth whom take part in that are accountable as individuals (and whom it is not our place to judge) and that as representatives of the state they are not accountable unless these actions violate the meta-ethic of freely granted authority.
Finally, most Catholics who are pro-choice acknowledge and are cognizant of the fact that their practices are contraindicated by Christian doctrine. The “pro-war” position is somewhat complicated, especially for Catholics, by careful reasoning regarding war by St. Thomas Aquinas regarding doctrines of just war. There is also a tradition stretching back to Jesus allowing for the idea that a Christian might also serve his country as a soldier. If you know any Christian arguments based on Scripture and Tradition for abortion I’d be interested in hearing them, for I don’t think there are any.
Ms Pelosi at least has made the outrageous claims that Catholic Tradition is supportive of her pro-choice views for it is clearly not. Do you know of any pro-death penalty conservative Catholics who make the claim that their position is consonant with the teaching of their Church? I suspect you cannot find one. As for why the Catholic episcopacy and other leaders find abortion more important politically than the death-penalty … I think that’s a matter of numbers. A million abortions (or if you prefer 15k partial birth abortions) annually far far exceeds the number of convicts consigned to death.
Note: Slightly edited for readability.
Yes, those taking part in abortion are influenced (and under the sphere) by governmental authority. If you haven’t noticed a number of court cases have involved abortion.
I’m not sure what this means in context of a limited government? If government does not have the authority to do something (for fun let’s say regulate ass wiping), then yes you’re ‘influenced’ in the sense that you have a freedom that comes from the gov’t minding its place. In the same way, you’re also ‘influenced’ by the fact that I am not the type of guy who likes to break into your house and steal your stuff. Your decision to keep stuff in your house, though, rather than a secured bunker, has nothing to do with any non-trivial relationship you have with me.
(How toilet paper is dispensed on the other hand has not been subject to court cases and public law and therefore is not regulated by the authority of the state).
I think you’re fudging your words here a bit. If the state has not been given the authority to do something (like regulate toilet paper techniques), then it doesn’t have the authority. Should the question come before a court and the court correctly rules that the state doesn’t have such authority that doesn’t magically create government authority over toilet paper useage. It is simply the court using its authority to recognize the scope of what powers have been granted to the gov’t.
And you’ll have to explain how that leads to your final conclusion a little more clearly because it seems to me you’ve a hole in your reasoning. It’s remains unclear why a person who finds pot-smoking harmful would vote for someone who encourages pot-smoking in general (and overseas) if they were to choose #2.
The honest person who feels pot smoking is harmful but also recognizes that the government has not been granted the authority to regulate behavior outside its borders would have no problem with voting for a person who opposed laws to expand gov’t power in that direction. Whether that person encouraged or discouraged pot smoking would thereby be irrelevant. A President who encouraged overseas pot smoking would be no different than a librarian or cable tv installer who encouraged overseas pot smoking.
Why would he care if the person became President? The anti-pot smoker recognizes that all humans have a fundamental freedom to their opinion and this freedom has NOT been granted to the gov’t to regulate. Voting against the pro-smoker, then, would be irrelevant. The pro-smoker would still exist, would still have an opinion of his own that he is free to voice. Voting against him would be as silly as you calling the post office and insisting they assign you a letter carrier who did not vote for Obama.
—side note—
Of course in real life we tend to view elected officials, especially executives as a type of ‘cheerleader’ for things we favor even if we don’t want the gov’t to have authority over those things. For example, we like a President who says it is wrong to hold racist beliefs, even though we wouldn’t want the gov’t to start passing laws regulating beliefs. Perhaps at some point we decided to grant the gov’t authority as a type of all purporse cheerleader hence we expect elected officials to publically encourage or discourage certain things even if we have not granted them authority to directly regulate them with force of law
—————–
But in general I think it would be “perfectly OK” for a person who is pro-life to vote for Mr Obama if they happened to think that the (for example) these bioethical matters are of lower priority than other matters for which they believe Mr Obama better suited than the opposition.
I think you missed my point here. It’s not about priorities. The pro-life stance may be very high on the priority list. Let’s use a less incendary analogy again. Imagine a devout Orthodox Jew keeping Kosher regualtions is a very high priority. Yet he voted for John McCain, a well known eater of pork and cheeseburgers. Why? Because he has not given the US government authority over his dietary behavior so he doesn’t really care that McCain would make a very bad Orthodox Jew. It’s not that the things about McCain he likes have a higher priority. In fact they have a lower priority but so does the gov’t as a whole. Now imagine he learns that the chief rabbi of his synagogue was seen chowing down on a ham dinner at a McCain fundraiser. This very same person might go ballistic. He might demand that the rabbi immediately step down. He might support a replacement rabbi who voted for Obama but is has a respected track record of keeping koshar.
