Abortion and Democracy
Paul Ryan spoke today at the Value Voters Summit and he said something that a lot of abortion rights opponents say, but that just can’t be true for someone who accepts the Vatican line on abortion’s legality. Here’s his quote (via TPM):
“These vital questions should be decided, not by the caprice of unelected judges, but by the conscience of the people and their elected representatives. And in this good-hearted country, we believe in showing compassion for mother and child alike,” he said. “We don’t write anyone off in America, especially those without a voice. Every child has a place and purpose in this world.”
Now, read literally, this could be taken as a pro-choice statement, since no one who supports abortion rights thinks people should be forced to have an abortion. Abortion rights supporters would therefore agree that the abortion question should be left to the “conscience of the (individual) people.” But the reference to unelected judges makes clear that Ryan is talking about the democratic lawmkaing process, not individual conscience. Interestingly, although his comments on the issue were brief, he does not seem to have merely been saying that abortion must, as a matter of second-best practicality in light of present political realities, be left to the democratic process (for now). He seemed to be speaking of the deliberative democratic process as the proper and best means for discussing and resolving abortion’s legality (hence, his normative “should”). I understand the Vatican’s position on abortion to be somewhat different. It has said in no uncertain terms that legal abortion contravenes the natural law by failing to protect the unborn. Here is John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae:
This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part. In this way democracy, contradicting its own principles, effectively moves towards a form of totalitarianism. The State is no longer the “common home” where all can live together on the basis of principles of fundamental equality, but is transformed into a tyrant State, which arrogates to itself the right to dispose of the life of the weakest and most defenceless members, from the unborn child to the elderly, in the name of a public interest which is really nothing but the interest of one part. The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?” When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.
Later in the same encyclical, John Paul II says of abortion:
No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the Law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church. . . .Consequently, a civil law authorizing abortion or euthanasia ceases by that very fact to be a true, morally binding civil law.
This seems to leave little room for genuine conscientious political deliberation regarding abortion’s legality. Some Catholics have argued that, while abortion is intrinsically evil, a society might still be justified in choosing to allow it to remain legal because of (among other things) the lack of a public consensus on the issue as well as the likely pernicious consequences of legal prohibition. But that is not the Vatican’s position. A law permitting abortion is, in its view, an “intrinsically unjust law.”
Ryan must concede that, in the world he describes, where abortion is left to the political process, abortion is unlikely to be outlawed in all 50 states. If this is the case, then — consistent with Vatican teachings — Ryan cannot relegate the issue to the vagaries of the democratic process except as a temporary and highly imperfect sop to political practicality. He must believe, unless he is to join the ranks of dissenting Catholics, that merely overturning Roe v. Wade and taking abortion out of the hands of “activist judges” is a (temporary) half-measure. Abortion must be made illegal, whatever the “conscience of the people and their elected representatives” might conclude. The illegality of abortion is, in the Vatican’s view, the measure of a democracy’s conscience and not properly the subject of conscientious democratic deliberation. How that illegality is achieved, whether through democratic deliberation or “unelected judges,” is beside the point.
“He [Ryan] seemed to be speaking of the deliberative democratic process as the proper and best means for discussing and resolving abortion’s legality (hence, his normative “should”). I understand the Vatican’s position on abortion to be somewhat different. It has said in no uncertain terms that legal abortion contravenes the natural law by failing to protect the unborn.”
There’s no real contradiction here, is there? The Pope’s view was that even if allowed by civil legislation, abortion remains intrinsically evil. Success in the democratic process doesn’t remove the need for moral judgment about what is voted in, something I’d expect we’d all agree upon, as when we make moral judgments about immigration laws or election ID laws. There’s a “slippery slope” element in the Pope’s remarks, too: where do we stop when we begin to exclude certain categories of people from civil protection? One thinks of laws in effect in our country not too long ago that required sterilization of the mentally handicapped.
Making abortion illegal will simply drive it back to the alleys, fetid quakeries and, for those women with money, to other countries where it is legal.
It is better to have it performed in sanitary and caring conditions than where it used to happen.
Abortion will be around so long as there are reasons that women believe sufficient to have it performed. All of the laws and Vatican edicts in the world will not change that.
I’m with Fr. Komonchak. There’s no contradiction between the proposition that in a democracy fundamental questions—such as whose life the law will protect—ought to be settled democratically and the proposition that in a democracy majorities sometimes get it wrong in ways that undermine democracy itself. If the pope had said that democracy should be suspended and replaced with religious authorities whenever its collective deliberation leads to grave injustices, then you could say there was a contradiction between Ryan’s words and Rome’s position.
