It’s Blogging For Choice Day.
That means I’m going to do my usual For Choice entry.
The one that says that we have fewer and fewer choices across the board these days. As government continues to encroach upon individual liberties our choices have dwindled.
Many times the government makes a law designed to protect us from the worst in ourselves. The best-known example of such a law is the Volstead Act, commonly known as Prohibition. But I firmly believe in being responsible for your own self. That means being allowed to make your own choices, no matter how stupid they may be.
If you want to drink yourself to death, that is your problem. And the problem of your immediate family. The government shouldn’t be given the role of minding adults’ behaviour.
If you want to drive without wearing a seatbelt. Ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Own a lot of guns. It should be your choice.
The three ‘r’s of adulthood are Responsibility, Risk and Reward. You have responsibilities to yourself and your loved ones. You should be allowed to take whatever risks you like and you should also be willing to accept whatever reward comes out of those risks. It may be thousands of dollars from a good investment. It may be a broken skull from riding without a helmet. Those are your choices. Or they used to be, before well-meaning outsiders got involved.
As to the matter of abortion itself I am on thornier ground. Because I go back and forth between the right of women to make their own choices and the duty of the state to protect those who cannot protect themselves. I’m not quite sure how the State should handle the matter.
How I choose to handle the question of abortion as an individual and a Christian is different. I choose to try to understand the complexities of a woman’s life that would bring her to the circumstance where this choice is in front of her. I choose to offer her comfort in a trying time, to show her love and provide her with options that may make her choice easier. I choose to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit when dealing with any person in crisis–no matter what the crisis is. It could be how to resolve the question of an unwanted pregnancy. Or how to resolve the question of crippling debt.
Pain is around us all the time and takes many forms. As a Christian I choose to treat individuals with the love Christ shows me.
Just Another Pretty Farce 
[…] Coble at Mycropht is a libertarian Christian and not as pro-choice as I would have her (*grin*), but she’s local and I like her and I respect her opinion, especially because they’re usually so considered and so different from the stereotype I often have in mind when I think of religious people talking about abortion. She and I can have a conversation, no Super Bowl ads needed. […]
Dang, I missed Blogging for Choice day? I need to put that on my calendar for next year . . .
Your perspective is well articulated, Kat, but it rests on a libertarian premise that is all but absent in our statist reality. Government-imposed or mandated interdependence will make me help bear the cost of idiots who live recklessly and then demand the Rolls Royce of healthcare when things go wrong. “Choice” and freedom are certainly desirable values, but the value of choice has to have limits, and it seems prudent to err on the side of life (read: not terminating life) in this context.
Happy blogging for choice day.
I remember when you were solidly anti choice. I am sure I could find the post from 05–before you changed your “God.”
You posted on Guerilla Women about being a feminist and being anti choice. You told me you were anti choice.
Hmmm…what(who–loosely–“what” is a better metaphor) changed your mind? Rhetorical question.
I hope and pray you find your way back to worshiping your God and not the blog one.
I can respect your viewpoint Katherine, but I feel like any argument you have for loving the woman in a Christ-like manner can be magnified ten fold for unborn baby.
I feel like any argument you have for loving the woman in a Christ-like manner can be magnified ten fold for unborn baby.
In the understanding of Christ that I have, I’m not sure Christ would need to find arguments to support the idea of loving anyone.
I don’t want to get too much into this anymore, as I typically regret getting involved in an abortion debate, but just to clarify, I believe the woman should be shown love. What I mean is that any “Christian” argument in favor of the woman is also applicable to unborn baby, if not more (i.e. being the least of these, no one knowing what it’s like to be in that situation) That is, if you believe the unborn is human.
That being said, someone counseling a woman considering an abortion should not come at it simply by saying “abortion is wrong, don’t do it!”
Dolphin, have any trouble loving me? Need some arguments for why it is a good idea? From what we know about Christ, He doesn’t.
