Political orphans?
Former Commonweal columnist, Liz McCloskey, now a doctoral candidate at Catholic University, and her husband contributed a column on politics and abortion to the op-ed page of Tuesday’s Washington Post. How much impact it will have on either party is an open question, but to judge from the comments submitted to the Post’s website, one can doubt that it has succeeded in elevating the quality and tone of the conversation.
Political Orphans In 2008
Is There Space for Our Pro-Life Ethic?
By Liz McCloskey and Peter Leibold
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
In this political season, with all the talk about the role of faith in public life, we as a Catholic couple feel very much at home in the conversation and yet still homeless with respect to a perfectly compatible political party or candidate.
When we were born in the early 1960s, it was possible to be both a Democrat and a Catholic without any agonizing pangs of conscience. John F. Kennedy was president; John Courtney Murray was a public theologian; Pope John XXIII was opening a window to the world at the Second Vatican Council. But as we came of age politically, we felt orphaned by the Democratic Party, whose pro-life positions on war, poverty and the environment did not extend to the life of the most weak and vulnerable, those not yet born.
While the moderate wing of the Republican Party provided us a foster home when we worked on the Senate staff of John C. Danforth (R-Mo.), with the likes of former senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-Ore.) and others, the Grand Old Party’s move to the right, including its hardening, dominant positions on the Iraq war, access to guns and the death penalty, among other issues, have made it an inhospitable place for us to dwell permanently.
Read the rest here.
This letter is clever, cute and self righteous. As all of you know I find continual consternation in the fact that this one issue contains 90% of the energy of a certain type of Catholic. That fact cannot be ignored.
Yet a superficial analysis shows us that there are serious problems with the structure of the church. Can we get a few blogs on that subject. Our nomenclature is replete with the substance of pagan Rome. Yet we continually tout it as quasi-divine. The financial delinquency of bishops and their failure to place children over hierarchy has still not been fixed. Unless you listen to those who are still stonewalling.
Can we get some courageous blogs offering to examine the structure of the church. Or do we just continue in mediocrity?
I weary of Catholic Democrats waxing nostalgic for the Democratic party of their youth.
Abortion wasn’t on the radar when Kennedy was prez, and Pope John ushered in an era that encouraged Catholics to talk positively about their faith to others. The Catholics in my neighborhood as a kid were transformed by Vat 2, inviting us to Mass (“You can understand it now, Jeanie Hughes!”), and generally feeling that they had more in common with other Christians.
Now abortion is legal, and we’ve had two popes whose reigns have been marked by a deep suspicion of–even hostility to–change and modernity.
At the same time, the Democratic party has been trying to recover from Ronald Reagan’s wildly (and, to me, puzzlingly) popular presidency. Reagan’s presidency was a reaction against some of the failed and expensive programs LBJ ushered in under the Great Society. And while many of those programs needed correction, Democrats have stupidly accepted the whole “tax and spend liberal” moniker, and have largely abandoned the working class, particularly working class Catholics, whose pragmatism might have kept them more grounded morally and socially.
That said, I don’t think the Democratic party will ever take up the kind of absolutist pro-life planks that would satisfy some Catholics. Dems are too afraid of losing the base they’ve got left, even if they crafted a more neutral plank on abortion.
I realize I’m painting with a very broad brush here.
But I think the best that can happen is that more pro-life Democrats will run–it’s the only way a Democrat in my district can get elected to the state house–and that the Democrats will again become that bigger tent, which will become more respectful of those who oppose abortions.
Meantime, I would be willing to bet that if you’re a registered Democrat, the party is calling you about once a week. They’re calling me at that level, and I live in Michigan in Nowheresville. I give them an earful about the conditions under which I’m willing to donate. I send money only to candidates, not to the party anymore. I go to meet-the-candidates chili suppers and complain. I write letters. I write e-mails.
Those who want the Democratic party to return to its roots supporting the underdog and creating a level playing field for workers have a fight on their hands, to be sure. Whether Catholics who have been Democrats are willing to take on that fight and accept some compromises on issues on which the Church teaches no compromise, is still up in the air.