Fr. Komonchak and Matthew Boudway,
Are you implying that if the abortion question is somehow “settled” democratically in the United State in favor of abortion, the position of the Church is that Catholics can sit back and say, “Well, the people voted and the pro-abortion side won”? My understanding is that if the law is unjust, it must be made just. It does not matter what the majority thinks about abortion in the United States, or what the majority decides. Abortion must be against the law. That would seem to rule out any grand compromise after which anti-abortion activists could rest and say, “It’s the best we can do.”
It seems to me that Paul Ryan’s position, if he is to conform to the Church, should be that abortion must be made illegal, not that it must be decided democratically. If the people decide democratically (and wrongly) that abortion is to be legal, then the anti-abortion forces must continue to do whatever in their power to reverse that decision.
We are, in many ways, in a situation where abortion already has been decided democratically. The Supreme Court decided it forty years ago.
I think the problem is that Paul Ryan is saying that the majority will do the right thing, and that’s not the case, and the Church has said that is not the case. And, indeed, polls show that Ryan’s argument does not hold up: a strong majority would consistently vote for legalized abortion.
Obviously, he is making a campaign speech and is setting up the courts and “unelected judges” as a convenient straw man. That’s what campaign speeches do. Trying to parse it much further than that is a fool’s errand.
Both sides can get trapped by this sort of thing, praising courts when they do what we like and condemning them when they don’t. It’s like the right noting that gay marriage has never been passed by a majority vote. Only judges. Oh, and legislators. Oh, and majority votes…It’s a loser’s logic.
Mr. Nickol: In answer to your question: No.
David Nickol,
The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade annulled and preempted democratic deliberation: it threw out most existing abortion law, which had been enacted by state legislatures composed of democratically elected representatives. It prohibited lawmakers from passing new abortion laws that reflected the will of voters unless these laws were in conformity with the non-constitutional criteria endorsed by the court. People are now complaining about the judicial overreach of the Roberts court—and they are right to complain. But Roe v. Wade remains the gold standard for judicial overreach, and you don’t have to be “prolife” to think so: Peter Singer, who’s about as “prochoice” as one can be, also believes that Roe v. Wade was undemocratic.
Of course, in a democracy the will of the majority may change, as it often has in ours. Nothing is “settled” in any absolute sense. Constitutional amendments can be passed, and many democracies have been through several constitutions. A commitment to democracy does not require one to believe that the majority is always right, much less that something is right just because it is the outcome of a democratic process. A commitment to democracy requires only that when one disagrees with laws that reflect the will of the majority one not try to change them by any means outside of democratic process. There is, for democrats, no alternative to persuasion. One may protest bad laws; one may even refuse to obey them as long as one is prepared to accept the legal consequences. One may not try to overcome them by force.
Joe (and Matt): Isn’t your answer to David Nichol’s question exactly what Eduardo is pointing out and what Ryan is missing. The Vatican’s position is that abortion should be abolished regardless of what the conscience of the people has to say about the matter. So, if abortion is outlawed by democratic process, judicial activism, presidential proclamation, or dictatorial fiat, that is what must happen to preserve a legitimate and just social order. As long as abortion remains legal, there is something illegitimate about our legal system as a whole, but this stands in direct contradiction to the liberal tradition whereby a legal system is made legitimate simply by the procedural establishment of the will of the people. So, Ryan is wrong to put judicial activism/pro-choice on one side and democratic process/popular conscience/pro-life on the other. When it comes to abortion, it seems that the Church considers the will or conscience of the people irrelevant.
Matt: What Eduardo quotes from JPII seems to suggest that as long as abortion is legal there is no legitimate democratic process within which one might be a “democrat.” since the process itself is not legitimate (to the point of sliding toward “totalitarianism”), there is no reason to think that justice will be served by participating in it.
While abortion permeates 24/7 ordinary people are prevented from escaping a factory fire to save materials. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/world/asia/anger-and-grief-across-karachi-after-factory-fire.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper
Origin and the rest of the Scribes and Pharisees discuss politics while the people just know Jesus Crucified. Apple is hailed and regaled as the richest company while people sweat, die and work for pennies making their IPhones. Ordinary people deteriorate “behind the beautiful forevers” while Ryan and John Paul II clarify abortion.
Oh, to have the chance to buttonhole Paul Ryan and ask him if he thinks Brown v. Board of Education and Loving v. Virginia were decided correctly — or for that matter, Citizens United.
From John Paul II: (1) “This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the “right” ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part.”
(2) The appearance of the strictest respect for legality is maintained, at least when the laws permitting abortion and euthanasia are the result of a ballot in accordance with what are generally seen as the rules of democracy. Really, what we have here is only the tragic caricature of legality; the democratic ideal, which is only truly such when it acknowledges and safeguards the dignity of every human person, is betrayed in its very foundations: “How is it still possible to speak of the dignity of every human person when the killing of the weakest and most innocent is permitted? In the name of what justice is the most unjust of discriminations practised: some individuals are held to be deserving of defence and others are denied that dignity?” When this happens, the process leading to the breakdown of a genuinely human co-existence and the disintegration of the State itself has already begun.”
