Abortion, Health Care and the Soul

A few days ago a friend of mine agonized over her loved ones from the deep South raging that Obama was a murderer because his health care plan would sanction abortion. She felt an insurmountable gulf between, which seems to have gripped much of the nation as well, a gulf between those who consider themselves progressives, myself included, and those who rage against their government for wanting to protect them (for instance) from illness, pain and unnecessary death. These are people who see a national health care program as signaling the end of the Republic. Their behavior seems laughable, mentally ill, perhaps an argument for health care that requires mental care for every single one of them.

But I'm coming to see that this thinking may be wrong. These people may in fact have something deeply right; or at least more right than those of us who put Obama into office, those of us who believe in his brilliant intellectual capabilities, his articulateness, his clarity, his political acumen.

It has to do with soul.

Those of us who live lives using the principals that have evolved from Plato and Socrates, up through the Enlightenment, Industrialization, the Information Age -- how many of us would give up much of anything in an attempt to save our souls? I mean this seriously -- really -- how much would we be willing to sacrifice? Do we really -- I mean, really, really -- even believe in what is called the soul, other than in the arena of music or as something abstract enough that it isn't going to get in the way of our Blackberries, iPods, Kindles, twittering devices, jobs, marriages, New York Times, literary books and so on?

Would we sacrifice ourselves or our children in a war, for instance? Would we allow ourselves or our loved ones to be maimed for the soul or for anything spiritual at all?

Spiritual is a pretty easy word for us (certainly for me) -- it's amorphous -- and convenient. I no longer believe in organized religion, frankly. I don't belong to a church -- so there's no sacrifice there, no ten percent of my income goes to a bunch of priests. I'm not even saying I'm wrong about my cynicism towards all religions. But it does seem quite obvious to me that many of these right-wingers, born agains and so forth have been more than willing to sacrifice a hell of a lot for the soul. It's why the elites of the Democratic Party have been so long perplexed by these folks over and over voting against "their interests." But honestly, are their interests really of "this world?" An innocent baby's soul matters (so you save it under any circumstances). A criminal's soul matters too (so you hang him for his earthly crimes.)

Which is why I think government sanctioned abortion (with a medical plan that covers it) so horrifies them. Do I think their rage and apparent self destructiveness is correct? No. But I think what drives them may be more valuable than I have up till now understood. If this nation is to survive (and I sure hope it does) we (the supposed enlightened) will have to make a superhuman effort to understand the other side. I don't believe the "other side" will ever try to understand us. Increasingly I think they see us as evil as "the devil" because they fear we have no souls. Much of the time I think they are being manipulated by the hopelessly soulless creatures who will do anything for power and profit, but this only makes our job more pressing. Who else is going to bridge this gap? Who else can reach across this gulf of confusion, suspicion and rage? And if this experiment that started with Plato and Socrates is in fact correct, then I believe we are up to the task. And if we are able in the end to succeed and bridge this gap enough to ease the worst of the tensions that beset us then, who knows, maybe in the final analysis it will turn out that it's us (not them) that gains back the most, namely, our souls.

 

Follow Stephen Gyllenhaal on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stephgyllenhaal

Comments

[RevBookburn]

The problem with words like 'soul' and 'spiritual' is that they are thoroughly meaningless. Since they are ill-defined mystical abstracts, conceivably with a thousand definitions, then it's easy to see how the simple can be manipulated by 'spiritual leaders' of any kind. The 'soul' of the fetus, the 'spiritual' components of the church-cor­porations, and the creation of imaginary characters can prompt many to listen to the witch doctor of the cave.

We need a connection with our species, and humanitarian efforts. That doesn't need to get twisted into irrationality. Rev. Bookburn - Radio Volta

[lrubemp]

Gyllenhaal's odd take on abortion is one more manifestation of the "let's understand the other side" line taken by Democratic Party politicians and their assorted supporters that has been deadly to women's rights. Opponents of abortion want to deny a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT of women -- the right to control pregnancy. There is no common ground with them.

References to the "eternal soul" -- an idealistic conception bound up with religious belief -- only confuses the critical separation of church and state and has no place in this discussion. If abortion as a right is to be defended at all, it has to start with the question of defense of women's rights, or it will be lost. If we take seriously the musings of confused people like Stephen Gyllenhaal, then it is a right very much in danger of being lost.

[Tena]

"will have to make a superhuman effort to understand the other side. I don't believe the "other side" will ever try to understand us. Increasingly I think they see us as evil as "the devil" because they fear we have no souls."