The big problem with the Catholic Church in the United States regarding the abortion debate is that it seems to be the one and only one situation in which the Church has a position about the morality of voting. It’s even argued here on dotCommonweal that abortion is “different,” which justifies the fact that voters and legislators are lectured on this issue and no other. On all the other issues–torture, war, death penalty, minimum wage, medical care for the poor–there is room for disagreement, but not on the Church’s stand on abortion. Actually, it is not even the Church’s stand on abortion. It is the Church’s stand on what kind of laws there must be regarding abortion.
There is some evidence to suggest that outlawing abortion would not decrease the number of abortions, so those who argue against voting pro-choice have to argue that a pro-choice vote is immoral in principle, irrespective of the consequences. And I have even seen it argued that if the alternatives were (a) pro-choice policies that would make abortion “safe, legal, and rare” versus (b) anti-choice policies that would make abortion illegal and not rare, alternative b would be preferable, since what is important is taking a stand, not controlling the outcome.
I waver between two positions. One is that the Church has not really made a case about the morality of voting pro-choice. (That is, it has taken a firm position, but it has not made case based on a theory of the morality of voting.) The other position I sometimes wonder about is whether Catholics have become so assimilated into society and that Catholic principles have been so watered down, that it’s telling that there are not many issues on which the Church makes demands of legislators and voters (and five Catholic justice on the supreme court). Is being a true committed Catholic (or Christian) all that compatible with living a typical life in American society? Or do the Amish have the right idea?
Can someone please explain to me why the Democratic Party positions on war, poverty and the environment are “pro-life”?
The idea that on most issues there is a “Catholic” policy position is spurious. There is a Catholic teaching on how we should treat the poor, but that does not ipso facto translate into a series of economic policies. Indeed, one can make a good argument that many of the so-called “pro-life” liberal econimic policies serve to hurt the poor, along with everyone else, in the long run. Our faith teaches us to be good stewards of the environment, but that doesn’t mean I am a bad Catholic if I think Kyoto was bad policy.
As for the Democrats “pro-life” war position, I have only seen that they oppose unpopular wars, or wars that you might lose. I remember sitting in a briefing room in Italy seeing gun camera film of a bus full of civilians disappearing when we blew up a bridge over the Danube in Belgrade – some 200 miles from the actual ground fighting in Kosovo – in 1999. What I don’t remember is a peep of opposition from “pro-life” Democrats.
David,
If laws against abortion don’t have an effect, why did the rate of abortion in the US (including illegal and legal) more than double in less than 5 years after Roe?
Sean,
That’s actually a very good question, which I don’t have an answer for, and don’t have time to look into now. I think the pertinent question now would be, would a ban at this stage lower the abortion rate, and how much?
Another interesting question is why are abortion rates at a 30-year low in the absence of restrictive laws?
Regarding such issues as war and torture, I wasn’t discussing Democratic positions. I was discussing Church positions on how one may vote. If there are two pro-life candidates, but one supports torturing “enemy combatants” and the other opposes it, is a Catholic obligated to vote for the one opposing torture? Or is torture (or divorce, or contraception, or in vitro fertilization, or adultery), despite the Church’s unequivocal condemnation of it, not important enough to determine a Catholic’s vote?
1)see my last comments on Majerus below.
2) Here in New Mexico, on the Roe vs. Wade day, folks from both sides gathered to speak out and the gendarmes of Santa Fe had to be called in when the pushing and shoving started.
Meanwhile, Archbishop Sheehan was lecturing the legislature on Gov. richardson’s initiative to promote embryonic stem cell research at UNM. The initiative won;t pas probably, but Richardson’s domestic partnership initiative has a chance as does an anti-constituoional amendment babnnin gabortion bill.
I think that often enough “pro-life” supporters can be their own worst enemies in the political sphere,
But I realize from reading here that patient dialogue and good political persusaion, often behind closed doors, doesn;t hav emuch of a chance.
Saan asks: Can someone please explain to me why the Democratic Party positions on war, poverty and the environment are “pro-life”?
Jean says: Yes, I could, but that’s not what you really want, is it? You want somebody to get all defensive about the Democratic party and provide specifics so you can bash them down some more. We’ve been there, done that, Sean. No thanks.
