Good Lord
Ugh. I know symbols are substance in our political world. I mean we generally don't care about the actual policies and records of politicians as much as we care about their symbolic resonance with what we claim to believe, but c'mon.
I won't say here that I don't think the Bible affirms the conventional claim that life begins at conception or that even if it is implied, that the life that has begun is worth the same as that of the born, born men that is. I could and it's an argument worth making, but that's not necessarily here or there at the moment. What is here and there is the proposition that Sarah Palin is pro-life. I guess I should say Pro-Life... No. PRO-LIFE.
Right- so I get that what we're supposed to see the symbolic value of Sarah Palin having a vagina, saying "Life Begins at Conception," and submit to the meme that at 40-some years of age she knew she would be having a child with Down's Syndrome (never mind that the latter seems to make manifest the idea that the decision to have a child is not a concern for the state and so is a point for the CHOICE side if those sides are really a matter of sides and points.) I get it. And because I get it, I know we're supposed to ignore that Sarah Palin as a matter of policy chose to reduce the spending Alaska's state legislature recommended for a program that assisted unwed teen mothers. So she opposes successful programs for teaching teenage girls how to not get pregnant, doesn't believe there may ever be a reason to terminate those pregnancies, and then reduces the money for those programs specifically addressing the consequences of those policies. None of that matters because she's PRO-LIFE, and like many who say they are PRO-LIFE, we needn't see what she actually does as a result of that. She supports life in the abstract. Just like she rejects CHOICE in the abstract, though in the particulars it's the very thing she endorses for her own daughter (and on the state's dime I might add).
I know I know, it's easier to think of a Pro-Choice position as a Let's Murder Babies position, but remember, at it's core it is about personally wrestling with the matter, just as Bristol Palin did, to come to a decision privately. And that fact seems to fit perfectly with the intense dissonance of sense and symbolism of Palin as an artifact and in the content of her acceptance speech that goes beyond this issue of LIFE.
Symbols are substance, and yikes to that. I don't mean we can reject the substance of symbols, I mean yikes to what she symbolizes. The fear and venom of last night's speeches was nuts. Especially from her. She represented and used the same condescending cynicism and dismissive arrogance that saw Purple Heart Band-Aids and Flip-Flops at the last RNC. Of course this time it's in a cuter package.
If one of the DNC points is believed, "John McCain cares, he just doesn't get it," then the contempt and hatred she has for the democratic movement (deliberately little D) and enthusiasm that may be as much a response against the last eight years as they are a response to Obama's symbolic candidacy, illustrate that as a Romanticized "small towner", Sarah Palin gets it, she just doesn't care. She understands the concerns of average Americans, she just looks down on them when they organize to address those concerns. She understands that her own daughter, facing a teenage pregnancy confronts a challenging personal choice, but others are not afforded the same grace. She says, as a good conservative, that personal decisions require personal responsibility and we don't bear each others' burdens, making the actual existence of her and her family the very embodiment of IGMFY. Which I suppose is worse than not caring, it's contempt.
I recognize that I'm out there. I mean, I know thinking John McCain is not a hero because he dropped bombs on civilians is not something normal people think. The symbol of the war hero is important to us (except, as I mentioned, at the last RNC). So is what Palin might represent: small-towniness, straight-shooterism, the virtue of the average. But behind that, in her actual policies and her role as the voice for this contempt, is fear and war, and not a fear of the strangers "over there" against whom we must wage war. I mean she represents and talked about, as did the other speakers, a fear and war against the very people whose identity she claims.
Her role is that of a giant middle finger. If we don't see that, yeesh. Good luck.
8 comments:
Palin is frightening, there's no question. Any hope I ever had of voting for a Republican ticket evaporated with her speech. She represents the worst of the Bush foreign policies: black and white thinking, fear-mongering, and unilateralism.
But never underestimate the willingness of our nation to go whole hog for frightening.
Again and again and again.
"And because I get it, I know we're supposed to ignore that Sarah Palin as a matter of policy chose to reduce the spending Alaska's state legislature recommended for a program that assisted unwed teen mothers."
Ugh. That pisses me off.
"Just like she rejects CHOICE in the abstract, though in the particulars it's the very thing she endorses for her own daughter (and on the state's dime I might add)."
I don't get it. How does she endorse her daughter having a right to decide to terminate her pregnancy? Palin's proud of her daughter for the choice that she did make--does that imply Palin thinks the choice should be available?