Dude, that being the case, how EXACTLY are we supposed to get them to understand us or anything we stand for or believe in?

The abortion debate was forever ruined when we let them drag dead babies into it., It's not about dead babies. How many times do women have to say this? It's about my right to privacy in my own body - the same as any damn man has. We fought for it, we got it - we are NOT GIVING IT BACK.

[pinkibus]

The question is not a new one. However it would help if some soul searching was done before coming out about abortion having anything to do with the soul. The Roman Catholic church allowed it up to any pregnancy shorter than six months because it was at six months when the feotus was ensouled. That was then. This is now. We have to ask - is a dead child and the twins she conceived because her father was raping her worth damning the doctors who aborted her on the grounds that she would die if she had to go through with the pregnancy and her babies would also die. I say the doctors have a soul and the "new" pope doesn't have a soul. Abortion is ethical. It is Christian. Why would anyone think it is better to give birth to a baby which has no brain or which has a terrible genetic disorder which will condemn it to a life that is a living hell than abort it. Why must a completely incompetent woman who has no ability or money to raise a child be forced to have one. Why would I ask any woman to have a baby she doesn't want. Babies are dying as I write this. They die from diseases and dirty water and hunger and war. In America they die because their parents can't afford health insurance. They are murdered. They live in filth and hunger. I feel true rage at the hypocrisy of this

[elkabong]

What do you see in their words or deeds that makes you think they are expressions of their "souls" and not their fear, their hatred (fear byproduct) and their authoritarianism?

John Dean wrote an insightful book called "Conservatives Without Conscience." He demonstrates a keen understanding of what lies at the root of their behavior and it sure isn't soul.

[lastpost]

“If this nation is to survive (and I sure hope it does) we (the supposed enlightened) will have to make a superhuman effort to understand the other side.”

Is there an “other side”?

Or, are we all applying a slightly different working hypothesis to a problem?
What has significance then, is not whether any of those theoretical strategies are “right” or are “wrong”. But merely, their particular degree of efficacy in respect to the problem being addressed.

[DonJM]

As a son of the South, I can attest to the attitudes which have been identified. Part of the problem is with the "liberal, socialist Democrat agenda"; however, a large part of the problem in the South is with Obama himself, or more specifically, his race. I hear this from someone at least once a week. From a policy standpoint, Republicans get elected in the South for four reasons: to overturn Roe v. Wade, to repeal the Civil Rights Act, to put prayer back in public school, and to run all of the gays out of the South. Unfortunately, there are too many narrow-minded people in the South; it's changing, but not quickly enough. Too many people down here like to cloak themselves in the Bible and religion when it suits their purposes. Conversely, they are equally adept at ignoring the Bible and religion when it suits their purposes, too.

[Checquoline]

YOu are so right. I spent four years in Tennessee some time ago and I can promise you I will NEVER go south again, ever. The ignorance is unbelievable and appalling. It made me wish the south had won the Civil War so the rest of the country would be rid of them.

[Alexis Carril]

I agree, if I have a soul, it doesn't need saving. It just is. Anything else is just costructs designed to further ideology that frankly has a shady past. Christians have been persecuting women for millenia - now its about their reproductive righs, before it was about healing and being midwives. I pledge that no one will make my daughter reproduce if she doesn't want to.

[alisonv]

It is also not true that the public plan will cover abortions. The private insurance industry, however, DOES pay for abortions. So any Christian paying insurance premiums is already paying for abortions. So I think abortions are not the center of this argument. It is a thoughtful article, but I don't think we should assume that Democrats or others on the left are without a soul or would sacrifice little (in a war or otherwise) for our beliefs.

[TLV]

I agree. If it is simply not true that universal health care will cover abortions in a way that private insurance do not - we must say so loud and clear! President Obama must say it cloud and clear. His spokespeople must say it loud and clear...and they must also add that if a person does not agree with the abortions being allowed anywhere, anytime then they must also check their own private insurers to see if they do cover them! Forget the soul discussion - we must EDUCATE the mind and while many right wingers seem willing to abhor any form of education brought about by a governmental agency, they MUST be educated on health care reform. The soul will take care of itself.