David,
Please, name one candidate that fits your description. Torture, is by definition, both legal and common sense, a function of facts and severity. Slapping a person is not torture, cutting off a limb is. In between there are many, many different facts and circumstances. Because a candidate for President refuses in advance to agree to others’ specific definition of what those facts and circumstances are doesn’t mean he is “for torture.” You, and anyone else are welcome to take the position that as a matter of conscience formed by the Catholic faith that that candidate’s position is not appropriate, but it is not fair to say it violates, per se, a teaching of the Church.
The same is true for most issues in the public square. It just isn’t the case for abortion.
For the sake of argument, imagine that I could devise a set of laws and programs under which rape or slavery were legally permitted, but that as a result there would be fewer rapes or less slavery. What would you say? To my mind, that is exactly what the “legal, safe, but rare” position is. Yes, yes, I agree that abortion is a moral abomination and gravely sinful, but it’s OK for me to make it easy because I’m for more funding for AFDC. I’m sorry – I just don’t get it.
David,
You ask, “Another interesting question is why are abortion rates at a 30-year low in the absence of restrictive laws?”
Perhaps it is beacuse millions of the people who would have become pregnant were never born.
Jean,
My point is that calling them “pro-life” is specious. Supporting a minimum wage law is not “pro-life.” Supporting an increase in the food stamp program is not “pro-life.” Increasing air emission standards is not “pro-life.”
When people use the term this way, it is a means to avoid discussing what should be discussed which is the efficacy and impact of policies. It infuses them with a moral dimension that does nothing but assuage the consciences of some and prevent real debate. If I oppose an increase in food stamp spending, I am not wrong as a matter of policy, I am immoral.
“Another interesting question is why are abortion rates at a 30-year low in the absence of restrictive laws?”
Abortion methods are changing rapidly. Now a woman can go to her family doctor and receive the French abortion pill RU some number and complete the process at home, returning for a checkup, and no records need be kept. Also the morning after pill has an effect on the number of abortions. According to what I have read, we don’t really know accurately if the number of abortions have increased or decreased, and we will know with less certainty in the future when surgical abortions may become the exception.
Catechism, paragraph #2298, “In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.”
I hereby declare my candidacy. I’ve got to go to the drycleaners and get my hair done right away, so please start the fundraising while I’m gone.
Try the DNC first and ask them how necessary a NARAL endorsement is.
My theme song will be by the B-52s. Maybe Love Shack for the beat and because it contains the word “Chrysler.” http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vkMy4YWJb7Y
Sean, I hope you see the irony in a conservative being offended by this line of argument:
“My point is that calling them “pro-life” is specious. Supporting a minimum wage law is not “pro-life.” Supporting an increase in the food stamp program is not “pro-life.” Increasing air emission standards is not “pro-life.”
When people use the term this way, it is a means to avoid discussing what should be discussed which is the efficacy and impact of policies. It infuses them with a moral dimension that does nothing but assuage the consciences of some and prevent real debate. If I oppose an increase in food stamp spending, I am not wrong as a matter of policy, I am immoral.”
Kathy,
You’re not even going to write the lyrics to your own theme song?
Sorry Chris, I am obtuse, you have to explain it to me.
Yes, Bill. That is what the Catechism says, and I accept and agree with it. What is your point?
Sean,
Regarding torture and the other issues I mentioned, I am not talking about the presidential candidates. I am talking about how the Church expects voters and legislators to vote. Regarding torture, there was the McCain Anti-torture Amendment which passed by a vote of 90 to 9 in the senate. Has anyone suggested the 9 senators who voted against it should be denied communion (if they are Catholic)?
I am not sure you were thinking when you said that perhaps the abortion rate was the lowest in 30 years “because millions of the people who would have become pregnant were never born.” We are talking about the rate, not the absolute number. But if somehow what you suggest were true, it could be viewed as a beneficial effect of abortion–that an abortion today prevents unwanted pregnancies and abortions in future generations. Some have argued that the crime rate has decreased because of abortion. (This would not, of course, justify abortion in your view or the Church’s view.)
