Phil Letizia

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Fetus Fatigue

Fetus Fatigue

Many of us are tired of the election process. The discussion, the debate, the issues. But these are important times with increasingly important issues. I've tried my best to stay out of the fray, let dialogue take place and see where the chips fall.

It has become taboo to be a "one-issue" voter in this election cycle. Whatever side of the aisle you are on, to believe in one, "titanic" issue, is viewed with a skeptical eye.

I love that younger "evangelicals" are becoming more and more passionate about the environment, poverty, Africa, and human rights around the world. Peace around the world is our hope and aim and we pray for it and seek its coming. I still cannot shake however, the issue that looms... abortion.

Even as some of you read this, you may be saying..."Oh, here we go". By posting this I am not imploring you to come to his conclusion. I just hope we do not sleep on it, and you consider it strongly.

Douglas Gruthius, who is a Christian philosopher and apologist, wrote an open letter to "young evangelicals", entitled "Fetus Fatigue". It's linked below, and though his voice is strong, and his tone confrontational... I just can't shake it.

It's not a "faith" issue. It's not a "religious issue".

It is a human rights issue.

For the least of these...
Fetus Fatigue - Gruthius

posted by Philip Letizia at 1:29 PM

10 Comments:

  • Unfortunately, what Gruthius and other Christians fail to understand is that many of these issues you mention--poverty namely--are directly connected to abortion. Issues are interconnected, not sole compartments with separate features.

    Christians who have voted Republican in the last two elections (I voted for Bush in 2000, so I am not exempt here; but chose not to vote in 2004) have created a ripe environment for abortion: the Bush administration has shown a blatant disregard for issues surrounding poverty, genocide in Sudan, a holistic program for sex-ed, and utterly assinine and irrelevant environmental policies all add to the soup from whence abortion broods. Not to mention the fact that marriage is becoming less popular and more fragile (divorce rates are still around 60%; and people are getting married later, if at all).

    When people ask me why I am voting for Obama, I say because I'm a "values" voter (granted, I lean heavily to the left as it is). When they ask me about abortion, I tell them that one must battle abortion by battling a multiplicity of issues. Namely, poverty. Obama has a whole page devoted to poverty on his website; McCain does not (McCain has a page on gun rights, but I'm not interested so much in guns as I am poverty. . . sorry).

    Another issue that is tied to the abortion issue is the environment (here Christians are most ignorant). What good is it to fight for life if all that the living will inherit is a broken and unhealthy earth? We want to give with one hand (life), and take with the other (resources; global warming). The same party that upholds pro-life rhetoric, also chants "Drill, baby, Drill," which will not curb CO-2 emissions in the long run. So we'll have lots of babies (not a bad thing), but will have higher healthcare costs due to the loss of air and drinking water quality.

    Let me say that I am pro-life. Really pro-life: I am for life from the cradle to the grave. I think Democrats should be more balanced in their views on abortion. But voting for a democrat sure beats voting for a pair of ultra-conservatives that threaten to limit people's relationships with a Constitutional amendment (The Constitution protects people's rights, not strips them away, despite what sexual preference people have).

    And when people ask me why I'm voting for a Democrat who is openly pro-choice, I ask why they're voting for someone who is ultimately pro-death. They ask what I mean, and I say the one thing that McCain's whole platform stands upon: war. Sure a nation needs to defend itself; but McCain is just plum scary with his neoconservative militant approach to the global community. America cannot afford four more years of rhetoric in which America is pitted against everyone else, as if we're blessed more than the rest of the world. As Father Bush used to say, "Not gonna' do-it!"

    . . . Ya' opened a can o'worms here, Phil! We'll see what happens!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 11:19 PM  

  • Well, since I just got called out by Joe (I represent one of the “other Christians”), I better take the opportunity to respond.

    1. You say that “…one must battle abortion by battling a multiplicity of issues. Namely, poverty.” You also list a host of other issues including sex-ed, the environment, the president, etc. What’s interesting is that you failed to name the most fundamental issue in “the multiplicity of issues”, namely the prevailing societal view that, as Obama puts it, “What a woman does with her body is between herself, her doctors, and her pastors.” It is THIS VIEW, that has been the one constant since Roe v. Wade. Since then presidents, poverty, environmental and other issues have ebbed and flowed. How can one suggest that to battle abortion, we must fix other issues before we fix the fundamental, inhumane societal presupposition? To suggest otherwise is to put the cart before the horse. Phil, if your readers want to read a thoughtful article on why “Voting for the Most Extreme Pro-Abortion Political Candidate in American History Is Not the Way to Save Unborn Babies”, it can be found here:
    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/viewarticle.php?selectedarticle=2008.10.14_George_Robert_Obama%27s%20Abortion%20Extremism_.xml

    2. You say, “Let me say that I am pro-life. Really pro-life: I am for life from the cradle to the grave.” Yikes. You may have just showed us your cards. By omission, you are saying that you are not "for" life before the cradle. If that’s not what you mean and you do believe that abortion is the violation of life that exists inside the womb…. that kind of rhetoric is not helpful.