[alisonv]

I agree we need to try to understand each other and put aside our suspicions. I just did a video on that after going to a healthcare reform rally in Dallas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E4V1Brsm9o
Half my family is conservative Christians and the other half isn't. I'm a Christian, but not conservative. I was dismayed by my recent visit home. I give Christians a lot of credit for their personal generosity. Sometimes, but not always, they are more generous than some of my liberal friends. (While I was there a group of them bought a car for a poor acquaintance whose car had been stolen--no tax deduction, just helping.) But I couldn't and can't understand their exaggerated animosity and distrust for this President. It isn't just about abortion. It's about big government and taxes--ideology. But their near hatred is out of character with their professed beliefs and generosity in other areas. I don't know how to bridge the gap. I tried to explain to my family my commitment to healthcare reform after 15 years as financial manager in a hospital and the tragedies I saw. But bottom line for them is that the government isn't the answer. Well then, what is? The private sector has had years to resolve the crisis and has done little for the uninsured while making huge profits for themselves. So why do conservatives trust THESE guys?

[KingMidas]

Honey Chile, its about race. That's all. Stop agonizing. Race. That's all it is....

[alisonv]

I think for some people it is 100% about race. But i don't think that is the case for everyone. I think the same people who went bonkers when Clinton tried to reform healthcare and in the end, they succeeded in destroying it. I think for many people it is more complicated than just race.

[BigBadJohn]

The question of this article is not about abortion but about the existance of the soul. If there is no spiritual, if life is purely material, then there is no problem with any moral quandry. Just try it and see who survives. But if there is a spititual world, and if there is a personal God, then there is moral accountability and this matters more than survival of the fitest. As Plato asks in the allegory of the cave, After "returning from divine contemplations to human evils", a man "is graceless and looks quite ridiculous when — with his sight still dim and before he has gotten sufficiently accustomed to the surrounding darkness — he is compelled in courtrooms or elsewhere to contend about the shadows of justice or the representations of which they are the shadows, and to dispute about the way these things are understood by men who have never seen justice itself?" Are the materalists still chained and looking at shadows or do you believe the "backwards thinking conservatives" are the ones chained? This question is much more important than the morality of abortion. This is a question of who man is.

[AngelaQuattrano]

Nah, the abortion debate isn't about babies at all. It's about controlling women's sex lives and punishing those who have sex. If it was about babies, they would care whether mothers had the medical care and nutrition support they needed to birth a healthy baby with its best chance of achieving its potential. Clearly they have zero concern about infant or maternal mortality. In fact, I have regularly heard conservatives talking about how noble it is for a woman to die as the result of a doomed pregnancy, even though medical help could have saved her.

[KingMidas]

Even the Christians are caught up in the sex is everything message.

And women who have abortions are merely slaves to the notion that they HAVE to have sex. (apart from the molested of course)

So there is error on both sides. Sadly, American men still RULE! No woman in America can do what she wants with her body. Go on a date, eat a $20 meal, GIVE IT UP!! SEX.

Get a car tire changed, or a light bulb, or a screen door replaced...GIVE IT UP!! To the Manly Man who did that for you!

Women have been bartering bodies for services, for eons, but only America makes it look so FREE!

[TuoulumneFlower]

"And women who have abortions are merely slaves to the notion that they HAVE to have sex. (apart from the molested of course)"

The mind boggles. It's a biological imperative for a species to reproduce, sweetie. In my experience, as well, it's generally the males who just HAVE to have sex...

PS - gee, thanks for giving a passing thought to the molested.

[SeriousBlack]

We (progressives) will NEVER "bridge the gap". Backwards-thinking conservatives will not COUNTENANCE any bridging of the gap. It is THEY who are completely intractable in their misguided ideologies and the disastrous policies that result from those ideologies. It will take us being firm in our more progressive beliefs, and THEM becoming, if not converts, at least becoming reasonable enough so as to - at least - not resort to violence to satisfy their frustrations.

[Tena]

Word up!

[soisay]

Part the craziness is the urgency to "pass a law". We don't like it, lets make it illegal, then it will stop, or we can at least throw people in jail that we don't like. We all know that the war on drugs made cartels rich and filled prison pointlessly (driving states broke). We know prohibition made the mafia rich, and made common citizens into criminals with bathtub gin, speakeasies, stills and bootlegging. The right even says "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" admitting that making them illegal is pointless. And finally, the right wing hates government intrusion - the famous booted thugs - but yet want to "pass a law" instead of work toward a solution to underlying problems (like MADD/SADD does). That disconnnect is what I cannot fathom based on their statements.

[Vurz]

It's an interesting point you bring up. A small percentage of the people opposed to insurance reform actually do believe that it will save their soul if the insurance companies are running the show. Somehow we need to understand what is driving that belief.