I would almost certainly be opposed to law decriminalizing rape, for example, even if it somehow resulted in fewer rapes, since it would leave rape victims, whose basic human rights had been violated, with no legal recourse. However there are a number of areas where I think decriminalizing behavior that most do not approve of should be seriously considered. I think the country as a whole might be better off if most illegal drugs were legalized, taxed, and controlled. I don’t know what the empirical evidence is, but I have a feeling society is better off if prostitution is decriminalized and regulated by the state. I believe that at least in some places where pornography has been fully legalized, the sale of pornography has declined. Many legal approaches to “victimless crimes” might be rethought, in my opinion. Of course, where you and I will disagree is that I think abortion may be a victimless crime. (That is the way I lean at the moment, although I am not prepared to carve a position in stone.)
It seems to me all the “wiggle room” you speak of in terms of voting on other issues would apply to voting on abortion as well if the Church did not, on this one issue almost alone, focus on voting rather than on abortion. So far as I know, the Church unequivocally opposes torture and any other number of things, but limits itself to making statements about those issues rather than about voting on those issues and prescribing what laws should be on those issues. The Vatican, or the American Bishops, could insist that the United States have laws against torture, or have laws clearly defining what constitutes an unacceptable poverty level, and could threaten to deny communion to anyone who voted against such law. But it is only in the case of abortion (and perhaps to a lesser extent stem-cell research and same-sex marriage) that the Church focuses not on the issue, but on what the law ought to be
In sum, I am arguing that the Church could be specific about many issues besides abortion and could make quite specific guidelines about what the law ought to be and how voters and legislators should vote. (And you probably would not like a lot of what the Church said.) But its only regarding abortion (and perhaps a few limited other issues) that the Church actually declares not what is right and wrong, or what goals society should strive for, but instead what the law should be. And it strikes me there is something wrong about that. The “something wrong” may be that the Church should not be declaring what the law ought to be on abortion, or it may be that the Church ought to be more active in declaring what the law ought to be in other areas. But for the focus to be so limited strikes me as strange.
Ah, David, you tempt me on a busy day.
I can only sing the blues. To the tune of I Shot the Sheriff
I needed NARAL to get in with the DNC
I needed NARAL to fund the Great Society
But they said their money is no good
If I don’t support Planned Parenthood
And so I turned them down.
I needed NARAL so I could give the poor a voice
I needed NARAL but they asked me if I am pro-choice
How can I take money from the dead
Take an oath if my own hands are red
And so I turned them down.
I needed NARAL a lot more than they needed me.
I needed NARAL for my Democrat candidacy
So the next four years will be the same
And the DNC’s the one to blame
The country’s run aground.
I have no idea how this song ends.
Sean, as ever I salute the elegance of your solution to all our problems:
It’s fine for the government to require that everyone live up to your moral standards, but it is immoral for the government to spend any money helping people because it creates a legacy of dependence.
Bravo! We can all be paragons of moral rectitude and never have to spend a dime.
Kathy’s been standing in the dry cleaning fumes too long, I fear. Those first two lines don’t quite scan.
Scan nothing. It’s a song, you gotta go wid it.
I could use your help, though. What rhymes with “ethanol?”
Congressional
Down the hall
Berlin Wall
Big and tall
No aerosole
After all
Beth is tall
Frans de Waal
Bono’s ball
On the Mall
Alter call
Make the call
See ya’ all
David,
You say, “I would almost certainly be opposed to law decriminalizing rape, for example, even if it somehow resulted in fewer rapes, since it would leave rape victims, whose basic human rights had been violated, with no legal recourse.”
EXACTLY!!!!
I oppose so-called abortion rights for exactly the same reason! There is no more basic a human right than the right to life. To even entertain the “safe, legal, and rare” line or argument, you must, absolutely must, reject the humanity of the unborn.
Jean,
You say, “It’s fine for the government to require that everyone live up to your moral standards, but it is immoral for the government to spend any money helping people because it creates a legacy of dependence.”
First, this has nothing to do with living up to my moral standards. And I wouldn’t ask the government to require anyone to live up to, or down to as the case may be, my standards. I would not want to see abortion outlawed because of the moral rectitude of any person – This is about protecting innocent life.