But you’re being glib. Chance simply pointed out that love/concern/compassion only for the pregnant woman is forgetting somebody. Kat presents a false dichotomy in saying that the interests in a woman not being pregnant outweigh the interests in protecting innocent human life.
Nobody forced Kat to post a tribute to Blogging for Choice Day. Thanks for contributing to the discussion Chance.
Dolphin, have any trouble loving me? Need some arguments for why it is a good idea? From what we know about Christ, He doesn’t.
That’s kinda my point Ned, but thanks for playing.
love/concern/compassion only for the pregnant woman is forgetting somebody
Did I imply that the woman was my only recipient of concern?
Ned, I believe that one of your facets of personality seems to be a lack of understanding of nuance. That has led you to woefully misinterpret what I’ve written here and elsewhere.
Dolphin,
Your attempted put-down of Chance either missed or uncharitably mischaracterized his/her point. No, Christ doesn’t need to hear arguments for this or that moral action, but Chance–like anyone aspiring to Christ-like behavior, must typically discern between, and then choose to trust in, “arguments” in favor of said Christ-like behavior. I don’t think you caught Chance in any hypocrisy or misunderstanding of Christ.
Kat,
Thanks for responding. I don’t know about misinterpreting you elsewhere, and I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen you advocate for any policy short of an Pro-choice absolutist position. But here you were sufficiently motivated by Freedom of Choice to blog about how you believe the love of Christ compels you to speak out on behalf of abortion and all but ignore the moral ramifications of abortion on demand. I think you’d agree that people facing crippling debt generally need to hear a combination of compassion and exhortation, and should probably not be offered a one-year, no-interest, no-payments credit card. I think a woman facing a crisis pregnancy is no different.
I can see that you’re conflicted on abortion, but I wouldn’t say that there’s much nuance to the position that you choose to take publicly on the subject.
Ned,
If you think I was attempting to “put down” chance, then you’re not reading me right at all. The problem is that you have developed such a violent and combative view of Christianity, that you view everything as “you vs the others.” You assume anyone who doesn’t agree with you on any given point is therefore out to attack you or those who agree with you on that point, but that simply isn’t the case. Not all of us take such a combative approach. I’d prefer to engage Chance in discussion (once upon a time you as well. before I finally gave up since it’s all one big battle for you and that’s not what I want to be a part of) that to attempt to put him down or prove him wrong. I’d much prefer to get a more in depth understanding of his position.
But I’m not surprised that you are unable to accurately read me. After all, you’re reading Kat (who writes much more eloquently than I) as having a “pro-choice absolutist position” and of speaking out “on behalf of abortion” and I’ve frankly never (in this post or else where) seen Kat advocate an explicitly pro-choice position, only argue for compassion towards the women in the situation (which is generally either ignored or more often outright opposed by the anti-choice movement). In fact, from everything I’ve ever read of her, I couldn’t even begin to guess at Kat’s position on criminalizing abortion, let alone suggest that she has an absolutist position in either direction!
It’s liek Kat says, you can’t seem to grasp nuance. Everyone is either exclusively your ally or exclusively your opponent, but the real world (and real people) simply can’t be so broadly categorized in such black and white terms.
“Violent”? Hardly. But I will certainly object (am I allowed to object without being dismissed as “combative”? is my “shunning” being temporarily dropped? Just wondering.) when you say something–in the context of debating an issue of public policy, that I think is wrong or misinformed.
As I’ve already said, your comment to Chance was either an attempt to discredit the assertion based upon Chance’s misunderstanding of Christ character or it was half-baked (a new category–I realize that perhaps I presumed that you thought out what you intended to communicate before you typed your comment).
What is the “Pro-choice” position? Is it that abortion should be allowed but only with a variety of restrictions? Who are the people who contribute an entry to “Blog for Choice” Day? Of course, some people may contribute with the intent of blurring the meaning of “Choice” or to steal some of the thunder on that day, but–as I said, there’s no indication that Kat intended as such. She eloquently stated that she’s conflicted, but comes down on the side of, as they say, a woman’s right to choose. In all candor, I think it is sophistry on your part to claim that you cannot “even begin to guess at Kat’s position on criminalizing abortion.”