    3. You say, “And when people ask me why I'm voting for a Democrat who is openly pro-choice, I ask why they're voting for someone who is ultimately pro-death”. At best, you are making the case that an unjust war that produces deaths to innocents is just as bad (or worse) than abortion. Phil, if you readers are trying to make their decision based on “the lesser of all evils”, I suggest reading this first: "Why Abortion is Worst Than an Unjust War." It can be found in the conversation here: http://www.boundless.org/aprint/aprint2003.cfm?url=http://www.boundless.org/regulars/office_hours/a0000958.html

    Church, here’s what’s at stake. If you agree that abortion is a violation of a persons right to life, then you NECESSARILY have a human rights issue on your hands of epic proportions (50,000,000+ deaths since 1973). That makes this issue both qualitatively (legalized genocide!) and quantitatively (50+ mil) the most pressing issue of our day. Joe was right that there are multiplicity of issues involved (poverty, environment, etc), but I would contend that there are a multiplicity of issues involved in the church’s effectiveness. Meaning, part of the church’s mission is to care for the poor and be stewards of the environment. But I can tell you this, the Church’s mission in these matters will continue to suffer greatly if we do not stand up for the GREATEST humans rights issue of our time. The mission of the Church will suffer because we will lose our prophetic voice in society. That is exactly what is happening in the Church today, as evidenced by this whole discussion. Now, lest I lose my own prophetic voice, I urge you Joe, and all others of similar mind, to reconsider your position. To not do so, would be to admit that there are other things more important than fighting against a fundamental inhumane worldview that has led to genocide. The Church was notoriously silent during the Holocaust and now, years later, we woefully regret our response. Let's not do it again.

    Because abortion is the worst of all societal evils today in America, I with confidence echo Phil's reference to the words of Jesus, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

    Sincerely,
    Brad Schmidt
    brad@citychurchftl.com

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 12:06 PM  

  • I don't understand the term "pro-life". I never have. Even when I was told that was what I was supposed to be when I was a child attending Christian school. Pro-life indicates pro quality of life. Caring for living children; caring and understanding that a person not only has the right to live, but also the right to die once they become so ill that they are only alive with the help of modern medicine. Therefore the term is not "pro-life, but "anti-choice." I find that the conservative argument has that huge flaw- they will defend the rights of an embryo/fetus until birth. Then they oppose welfare, WIC, medicaid, and other state run programs to provide for the child. It simply doesn't make sense.

    The term pro choice indicates that the person, Obama included, is not "pro abortion", but for a woman's right to have a choice over her medical care and procedures. To deny this to a woman would be like denying men the right to a vasectomy- after all, it does prevent the release of sperm, diminishing its rights and the potential for him/her, meaning the sperm, to create a zygote. I have several friends who are conservative, Christian, and republican who are pro-choice, but anti-abortion. Meaning they believe it should be a safe and legal option, but they don't agree with the practice itself and wouldn't have one if they found themselves with an unplanned pregnancy.

    A previous poster revealed that fact that there have been 50,000,000 "deaths" since 1973. Abortion has been around since the beginning of time. [Jesus Christ himself never considered it a sinful practice and it did occur during biblical times.] It's never been recorded and counted before. Women were still having abortions in 1972 and before and either dying or becoming seriously ill/infertile due to the botched unsafe procedure they had to obtain in back alleys. Legalization only made abortion safe[r].

    I, for one, would never vote for a candidate that is anti-choice. That would only increase crime, over crowd our prisons more, increase poverty, the deficit, and taxes, over populate schools, neighborhoods, create more pollution, etc. In other words, to criminalize abortion would be to move the country backwards.

    By Blogger Big Al, At 9:59 PM  

  • Any-who, now I move on to Big Al on your comments page. Big Al makes some great points about the whole name thing. When he talks about pro-life should be called anti-choice i would make the argument with him that pro-choice could be called anti-life/pro-death.