Second, I never said social welfare spending is immoral. Please show me where I did if I did. I say it may be poor policy and even foolish and counterproductive in some (not all) circumstances. My objection to the piece and the use of the term “pro-life” in relation to virtually any policy issue is that those that do implicitly or even explicitly make the claim that those who oppose their position are not just wrong, but bad or immoral people. The collateral effect being, you need not address arguments if they are put forward by bad people.
Sean: Two questions. 1) What do you make of the distinction between human life and a human person? I ask because some will argue that at least for a while, the unborn is the former, but not the latter, and only the latter, they then argue, can have rights.
2) Jean’s argument would work better, would it not, if a supressed premise were made explicit; namely, assuming that such and such a policy reduces human death and suffering, then it is appropriately called pro-life. The question, certainly a legitimate one, is whether or not the premise regarding decreased death and suffering, is true.
More on ethanol:
Southern drawl
Nuke ‘em all
Stop the sprawl
Sean,
To quote you, “Exactly.” I anticipated your position when I said, “Of course, where you and I will disagree is that I think abortion may be a victimless crime.”
The same ground has been covered over and over, so I won’t rehash the old arguments. I will just say that believing that the unborn–at least early on in pregnancy–are human persons with rights is a religious belief. Therefore, to outlaw abortion in the United States based on the premise that the unborn have a right to life is to enact a law with a religious purpose.
Jewish beliefs, as well as those in a number of other faiths–all of whom have as much respect for life as Catholics, do not hold that the unborn are persons with rights. You are arguing for United States law to recognize an article of the Catholic faith as something that deserves to be enshrined in US law at the same time rejecting an article of the Jewish faith.
Joe,
What do I make of the distinction between human life and a human person? It is nonsense. If you can explain to me what that distinction is in any kind of consistent way that does not allow me or anyone else to draw the line at any one of a number of arbitrary points in human existence I would be happy to hear it.
David,
That my “religious belief” informs my judgment is irrelevant. An unborn human either is or is not a person. If it is a person, then destroying it is the taking of innocent life. That my or anyone else’s beliefs agree makes absolutely no difference, it is ultimately a question of fact.
The very idea that people even have rights, or at least the rights we think of as human rights, is essentially a Judeo-Christian value. That people with other “religious beliefs” think that women, or and other type of person are lesser persons, does not make that so does it?
Sean,
I don’t think it is helpful here for you to invoke the “Judeo-Christian” tradition, since Jewish tradition, current belief, and practice are not in accord with your contentions regarding abortion.
You say the following:
You say that as if person had one clear meaning, and all that was needed was an objective decision as to whether a fetus met that definition or not. But there are many definitions of person. Who gets to decide which one is used? How do we establish the “fact” that a fertilized human egg or a 6-week-old fetus is a person?
I am not convinced, by the way, that it is meaningful to say, “An unborn human either is or is not a person.” But we have philosophers out there. Perhaps one or two of them would like to comment.
The Catechism says:
As I am fond of pointing out, in humans and other mammals, early (preimplantation) embryo loss is estimated anywhere between 50% and 80%. According to your beliefs and the pronouncements of the Catholic Church, at least half the human race is dying within a few days of conception. What efforts are Catholic scientists and medical personnel making to prevent this staggering loss of life? Early embryo loss is a concern in the cattle industry, because it has economic implications. Why doesn’t any care about it in human beings? The loss of human life from early embryo loss dwarfs the loss of life from abortions.
Another question: In the light of the recent findings regarding caffeine and pregnancy, are women who are pregnant or may become pregnant obligated to limit their coffee intake to one cup a day? Should we pass laws to that effect?
David,
I bring up Judeo-Christian values not because of abortion, but to point out that the very basis for your argument is founded on religious belief. That a woman has a right to chose anything, or even have anything, or that you or I are unique individuals deserving of any kind of recognition and respect derives from the Judeo Christian tradition. Is that imposing religious belief?
As for your early implantation argument, that is no argument at all, any more than the fact that human beings all have a 100% mortality rate would justify my stabbing my next door neighbor.
In answer to your last question – No.
Sean, what about if a woman deliberately takes high doses of caffeine in order to miscarry and does? Isn’t that the same as a morning after pill or the infamous wire coat hanger?
