Abortion, Civility, and Rule Breaking

[Bootstrap]

Okay, so basically my position is that I don't see a political solution to abortion happening via "civility" and a normal process. The only way something that is so entrenched can be replaced is with a "strong man" who breaks a lot of the rules.

I'm respectful if you have a different position that preserving civility is more important than that. (I actually like civility myself, and don't like seeing it broken down.)

But my feeling is that abortion is such a restless evil that God may indeed decide to use a "strong man" to tear it down.

Does that make sense?

I agree with you that abortion is a very serious evil and I don't see a political solution either. In a democracy, a political solution depends on getting most people to agree with you. If Gallup has it right, we could probably get laws outlawing abortion after the first 3 months, but we are unlikely to get laws outlawing abortion entirely through a democratic process.

Do you agree with that?

How do you think a "strong man" can make abortion illegal in America today? How does this play out in your mind? What happens first, what happens next ...

[Josh]

I agree with you that abortion is a very serious evil and I don't see a political solution either. In a democracy, a political solution depends on getting most people to agree with you.

We may have a difference of opinion here. I think you describe an "ideal democracy".

In an actual, real-world democracy, you can get what you want by getting 51% of people to agree with you, or playing games with gerrymandering, finding ways to beat the rules, or doing something like stacking the courts. So Roe v. Wade got forced on a country where the majority of people did not want it, and they had no choice but to accept legal abortion on demand.

In my opinion, that's how a democracy "works".

If Gallup has it right, we could probably get laws outlawing abortion after the first 3 months, but we are unlikely to get laws outlawing abortion entirely through a democratic process.

Do you agree with that?

I disagree, simply because legal abortion on demand happened far before most people wanted it at all back in the 1970s. There's no reason it can't be rolled back the same way.

How do you think a "strong man" can make abortion illegal in America today? How does this play out in your mind? What happens first, what happens next ...

Well, I think "outlawing abortion" is something up to God, not men, much as he used the king of Assyria to judge the kings of Israel and Judea, and then used other people to judge the king of Assyria when they or their nation were not following God.

In the most extreme example, I think we would see something like Duterte. When society completely breaks down and there is no law and order, people are open to choosing a "strong man" who brings law and order. When law and order have broken down, there isn't any civility or rules left to follow - first law & order has to be restored, and then the process of rebuilding civility and rules happens after that.

The same thing just happened in Brazil with Bolsanaro. Violence in Brazil has been getting worse, with the government seemingly hamstrung due to complex courts and laws making them unable to do anything about it. The people elected a "strong man" who promises to do whatever it takes, even if it means bypassing existing courts, laws, rules, and so on.

[Bootstrap]

I agree with you that abortion is a very serious evil and I don't see a political solution either. In a democracy, a political solution depends on getting most people to agree with you.

We may have a difference of opinion here. I think you describe an "ideal democracy".

In an actual, real-world democracy, you can get what you want by getting 51% of people to agree with you, or playing games with gerrymandering, finding ways to beat the rules, or doing something like stacking the courts. So Roe v. Wade got forced on a country where the majority of people did not want it, and they had no choice but to accept legal abortion on demand.

In my opinion, that's how a democracy "works".

I agree that democracy works that way in the short run, but I don't think it works that way in the long run. If people feel that someone out there is taking away their voice using these approaches, they are likely to fight back.

That's how we got the Federalist Society, which has generally been a very good thing.

In the long run, if people feel they have no voice in government, things start to break down. That's a lot of what fueled the anger that got Trump elected. Anger flows in more than one direction. If people feel that they have become demonized and discounted, or even threatened by violence if they express the wrong opinion, that's going to come back to bite us when we try to persuade them about abortion.

If Gallup has it right, we could probably get laws outlawing abortion after the first 3 months, but we are unlikely to get laws outlawing abortion entirely through a democratic process.

Do you agree with that?

I disagree, simply because legal abortion on demand happened far before most people wanted it at all back in the 1970s. There's no reason it can't be rolled back the same way.

But to roll it back that way, we need to persuade people. And we have to do it in 50 states because these are state-level laws. The Supreme Court cannot write these laws. As I see it, we can best start finding common ground in areas where most people agree with us - most polls say Americans are against abortion after 3 months. Maybe we can find common ground some states faster than others. It's not all-at-once-or-nothing, it's step-by-step, building agreement and taking the next step.

As I see it, one of the best approaches to do this is to really demonstrate caring for unwed mothers as a visible witness - not just their children, and not just until childbirth. That's something we can all do, voting or not. It makes our concern credible.

How do you think a "strong man" can make abortion illegal in America today? How does this play out in your mind? What happens first, what happens next ...

Well, I think "outlawing abortion" is something up to God, not men, much as he used the king of Assyria to judge the kings of Israel and Judea, and then used other people to judge the king of Assyria when they or their nation were not following God.

In the most extreme example, I think we would see something like Duterte. When society completely breaks down and there is no law and order, people are open to choosing a "strong man" who brings law and order. When law and order have broken down, there isn't any civility or rules left to follow - first law & order has to be restored, and then the process of rebuilding civility and rules happens after that.