    Moving on, what the problem is with these peeps that are "pro-death" is that all they are thinking about is a quick fix. Yeah they can argue rape cases but honestly out of the millions how many are actually rape issues? (rhetorical, :)) But even in that circumstance it is also a quick fix. Peoples minds are always in the now and not it the repercussions of the now aka the future. Why aren't abortions talked about. I mean if it is a choice and people stand by that then they shouldn't care. However, it is the complete opposite no-one talks about it. Why, one might ask? Because women that have had abortions feel shame, hurt, regret, etc., and they think this way for the rest of there lives, until they find freedom in Christ. And in some cases women can't have children b/c of the effects of an abortion on their body. This is WHERE the church should also stand-up. We don't need to be shouting pro-life in peoples faces or standing outside of abortion clinics b/c there is hurt, shame, and regret... Yes, it would be great to stop abortions but it isn't going to happen, ever. But what we can stop is the hate. That is why I think hope pregnancy centers or 4Kids should be they way with dealing with people that are struggling to make a life vs. death decision. They are looking at that woman's heart and where she is in her life. They talk about Christ instead of saying if you have an abortion you are murdering a child.

    I listen to people like Joe and Big Al all the time and they say that there is so much hate on the pro-lifers side but I would argue that there is way more hate on the pro-choice side. At least we are seeking to change something and not just a quick fix. I mean Pro-choice people don't care about the baby or the Woman they just care about the persons situation they never once think of what could happen down the line... Abortions will never be a quick fix it just ads to the burdens and sadness in life!

    Don't get me wrong I am completely PRO-LIFE and I hate what Obama could do, it disgusts me. But I personally care more about the person than the issue, when I say that I am also talking about an unborn child. By no means does this mean that I will back off from where I stand and the person who I am talking to will definitely know where I stand.
    I know this is a chance for the church to stand up on abortions and sanctity of marriage and most pastors don't think that those issues should be coming from the pulpit sad but true. Our voices are slowly being taken away and these issues that are based from our morals and beliefs as Christians will soon be considered hate crimes and we will go to jail. So to me if there is any time to stand up it is NOW!

    Christians voting for Obama honestly doesn't make sense and it pisses me off. It will suck to have taxes go up and that socialism is on the rise (Hugo Chavez anyone?) but honestly to me I want to be like (to Christians only) , WHO THE HELL CARES! Are we really going to put taxes before life, taxes before sanctity of marriage... So forget about your morals and the life of Christ, lets just be self-focused. This is why i get pissed at Christians when they bash Sarah Palin, b/c she is rooted in the Lord stands up for what Christians so call believe. She fights the fight and that is why I admire her so much. I hope one day I have her kind of strength and courage.

    On the other hand you do have your radical Christians who talk with fire instead of hope and love. Christians (including myself) need to realize that we are fallen and we shouldn't expect people to do or act a certain way. Christians shouldn't even expect Christians to act a certain way! We are sinners and that is all we are, Christ makes the difference, and only Christ. But that still doesn't mean to not stand-up.

    By Blogger a lil Moses, At 3:00 PM  

  • The reason for Joe's and Weird Al's comments are exactly what T-Moes references...guilt and shame! Sounds like these guys want to justify why they are Christians voting for candidate who promotes un-Christ-like issues. I can see your lack of confidence in your typing and I have never seen either of you before. Why else would you be commenting about abortion if your main issues are poverty or war. Your justifying your vote because of your shame. I confidently profess (without shame), I will support anyone who calls themself a Christian and proves to me by their actions they are a Christian by acting as Christ would in accordance to the Living Word (Bible). Just remember fellow believers, when you cast your ballot...Christ is there with you. Its not a sin to vote for Obama...but the guilt I would carry with me for voting for him would eat me alive for a very long time...kind of like the guilt a mother would have who aborted a Christ breathed baby.

    Little Chris

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 5:54 PM  

  • Before I write what I will write, I would like to say that if you know me, don't judge me for what I'm going to say. I will say things that sound like I am against Obama, and I will say things that sound like I am for Obama. Who I am for is completely my business. And this is how you should feel too.

    First, I would like to say that sending out emails to people you don't know saying good and bad things about candidates is completely irrelevant to who they will vote for. If you're trying to reach people who already know who they are voting for, trying to change their mind, it's simply not going to work. Informed voters know who they are going to vote for and what a complete stranger says is not going to change their mind. And if you are trying to reach uninformed voters, do you really think they are going to care? If they really cared about voting, they would have looked up both candidates views, they would not wait for someone to send them an email about one issue.