Let’s see. In past posts you have argued against universal health care (I agree somewhat), low-income housing, the minimum wage and some unspecified forms of money payouts that make people dependent on the dole.
What programs WOULD you support–call them “pro-family” if you don’t want to put them under your strict definitions of “pro-life”–in the event more babies are born with severe birth defects that insurance won’t cover, if more women die in childbirth placing burdens on single father, if more children of rape and incest are born?
Ethanol?
Curtain call
Scrub the hall
Graffiti scrawl
Arlene Dahl
Pat Summerall
Premenstrual?
Take Midol!
Once more these comboxes reenact the same ritual conversation about abortion. Bill and Sean are equally uncomprehending and disapproving of the seamless garment thrust of observers like Liz and Peter.
20+ year ago consistent ethic of life sentiments such as those espoused by Joe Bernardin seemed to have broad resonance among Commonweal Catholics. What happened?
Once more these comboxes reenact the same ritual conversation about abortion. Bill and Sean are equally uncomprehending and disapproving of the seamless garment thrust of observers like Liz and Peter.
20+ year ago consistent ethic of life sentiments such as those espoused by Joe Bernardin seemed to have broad resonance among Commonweal Catholics. What happened?
I do not believe there is such a thing as a political orphan. If one wants to actually be in power (even if vicariously) there are some very hard choices that must be made, given there are only two meaningful parties, and so one must contemplate which party, over time is going to lead you in the direction of the place you most want to end up. However, there are lots of people screaming into the wilderness because they hold their ideals closer than their wish for power. No one is requiring Ms. McCloskey and Mr. Leibold to join a party, vote, work for or donate to any other than pro-life candidates (of which there are more than a few in the Democratic party) or make any difficult choices whatsoever. Of course, they won’t get asked to join the staff of any congress person or administration if they don’t break bread with the major players, but that’s how it goes. It just ends up sounding like: “The world would be so much nicer if everyone agreed with me and I weren’t required to bend my ideals to get the job I want!” Well, yeah. Same here. People don’t agree. It’s so annoying.
Barbara, despite my rant above, my sense is that most Catholic Democrats, who’ve been part of the “base vote” for so long, are simply looking for the party to compromise with them a little.
I’m not sure what changes to the Democratic Party platform might satisfy those Catholics who haven’t given up on the party. (And it sounds like McCloskey and Leibold have already thrown in the towel. In a way, they’re not griping so much about the Democratic party as much as bemoaning the fact that there aren’t many liberal, pro-life Republicans left.)
A statement supporting women’s reproductive rights as well as measures that promote reproductive responsibility, or adoption, or health care that would support families with handicapped children? Tying those measures to a stated goal of reducing the abortion rate?
Joe P., Jean, thanks much for the ethanol rhymes. I was thinking it would be a good idea to write a Schoolhouse Rock episode about how special interests have managed to gain their unprecedented power. I mean, the NRA was bad enough, but this NARAL thing is really out of hand. And, it’ll lose the Dems the presidency. Again.
What I’ve still got to figure out is what precisely the party gains from holding such a hard line on a single issue.
Anyways, hopefully I can do better than How a Bill Becomes a Law: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ
I hope to be able to match the gold standard, Conjunction Junction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkO87mkgcNo&NR=1
Jean,
Caffeine question – yes it is, what’s your point?
Universal health care – wrong – I support “universal” health care, I oppose the government imposed single payer forms. Again, I don’t feel this way because I hate sick people, I have just lived with it myself and there are serious downsides.
In answer to you and to Mike, I am for a consistent ethic of life. What I object to is the use of the “seamless garment” idea as a sword to stab at political opponents when they disagree over the best way to acheive the same goal, and as a shield (more like a fig leaf) for those who wholesale reject the actual goals of that ethic. Saying it is OK to support a politician who favors abortion on demand, embryonic stem cell research, and legalized euthanasia just because he or she is in favor of a higher minimum wage and tougher CAFE standards is like throwing out the seemless garment but keeping the cuffs.
What am I in favor of? Anything that works. I am not critical of the things you mention because I am greedily counting my coins in the cellar. I am critical of them because, by and large, they don’t work, and frequently make things far worse.