This reminds me of the Daily Show segment from after her speech. At 13:20, Samantha Bee starts talking to Palin-supporters about Bristol Palin, and she tries to get them to use the word "choice". The segment frames it like they're being inconsistent. Where's the inconsistency?
The pro-life view is that the decision to abort is a decision to stop being a mother. We don't think people ought to have that decision, with little exception. But... People do have that choice. Bristol Palin was given that choice, and Sarah Palin is proud of how she made it.
So... Where do you see the dissonance?
That may be a pro-life view. I mean, that no one but God or the indifferent universe has the authority to make the decision to make one stop being a mother may be a view that one who calls one's self pro-life may have... Well I guess given those options, only God has the authority to make that choice. The indifferent universe would be indifferent so the termination of a pregnancy in that regard would be a matter of accident and not volition.
I would say the position you describe is more aptly "pro-mother", but I take your point: some pro-life identifying people would say a person should not make the decision to stop being a mother. Though most people who identify as pro-life would say offering a child for adoption is an alternative for a woman not wishing to be a mother and that is an act that ends motherhood. In any case I imagine the more general pro-life stance is that one does not have the authority to end life, and a zygote, embryo, fetus, what have you, is life. But maybe even that is neither here nor there as far as your question is concerned.
You ask where I see the dissonance.
Sarah Palin said: "We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents."
Do you think she is saying she is proud of her daughter's decision to get pregnant or that she is proud of her daughter's decision to stay pregnant? If she's proud of her seventeen year old's decision to get pregnant then I say she's crazy. If she is saying her seventeen year old daughter came to her at some point and said something like, "Mom, I know you taught me that not having sex was the only way to not get pregnant and that in any case, pre-marital sex is a sin, I have to tell you, I'm pregnant, but, I want you to know, I've decided to keep my baby," and she's proud of that, then there is a contradiction. (Of course there is a contradiction only if one is looking for consistency, and like any human, Sarah Palin, is inconsistent).
To be quick about it, one cannot choose when there is no choice, or if one is to decide on a course of action after consideration (to use decision rather than choice), there must be options to consider, otherwise we are not talking about choices or decisions.
Sarah Palin said her daughter made a decision to have her baby meaning there were other viable alternatives for Bristol. The most plain alternative would be to not have the baby. Palin wants it so that the latter is not an option. By saying her daughter made a decision, she is saying her daughter could make a decision that she says others cannot make. If there is no course of action but to stay pregnant and deliver a baby, there is no matter of choice nor decision.
If there is no choice to make... well then there is no choice to make let alone a choice of which to be proud. There is especially why we see it is not simply a matter of the story possibly having been:
"Mom, I was pregnant, but I had Levi, who's said he really doesn't want kids, and you know I really love him, well at least I think I do, we had sex anyway, so I had Levi punch me in the belly over and over, and now I'm pretty sure, I'm not pregnant..."
"Oh, Bristol, I am so disappointed in the choice you made."
Being proud of Bristol suggests there is a course of action of which Sarah and Todd approve and others of which they disapprove. Still, a matter of choice and decision is involved.
If the position is that abortion should be outlawed because it is murder, why the pride? Am I to be commended for not killing my spouse, my students, my pets, et al? If there is a universally applicable "ought", it is not a choice or decision, though one may violate that "ought". Hence a violation of the universality of the "ought," returns with punishment. It is neither a matter of decision nor choice.
A statement consistent with that position would be more a matter of announcing the pregnancy of her daughter and that is all.
But most of us don't live that way. That's fine. I don't think in terms of universalities excpet when asked to. To me it seems inconsistent, and as I said, big deal, we are all inconsistent in some ways. What is more problematic for me is what I said in the post, it smacks of contempt. Ironically, that is a point on which she seems to be more and more consistent. More and more she seems to reveal a pridefulness that I find troubling generally, but especially in leaders.
Sorry, I wasn't clear with my "stop being a mother" comment. I meant that as equivalent to "abortion kills an innocent human person". I didn't mean, "people shouldn't be able to give up their children for adoption"--I meant, "people shouldn't be able to kill their children." In other words, I meant it in the sense that the following are equivalent:
1.) An abortion is morally & ethically equivalent to killing an infant, a toddler, a five year-old, or an adult.
2.) The decision to abort is not a decision about whether to become a mother, but whether to stop being a mother.
3.) When you decide to abort your pregnancy, you are not deciding whether to have a child--you are deciding what to do with the child you already have.
There are differences among pro-lifers over when the government should leave the decision in the hands of the individual mother, but AFAIK virtually all pro-lifers agree that "the life of the mother is in danger" is one case. (It's ethically similar to triage, I think.)
