There's a subject I bet you're dying to read about. But wait. For me this has been a conundrum because I've been Pro-Choice most of my adult life, and even though I "converted" to Conservatism in 2001, I've been unable to quite bridge the gap to full bore Pro-Life.
And with my belief that Liberty is the highest human value, it was easy at first glance to say that the liberty of control over my own person trumps all other considerations.
But in conversation with smart readers, and hearing the Libertarian conversation I've referenced in previous posts, I've realized that while I DO believe that Liberty is the highest human value, it is not the ONLY value.
And when I talk of Liberty being more important than Life, I speak of it only in terms of myself...MY own liberty vs MY own life. Like Patrick Henry said: "Give me liberty or give me death!"
He didn't say, "Give me liberty by taking HIS life!"
Now, to borrow an overused phrase, let me be clear....
I agree with the position of Pro-Choice people that the right to have an abortion is about a woman's liberty—about having control over her own body. If liberty's not about that, it has no meaning.
Therefore LIBERTY is at stake here.
I also agree with the position of the Pro-Life people that the right to not be aborted is about the baby's right to LIFE.
Therefore LIFE is at stake here.
So, we have two of our fundamental values in conflict: LIFE vs LIBERTY. How is it to be resolved?
Typically, both sides of this issue refuse to concede the claim of the opposing value, because they believe that to do so would weaken their argument, and inject doubt into their conclusions. (Or even worse, cause self-doubt!) And they become exactly what they appear: Rigid, close-minded idealogues.
The one thing they never acknowledge is the crux of the problem: both sides are right.
Liberty means nothing if it doesn't mean having control over one's own body. And Life means nothing if someone else can take YOURS away at THEIR whim.
So. Since we cannot choose between the values of Life and Liberty in the abstract - as much as both sides have tried to do so, we can only compare the impact upon each of them in the particular as it relates to abortion.
As to the Liberty of the pregnant woman: If required to see the pregnancy to term against her will, her liberty—her control of and power over her own being— is absolutely violated - for nine months. (Assuming of course that the pregnancy is not a threat to her life or ongoing health.)
As to the Life of the baby: If aborted, it's right life is absolutely violated.. forever.
If Liberty and Life are equal values, either the degree to which or the duration of which, each is violated can be the only determination for choosing between them on a case by case basis.
I agree with the position of Pro-Choice people that the right to have an abortion is about a woman's liberty—about having control over her own body. If liberty's not about that, it has no meaning.
Therefore LIBERTY is at stake here.
I also agree with the position of the Pro-Life people that the right to not be aborted is about the baby's right to LIFE.
Therefore LIFE is at stake here.
So, we have two of our fundamental values in conflict: LIFE vs LIBERTY. How is it to be resolved?
Typically, both sides of this issue refuse to concede the claim of the opposing value, because they believe that to do so would weaken their argument, and inject doubt into their conclusions. (Or even worse, cause self-doubt!) And they become exactly what they appear: Rigid, close-minded idealogues.
The one thing they never acknowledge is the crux of the problem: both sides are right.
Liberty means nothing if it doesn't mean having control over one's own body. And Life means nothing if someone else can take YOURS away at THEIR whim.
So. Since we cannot choose between the values of Life and Liberty in the abstract - as much as both sides have tried to do so, we can only compare the impact upon each of them in the particular as it relates to abortion.
As to the Liberty of the pregnant woman: If required to see the pregnancy to term against her will, her liberty—her control of and power over her own being— is absolutely violated - for nine months. (Assuming of course that the pregnancy is not a threat to her life or ongoing health.)
As to the Life of the baby: If aborted, it's right life is absolutely violated.. forever.
If Liberty and Life are equal values, either the degree to which or the duration of which, each is violated can be the only determination for choosing between them on a case by case basis.
Forever trumps nine months.
Logically, Mama must lose.
I don't necessarily love the conclusion, but there it is.
