Blog on abortion and people are going to get interested, maybe even mad. It’s just one of those issues. There have been a few interesting responses to my recent posts. Geoff gives us his own Kierkegaardian slant on the Tiller murder. Adam thinks that I don’t realize how dangerous it would be to society to consider fetuses as persons, and that I don’t give due attention to the question of the mother facing into the complexities of pregnancy and abortion. Our jolly friend, Craig Carter blasts me for allegedly attacking the pro-life movement and accusing them of complicity in the murder itself.
I only have a couple more points to make about this matter. First, I had no intention to try to ethically parse all the complexities of various pregnancies, nor would I know how to do so. As the stories that Andrew Sullivan has been posting show, these issues are infinitely complex and heart-rending. As such, I never intended any of my posts to be taken as trying to elide these issues.
This leads to my second point which is that the only thing I was really trying to do is to show how any sort of pro-life orientation that eschews violence is most intelligible within the context of Christian pacifism. Any sort of stance that wishes to make a high priority of preserving unborn life is most at home within a moral framework that understands violence as a power to be rejected. To argue for the use of defensive violence on the one hand and be staunchly pro-life in all circumstances on the other, and then to deny that such defensive violence can be deployed to prevent abortion (which is cast a genocide and murder) is simply an inconsistency. It just is. That doesn’t mean that all non-pacifist pro-lifers are terrible in every way. Just that they have an inconsistency in their ethical framework that I think deserves more attention, rather than the casual brushing over it has been recieving from many.
Of course scholastic coherence is not always a virtue. And beyond that why an all/or nothing ideal (the binary competition between violence or non), per the logic of your apparent ethical system, becomes the standard of what is “consistent” sounds good; but again this really doesn’t address the fundamental issue — beyond assertion — and that is if there is justification for violence. You say all violence is not justifiable, and I say some “violence” is potentially justifiable (given passages like Rom. 13).
I don’t believe violence is preferable, and it must be reserved as an “last resort;” but just because the practice of this principle has been abused (per gvts.), does not then mean that this “inconsistency” is self-same with the principle itself; yet this seems to be the nature of the argument thus far (i.e. attacking the application of this principle vs. the principle itself).
I think if “consistency” is THE virtue (in an all/or nothing world), then the consistent pacifist might as well delete 911 from their call list (because you might be complicit in “violence” in advocating for its potential when you call the cops to come “bear the sword” in your behalf).
I don’t think you really understand Christian Pacifism. Rather, I don’t think you really understand why there are Christian Pacifists. It is not (at least for me) from a lack of frustration or even anger at the injustice done to innocents, it is not a leisurely see-no-evil, speak-no-evil lifestyle.
Halden, I think, makes the point of any form of violence is rather incoherent within a Christian ethical framework. The “Pro-Lifers” are now finding themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place. They started down the slippery slope, and don’t have any way of figuring out how to stop. Mainly because their way of thinking doesn’t allow for any way of stopping.
Christian pacifism isn’t rooted in the liberalism of the last few centuries, it’s rooted in the subversive message of Christ. As such, it’s necessarily about “consistency” but about following the instructions of our savior. And I think the “pro-life” movement is finding that it’s philosophy has turned down a rather normative political path rather then a soundly theological path.
I actually know a fellow who has voluntarily decided to forgo calling the police in order to retain their peace position, as well as to avoid causing trouble for the many mentally ill people with whom he lives in intentional community. Many of these people have had very negative experiences with the police. (I think it’s in Portland, Oregan, actually.)
I’m going to see the musical setting of Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables this week, which suggests that Christian charity can be effective in reducing or eliminating the Christian’s need or desire for help from the police.
Theophilus,
Well then I suppose you have an consistent pacifist friend. Of course I would imagine if a gun-man broke into “his community” and started shooting his friends, his pacifism might be challenged. (And I’m familiar with the incident that occurred in the past between an mentally ill person [shooting] and the Police, in Portland, OR)
Les Miserables is a great story, and I’m all for reducing our need for the Police; I don’t think I could call myself a Christian and not recognize the truth of that.
Perhaps; most pacifists I’ve run across don’t profess that they’re 100% certain they would hold to their convictions in marginal cases like what you’ve described. History indicates that some will, and some won’t. I hope though that your imagining of that kind of scenario allows for creative non-violent responses of the type that non-pacifists often do not acknowledge is possible.
Theophilus,
Of course my hope is for shalom. I only brought up the marginal case that I did, because you first introduced a context for which it fits.
I’ve actually been in some situations myself where, by God’s grace, I was able to be creative and avoid violence; and actually proclaim the Gospel in the process, which actually was part of the “creative” part.
I would say that I am an pacifist sometimes (and ideally), and non-pacifist other times.
Thanks Theophilus!