------
The rest of your post is... opaque to me. You say things like, "If the position is that abortion should be outlawed because it is murder, why the pride? Am I to be commended for not killing my spouse, my students, my pets, et al?"
If you live in a society where such killing is allowed? Yes. If you live in a society where people over 70 can be euthanized at will, then yes, I would be proud of you for not doing it.
And you say,
"If there is a universally applicable "ought", it is not a choice or decision, though one may violate that "ought". Hence a violation of the universality of the "ought," returns with punishment. It is neither a matter of decision nor choice."
So, if "no one ought to torture babies for fun" is a universal "ought", and some guy does it, you're saying that he hasn't made a decision? OK... If you want to use the term that way, go ahead. It sounds like a novel philosophy of "choice" to me. Either way, I'm fairly sure that Sarah Palin was using "decision" in the sense of "deciding not to violate a universal ought". If you want to translate her words into your own terminology, you can swap out "deciding" with whatever verb seems appropriate.
We do live in a society where people have the legal right to abort. Bristol Palin was given that right. Sarah Palin does not believe that society should be giving women that right--but they do have it at the moment. She did not say that she is proud that her daughter was given the opportunity to make such a choice; she said that she was proud of her daughter for not taking the course of action that our society offers her.
Let me put it this way: Suppose I live in the 1800s. I'm an abolitionist. I do not believe anyone should have the right to own slaves. And I find out that my son was given a slave, and decided to free her. I'm proud of him for choosing not to keep a slave. And I work to change society so that no one even has to make that choice.
I'm fairly sure that's the kind of thing that Palin was talking about. And I strain myself to find the inconsistency in it.
Koukl's "torturing babies" story is a good laugh line, but then so is the rest of his philosophical work.
Zing
I am assuming you are referencing Greg Koukl's work in Relativism. The only time I ever hear that "torturing babies" meme is in light of Koukl. If you're not... well then it's a coincidence and my joke makes no sense. Still, I wonder why he needs to add "for fun"- Is it okay to torture babies otherwise?
Any novelty in my description of choice should wear off with use. It is actually very conventional or standard as far as the idea of "THE LAW's" universality is concerned. I am glad you take issue with it, though, as the very idea of abstract or objective law should be off-putting to anyone that has to bother with actually existing.
Anyway- more practically described, I don't think we are using the same words the same way.
Sarah Palin's position is that women do not have the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy. In her world, any woman, in any circumstance as far as I can learn, who became pregnant would be forced by the authority of the state to carry and bear that child. This position eliminates choice. I see the inconsistency in the use of the language of choice and decision suggesting that Bristol was not coerced or forced to reach the decision she did. (Though, I am of the mind that none of us face unconditioned possibility. We are, in fact, coerced, compelled, forced, nudged, pushed, and pulled by the conditions of our existence so that we face very conditional possibilities in any instance. But don't let that be a distraction.)
Continuing, I hate to resort to bumper stickers... Ah who am I kidding? It's helpful- The "It's a Child, Not a Choice" description of the issue is helpful in illuminating how the matter can be viewed. From that perspective, it is not a matter of choice because, as you say, a zygote may be as human as an infant or a five-year old, and I would bet we do not say we think in terms of choosing to not kill five-year olds. We would likely say someone who wants to murder five-year old children is crazy, disturbed, evil, somehow wrong. For most of us, the decision to harm a five-year old child is not even a matter of consideration. It is not a matter of choice. It is not something to be congratulated. It is simply normal.
It seems if one believes it is murder to terminate a pregnancy, if it is like murdering a five-year old, then it seems to make no sense to say one is proud of one's decision to not have an abortion. It seems like being proud of a babysitter that did not murder your five-year old while you were away; that would be silly. If we thought that was a choice babysitters could make, well, we wouldn't have babysitters. It is a misuse of any of the concepts to describe it as a choice if one thinks abortion is murder.
More broadly though, I hope the point of my post is not lost. I remain convinced that a PRO-LIFE position is often largely symbolic. It's a mask. What I have learned of Palin's actions/policies so far, and I include the statement re. Bristol's decision as one of those actions, reveals contempt, cynicism, and often what I see as a disregard for actual living people, a disregard for life, if you will.
I am not saying that all people identifying as Pro-Life are hypocrites. Not at all. I am saying that the label, especially when used by politicians is empty and Sarah Palin has added to that for me.