Logically, Mama must lose.
I don't necessarily love the conclusion, but there it is.
And I'm prepared to live with it.
Well, no. I'm past menopause. I don't HAVE to live with it. Just like a man, I get to preach a behavior and demand a sacrifice I'll never have to make.
And that makes me very uncomfortable.
The Gunslinger
You'll notice that God never personally appears in this argument. He's there though...he gave me the brain I use to think all this shit up.
Besides we need an argument that doesn't depend on "authority" but on logic. If you're going to try to persuade a pro-choicer, honestly, the God argument isn't going to get you very far.
I thought we might end up here from the LLP thread, and I will offer a somewhat different take though I see nothing faulty in the logic you used to reach your conclusion.
ReplyDeleteI believe you have every right to defend your life, liberty and property against unlawful taking by whatever means necessary. The killing of a burglar, mugger, rapist, carjacker or whatever would not trouble me in the least. Their criminal intent to violate your life, liberty or property was their choice.
But a baby? Babies don't force their way into momma's life (with one exception) with the intent of depriving them of their liberty. Wasn't it mom exercising a different liberty that brought the baby about? With liberty comes responsibility and perhaps some consequences.
My particular dilemma concerns cases of rape. I see the baby and mother both as victims of a criminal act. I still tilt toward the baby's life but I can't give you a purely logical argument why.
While I personally find abortion inexcusable, I believe RvW should stand. Were abortion to be outlawed, desperate women and girls would once again find themselves legs up on a kitchen table in some back alley hovel at the mercy of a friend of somebody who knows somebody, crudely attempting to relieve them of their indiscretion.
ReplyDeleteHowever I would add this addendum to the courts ruling. You get a pass on the first one. The second time that you seek an abortion your tubes are tied. Anyone not responsible enough to practice safe sex is nowhere near responsible enough to be a parent. I know the guys are getting a walk on this, but guys don't get pregnant.
Gee, Gunslinger, you like the easy, non-controversial topics, don't you? :D
ReplyDeleteI guess I go back to the principal that no one has the right to another's life. A pregnant woman can no more deprive her unborn child of life than she could deprive any other citizen. I'm with trublotta again, "Babies don't force their way into momma's life (with one exception) with the intent of depriving them of their liberty. Wasn't it mom exercising a different liberty that brought the baby about? With liberty comes responsibility and perhaps some consequences."
The thing that gets me is not the scenario that alphadog speaks of (and I have read some doctors who swear up and down that was never a big problem). It's how poorly unwanted children can do in life; how often they turn into psychopaths or sociopaths (look at our resident, as you call him; he was abandoned several times by his parents. Is he well-balanced? Or a malignant narcissist?)
As soon as you start saying that abortion should be legal up to some number of weeks of pregnancy, where the child can develop outside the womb, then you move to a standard of life defined by the current technology. There are many children alive today that would not have survived their premature birth even a half century ago. As technology develops, I think you push the age of survival virtually back to the moment of conception, so you have to face that question sooner or later. It seems that the logical conclusion is that an embryo is a human life as soon as the egg is fertilized.
Gunslinger said "I agree with the position of Pro-Choice people that the right to have an abortion is about a woman's liberty—about having control over her own body. If liberty's not about that, it has no meaning.
ReplyDeleteTherefore LIBERTY is at stake here.
I also agree with the position of the Pro-Life people that the right to not be aborted is about the baby's right to LIFE.
Therefore LIFE is at stake here.
So, we have two of our fundamental values in conflict: LIFE vs LIBERTY. How is it to be resolved?"
Yikes and wo. Hmmm. Well, I think when it appears that two or more fundamental values seem to be in conflict, we need to reexamine whether they are truly in conflict, or are we incorrectly placing them in a position where conflict is artificially created?
First, is it that liberty and life coming into conflict, or is it that I am trying to have my cake and eat it too by inserting the Law... where it doesn't apply? What is the Law for? A couple points,
1 - The Law governs the interactions between individuals within the boundaries of society.
