Discover more from Philosophy in Progress
Abortion and the Wages of Concupiscence Unrestrained
Why do the powerful arguments against abortion have such little effect?
The Latin above is 1 John 2:16: "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world." (KJV)
Omne quod est in mundo, concupiscentia carnis est, et concupiscentia oculorum, et superbia vitae . . . .
There are many objectively powerful arguments against the moral acceptability of abortion, and yet they don’t make a dent in the current climate; they don’t even cause the friends of abortion to doubt their stance. Why is this?
The 'pro-choice' movement, to use the polite euphemism, is fueled by concupiscence. Not entirely, of course. To what extent, then?
One naturally wants the pleasures of sexual intercourse without any consequences. One seeks cost-free indulgence in the most intense sensuous pleasure known to man and woman. Unrestricted abortion on demand is a convenient remedy to an inconvenient pregnancy should other birth control methods fail. Combine the following: morally flawed human beings, a powerful drive, advanced birth control and abortion technology, the ever-increasing irrelevance of religion and its moral strictures, 24-7 sex-saturation via omni-invasive popular media, not to mention the easy availability of pornography — combine them, and the arguments against the morality of abortion come too late. As good as they are in themselves, they are impotent against the synergistic onslaught of the factors mentioned.
It's always been that reason is reliably suborned by passion; it's just that now the subornation is quicker and easier.
And then there is the feminist angle. Having come into their own in other arenas, which is good, women are eager to throw off the remaining shackles of family and pregnancy. They insist on their rights, including reproductive rights. And isn't the right to an abortion just another reproductive right? Well, no it isn't; but the sexual itch in synergy with emancipatory zeal is sure to blind people to any arguments to the contrary. (That there are some reproductive rights I take for granted.)
And now for a little paradox. Sexual emancipation 'empowers' women. But in a sex- and power-obsessed society this 'empowerment' also empowers men by increasing the cost-free availability of women for male sexual exploitation. Enter the 'hook-up,' the name of which is a perfect phrase, hydraulic in its resonance, for the substitution of impersonal fluid exchange for the embodiment of personal love.
It is no surprise that men with money and power who operate in enclaves of like-minded worldlings take full advantage of the quarry on offer. But lust like other vices is hard to control once it is given free rein. And so the depredations of Harvey Weinstein and Matt Lauer and Jeffrey Epstein and a hundred others is the natural upshot.
Women rightly push back but too many veer to the extreme of #metoo.
The result is a strange blend of sexual licentiousness-cum-sanctimony.
A lefty will say that I am preaching, moralizing. But for a lefty all moral judgment is moralizing, except when they do it not knowing what they do; and all preaching is hypocritical, except when they do it.
But don't ever expect to get through to benighted people whose will to power has so suppressed their will to truth that they cannot look into the mirror and see themselves.