Lastly, you're ability (and decision) to be fairly sure about what Palin meant is not solely because of what she said and did, nor is it a matter of plain reason, but because of what you can see. I believe you when you say you strain yourself to find inconsistency in it. I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I mean any of us cannot be beyond what we can be, so likewise, I find it impossible to not believe the statement as indicative of presuming a choice that one would say others cannot be trusted to make. (Though I might be able to give an account of why/how someone might.)
In any case, after all I write above, if anything seems opaque, I would say: "Seek clarity."
---------
"In any case, after all I write above, if anything seems opaque, I would say: "Seek clarity.""
That's why I reply & explain my questions/difficulties. :)
Actually, it's one of the reasons. I reply to (1) Seek clarity in case the problem is on my end, and (2) persuade you to change your thinking if the problem is on your end. (Or, I suppose, a combination of the two.)
---------
Yes, I used "torturing babies for fun" as an example because I heard it from Koukl--I find it useful if you need an example that most people will agree with. That is, I don't expect to meet someone who wouldn't agree with, "If anything is universally wrong, that example is."
I include "for fun" because someone could raise an outlandish hypothetical--"Suppose someone with a doomsday device told you to torture a baby or he'll blow up the world."
--------
"It seems if one believes it is murder to terminate a pregnancy, if it is like murdering a five-year old, then it seems to make no sense to say one is proud of one's decision to not have an abortion. It seems like being proud of a babysitter that did not murder your five-year old while you were away; that would be silly."
1.) First, how would you apply your reasoning to the example I raised? About an abolitionist in the 1800s? Do you think it would be silly for me to be proud of my son for deciding to release a slave? (Maybe your answer is yes.)
2.) Now I better understand where you're coming from. I understand where you see the silliness. And I agree, to some extent. That is, if you view abortion as killing a child, then getting an abortion shouldn't even occur to you as a choice that you have to exert yourself to make.
It shouldn't occur to you. But in our society, it does. Our society offers you a route that allows you to hide your actions from others (if you have a motivation to hide that you had sex), avoid responsibility to your child, avoid having to change your life, etc. And not only that, it is very easy to...shall we say...close your eyes to the moral components of the situation by listening to the voices that say "it's just a mass of tissue". It can be seductive. I don't think I would be tempted, but I can honestly sympathize with someone would was--and I would be proud of that person for resisting.
Because, as Obama said, I don't think most women are blase about getting abortions--it's not an easy decision. It can involves a lot of stress and pain and difficulty
---------
"Lastly, you're ability (and decision) to be fairly sure about what Palin meant is not solely because of what she said and did, nor is it a matter of plain reason, but because of what you can see."
I would say that my confidence stems from:
1.) In her situation, I would likely say exactly the same thing--and I know what I would be thinking.
2.) I would say it in the same sense that I would say that I was proud of my son for releasing a slave.
3.) I said that I better understand why you see it as silly. I do not understand why you don't just say, "Palin is being silly." Why go the extra step? Aren't there two separate possibilities? Silliness and inconsistency?
4.) In other words, you think it would be silly for me to be proud of my daughter for not taking route that society offers her--a route that would allow her to hide her actions from me, and avoid her responsibility to her child. (And again, if I lived in a society that did not allow abortion for non-medical reasons, it wouldn't occur to me to be proud--but in our society, it would.) Even if that is silly, why should you take it to mean that I'm assuming a right to choice? A right I would deny others?
"I find it impossible to not believe the statement as indicative of presuming a choice that one would say others cannot be trusted to make. "
I suspect that I do not see the inconsistency because I understand her in a way that you fail to do. (Of course, I realize she could be insincere--but I still understand the "her" that she's presenting. The "her" that I can see, as you put it. Even if it turns out to be fake "her".)
Let me get this straight. We left the kids with you, and you cooked and ate them both?"
I'm reminded of that.
I don't know that you need to include "for fun". The idea of torturing babies is already outlandish.
I say it's silly and inconsistent for the reasons I gave. Silly because it makes the words nonsense, inconsistent because I see her actions are not in line with her propositions.
Anyway I don't know that the abolitionist's son comparison is apt or helpful in light of the actual case of Sarah Palin's actions but I'll bite because it may be helpful in one aspect: describing moral dilemmas.
