Evangelical Christians have lost gay marriage.
This is my humble yet controversial opinion. I could be wrong, I’m no prophet, but when the social conservatives are also the party of unyielding individualism and liberty, it’s very hard to make the rhetorical pivot to being against what appears to most people to be a matter of individuals exercising their liberty. Beside that, in my opinion, we are still losing the narrative debate. Traditional marriage defenders have been, so far, pretty lousy at providing the alternative positive story of marriage in contradistinction to the “I just want the equal right to marry whomever I love” story that resonates with most people of good will.
Here’s the good news, we’re winning abortion.
The positive story has been on our side for a long time now, and it resonates powerfully. The striking parallels between the abolition of abortion and the abolition of slavery are also persuasive. When abortion becomes a human rights issue, as it is, both right-wing individualism and left-wing concern for social justice meet in common cause. To oppose that cause is to take up a fool’s errand.
Moreover, when the proponents of abortion are forced to continuously admit that abortion itself is “tragic” and “should be rare”, well, it’s easy to see a lost cause. Can you imagine gay activists admitting in solemn tones, “We all know gay marriage is tragic, and should be a rare occurance, but gay people should still be free to choose in those extreme instances when it’s necessary”?
One thing that always puzzles me about the Left is how they mock and deride those who argue that the shifting sands of their own moral foundation will eventually eradicate all standards of right and wrong. They cry “Oh, that’s just a slippery slope!” This is one of those moves that Facebook Philosophers like to make. Look up a list of logical fallacies and throw a few out in an argument so that you appear educated and skilled at critical thinking. What puzzles me about this, though, is that when, lo and behold, the sands start shifting a little too fast for the current tastes of the Leftist elite, they profess shock and disbelief, yet no hint of an apology to that wise man or woman whom they had accused of peddling hysterical logical fallacies just a few moments earlier (in fact, they may simply lash out and deride him or her even more).
This is just what’s happened over at Slate, where William Saletan begins with this lament:
Just when you thought the religious right couldn’t get any crazier, with its personhood amendments and its attacks on contraception, here comes the academic left with an even crazier idea: after-birth abortion.
Here is a man who clearly hasn’t been paying attention. The Pro-Life movement has been arguing for a long time now that there is no substantial difference between an infant and a fetus. And Peter Singer has argued for infanticide for years. I suspect Mr. Saletan is merely nervous, and his nervousness leads him to open the article by reminding everyone how crazy the other side is. This is important, because Mr. Saletan provides no answers for those Pro-choicers who are repulsed by infanticide, he merely raises unsettling questions.
His article is actually quite insightful. He goes straight to the assumptions, so often taken for granted without argument, that underpin the whole Pro-choice position. He calls each of these assumptions into question because they seem to lead logically to the acceptability of infanticide. This can’t be, however, because Mr. Saletan realizes that infanticide is “crazy.” Here are the assumptions:
1. The moral significance of fetal development is arbitrary.
2. Prior to personhood, human life has no moral claims on us.
3. Any burden on the woman outweighs the value of the child.
4. The value of life depends on choice.
5. Discovery of a serious defect is grounds for termination.
Without these assumptions, the Pro-choice position completely collapses. Mr. Saletan’s challenge in this article is for Pro-choicers to confront the logic of the “after-birth abortion” position head-on and explain how any of these assumptions can remain intact for an unborn fetus and yet not apply to the newborn baby. He concludes:
The challenge posed to Furedi and other pro-choice absolutists by “after-birth abortion” is this: How do they answer the argument, advanced by Giubilini and Minerva, that any maternal interest, such as the burden of raising a gravely defective newborn, trumps the value of that freshly delivered nonperson? What value does the newborn have? At what point did it acquire that value? And why should the law step in to protect that value against the judgment of a woman and her doctor?
Unbeknownst (I assume) to Mr. Saletan, who is after all a Pro-choicer himself, he has just articulated the presuppositional argument against abortion. And it is telling that he makes no attempt to provide any response. I believe that’s called a deafening silence.
All Mr. Saletan can do is nervously proclaim that he just knows (and after all, doesn’t everybody?) that infanticide is “crazy”, and remind us that the other side is just as crazy, so whatever we do we certainly can’t join up with them. I don’t blame him, really. I’d be nervous too if I felt myself slipping down the side of a steep slope I was quite sure wasn’t there.
Image via Slate.