If the gov’t doesn’t really have the authority to regulate abortion (or regulate abortion in certain stages or areas), then even a pro-lifer who considers pro-lifism to be a very high priority may still end up voting for Obama.
Boonton,
I don’t see the abortion argument as one over whether the government does or does not have the authority to regulate abortion but whether it should regulate it. That ties back into the discussions we had in the past about the hypocrisy of “privacy” as right arguments wherein numerous privacy violations are accepted and ignored routinely, e.g., two weeks ago we got a notice from the school that our daughter would not receive grades if we couldn’t prove that her dental checkups were current (or that we could prove we couldn’t afford a dentist).
Mr Obama has a non-neutral position on abortion. He’s “for” it. He want to make it free and subsidized in many situations. Making things free, in any economic model or consideration that I’m aware of, also encourages use. So,
Even if he thought diet not part of governmental authority he might not want to vote for a McCain who announced the distribution of free bacon cheeseburgers on Fridays for everyone because that would encourage those in his community to break their dietary regulations.
But, what I think in part you are driving at and to which I agree, this stance makes difficult or impossible many hard-line pro-life actions and rhetoric. By separating political and personal ethics and then further granting as “good” in the political ethical sense that authority which is granted freely, the abortion question becomes less a political one and more one of personal ethics … to which the Christian response is not public condemnation.
Boonton,
I should add, I think your argument about McCain and the Kosher voter is right. I just don’t think it applies to Obama, for whom his pro-abortion position extends beyond neutrality to one that extends and encourages abortion.
Strictly speaking that should be irrelevant unless you’re talking about actual government policies that encourage abortion….in that case I don’t think you have the real world facts to back up your assertion.
I don’t see the abortion argument as one over whether the government does or does not have the authority to regulate abortion but whether it should regulate it.
Well your position is that the gov’t only has the authority granted to it by the people. If it doesn’t then your question about should becomes absurd. It’s like asking should McDonald’s stop children from getting hurt by their parents divorcing. Without the authority McDonald’s can’t do anything….unless you’re saying the authority doesn’t matter…
Now you can say that the people *should* delegate abortion to the government. But we open up another topic of how exactly these powers get delegated to the gov’t (and I think it is more than just saying 50% of the vote) and what limits are on the people to delegate to the gov’t.
Even if he thought diet not part of governmental authority he might not want to vote for a McCain who announced the distribution of free bacon cheeseburgers on Fridays for everyone because that would encourage those in his community to break their dietary regulations.
Yes but so what. Clearly it doesn’t seem like much of a mystery why a pro-life person may want to vote for a pro-life candidate. The question was whether your argument essentially means that a pro-life person should be able to vote for a non-pro-life candidate without yielding on the value they place being pro-life.
I think your rhetorical strategy here is revealing. Often pro-lifers invest a great amount of rhetorical energy into trying to create the impression that there is no real neutral ground on abortion (hence the silly ‘name wars’ the debate has spawned over the last 20+ years…’pro-choice’ v. ‘pro-abortion’ etc). It’s pretty clear why that is so important. If you have a neutral stance where the gov’t neither promotes or stops abortion you have essentially squared the circle. The status quo remains more or less unchanged and 99% of the pro-life agenda gets tossed in the garbage can while 80% of the pro-choice agenda basically wins by default.
Ask yourself, does the gov’t give away free abortions like your hypothetical ‘free bacon cheeseburgers’? No it doesn’t. If the conclusion to the political abortion debate was Roe stays but no free gov’t abortion bonanza…..well Planned parenthood is going to be 90% happy and Right to Life is going to be 90% unhappy.
Or to use the terms we used when were discussing Limbaugh, why the need to reframe the debate as one between pro-lifers and absolute pro-abortionist policies by the gov’t?
That ties back into the discussions we had in the past about the hypocrisy of “privacy” as right arguments wherein numerous privacy violations are accepted and ignored routinely, e.g., two weeks ago we got a notice from the school that our daughter would not receive grades if we couldn’t prove that her dental checkups were current (or that we could prove we couldn’t afford a dentist).
Is this a violation of your privacy or a condition of the school you wish to send your daughter too?
Boonton,
This is a public school in the village in which I live. It was not listed as a “requirement” on entry, it came up two weeks ago. It is, I think, very arguably an invasion of privacy. It serves no public health purpose for the protection of anyone outside of my family, unlike vaccinations it doesn’t even have that an an excuse. It’s a nanny state requirement tacked on by a State (Illinois) government and likely was pushed through with “it’s for the children” rhetoric.
Are you aware Mr Obama supports state subsidy of abortions?
Boonton,
On
Well, there’s pro-choice and their is pro-abortion. I place Mr Obama more to the pro-abortion side of things, with support for subsidies and his voting to kill the “accidentally born alive” late term abortion babies. I’d argue a pro-life candidate could vote for a pro-choice via libertarian arguments candidate. It’s just that Mr Obama is not that candidate.