2 - Liberty means having at the very least, control over your own thoughts, body, actions and words.
Is there really a conflict there? There is a maxim that if a law is unenforceable, it is not properly a law. One place the law cannot be enforced is beyond it's reach, and that's generally where boundaries mark the jurisdiction of the law; at the edges of it's geographical reach, and at a point where your actions begin to involve someone else - and barring instances of islambie anal bombers, the long arm of the law doesn't reach within your your skin.
When we try to extend the reach of the law beyond where it can or should reach, we pervert it and artificially cause collisions of values, where there should be none.
Abortion, IMHO, is not a legal issue... it occurs within the person of the mother - it is outside the law - until the instant a split millimeter sliver of the fetus's skin exits the birth canal, at which point it becomes, in the eyes of the law, visible and legally a baby.
Does that mean that abortion is ok? That depends on how you ask the question - legally, or morally? Legally, as long as a living baby is not in any way out of the mother and in society, I think it is beyond it's jurisdiction, and properly it should have no opinion in the matter. The Law is for arbitrating matters of potentially common knowledge concerning matters that are out here in the world for all to see and measure and judge.
The baby or fetus in question is not out here in the world for all to examine and measure and judge upon. We could of course seize the mothers body to take some measurements of its body, but that doesn't change the fact that it has not yet entered into the world of society, is outside the province of the law and it remains in the province of inner moral judgment alone.
Is it morally ok? I will say that it is probably THE most significant moral question any person, any woman, is ever likely to face. A baby in the womb, doesn't yet fall under its sway. It is a part of, and a possession of the Mother, and she alone has the awesome responsibility and right of decision in the matter. And ultimately, the question of morality is hers alone to judge, in the context of her own life.
(BTW Roe v Wade is one of the three worst judicial opinions ever. It is only because previous decisions had undermined the concept of Property Rights, that the only recourse the 'judge' had, was to squeeze that convoluted mass out his ass and into 'law')
However... I do have a sense of the situation, as this question hits close to home & I don't feel all that comfortable arguing about it.... My Wife & I had planned to work for at least 2 years after getting married before having kids, God had a little snicker at our plans, and we were faced with the reality of having just moved to a state where we knew NOBODY, we had no money, and my resume consisted of 10 years of undocumented work as a bassist in a band.
ReplyDeleteNeither of us, however, could get past the idea that IT was going to be a person. We couldn't perform the mental trick of seeing it as just protoplasm that had no future. We also knew that we'd both, forever onwards, on seeing a child of the right age - wonder what if... and other thoughts as well. There was no way we could seriously consider getting an abortion. And now, 22 years later, that little bit of protoplasm could easily body slam me for fun (and I can't wait for him to get out of boot camp so he can give it a try).
With our daughter 11 years later, some @#$!&*# quack-assed Hospital administrator-had-been-'doctor' had read a paper on some latest buss theories about detecting birth defects from the first sonogram... and so he'd been poking his nose into all the sonograms, pushing the nurses & tech's out of the way to look for his buzz measurement... and with our boys out in the hall, and my wife & I looking at this squirming bundle of joy to be displayed on the screen ME:"Is that her head?", NURSE:"um, no, I believe that's her foot", ME:"Ah", and this @#$! looks at the measurements, butts in, pushes the nurse aside and blurts out that our baby is going to be a downs syndrome child and we should consider having an abortion.
Shattered, horrified, our two little boys are there with us... letters & words don't do it. The same discussion played out, and this time with reluctance, the same decision, no - can't do it. Well it turned out that the @#$!&*# quack-assed [insert your foulest curse here] was also an idiot and a fool, and was proven wrong shortly afterwards. And we got his butt canned & driven out of the hospital and state. She was born and is just fine.