My point on the coffee is that there are lots of ways women can abort, and we’re back to having cops called to ER’s everytime a woman presents with a miscarriage to ascertain whether she caused it.
One of the reasons I find the move to overturn Roe v. Wade impractical and wrong is that it sets up a whole “crime and punishment” mode that distracts people from the love and help that needs to be offered to young women early in their pregnancies.
An earlier thread about penalties that should be leveled against women and abortionists elicited all kinds of ideas about how people could be punished for abortions. When I ask what we can do to create a climate that supports women who choose to give birth, your response is always to hold up what we CAN’T do to help them, because it doesn’t work. But you never say what you’re willing to support that DOES work, and that’s why you’ll never get the total ban on abortion you want from most Americans, who have no theological motivation, as I do, to agree with you on the sinfulness of it.
Unless you are willing to talk about what kind of church and national programs you’re willing to support to Americans who are losing their jobs, their health care, are increasingly taking on elderly relatives who can’t afford assisted living and nursing facilities, etc., you’ll never get anywhere.
Our local parish, in eight years has helped two unwed mothers–once with a “dresser” program and once by paying a month’s rent–in eight years. But parish women are willing to go in droves down to the Capitol steps to protest the anniversary of Roe v. Wade with their tearful signs and candles.
The church needs to show that its commitment to life is more than a mile wide and an inch deep.
It’s not much, but the nearby crisis pregnancy clinics collect maternity and baby clothes for women. I shop at thrift stores, and if I buy something for myself, I usually buy something from the maternity and newborn racks to donate.
One of the things I’ve learned is that girls who are pregnant often don’t have health care, and they are pushed toward adoption agencies because prospective parents will foot the obstetrical bill. If churches took up a special collection on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade to donate toward prenatal care, perhaps through the clinics that already exist, so that the women had more of a choice, that might be a start.
BTW, I don’t believe you are skinflint. If you didn’t care about these babies, you wouldn’t be posting on these threads. But I have never been successful in cajoling, goading or otherwise getting you to articulate anything more than that abortion is a terrible sin in all cases, it must be punished, and current programs that liberals deludedly think might help are money down a rathole, so we must not waste our bucks there.
I don’t think this paints much of a loving or compassionate picture of the pro-life person, or probably does you justice.
Maybe we need a thread of Jean/Sean debate.
I vote for Jean already on sense of humor and empathy for the average person.
And one more ethanol rhyme as the economy slides (with memories of the depression:0
(You gets no bread with:)
“one meatball”
Jean,
First of all, I am not opposed to all poverty programs. My point in commenting on this post was that treating debates over whether to implement higher fuel standards in 2010 vs. 2012 does not carry with it the moral weight of the abortion question. When people lump everything from poverty programs, to environmental programs, to economic policy under a “pro-life” banner it is my experience that they are either trying to attack the morality of their opponents or excuse their own departure from Church teaching.
What programs or policies am I for? As I said, those that work. In general, this means favoring private over public solutions, local over national, allowing families, communities, and individuals the greatest flexibility and freedom in how they conduct their lives.
Should people do more? Should the Church do more? Absolutely, but when we encourage a culture of the quick fix from Washington as a morally superior and effective way to help people, that won’t happen. Moreover, even when the Church or private people try to help, the red tape and opposition often discourage people from getting involved.
What we need is a president who will encourage faith-based initiatives!
I’ve never had an abortion, Sean, though I do have a tough time accepting some aspects of church teaching about it, which we’ve covered exhaustively in previous threads.
I’m not trying to attack you morally, just pushing to see how far your definition of “pro-life” extends.
And I have to say I find your narrow definition very odd, since many RTL groups have recognized that help for crisis pregnancies is an important component in trying to eliminate abortions. The clinic where I donate is an offshot of RTL, and provides pregnancy testing, ultrasounds, doctor referrals, help with prenatal care, mentoring services, some after care, etc. etc. To imagine that these folks have ulterior motives for expanding the pro-life agenda is ludicrous.
However, there’s really no point in any further discussion if your experience tells you that anybody with a broader definition of pro-life has ulterior motives, so I wish you good night.