Friday, July 4, 2014

How to separate a sincere pro-lifer from an insincere one

An easy test. I doubt it will catch 100% of all false-positive cases, but I suspect it will catch most.

Ask this question: "Do you think reducing the number of abortions is important enough that men and women should be encouraged to alter, control or even discourage their sexual behaviors and desires to achieve that goal?"

This is a radioactive question for many people, because sex is supposed to be sacrosanct. Nothing can infringe on those acts or desires if they're consensual (at least while the crazier feminists are just barely restrained). And in our culture, answering affirmatively to this question is pretty well sufficient to separate one from the progressive mob. It's the cultural equivalent of a Christian spitting on a cross.

Catholics may object that a possible answer to my question is 'Use contraception!', so there's a loophole. In this case, I think it's a positive byproduct of this question. There's an intellectual payoff for the concession that encouraging contraception use is yet another form of control over sexual behavior.

5 comments:

ccmnxc said...

Just for clarification, what do you think an insincere pro-lifer would look like, as far as actions and words are concerned? Thanks.

By the by, I don't think I have complimented you on your blog yet, which I greatly appreciate.

Crude said...

Hey ccmnxc (Man, what does this stand for? Anything),

Broad question, really. There's the progressive who styles themselves as 'the REAL pro-lifer' because of the particular health care policies they endorse, but it turns out when push comes to shove they'd rather swallow thumbtacks than ever place any limits on anyone's sexual appetites, even in the form of passive cultural encouragement.

I think there are some people who have never thought about the question in that context either. Sex is a landmine topic, people avoid it. Even people who consider themselves shameless and vulgar panic fast once you start talking about things like this in anything blunter than mindlessly abstract terms.

Calling everyone who blanches here an 'insincere pro-lifer' may well be too much. I think the aforementioned 'Health Care Pro-Lifer' is utterly insincere, but I think a lot of other people may just plain never think about the sex-abortion connection. Even truly stalwart pro-lifers tend to consider the whole situation from the moment of 'Well, you found out you're pregnant' and onwards, probably because doing otherwise threatens to kick open the contraception doors.

In fact, I should really explain my approach here. I'm not trying to root out the impure with this question, so to speak. I recognize some people may sincerely be against abortion after trimester one, but in the first trimester they (for reasons vague or not) are more lenient. I wouldn't say they're 'fake' even though my view is it should be more restrictive. I'm largely zeroing in on the person who says they're pro-life but, when you actually ask them a question like this, it turns out that the only thing they regard as sacrosanct is sex.

Politicians, in other words.

Does that answer what you were asking me? And I'm glad you enjoy the blog, thank you.

ccmnxc said...

Hey ccmnxc (Man, what does this stand for? Anything),

Back when I was fifteen (when I first used the name), I was in a bit of a running craze. So, while not remotely profound, it breaks up into three parts: cc, mn, xc. Cc and xc are both simply different ways of abbreviating cross-country (as in, the fall sport), and mn was simply my home state: Minnesota. So there's the anticlimax. Though congrats on being the first to ever ask.

Does that answer what you were asking me?

I'd say so, yeah. Thanks for the clarification. Nothing else to add for the time-being.

Dan Lower said...

I'm late to the party on this one.

When you say: "Catholics may object that a possible answer to my question is 'Use contraception!', so there's a loophole.",

Am I correct in thinking that you mean a loophole for non-Catholics? My understanding is that that's a loophole that isn't really open to us Papists. This is an interesting post and that part threw me off a little bit, so I'm curious if you can clarify?

Crude said...

Dan,

No problem. I mean a loophole in the reasoning that would be exploited by, yes, non-Catholics (or I suppose unorthodox Catholics.) I'm offering no defense of contraception here.