It's true that God is sovereign and can use the heathen for good. But to me, that doesn't really argue for or against any particular leader unless we want to participate in the process or give God advice. Seriously, one of the best things we can do today and tomorrow is to pray that God's will be done in tomorrow's elections and resolve to trust him with the outcome, whether or not we vote.

We probably disagree on this, but as I see it, people like Putin, Duterte, and Trump are not actually restoring law and order. I don't think that is what authoritarian leaders do, it is what they promise. Remember that Nixon was the "law and order president". As I see it, they are making a mockery of law and order, turning it into a tool that an authoritarian leader can use to advance his own interests, hound his enemies, protect his friends, hide his own actions, and enrich himself. I am extremely concerned about law and order, I just want to make sure that it applies to the president as well. I have some examples in mind, I want to avoid giving them now simply because I want to avoid putting hot-button issues into a post at this point of the conversation. We may well disagree on my examples, I would like to find a calm way to discuss them in order to be able to discuss and learn together.

In the long run, if I'm right and this becomes obvious to people, then they may judge both Christianity and the pro-life movement as political pawns with little moral authority if we are fiercely loyal to them. I think that's what happened in Europe as the children of Germans realized that their Christian parents had generally supported the Nazis. I think the same might well have happened in the United States if Christians of all races had not marched together against racist laws.

I think it is really important to have some moral distance from any political leader. I'm probably a lot more concerned about Trump than you are.

[Josh]

I agree that democracy works that way in the short run, but I don't think it works that way in the long run. If people feel that someone out there is taking away their voice using these approaches, they are likely to fight back.

I don't think democracy "works" and I don't think it's stable in the long run. I don't really sit around worrying about "how to make democracy work", either.

But to roll it back that way, we need to persuade people. And we have to do it in 50 states because these are state-level laws. The Supreme Court cannot write these laws. As I see it, we can best start finding common ground in areas where most people agree with us - most polls say Americans are against abortion after 3 months. Maybe we can find common ground some states faster than others. It's not all-at-once-or-nothing, it's step-by-step, building agreement and taking the next step.

I guess the difference is I'm not part of the "we" of trying to make political change happen - instead, I think political change happens because God is ultimately orchestrating the affairs of men. If men don't voluntarily choose to stop doing a grievous sin like abortion (or world wars, or the Holocaust, or all manner of other evil), God eventually intervenes. And I don't think God is constrained by the democratic process.

As I see it, one of the best approaches to do this is to really demonstrate caring for unwed mothers as a visible witness - not just their children, and not just until childbirth. That's something we can all do, voting or not. It makes our concern credible.

I agree, and that's something both myself and my church does (although I think a bigger part of it should be taking action to prevent unwed mothers in the first place, something I don't feel Christians do enough of - the Bible speaks a lot about the evils of fornication and adultery and we shouldn't be ashamed to try to reduce those things through peaceful means).

We probably disagree on this, but as I see it, people like Putin, Duterte, and Trump are not actually restoring law and order.

Ending abortion, or dealing with roving drug gangs, is definitely restoring some kind of law and order. It's not an ideal, but it's improvement in the right direction. And I think it's a consequence of us more progressive-minded people being so obsessed with laws and rules that we end up letting criminals get away with turning cities into war zones because we were so fixated on the rights of criminals to due process and so forth.

In the long run, if I'm right and this becomes obvious to people, then they may judge both Christianity and the pro-life movement as political pawns with little moral authority if we are fiercely loyal to them.

That's why I keep advocating stepping back from politics wholesale.

I think that's what happened in Europe as the children of Germans realized that their Christian parents had generally supported the Nazis. I think the same might well have happened in the United States if Christians of all races had not marched together against racist laws.

Hitler didn't rise to power through democratic consensus but rather used a fractured republic (the Weimar Republic, which ended up that way through a decade of extreme decadence) and then played political rules so that his minority party was able to win. Then he enacted a totalitarian state, again without any democratic consensus, to crush any opposition.

Trump's rise to power is a very different arc.

I think it is really important to have some moral distance from any political leader. I'm probably a lot more concerned about Trump than you are.

I would agree. Being conservative Mennonite, though, I feel a lot of moral distance from virtually any public figure.

[Bootstrap]

I agree that democracy works that way in the short run, but I don't think it works that way in the long run. If people feel that someone out there is taking away their voice using these approaches, they are likely to fight back.

I don't think democracy "works" and I don't think it's stable in the long run. I don't really sit around worrying about "how to make democracy work", either.

That's a pretty big difference between us - I really do think about this, and I do that with friends across the political spectrum. To me, the alternative to warfare is often figuring out how to live together constructively, and that's what democracy does. Instead of having periodic revolutions, you can replace the leaders and influence what happens in a well-functioning democracy. Instead of having factions kill each other, we find ways to govern together.

I think of this mostly as a member of a minority group that is persecuted in some countries and has been persecuted severely in our past. I like having a home where I can live in safety and peace. I think that involves finding ways to live with people who believe very differently than I do.