I have no idea what your trying to say here.
As I said, I think it’s clear that the argument isn’t about whether the right to regulate abortion has not been granted to the state but whether it should exercise that right. Look if Rome decides to not kill Christians it remains within the right of Rome to decide to change its mind and go ahead and do so. Authority can be granted but not exercised. Just because an act is within the authority of the state but that it has not been acted upon does not mean the state lacks that authority.
I disagree on your scale of pro-choice versus pro-abortion. The US has never seen a pro-abortion candidate in the way that it has seen many pro-life (or anti-abortion) candidates. Consider the following hypothetical policies:
1. No Federal Funds can go to any group that explicitly argues against abortion rights in the US or any country in the world….even if such funds are being used for other purposes.
2. Unmarried teens who are pregnant and intend to carry their babies to term must be presented with a short powerpoint from their physicians illustrating the potential medical problems of birth, the social effects of unmarried teen motherhood, and so on.
3. An unmarried teen carrying a child to term must receive either consent from one of her parents or at least certify that her parents have been notified of her decision not to have an abortion.
4. The state seeks to try to find ways to Constitutionally pass laws mandating abortion in certain circumstances (female military members serving in active duty, those serving time in prison, perhaps the very young, those with mental problems, those on welfare or in deep economic distress etc.)
All of these policies are simply mirror images of pretty much run of the mill anti-abortion policies. Yet for all the carping about ‘pro-abort politicians’, it would be almost unimaginable to see anyone actually mounting a serious campaign for one of these policies. Essentially pro-lifers are spoiled. They have almost never encountered a truly pro-abortion opposition.
I have no idea what your trying to say here.
There is a consistent tactic among pro-lifers to try to create the impression that the choice is between pro-abortion and pro-life instead of a spectrum where pro-abortion sits on one end, pro-choice in the center, and pro-life on the other end. The reason for this ‘narrative framing’ is because if the public opted for an ‘abortion neutral’ policy by the gov’t, the bulk of the pro-life agenda would be rejected while on the other hand simply keeping the status quo would satisfy the bulk of the pro-choice agenda.
As I said, I think it’s clear that the argument isn’t about whether the right to regulate abortion has not been granted to the state but whether it should exercise that right. Look if Rome decides to not kill Christians it remains within the right of Rome to decide to change its mind and go ahead and do so. Authority can be granted but not exercised.
Why isn’t the argument about whether the right to regulate abortion has been granted? You don’t seem willing to follow through with your theory of gov’t. When and how did we ever allocate such a right to the government? If we didn’t then the gov’t has no such authority.
Most would argue that Rome never had the authority to kill Christians. Such a policy was a blatent violation of the limited authority a government can ever be granted from its people. Yes Rome did kill Christians but because it was acting as a tyrant without any regard to authority properly understood.
There is a consistent tactic among pro-lifers to try to create the impression that the choice is between pro-abortion and pro-life instead of a spectrum where pro-abortion sits on one end, pro-choice in the center, and pro-life on the other end. The reason for this ‘narrative framing’ is because if the public opted for an ‘abortion neutral’ policy by the gov’t, the bulk of the pro-life agenda would be rejected while on the other hand simply keeping the status quo would satisfy the bulk of the pro-choice agenda.
GREAT point, Boonton.
Other issues are similar, by the way. The mirror image of Prop 8 would be allowing ONLY gay couples to get married, for example. The mirror image of opposition to euthanasia would be forced “euthanasia.” The mirror image of abstinence-only sex ed would be sex ed where the teacher was forbidden to mention abstinence. Etc., etc.
It generally comes down to this: the right is trying to tell everybody else what they’re allowed to do, while the left is arguing that people should be allowed to make up their own minds.
This is a public school in the village in which I live. It was not listed as a “requirement” on entry, it came up two weeks ago. It is, I think, very arguably an invasion of privacy.
Arguably perhaps, I wouldn’t say ‘very’ though.
Suppose, though, that you got a notice from the gov’t that it was engaging in a population gender balancing program and had decided in order to meet their demographic targets for the year 2035 it needs you and your wife to have a son now and a girl 3 years from now. Your wife is required to report to a doctor in the next 3 weeks to determine if she is pregnant now. If she is not, you must fill out a form monthly attesting you are trying to get her pregnant. Should 6 months from now she is not, you must report to a gov’t run fertility clinic for evaluation. Etc. etc.
If having to take your daughter to the dentist is a ‘very arguably’ invasion of privacy then might not the above be a ‘very very’ invasion? Yet if you reject the privacy arguments that form the foundation of Roe it’s kind of hard to see why the gov’t wouldn’t have the authority to engage in such social engineering.