Pro-Life versus Education
I read a lot of different blogs and I am continually amazed at what I find. Take Dr. Mohler’s recent blog on the abortion rates in New York City. In short, he bemoans the fact the abortion rate is 40% in New York City. It’s 22% nation wide, but even that is “chilling” to him. He claims that “We are a murderous people, and the blood of the innocent cries out for justice.”
What I find interesting is that Dr. Mohler doesn’t actually say anything much of worth here. He’s disgusted by the statistics but offers absolutely nothing in return as a remedy. Elsewhere he claims that abortion rights are “a thunderous affirmation of the ideal of personal autonomy,” but he does so with an air of distain and disgust. In yet another article, Dr. Mohler claims “‘progressive’ cultural authorities have been teaching our young people that sex is there for the enjoyment, abstinence before marriage is unrealistic, abortion is always available as an option, and human life is of no intrinsic value.” He believes this is a problem in our society. But is this really the case of so-called progressive cultural authorities?
I find Dr. Mohler’s comments to be disingenuous, to say the least. While I would agree that there is a great disconnect between what we teach our children and what we foster in our culture as the norms, I think Dr. Mohler misses the point.
Slate published an incredible side-by-side comparison of the U.S. versus European approaches to teen sexuality and education. The numbers are astonishing, to say the least. I’ve seen these numbers at various times over the last decade and they stay pretty much the same across the board. European attitudes towards sex, responsibility, and education are vastly superior to those in the U.S. Why? Because they aren’t afraid of it.
Rather than hide behind religious sanctimony, the European approach suggests that teens (and others, of course) take a more responsible approach to sex. They promote safe sex. They promote safe experimentation. They promote responsibility. Look at these statistics on abortion.
What do you see here? Ignoring Russia for the moment, the U.S. has an exponentially greater number of abortions than any other country in Europe (or around the world, for that matter, Russia excepted). Any thoughts as to why?
The Slate article provides many reasons. Shame, lack of education, intolerance, a culture of guilt.
Of course, I’m not advocating a pro-choice stance here. Aside from being an adopted child myself, I never advocate a pro-choice stance for simple reasons: abortion, outside of a specific medical emergency, is reprehensible. But here’s the real kicker for those, like Dr. Mohler, who believe that our subculture of post-Christian morality doesn’t provide for such issues.
Thelema takes the stance that education is important. Thelema takes the stance that family is important. Thelema takes the stance that children are important. Thelema takes the stance that abortion is not a birth control option.
The Prophet wrote, “The preoccupation of the minds of the public with sexual questions will no longer breed moral disease and insanity, when the sex-appetite is treated as simply as hunger. Frankness of speech and writing on sexual questions will dispel the ignorance which entraps so many unfortunate people; proper precautions against actual dangers will replace unnecessary and absurd precautions against imaginary or artificial dangers; and the quacks who trade on fear will be put out of business.” It’s a shame that quacks like Dr. Mohler aren’t put out of business more. Their approach to matters of sexuality are barbaric and backward. Such an approach is more the cause of abortion on demand than any so-called liberation of women under Roe vs. Wade. All the latter legal decision created was the legal ability to receive an abortion. It didn’t make it any less of a moral crime.
Of course, there too is where I find amusement. Crowley also wrote that when sexuality was approached with honesty and education that the “crime of abortion will lose its motive in all but the most exceptional cases” (emphasis mine). Imagine that! Dr. Mohler, the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and Aleister Crowley, the alleged wickedest man in the world, would have gotten along famously in discussing the immorality of abortion.
But it is the irony, to me, that Crowley attributed all of this to the liberty of women themselves. “All this must follow as the Light the night as soon as Woman, true to Herself, finds that She can no longer be false to any man. She must hold Herself and Her Will in honour; and She must compel the world to accord it.” Women’s Lib, so to speak, rather than being the exaltation of females into the roles of men, is actually the exaltation of females to their own place, equal to a man inherently, but still different in function and role, superior in many ways due to their roles.
Unlike much of the backwater approach of Christians to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, the Law of Thelema frees individuals to certainty and truth. It is through knowledge and wisdom that one is redeemed. Our children will only appreciate the beauty and danger of sex once they have understood it. This is not through some sanctimonious approach to sex, but only through proper and educated experience. This isn’t to say that sex is anything less than a sacrament and should be treated lightly. But sex has become, in our society, a rod of guilt to beat our sons and daughters over the head and tell them it’s sacred without explaining why.