But that thought... we couldn't do it. But that thought, those decisions, that struggle over choosing what you think is morally right - if someone had tried to wave a statute in our faces and say we had to do, or not do the 'procedure' - I may not have been capable of ok'ing an abortion, but I suspect that at that point murder would be just A-OK by me.
I can't see the protoplasm separate from what it develops into, every instinct shrieks out that it is wrong... but it also is no damn place for the Gov't to be involved in. The law, as an instrument of governmental power, needs to be unambiguous, clear and well defined; its purpose is for preserving the rights of Individuals - independent, self-contained, Individuals, as they play out in societal interactions. It just seems to me that a moral decision of such magnitude, forced & determined for you, would be a double crime, and destroy the Morality all around.
I'm familiar with a case where a pregnant woman lost her baby as the result of an automobile accident involving a drunken driver. I was a volunteer EMT at the time and in the ER when she was admitted. Several days later, the drunk driver was charged with manslaughter, and later convicted. Manslaughter is a crime against a person, not protoplasm. That was how the state of New Jersey saw things. That was in 1974 if I recall. I have heard of many similar cases since then.
ReplyDeleteThere is an irony in these cases where the accidental killing of a wanted baby is a crime but the deliberate killing of an unwanted one is not. If that isn't a duplicitous application of morality, than what is? Isn't that treating a baby as property, disposable at the whim of the mother?
Abortion is a medical procedure that can't be performed until there is knowledge that a baby is present in the mother's body. That baby is certainly within reach of the medical instruments that will end its life and the medical professional that will do it. Hence, the law is enforceable. Bar the procedure.
With CAT scans, sonograms, and changes in mom's physical appearance, that baby is present for all to see, measure and judge. It is in the world. Just because it can't walk, talk and shake your hand doesn't mean it isn't a person. Hell, I know some older folks that can't do that.
Children, the elderly and infirm are individuals, but they may not be independent and they may not even be self-contained or able to interact in society. Is their right to life forfeit? I think not.
Maybe my philosophy is too simple, but you don't allow innocent children to be murdered.
Trubolotta said "Abortion is a medical procedure that can't be performed until there is knowledge that a baby is present in the mother's body. That baby is certainly within reach of the medical instruments that will end its life and the medical professional that will do it. Hence, the law is enforceable. Bar the procedure."
ReplyDeleteThere is knowledge available to the Mother, and to anyone with eyes after a certain amount of time, but it isn't legal actionable knowledge - in most cases being pregnant doesn't involve a crime - it is personal, private information, which the state has no business involving itself in.
The medical instruments and doctor are invited within her body, and what happens there under those conditions, is no more the interest of the state than is whether or not you decide to have a tooth pulled and capped.
I know. I don't make that equivalence.. but I do maintain that the Law has no business in it. Every effort to extend the reach of the law to where it doesn't belong, ends in disaster. We cannot use the law to enforce choices we don't like, but are still legitimate for someone to make.
I'm not saying abortion is right - everything in me says it is not - but I am saying that govt involvement in it is wrong.
There are many, many things which are clearly immoral, that are not, and should not be illegal. Adultery comes to mind. Wasting away your life on alcohol and/or drugs do as well. Attempting to have govt mandate the better and more moral choice and behavior, is not only inappropriate and wrong, but morally wrong as well - and as such it leads to the corruption of people, law, govt, and the resulting mayhem which follows. Immorality cannot be remedied by more immorality.
There are something's which power can't resolve or put right - the fight must be taken to where it can be fought, to the beliefs of the Mother. If you really want to fight abortion, inform, educate, proselytize, that is the only way to influence such an awful choice.
Because something is wrong and immoral does not mean the law should have a say in the matter.
You can't legislate a moral people into existence, but we sure do legislate a moral code of conduct. Laws against murder, theft and bearing false witness are an unmistakable attempt to provide punishment for immoral behavior.
ReplyDeleteAdultery was illegal in many states at one time, and in many it was the only legitimate grounds for divorce. It didn't prevent adultery but it certainly asserted societies view of the importance of the marriage contract and protection of the family unit.
