A Thinking Reed

"Man is but a reed, the most feeble thing in nature, but he is a thinking reed" – Blaise Pascal

Hysterical liberal watch

Chris Hedges has an astonishingly evidence-free article at Alternet purporting to demonstrate that “The battle against abortion is a battle to build a society where pleasure and freedom, where the capacity of the individual and especially women to make choices, and indeed even love itself[!!], are banished.” The “argument” rests almost entirely on armchair psychologizing of vast swaths of people in the pro-life movement whose commitment to that cause can, according to Hedges, only be understood as a bid to contain the “brokenness, desperation and emotional turmoil” these people feel because all the good manufacturing jobs have left the country. In Hedges’ universe it’s impossible for anyone to have sincere moral objections to abortion. They can only be masks for some deeper cause – economic disfranchisement in this case.

The supposed knock-down argument that “demonstrates” that it’s “really” fear and hatred of sex and pleasure, not a desire to protect life, that motivates the pro-life cause is that some pro-lifers also oppose birth control. Now, in the real world there are two reasons this might be the case. One is that many pro-lifers are also committed Catholics. The other is that some pro-lifers have become convinced that certain forms of birth control, including the Pill, are abortifacient because they can act to prevent the implantation of a fertilized ovum. My understanding of this is extremely imperfect, but the impression I have is that it remains uncertain whether various kinds of birth control Pill ever do in fact act to prevent implantation in cases where fertilization occurs, but I don’t think it’s crazy for someone of scrupulous conscience to worry about them for that reason. None of this comes anywhere close to showing that pro-lifers are opposed to sex or pleasure or happiness. In fact, you might think that given the pro-natalist stance of many pro-lifers that they are in fact quite in favor of sex.

All this aside, what’s so annoying about Hedges’ article is that he’s not willing to see pro-lifers as people who might have moral convictions just as sincere and, dare I say, well-informed as his own. They aren’t fellow citizens with whom to enter into respectful dialogue, but crazed hordes who want to banish love itself!This is the mirror image of the manichean worldview held by some on the Right who see liberals as godless baby killers.

6 responses to “Hysterical liberal watch”

  1. Chris Hedges is totally nuts about religion in America. If you go to Truthdig and view what he has written, you will see how extravagant are his claims about religion, religious conservatism, and politics in America.

    He is so much inclined to smear Christianity and Christians with the most extreme samples he can find that I am almost surprised he doesn’t blame the NCC for lunatic fringies like Christian Identity, skinhead, neo-fascist, and neo-Klan groups, and claim the latter typify the attitudes of the former!

    http://www.truthdig.com/

    PS. Protestants used to object to birth control for the same reason as Catholics (and with equal vigor), that (in the traditional view) sexual activity is never licit without at least the possibility of, if not the actual intention of, reproduction.

    It may be that some (many?) conservative Protestants still do. I don’t know.

    But you knew that, right?

    (But they are Godless baby-killers!)

  2. I’ve heard the birth-control argument before, and it seems to come from a certain inability to conceive of morality beyond consequentialism. I.e., if you think abortion is bad you should be in favor of anything that stands a chance of reducing its incidence. Which not only assumes that ends justify means, but also assumes a picture of what actually would reduce abortions. (I am aware of statistics on the subject, but since it all comes from “field conditions”, it’s ambiguous enough to be open to a lot of interpretation.)

  3. Interesting liberals don’t make similar arguments about, say, hate crimes against homosexuals, or rapes, or hate crimes against religious minorities whose well-being specially concerns them.

    And, anyway, nobody’s really a full-bore consequentialist. Who was it wrote that the most effective way to minimize future suffering would be to wipe out all life immediately thru some painless surprise attack? Suffering down to zero in nothing, flat.

    No doubt that also is the most effective way to minimize future abortions, eh?

  4. Now that’s an idea . . . . . ;^)

  5. Interesting liberals don’t make similar arguments about, say, hate crimes against homosexuals, or rapes, or hate crimes against religious minorities whose well-being specially concerns them.

    I don’t quite follow the analogy here … similar in that they don’t support preventing people from becoming homosexual so there won’t be hate crimes against them?

    And, anyway, nobody’s really a full-bore consequentialist. Who was it wrote that the most effective way to minimize future suffering would be to wipe out all life immediately thru some painless surprise attack? Suffering down to zero in nothing, flat.

    Well, that’s if your full-bore consequentialism is only aimed at reducing suffering. If future happiness is your interest, obviously the attack would wipe that out too.

  6. Who suggests rapes should be safe, legal, and rare?

    I think it was Popper, actually, who made that comment re what somebody briefly offered as an improvement on tradition, the principle of negative utilitarianism.

    Not maximize happiness but minimize suffering.

    Maybe it wasn’t Popper. Jack Smart, maybe? Anyway, somebody made short work of that.

Leave a reply to CPA Cancel reply