I think the record speaks for itself. Dr. Mohler would do well to listen carefully to truth rather than some dangerous approach to human sexuality that merely feeds his need for a doctrine of control.
What I understand from this article is abortion is bad, people need sex education, sex is somehow sacred, and Aleister Crowley thought so too.
Now can you tell me why? On a planet infested with 6.8 billion people, too many to effectively manage resources and sustain life for, abortion is reprehensible? It seems far more compassionate and realistic to stop a fetus from growing before it is birthed than to dump even more unwanted people on this earth.
It seems much more compassionate and realistic to teach individuals to be responsible before it gets to that point. The issue, overall, is that in the U.S., we go at this backwards. It should have to get to the point of abortion except in the most extreme of situations. In the U.S., abortion is basically a birth control procedure that allows individuals to continue being irresponsible with life itself. And, yes, that is reprehensible.
Apparently teaching individuals to be responsible is unrealistic. Look at the statistics of people having sex without contraception *despite* knowing that this is exactly how pregnancy happens. It's MUCH more unrealistic to expect people to be anything but the animals they are.
I see nothing wrong with abortion. It's costly and has more of a toll on the body and mind of the individual, and of course IS the last resort regardless. Yes, other methods of prevention should come first (including forced sterilization as far as I'm concerned).
But reprehensible? Ugly sure, but morally repugnant? I fail to see how.
I think the statistics definitely show a great deal. The Slate article shows even more that education and approach reduce, exponentially even, the use of abortion as a birth control method and an overall increase in sexual health and safety. Rather than continue to be barbaric and justify it as something "normal," I think education is the way to go. Unfortunately, it's just one more thing by which this country is held captive through the morality of Christianity.
I do think that Dr. Mohler and Crowley would have been diametrically opposed to each other in their reasons, but the fact remains that both argue against the crime of abortion. Dr. Mohler appeals for a lack of education and the superstitions of sex. Crowley appeals to education and tearing away those superstitions. Based on the results of both these approaches—Dr. Mohler's in the U.S. and Crowley's in Western Europe—I think the statistics speak volumes as to which is the more humane, ethical, and sensible approach.
Yes, true, education reduces unplanned pregnancy.
My problem is with the painting of abortion as a crime. We both understand that if humanity is to survive, birth control must be implemented for obvious reasons. Perhaps what we don't agree on is that being able to terminate an unplanned, unwanted or defective pregnancy is necessary in the long run.
Even if we were able to spread sex education to every corner of the earth, there would still be a portion of society that would ignore such methods for whatever reason. Either though religion, obstinacy, narcissism, being able to terminate a pregnancy is a viable resort when other methods are not used or fail.
To sum up, my question is still: why you consider it a crime? Or is it that you consider the crime having sex without contraception if you don't want a pregnancy? Or is it having an unplanned pregnancy in the first place?
Yes, true, education reduces unplanned pregnancy.
That's a really blasé way of putting it. Education exponentially reduces unplanned pregnancy.
My problem is with the painting of abortion as a crime.
This would be the moral case, yes. Granted, this depends on the metaphysics underlying one's worldview, but arguably a Thelemic worldview would hold to this perspective.
We both understand that if humanity is to survive, birth control must be implemented for obvious reasons.
I've just observed a different discussion elsewhere that would suggest this is pretty much a secular humanist platform that amounts to a eugenics effort. However, this begs the question that has been pretty much a hysterics approach for quite some time. Paul Ehrlich estimated that the Indian subcontinent would be devastated by 1980 unless something was done immediately, the British Isles would be uninhabited by the year 2000, and subsequently pretty much discredited in his views since the debacle of the Simon–Ehrlich wager; and Thomas Malthus seems to have predicted mass starvation throughout Europe by 1799, within his own lifetime, and that didn't happen either. I look around and don't see world collapse happening anytime soon if we are to be realistic about the state of the world.
So, no, I can't agree that if humanity is to survive, we need to instigate a system of eugenics that includes birth control defined as physical trauma to human beings outside medical necessity under extraordinary circumstances.
Perhaps what we don’t agree on is that being able to terminate an unplanned, unwanted or defective pregnancy is necessary in the long run.
You're right. I don't agree.
