Why (Many) Abortion Foes Do Not Shun Pro-Choicers
I would not have someone over for dinner who thought raising children for food is OK. But I do, in fact, have people whom I know are "pro-choice" over for dinner. Why the difference?
I think it is because one has a different attitude when what one sees as an error in moral reasoning is widespread. Let's say you lived in the South in 1830. You might think black slavery was wrong, but you'd pretty much expect most people you met to disagree. You'd still sit down and have dinner with these people. You would tell yourself something like, "Well, I think these people are wrong, but on most issues, most of us are products of our time and place... so it's understandable they think this way."
On the other hand, today, you'd probably find someone advocating black slavery to be really creepy, and you'd want nothing to do with that person.
I think it is because one has a different attitude when what one sees as an error in moral reasoning is widespread. Let's say you lived in the South in 1830. You might think black slavery was wrong, but you'd pretty much expect most people you met to disagree. You'd still sit down and have dinner with these people. You would tell yourself something like, "Well, I think these people are wrong, but on most issues, most of us are products of our time and place... so it's understandable they think this way."
On the other hand, today, you'd probably find someone advocating black slavery to be really creepy, and you'd want nothing to do with that person.
I think this is very reasonable.
ReplyDeleteThere's still too great a confluence of apathy. I'm still not entirely convinced people actually think this is killing babies. We can always say "well ONE DAY everyone will realize". That's not proof this is analogous to slavery.
But if it is analogous to slavery, this makes sense.
Then again - restrictions on abortion may be the moral outrage and we'll all come to see that to be true a century from now.
"Then again - restrictions on abortion may be the moral outrage and we'll all come to see that to be true a century from now."
ReplyDeleteYou're taking it for granted that whatever we "come to believe" is something we "come to see" (i.e., something which is true). Unless you think morality changes from era to era, it simply cannot be the case that a new societal consensus is always superior to what came before it.
Good call Mr. Huff. I'm always surprised by how pro-abortion types act like their opponents position is weird. I can understand people who think it's a necessary evil. But a positive good that it would be a moral outrage to restrict? Don't count your centuries before they hatch.
ReplyDeleteI confess I read some blogs that I would be embarrassed for black friends of mine to see, especially the commentariats. And I have hosted people who are pro-abortion also. If it comes up, I make my case, as politely as possible when with guests or when I am a guest.
Gabe Ruth: "I'm always surprised by how pro-abortion types act like their opponents position is weird."
ReplyDeleteI have had the same thought. For example, I like most of Jon Stewart's politics, but he really messes up here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-february-21-2012/punanny-state---virginia-s-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill
He is a master at pointing out the inconsistencies of politicians, and I don't care for this Virginia bill, or politicians in general. Everything Stewart says here would be spot-on, EXCEPT that many people believe that an unborn child has RIGHTS. He may disagree with that, but Stewart doesn't even *acknowledge* that belief. He needs to show why that's wrong, before he says the pro-life people are inconsistent.