    Second, I believe it is true when Obama says that what a woman does with her body is between her, the doctors, and the pastors and that only supports my next issue. WHAT ANYONE DOES SHOULD BE BETWEEN THEM AND God. This includes who they vote for! Who you vote for should be your business and your business only. Maybe if you have a spouse you should share who you vote for with them, but other than them, it should be totally your business and not some stranger emailing you.

    Third, yes Obama is pro choice and yes McCain is pro life. But Bush, too, was pro life. Has anything changed since he was elected? No. Everything is still pro choice. So do you really think that McCain is going to be able to fix anything about abortion? No. It's not up to the presidents! It's up to congress people! Lets focus on the real issues that we can fix! Like the war in Iraq! Which brings me to my next point...

    Fourth, Iraq. A huge problem. We elected Bush. Bush thought Iraq had nuclear weapons. We went in and bombed Iraq. No nuclear weapons, but terrorists. Now we are in a huge war with Iraq trying to stop the terrorists. 9/11. Do we really need a repeat of that? No. Do we want a repeat of that? No. Should we do something about this? Yes. So it's your choice. Obama says pull out troops early, their families miss them. McCain says keep them in, terrorists will bomb us more if we don't. Both are very true points. If you have a family member in Iraq, you miss them a lot, but if we pull them out early, Iraq builds up army, army bombs us, we're unperpared, we become like Iraq. Which view do you like better? Your choice.

    Looking at that, which do you think is a bigger issue? Iraq, or abortion? That's what you have to think about! You can't go into voting, choose someone for a small issue, then realize it was a bad idea two years later. Every vote counts so make sure you know exactly who you want. Now I am too young to vote, but would you have even guessed that if I hadn't told you? THAT'S BECAUSE I'M AN INFORMED VOTER!!! AND I'M 12!!! So think about it, Obama or McCain? It's your vote, It's your choice, It's not anyone else's. What I said might not matter to you. That's fine. Vote for who you want to. Don't make a mistake, get all the views. Be a voter, but more importantly, be an informed voter.
    Sincerely,
    Emily Terwilliger

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 6:28 PM  

  • Wow! Emily, you're 12? You're pretty smart! Stay strong, girl!

    I guess this is my rebuttal, or something to that effect.

    We'll start with the easy (and somewhat ridiculous) stuff first. Ridiculous: Anonymous, I am neither shamed nor guilty. That's an inference in which you are entirely out of order. Don't try to judge tone or motive based on a short "comment" on a blog. It's a straw man that doesn't hold up.

    T-Moe. I never said that I think pro-lifers are hateful. And, by the way, abortions resulting from rape cases are negligible, less than 10% of abortions I heard somewhere or another.

    Brad, why should I "change my position?" I am pro-life. When I write that I am pro-life "from the cradle to the grave," you automatically assume that I mean aborted babies (being brought to the grave). So let me clarify: I am pro-life for everyone from conception to the (natural, not aborted) end of a person's life equally. So, unlike your just/unjust war theory, I am both pro-life and anti-war: at least that's consistent, and why shouldn't a Christian demand both from their government when a government can curb both abortions and war?

    This is perhaps you're biggest oversight: you assume that just because I argue that abortion is interdependent on a multiplicity of issues, that I have prioritized those issues over (and sometimes against) abortion. That is simply not the case.

    So back to Obama and McCain. Given the extent of the issues that I am passionate about, holding all things equal, Obama stands for the greater number of issues from a Christ-like stance (he is a Christian, let us not forget). For instance, he has an entire page on poverty on his website; McCain doesn't. McCain has a page on abortion (pro-life), but Obama has pages devoted to sustaining families to ultimately curb unwanted pregnancies in the first place (duh! This is the greatest way to end this debate--end unwanted pregnancies, folks!).

    And as for Obama's so-called socialism? It was a Republican president who called for a 700 billion tax-payer bailout. It was also a Republican who has spent more and grown the government beyond the bounds of the Constitutional perameters of presidential powers. And don't even get me started on Cheney's role in expanding the power of the vice presidency!

    And keep in mind that the government is not the church. The church has an obligation to save souls despite what a government does or does not do. The government is of the world, why should we expect it to live up to the standards that God has on God's people?

    Last point regarding the church's relevancy in culture and society (which someone here mentioned . . . you, T-moe?). The church has already lost it's relevancy. It's still fighting on fronts that culture has moved on with 40 years ago. If we don't engage the culture on all the fronts that are important to culture (including the environment and poverty, in addition to abortion and war), then we will still be relegated to the back of the crowd.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 12:21 AM  

  • All,
    I'd like to paste the following from a helpful essay from Gerard Bradley. It addresses many of Joe's points. You can read the whole thing here

    "Then under what circumstances is it morally permissible to vote for a "pro-choice" candidate, particularly one who promises not just to uphold the abortion license, but even to expand our unjust structure by introducing government funding of abortion and by removing some brakes upon abortion, such as parental notice laws?