There were far more unwanted children when abortions were banned than today. There were far more "unhappy" marriages when adultery was the only grounds for divorce. Getting rid of those "moral" laws has sure made us a better society, not!
I agree you have every right to ruin your life, but what right do you have to drag others down with you, or murder them because they are an inconvenience?
It seems the only real dispute we have is when the life of an unborn child is entitled to the proction of the state. You were very explicit with your criteria. I'm very explicit with mine.
"Because something is wrong and immoral does not mean the law should have a say in the matter." - Van
I agree with that but the law has much to say about what is wrong and immoral and we simply dispute whether this is one of those times. Banning abortion is enforceable, moral and in the interest of societal self-preseravtion.
Just one rhetorical flourish if I may: what kind of sick society protects eagle eggs but not its unborn children?
...or bans DDT for the sake of birds, but results in the deaths of MILLIONS of people from malaria?
ReplyDeleteThe Left has long since lost any particular respect for humans. But then again, considering who they are, and what they must know about themselves, that being all they have to judge and then project onto mankind in general, it's no wonder they hate us.
Trubolotta said " but we sure do legislate a moral code of conduct. Laws against murder, theft and bearing false witness are an unmistakable attempt to provide punishment for immoral behavior."
ReplyDeleteYes, laws against behavior involving the actions engaged in between individuals within society. That's the difference.
"There were far more unwanted children when abortions were banned than today. There were far more "unhappy" marriages when adultery was the only grounds for divorce. Getting rid of those "moral" laws has sure made us a better society, not!"
No argument and much sympathy.
"It seems the only real dispute we have is when the life of an unborn child is entitled to the protection of the state"
With a painfully, sickening feeling, I answer... yes. I don't have the convenient excuse of saying 'it's just protoplasm!'... it's not... it's a living human from the start... but until it enters into society, it is under the control, protection and ... 'jurisdiction' of the Mother, not the state, and the path to big brother goes through allowing the state to take control of things it shouldn't be involved in, but which we so fervently wish it would.
"Banning abortion is enforceable, moral and in the interest of societal self-preseravtion."
No, I don't think it is enforceable or in the interest of societal self-preservation... and I do believe that, especially given the online world of today, would lead to not only more of it than we see today, but even more of an active backlash against our culture than we are experiencing today.
"Just one rhetorical flourish if I may: what kind of sick society protects eagle eggs but not its unborn children?"
Exactly so. And IMHO That is where we need to attack the abortion mentality at... the philosophy which makes it not only possible, but a viable business model and even boastful badge of agreement - that is indescribably sick, and the only way to truly end it, is by educating it out of existence - and you know I don't mean through bubble tests and new curriculum.
It will require again proclaiming that reality is knowable, that we can know it, and that in our consciousness of that knowledge, many things are implied, among them that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... and that is of supreme value. The focus of Education needs to contain the message that your behavior is of supreme moral importance... that casually behaving in such a way that shows little or no respect for your life, your relationships or the lives of others and even potentially creating human life you may not 'feel' like dealing with... is... not only folly, but immoral... and sick and no other way to put it, sinful.
That is the only way out - IMHO, no matter how well intentioned, all other paths will in the end only serve the ends of death and destruction to the very things they intend to save.
Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteThrough the recent years we have become an irresponsible cesspool of humanity. Via money, litigation, social programs or what have you, people have been able to deal themselves out of the bad consequences which should have been the result of bad actions/decisions.
I can't give you a starting point for this decline, but I will say that Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" exacerbated the problem.
I would contend that abortion is an answer to irresponsible behavior that has been legitimized by society. Until we can once again become responsible individuals, the abortion issue, along with healthcare, social security, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, 2A constrictions, etc, et al, ad infinitum will continue to be the province of the government.