But for background and reiteration-
I think, given Palin's position on the matter, pregnancy does not issue a moral dilemma as abortion is not an option. One only faces a dilemma when one faces viable options. One of the reasons McCain had been suspect to strident Evangelicals was his statement that he, his wife, and daughter would have to talk privately about what to do, what to decide, if Meghan were found pregnant in an untoward manner. He described it as a dilemma one faces. That's no good for those who see no dilemma. I think Palin presents it as no dilemma- you get pregnant you have a baby. Barring divine intervention, there are no alternatives to giving birth to a baby. That is the type of world she would wish to create/impose via policy and state coercion. And it would be more than the simple executive arrangements that would enforce that law. It becomes a matter of conception and how we know what we know. It would be a move towards universally conceiving of a fetus as equal to a five-year old (a conception of the world some already have), or a twelve-year old, etc...
Of course it is possible in some potential world for Bristol Palin to have had an abortion. But my sense is that the world in which she exists, the world in which her parents say that a fetus is as full blown human as a five-year old and abortion is murder is not just any potential world, but is her actual world. Similarly but to an other point, if Bristol were raised by parents who said and acted as if a fetus is a mass of tissue and abortion is as simple as cleaning out one's ears, she would confront possibility from that sense. What is actually possible for a person depends on what is actually possible, not on the idea of what could be possible apart from existing conditions. Sarah Palin wants a world in which the former is all that is possible for everyone, not simply as a matter of commitment. I don't think she simply says one ought not choose to have an abortion. She is saying how a pregnancy ends is not a matter of choice.
Okay so moral dilemmas- let's say you are an ardent abolitionist. You don't want to just end slavery as a matter of accident but because it is necessary to fit with how you see the world. One cannot own another person. Negroes, as they were called, are people deserving the same rights protections, guarantees, etc... as anyone else. Well probably more likely, as deserving of the same rights etc... as white men. So that's you. And someone, not knowing you obviously, gives you a slave. They give you a slave, but you receive a person. It's a person not property, a child not a choice. There should be no moral dilemma.
But that's you. You also have a son: a rebellious, has sex with his hockey player boyfriend even though you teach True Love Waits son... wait, I mean a son who receives a slave even though in the world you conceive, no one may be a slave. What does your son do?
Oh this is so dramatic.
So what happens? It depends on how your son sees the world. Is he given a slave as you say? Despite your rearing does he see slaves as a possibility and so could receive a slave? Or is he like you- seeing negroes are people so there is no question that he receives a person and treats her accordingly? Is there a question in your mind about what your son might do, how he sees the world? Do you wait on pins and needles to learn of his decision?
Before the resolution-
It is not "our" society in which the possibility of slaves or aborted fetuses occurs. We are dealing with different senses of the world, different societies, different layers of commitment. A certain society allows for a route that includes the possibility of abortion (though I think your description of that route grossly simplifies the reasons people have abortions). A certain sense of the world includes the possibility of slaves. Those worlds may collide and there someone has a moral dilemma. So if someone was tempted either by keeping a slave or having an abortion, they are facing an actual dilemma, they have an actual choice.
So they choose a way that fits with what you say is right.
Do I say proud...? You mean proud like if my kid got an A on a test? Or she caught a real big fish? Finished a 16 oz steak? Scored a goal? I don't think you mean like that... but I don't think proud enters the picture. Grateful, relieved, glad, reconciled, something along the lines of what it seems the father of the prodigal son feels... Well, no, I guess I could see someone saying, "I'm proud of you for choosing to do the right thing." But I think this provides some clarity to how differently we see the situation. If one not only sees abortion as murder but also lives a life that is consistently affirming life then I don't see it as a matter of pride for not murdering or destroying life. That is simply as it should be and there is no sense of duty or accomplishment. But if someone lives a more morally ambiguous life wherein they are not consistent nor fully committed to the positions they say guide their choices, then I could see how and why someone could have a sense of accomplishment at doing the right thing. (wink)
My point is, I think the language she uses leads to the inconsistency. I think what she says and does shows that it is more morally ambiguous and more a matter of choice than what she affords. (And that is where I think the issue of "right" (depending on how it is meant) is located.)
Your confidence about what Palin could mean makes sense, especially as you describe it. (Don't tell Greg Koukl. Confidence is a very subjective thing, but that is as it should be). However, for me, seeing what she has done, in light of what she has said has me thinking she is confused on the matter- so, silly and inconsistent.
But again, I think this is all a red-herring. Pro-Life as a label is empty to me. I don't know anyone who wouldn't say murdering a baby is wrong. But what counts as murder differs. What counts as a baby differs. The same applies to torture. We are in the midst of that as well. As a policy we say torture=bad, however what fits under the category of torture is not absolute. The label Pro-Life in this case seems to be a mask, a whitewash, an abstraction meant to appease a voting bloc and cover actual policies and actions that I would say are not supportive of actual people- not for or "pro" their lives.
Post a Comment