I like Kat (even despite slights to my personality from this comment chain); I respect Kat, as a writer and as a person–from what I know about her, but that doesn’t mean that I won’t challenge assertions she makes in the blogosphere if I disagree with her. Should it?
Re-shun?
As I’ve already said, your comment to Chance was either
That’s what I’m talking about. It’s not about “disagreeing.” You‘ve already said what I meant. You’ve made up your mind and I don’t get a say in the matter. Because you’ve already put me into the little box. You know, if you need to box everything and everyone into little distinct categories to make the world seem organized and understandable, I’m ok with that. It just leads to a type of discourse that I’m not at all interested in anymore. Back when I first started blogging, I enjoyed the everybody take a side and then yell at each other without bothering to listen to what the other one is saying. But I got burned out on that and largely try to avoid it these days.
In all candor, I think it is sophistry on your part to claim
Ned, I have no idea what Kat’s position on government action on abortion is. I, personally, don’t interpret “I’m not quite sure how the State should handle the matter” to be coming “down on the side of, as they say, a woman’s right to choose” But then you’ve already decided what Kat thinks and now what I think Kat thinks as well.
If you believe I’ve shunned you, then yes you are likely going to be “reshunned,” but consider that perhaps, just maybe, I feel kinda left out in conversations with you since you carry on both sides of it regardless of what I actually say.
Come on, Dolphin. We’ll assume all that you’re saying about my flaws is true (aw gee, then what’s the use in even engaging in a dialogue with him?!?), but I suspect you aren’t eager to have your propositions kicked around at all.
I’m sorry to have put words in your mouth. From what you’re saying, I obviously misinterpreted your point. What did you mean by your comment to Chance? And, if you’ll indulge me, how would you answer the questions at the end of my last comment? Let’s get this discussion started!
Instead of talking substance, you (and Kat, frankly) have asserted that I can’t or won’t or don’t understand your positions. Is “substantive” disagreement out of bounds? Is this blog a personal (by which I mean private) diary? I don’t want to silence (“shout down”) squishiness (perhaps a close relative to “nuance.”) I even have squishy positions on some issues or subjects, but I will generally acknowledge they’re squishy. But when relying upon or appealing to certain authorities (one being logic) it seems that we can and should be able to move away from squishiness and closer to resolution or resolve. Right?
aw gee, then what’s the use in even engaging in a dialogue with him?!?
Sadly Ned, that’s pretty much accurate. You’re seeking out conflict (and when others refuse to meet you in the conflict, you take on a false martyr roll of “can’t I just disagree with something nobody’s said to begin with?”). I don’t want to be in conflict except when it’s absolutely necessary, and then only to be the agent of moving that conflict towards a more harmonious position. I’m not perfect and I, much less regularly than before, but still often allow myself to embrace the conflict instead of the resolution. Therefore, I’m finding it’s better to avoid people who are specifically intent on finding and creating conflict whenever possible, until I’m better able to engage in the conflict without getting lost in it.
Whatever dolphin. I’m not seeking out conflict, but I certainly think it is worthwhile to help direct internet discussions and dialogues toward truth as much as possible. A woman immersed in a crisis pregnancy or a person attempting to reach a conclusion on the morality of abortion will benefit more from a substantive hashing out of the issue than she will from a mushy “I’m confused, too” hand on the shoulder from someone she is not likely to ever know beyond the virtual world of the internet. Your conflict is with candor and substance, dolphin, not with Ned.
This string has certainly caused me to think a little about the differing expectations of “participants” in virtual interaction.
Re-shun.
[…] “aw, it’s no big deal! What’s one little baby?” let me just say that I am no fan of abortion. It IS an issue I struggle with, because I think our response as a Christian community over the […]