While I consider myself a libertarian ideologically, realistically I accept that it doesn't stand a snowballs chance. American people as a whole are not independent enough to accept the responsibility that is a requisite of true freedom.
When two deeply held beliefs are in conflict, you are in an ethical dilema. It's a three part solution to ending an ethical dilema.
ReplyDeleteWhen you are in an ethical dilema, analyze the pros and cons of each choice, then CHOOSE the one that best fits the one you serve. If you serve the Army, God or Yourself, it's the same. Then live with the result and move on.
Analyze, choose, live with. I think you've done a very good job with them.
THIS is why Gunny's site is my favorite (I don't follow many,since time is short and quality rules)...Great responses/dialogue! "Van",that personal story hit a nerve,believe me.
ReplyDelete"Because something is wrong and immoral does not mean the law should have a say in the matter." -Van
ReplyDeleteMy argument was never about the law, but how I tried to reconcile two values in conflict.
Regarding government involvement, I want the gummint out of EVERYTHING except those things enumerated in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
So, that part's simple for me.
All I can say is that we're lucky slavery is outlawed, or the gummint would regulate pregancies too...under their illegally expanded interpretation of the Commerce Clause
Ooh... hookers would be hosed!
ReplyDelete(I am sooo sorry...
... I just
... couldn't
... resist)
"My argument was never about the law, but how I tried to reconcile two values in conflict."
ReplyDeleteAhhh... and that'd depend on the context and the woman involved. More an issue of hierarchy of values, I'd think, rather than a conflict of them... but again, that'd be their call.
The woman involved was ME. I was only working out my own view of the issue. Not that of anyone else, or a universal hierarchy of values.
ReplyDeleteAnd the context we me dealing with two of MY values in conflict, and working out how one, in the particular case of abortion, trumps the other.
Sorry if I gave the impression that it was anything else.
Wow...back to "wow"...all other comment from males is pedantry.
ReplyDeletetjones...I didn't mean ME dealing with HAVING or DECIDING about having an abortion...just me thinking about the issue.
ReplyDeleteThe "Wow" makes me think you misunderstood.
Gunslinger said " I don't HAVE to live with it. Just like a man, I get to preach a behavior and demand a sacrifice I'll never have to make.
ReplyDeleteAnd that makes me very uncomfortable."
Tell me about it... very uncomfortable. I am fascinated by the structure of ideas and Truth, and the profound importance of seeing their interplay clearly, and the potentially devastating consequences of getting it wrong. When I'm finding my way through these questions, I'm looking at them as real, consequential, life altering issues, and so I hate the whiff of "academic" questions.
This question is as important and wrenching as it gets... I've faced the question before with my wife... with her... but she was the one, the only one, who could make it, and who would truly have to live with it. A philosophical question is as close as I'll ever get to considering the issue, and as far as ever having a practical say it would be only as a question of Law that I could ever get near asking and answering it - and my answer there is - it's not for the Law to ask it.
In reality, from the point of view of the person within the skin, for me as a man the question ultimately is academic - and that makes me very uncomfortable.
And of course reality listens to my saying that, rolls its eyes, and continues on with serving up the next sunrise.
It is the nature of humans to consider things in the abstract, "academically" if you like. It is what separates us from the animals.
ReplyDeleteAnd Liberals.
And stand us higher than angels.
If we always acted on how it felt, "within the skin", we'd be cows or cats.
If victims determined punishments for criminals instead of juries, because they "know how it feels to be victimized" we'd have savage "justice".
No...there is nothing wrong with reason in the face of emotion or "gnosis".
It is only through it that we an arrive right answers based on right questions and clear sight.
"Reality" for us is fang and claw...AND disembodied reason. That's what makes it so difficult and so exhilarating!
And, no matter what you've heard, it proves that we are far beyond, not below, those supposedly pure spirit beings (whoever they might be in your cosmos)who don't have to deal with the conflicts, and the messy "reality" of dual pulls of yearning & instinct vs morality & restraint.
