Sensitivity

There was an interesting demonstration of heresthetics over at Blogs4god. Heresthetics is a term developed by William Riker and connotes the idea of structuring political arguments so that the structure of options presented determines the outcome of the issue being addressed. Riker's slim book, The Art of Political Manipulation, is worth reading for the insight it brings to various topics including the passage of the constitutional amendment allowing the popular election of Senators.

Joshua Claybourn has his typically encyclopedic treatment of the subject. Briefly, Mark Shea and Kathryn Lively presented a parody of a Planned Parenthood poster campaign lauding " abortion choice." The posters are fair parody. They actually are humorous, and if I were Planned Parenthood, I might for one moment feel shame concerning the real enterprise that lies behind amorphous words like "choice." Then, Sally posted her shock at the insensitivity of the posters, claiming special privilege as a rape victim. [Apparently, Sally has claimed this privilege before.] This resulted in a round of condemnation and a call for sensitivity.

The fascinating thing was how quickly the focus on abortion as a form of birth control was transformed as an issue of insensitivity to victims of crime. This is classic heresthetics. Abortion as birth control v. Rape victims. You pick.

Here's my demurrer. I represent sex harassment victims. Often, their medical records are demanded, and I have to protect their privacy. Not infrequently, the medical records of these upscale women discloses multiple abortions. I don't judge. It's not my job. I remind them that they have a constitutional right to privacy and that this information is really not relevant to their complaint. Now, the amazing thing is that I never hear regret or trauma. I do hear annoyance for the inconvenience - the bother - that disclosing this information might bring. I also always hear the same explanation. The child was inconvenient, and there is no regret about the choice that was made. [Note, some people do engage in subsequent moral reflection, as evidenced by a very moving story on the internet about a near decision that was never made.]

Sensitivity is the professional attitude that I present, and it's real since I care about my client's welfare. But, really, the moral content of the decisions made by these women seems to elude them completely. I might be more sensitive if I ever got the sense that the decision was difficult or resulted in any introspection concerning life's mysteries. As Michael Corleone learns in Godfather III, when you have done bad things, such as having your brother murdered, it is good that you suffer. Abortion is either morally neutral or its a bad thing. If its a morally wrong thing - a sin - then one can't expect to escape that decision without some effect. In the Catholic tradition sin has consequences. According to the Catholic Catechism:

To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.
1473 The forgiveness of sin and restoration of communion with God entail the remission of the eternal punishment of sin, but temporal punishment of sin remains. While patiently bearing sufferings and trials of all kinds and, when the day comes, serenely facing death, the Christian must strive to accept this temporal punishment of sin as a grace. He should strive by works of mercy and charity, as well as by prayer and the various practices of penance, to put off completely the "old man" and to put on the "new man."

Obviously, this view is entirely at odds with the modernism. It is also not a statement of policy. It is a statement of natural law. Sin has consequence.

Now it is not our job to inflict punishment on our fellow sinners. It is our Christian duty to be charitable to our fellow sinners. [Also, calm discourse is always more persuasive than a self-satisfying rant.] But no one can expect to entirely avoid the results that flow from such a moral decision. "Sally" ought to be supported by her fellow sinners. She ought to work to find a way to achieve understanding and forgiveness. But, frankly, if my experience with the moral vacuum that inhabits the psyche of many people is any indication, we need less sensitivity and a lot more awareness that decisions like abortion have a terrifyingly significant moral component.

Further Notes: Via in between naps comes this column on a "simple and complicated act" which supports my anecdotal observations above. The column is written in a faux-Ellen Goodman style where there is a passive voice and no clear judgments, except that some things are inherently complex and when people choose the course of predictable self-interest that is some kind of noble vindication of self [which may actually be the gist of the philosophical principle informing the pro-choice worldview.] The column addresses a 17 year old's trip to an abortion provider. The girl knows the baby is alive. She has heard the heart beat. She has seen the ultrasound. The decision is not difficult - on a scale of 1 to 5, it rates a "2." The biggest impediment is "religion." Nonetheless, she manages to face down the philosophically chilling implications of her decision (which after all rate a "2" on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being less difficult than the choice between Pepsi and Coke) and make the pro-choice decision. The columnist leaves us with this gem:

The teenager knows that she has ended a life. She wants to make peace with it, to pray for it, to say goodbye to that life, and to start hers.

"The teenager knows that she has ended a life?" She wants to "pray for it?

I may be dense, but aren't non-sociopaths supposed to feel bad when they kill another human being? Even if it's an accident? Particularly, if it's their own child? Wouldn't believing that her not-yet-born baby never existed, wasn't a person, or wasn't living be psychologically healthier for this teenager? But she accepts that this is a real person. Yet, with all this, she rates the decision only a "2" on her personal scale of difficulty.

It's not that the decision is irrational or incomprehensible. It's entirely utilitarian. Reasoning like this is sanctified in the United Methodist Church's 1992 Book of Discipline at Paragraph 71:

The beginning of life and the ending of life are the God-given boundaries of human existence. While individuals have always had some degree of control over when they would die, they now have the awesome power to determine when and even whether new individuals will be born. Our belief in the sanctity of unborn human life makes us reluctant to approve abortion. But we are equally bound to respect the sacredness of the life and well-being of the mother, for whom devastating damage may result from an unacceptable pregnancy. In continuity with past Christian teaching, we recognize tragic conflicts of life with life that may justify abortion, and in such cases support the legal option of abortion under proper medical procedures.

The problem is that this position is incoherent. I don't mind a utilitarian philosopher reasoning this way. But when did religion get in the business of picking winners in the "tragic conflicts of life with life?" Where does that principle begin or end? Does this principle allow us to pick a winner if there is a "tragic conflict" between a father and 2 day old baby? How about the tragic conflict between taxpayers and the disabled, or, if you want to be really nasty, between totalitarians and pariah social groups?

The problem is that under the pro-choice world view, people are knowingly killing people. And they don't seem to care.

One more thing - check out this The Corner on National Review Online entry for one woman's take on the results of another tragic conflict of life with life - in this case personal growth or duty to family.