My comments to the above follow the marks:
* This seems to be the case even now, statistically speaking, except that the death of the woman is much more rare.
† Except that, today, it's not even a secret public opinion. It's the law of the land.
‡ I disagree with this some extent, but it's a place to start.
§ I disagree with his generalization of women here, but the point is exceedingly important: that is, motherhood should be treated with utmost honor that it is not to be taken lightly.
This said, the point is that we (as a culture, and more so in the U.S.) trivialize sex, parenthood by either gender, and generally consider children to be a buzz kill or, before that point, merely a bit of tissue to be removed like a cancer. There is no accountability involved. The Law of Thelema demands accountability. If we take it seriously, this has to be the first goal that really only happens from education.
Even if we were able to spread sex education to every corner of the earth, there would still be a portion of society that would ignore such methods for whatever reason.
Of course. The issue is not to accommodate the avoidance of responsibility but to remove the stigma associated with having children and increase the level of education prior to sexual experimentation. Again, I think the statistics prove this out in the long run.
Either though religion, obstinacy, narcissism, being able to terminate a pregnancy is a viable resort when other methods are not used or fail.
Once again, the issue is about education prior to the point of irresponsible behavior. If you are responsible enough to have sex, you should be responsible enough to accept the consequences of such behavior. While I'm not an abstinence proponent, per se, I think that it is a more appropriate response if one is not able to accept those consequences.
To sum up, my question is still: why you consider it a crime? Or is it that you consider the crime having sex without contraception if you don’t want a pregnancy? Or is it having an unplanned pregnancy in the first place?
It is, obviously, not a legal crime but a moral one. It explicitly encourages a culture of irresponsibility and avoidance. It is based on a reprehensible metaphysics that doesn't jive with the Law of Thelema.
References
Crowley, A, Symonds, J, & Grant, K. (1989). The confessions of aleister crowley : an autohagiography. Penguin Books.
"I’ve just observed a different discussion elsewhere that would suggest this is pretty much a secular humanist platform that amounts to a eugenics effort."
This is not a solely secular humanist effort. When I said "birth control" I meant any method of contraception, contragestion, including abortion. While the human population may not be at a critical point now, it will be eventually unless the birth and death rate zero out. It is not that there are not sufficient resources to support the current 6.8 billion humans that populate this planet. It is that we are not sufficiently managing those resources to ensure the survivability of all those who exist. Entire populations of people are starving, going without medical aid, and are poverty stricken. The solution to resource management problems is a different discussion entirely.
You must see that if no methods of birth control are employed, (again I mean generally), humans will eventually come face to face with overpopulation problems on a large scale.
"Apart from anything else, [abortion] nearly always ruins the health of the woman, when it fails to kill her."
Perhaps at the time Crowley wrote this, but not currently. This seems to be his only concrete argument, and it is now false. His "anything else" is completely ambiguous here, but that exactly the case I'm interested in hearing. Why is abortion ethically defunct exactly?
"The issue is not to accommodate the avoidance of responsibility but to remove the stigma associated with having children and increase the level of education prior to sexual experimentation."
What stigma? People who choose to have children do so one way or another. People who don't want children, sometimes do as well. It would be far better if both sets get what they want. I think it is cruel to both parent and child to force parenthood on someone who is ill equipped to handle it.
It doesn't matter what the Law of Thelema demands (how is it a law if it can be broken?) people are driven to have sex, which has NOTHING to do with how much integrity or responsibility they have. It's instinct. Educate, yes. Hope for the best, yes. People are animals, yes. Abortion must be an available recourse for those who cannot or will not be "educated".
————————
Instead of dancing around in circles, I will try to sum up your argument. Correct me where I'm wrong.
All human life is sacred.
Personal responsibility and accountability are paramount.
Therefore in performing an act which produces a human life, one necessarily becomes responsible for the education and well-being of that human life until it can cope on it's own.
However, isn't aborting tissue which will become a human when other methods have failed, or when one isn't willing or able to raise children taking responsibility as well? That is, being responsible enough do what is necessary to prevent the unnecessary burden of rearing children under those conditions.
I don't believe anything is sacred. I do believe personal responsibility and accountability are paramount. It's not a law, but a personal philosophy. I would probably labeled as a secular humanist/atheist.
My followup question if the above is indicative of your views, is what makes human life sacred?