I guess the difference is I'm not part of the "we" of trying to make political change happen - instead, I think political change happens because God is ultimately orchestrating the affairs of men. If men don't voluntarily choose to stop doing a grievous sin like abortion (or world wars, or the Holocaust, or all manner of other evil), God eventually intervenes. And I don't think God is constrained by the democratic process.

God is sovereign, and praying for the country and our leaders is really important. I do pray that God will intervene, but I worry about American Christians anointing a strongman who promises to beat up our enemies. I see some religious leaders treating Trump as "God's anointed", sent to save America from our sins. The Trump Prophecy and many things coming out of Liberty University seem to approach idolatry, as does the billboard Jeremy mentioned.

I'm generally quite nervous about strongmen. I don't want my leaders to be bullies who beat up my enemies. In modern history, the countries led by strongmen are not places I would want to live, you can see that in Africa, South America, and much of Asia.

And I keep thinking of statements like this ...

We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good.

I'm not really any more comfortable if it's edited to talk about abortion and warn us against refugees instead of Jews.

[Bootstrap]

In the long run, if I'm right and this becomes obvious to people, then they may judge both Christianity and the pro-life movement as political pawns with little moral authority if we are fiercely loyal to them.

That's why I keep advocating stepping back from politics wholesale.

To me, part of that is a distance from loyalty or enmity to parties or political figures.

As far as I can tell, one main difference between us on this front is that I vote. I think we both discuss political issues, and we both try to do so from a Christian perspective. Neither of campaigns, runs for office, join a political party, or contribute to one.

Another main difference is that I care a lot about democracy. To me, it is the political alternative to war and the political alternative to giving all control to the rich and powerful. I think we keep renegotiating a free and open society where Christians are allowed to live out our religion in peace.

If we treat others as enemies who must be defeated, aligning ourselves with strongmen, I worry. What goes around comes around. I think this is true even for issues like abortion that we care about strongly. God doesn't need my advice, but if I were to advise Christians, I would strongly prefer persuasion, prayer, and serving others as the best long-term route to fighting abortion.

[Josh]

We demand the freedom of all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not jeopardize the state's existence or conflict with the manners and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The Party as such upholds the point of view of a positive Christianity without tying itself confessionally to any one confession. It combats the Jewish-materialistic spirit at home and abroad and is convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only be achieved from within on the basis of the common good before individual good.

I'm not really any more comfortable if it's edited to talk about abortion and warn us against refugees instead of Jews.

If you want to have a civil conversation, you need to stop comparing people who don't think like you to Nazis.

[Josh]

To me, part of that is a distance from loyalty or enmity to parties or political figures.

If somebody votes, their distance is about 0 from loyalty to a party. If someone voted Democratic yesterday, their loyalty was to abortion and promoting homosexuality. Unfortunately.

As far as I can tell, one main difference between us on this front is that I vote. I think we both discuss political issues, and we both try to do so from a Christian perspective. Neither of campaigns, runs for office, join a political party, or contribute to one.

Another main difference is that I care a lot about democracy. To me, it is the political alternative to war and the political alternative to giving all control to the rich and powerful. I think we keep renegotiating a free and open society where Christians are allowed to live out our religion in peace.

I'm not sure why you'd feel "democracy" is an alternative to war after things like the Civil War, World War II, and so on that all happened between alleged "democracies".

If we treat others as enemies who must be defeated, aligning ourselves with strongmen, I worry. What goes around comes around. I think this is true even for issues like abortion that we care about strongly. God doesn't need my advice, but if I were to advise Christians, I would strongly prefer persuasion, prayer, and serving others as the best long-term route to fighting abortion.

Well, I said that I think God sometimes appoints a "strong man". I never said that I myself want to appoint strong men. God appointed the king of Assyria at some point, whom I think we can both agree is more of a "strong man" than Trump and not someone either of us would vote for.

If I were to advise Christians, I'd tell then to follow the Bible, which necessarily means not voting, not fighting in wars, not killing people, and so on. Regardless, abortion will only be ended through force. God is in charge of using that force. Persuasion doesn't stop murder.

[JimFoxvog]

Regardless, abortion will only be ended through force. God is in charge of using that force. Persuasion doesn't stop murder.

I think abortion will not be ended by force, unless you mean the return of Christ as an act of force. Abortion pills are too easy to transport, even if they were to become illegal.

A change of heart, that is conversion (not persuasion, although that too will help), is the best way to end abortions. Meanwhile, we can reduce abortions with easy free access to birth control, free prenatal care, free birthing centers, and reducing other financial barriers to parenthood.

[Josh]

Regardless, abortion will only be ended through force. God is in charge of using that force. Persuasion doesn't stop murder.

I think abortion will not be ended by force, unless you mean the return of Christ as an act of force. Abortion pills are too easy to transport, even if they were to become illegal.

A change of heart, that is conversion (not persuasion, although that too will help), is the best way to end abortions. Meanwhile, we can reduce abortions with easy free access to birth control, free prenatal care, free birthing centers, and reducing other financial barriers to parenthood.

Do you think murder can be dealt with by force?

Or should the government stop prosecuting murder and we just say “Let’s try to use persuasion”?