Gunslinger said "If we always acted on how it felt, "within the skin", we'd be cows or cats.
ReplyDeleteIf victims determined punishments for criminals instead of juries, because they "know how it feels to be victimized" we'd have savage "justice"."
Ooh... youch! Hate it when I drivel like that... good points... 2:00 a.m. sloppiness on my part.
"And, no matter what you've heard, it proves that we are far beyond, not below, those supposedly pure spirit beings (whoever they might be in your cosmos)who don't have to deal with the conflicts, and the messy "reality" of dual pulls of yearning & instinct vs morality & restraint."
Hmm... not sure what that is though... "we are far beyond, not below, those supposedly pure spirit beings"? Have I made mention of such things? I've got some oddball thoughts, but that's not one of them.
Okay...my late night drivel. It's an issue I have, prompted by all those "spiritual" paths that seem to think "pure spirit beings" are, by definition, superior to those clothed in matter.
ReplyDeleteOne thought led to another...
Gunslinger said "pure spirit beings" are, by definition, superior to those clothed in matter."
ReplyDeleteHeh... nope, no new ageyisms served here, the only thing I think of pure spirits as being, is 151 proof Everclear, and the little I recall of that, the only superior thing it led to was a black out.
;-)
However...(oh man... I almost got away with a short comment. sigh.) I'm not a deterministic materialist, I don't deny the spirit - simple genetic mechanics won't account for Free Will - but as far as I know it could be a biologically similar to an electro-magnetic field generated between iron and magnets, and in a similar way is generated by the development of the body, and ends with the body, but the only spirit I know of is inseparable from the rest of me.
I'll admit to wondering and suspecting a few things, but I don't separate them from reality, and I don't exalt suspicions.
I've come to realize that art, myth and poetics have an ability, inherent in them because of the way our minds develop a near infinite number of associations and integrations, to contain, and reveal more actual information and truth about ourselves and the world than we could ever plumb, but again, no body, no mind, no spirit.
Where I used to poo-poo religions, once I got beyond the 'talking snake' story level of looking at them, I came to see that they can tell us far more about ourselves and the world, not because of 'supernatural' influences, but precisely because of very natural implications to them. To take a non Christian example, there's more involved in one simple scene from the Odyssey, such as when Odysseus is trapped in the cave by the Cyclops, than could be fully mined in a wall full of volumes - and most religious people I know are as ignorant of that as those who claim we're mere walking cellular pinball's, incapable making choices, free will being a mere illusion and whose every action and 'thought' is determined by our environment.
I do think the universe is One, continuous, interconnected, integrated whole, and because of that, what is true of one particle within one atomic definition, is as vitally integrated into, and True, on the other side of the universe, as it is in the keyboard I'm typing on, same with 2+2=4, and because our natures as human beings derived from those same facts, they have the very same claim to Truth as does Dumbledore telling Harry Potter that "The time is coming when we must all choose between what is Right, and what is easy..." - none of it could be altered without the entire structure disintegrating.
None of that involves 'pure spirit' (a very Kantian notion, and I'm about as anti-kant as it gets), but pure reality.
Reality exists,
Everything exists as what it is, and not something else at the same time,
Our consciousness is that which is able to identify what exists, and in that process of identification we become aware of reality and ourselves.
And everything else follows from that, in the here and now.
Does something happen after death? I've no idea, and long ago ceased to be troubled by it. If all ends on death, if the bio-electromagnetic mechanism stops and the spirit field dissipates - oh well, my wishing it otherwise will have zero affect on it. If somehow the field is picked up and continues on like a spark transformed into a radio wave - cool - but I've no way of knowing it, and so suspect that if it does, it's irrelevant to our living our lives here and now. And even in that case, it would be as natural, though perhaps unknowable to us, as were radio waves to Aristotle.
And still fully a part of real reality - no foo-foo pure spirit nonsense in sight.