    To answer this question we have to consider the matter from the perspective of those who suffer the foreseeable harm resulting from the perpetration of "pro-choice" policies--the unborn who are killed. Then we have to apply the great moral principle we call the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule pushes back particularly hard against our tendency to discount the harms we visit upon those we do not know--those who cannot object, those who cannot offer effective resistance...

    Argument 1: "Attack the Root Cause of Abortion"

    This argument proposes to leave the unjust legal structure about abortion in place until some distant future time when, it is hoped, abortions will be so rare that prohibiting them will make sense. This argument proposes to now seek a reduction in the number of abortions performed annually, from the present 1.2 million to some lower number. The argument proposes to accomplish the reduction by attacking what are said to be abortion's "root causes," mainly, a widespread lack of proper health care and income supports. These proposals include better pre-natal maternal care, better pediatric care, and more income supplements for the poor. The moral question is whether this proposal is fair to the unborn? And that entails applying the Golden Rule.

    To do that we must take a different example of the same basic proposal, an example which substitutes a different set of people called upon to pay the price of doing nothing to legally restrict a certain class of deadly assaults. Take the example of domestic violence. Suppose that approximately 1.2 million American women are killed each year by domestic violence. Suppose further that a Presidential candidate said the following: "Friends, I think we must stop wasting resources prosecuting domestic violence. Let us get the law out of the picture. Maybe someday we could arrest men who kill women at home. But that day is not today, for anyone can see that arrests and convictions have not slowed the rate of domestic violence very much at all. Besides, we are talking about private family matters where people make hard choices. Let us instead join together and attack the root causes of domestic violence, causes which have to do with ignorance and poverty. I propose therefore to give angry men jobs and money to attend anger management classes. And I think we should start teaching all of America' children early on that every man and woman deserves to be treated well."

    Anyone who refuses to vote for this candidate but who would vote for a "pro-choice" candidate is, at least presumptively, guilty of failure to apply the Golden Rule.

    Argument 2: "He's Better on Other Issues"

    Some people who describe themselves as "pro-life" support "pro-choice" candidates without placing any faith in the reduce-the incidence-of-abortion idea. These people instead maintain that the "pro-choice" politician's positions on other issues, such as the environment, taxes, education, are so far superior to those of a "pro-life" alternative, that voting for the "pro-choice" politician--notwithstanding the harm his abortion policies would do--is the right thing. These people often say that the virtues of his other positions supply a "proportionate" reason for voting for a "pro-choice" candidate.

    The question which these people must ask themselves is this: Would they vote for a "pro-choice" candidate on the strength of his preference for more government-provided health care than his rival proposes in his comparable plan, if doing so exposed their children to mortal danger? Suppose the candidate's commitment to a policy of "choice" referred, not to so many tiny and invisible people, but instead to hundreds of thousands of immigrants, or to the same number of prisoners or mentally handicapped or physically infirm people. Would they still support that candidate, even if his policies on energy, taxes, and employment were superior to his rival's?

    A vote for a candidate who favors "pro-choice" policies on abortion by someone who does not answer the preceding questions "yes" does not, I think, satisfy the Golden Rule."

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 12:15 PM  

  • Just want to say thanks to all of you for your discussion and dialogue. I'm glad this has sparked inspiring conversation, and that it's taking place here...

    I have further thoughts on the subject, but I'm going to continue to watch this discussion play out a little longer before I add anything further to my original thoughts.

    In the meantime, I'm hoping to get back on a very regular blog posting schedule, so please come back, read, and comment on other posts as well... If you find them interesting that is.

    Peace and thanks!
    Phil

    By Blogger Philip Letizia, At 12:23 PM  

  • Brad,

    I read that article and I am totally lost. Only men who have no understanding of what it's like to be a woman can talk rhetoric and philosophically about a complex issue that faces many Americans. That's very elitist of Bradley (the author), and out-of-touch with how to think about this issue, not from the confines of confusing philosophical diatribes, but from the stuff of theological inquiry and pilgrimage.

    For a better treatment, read a friend's blog: http://leanngunterjohns.wordpress.com/2008/11/04/my-vote-for-barack-obama/

    written by one of the greatest up and coming minds and compassionate pastors that I know.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, At 11:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



<< Home