Neither of these quotes says that “there is no legitimate democratic process”; it says that “the disintegration of the State itself has already begun,” which is not to say that it has been completed. Keep in mind that the same Pope made important statements about the role of the Catholic legislator and about the legitimacy of his voting for a law even if it did not ban all abortions.
“When it comes to abortion, it seems that the Church considers the will or conscience of the people irrelevant.” Isn’t the Pope appealing to the conscience of Christians and of others to deal with the threat to democratic values represented by the exclusion of a whole class of human beings from the law’s protection? (I don’t believe he’s asking for armed rebellion.) He clearly does not think, and neither do it, that the majority will of the people settles issues of morality or even of fundamental justice. Don’t we regularly have appeals to our Supreme Court to undo legislation passed by majority will that is considered to violate basic norms of justice and equality? Must such appeals be regarded as considering the will or conscience of the people irrelevant?
Matthew Boudway has it exactly right.
“Isn’t the Pope appealing to the conscience of Christians and of others to deal with the threat to democratic values represented by the exclusion of a whole class of human beings from the law’s protection?”
It is a dubious presumption that there is an exclusion of a whole class of human beings from the law’s protection?” First no one is forced to have an abortion. Second to argue this by citing the “rights of the unborn” is shameful because the unborn certainly has no rights when it comes to being born in squalor and poverty. Third, women have decided that it is a woman’s prayerful decision to make that choice. As usual there is a majority of men in this forever discussion.
I agree with Eric Bugyis 6:55. Additionally, given the state of the church, it is a little ironical that the pope would have been trying to preach on democracy, politics and government!
I’d like to hear someone address the questions about Paul Ryan’s assertions on the inerrancy of American democracy and the inherent corruption of the judicial branch. Are those precepts that are endorsed by Catholic teaching, or American principles?
“These vital questions should be decided, not by the caprice of unelected judges, but by the conscience of the people and their elected representatives. And in this good-hearted country, we believe in showing compassion for mother and child alike,” he said. “We don’t write anyone off in America, especially those without a voice. Every child has a place and purpose in this world.”
It’s interesting to wonder whether the nation might have been less polarized over abortion had states been allowed to grapple with the abortion issue without Roe v. Wade. But I’m not sure that states would have abortion laws that are much different than they are today, perhaps with a few exceptions such as North Dakota. The majority of Americans just don’t agree with Catholic teaching on this topic.
Ryan is probably too young to recall that the pro-life movement didn’t gain much traction until after Roe had been decided. (NRLC was founded in 1973, the same year Roe was decided). It was a reactionary response to the decision rather than a voice of conscience and caution before the fact.
Moreover, despite Roe, state legislatures and the public HAVE debated abortion-on-demand and many have judiciously restricted how, when, and under what circumstances abortions can be performed. Certainly, organized pro-life groups can be credited for these efforts.
Finally, people have always had the right to exercise their individual consciences about this issue by choosing NOT to have an abortion.
David: Could you give us sources for Ryan’s “assertions on the inerrancy of American democracy and the inherent corruption of the judicial branch”?
And, of course, as you quite well know, these “precepts” (odd word for them) are not required by either Church teaching or American principles.
Matthew Boudway and Fr. Komonchak,
Let me put the question that is on my mind in the simplest terms. Say one or more Supreme Court decisions turn the question of abortion completely back to the states. Say, then, that the New York state legislature overwhelmingly passes abortion laws leaving abortion in New York legally available to exactly the same degree it is now. Say pro-lifers manage to put a referendum on the ballot for a state constitutional amendment banning abortion, and the people vote down the amendment. Are you saying that Catholic politicians and Catholic voters in New York can say, “Well, the people have spoken”? It seems to me the answer is no. As pro-lifers seem to interpret Church teaching, New York voters and politicians would be in exactly the same situation they are now. Obviously they are not permitted to use violence or illegal measures to oppose abortion, but they would be bound by the same “rules” as apply now, would they not?
It seems to me, as the pro-lifers explain it, a Catholic politician and a Catholic voter may not rest on the issue of abortion until abortion is made illegal in the area where their votes count. Is this an error on my part.
And further, it seems to me, if the court were to turn abortion back to the states, it also seems to me it would be declaring that the federal government did not protect the unborn. So any Catholic citizen of the United States would be expected to attempt to change that situation.
If the Supreme Court were to rule that the words person and persons in the Fourteenth Amendment apply to the unborn and that abortion is consequently prohibited, would pro-life advocates charge that the democratic process had been short-circuited and demand that abortion law should be left up to the states?
If you want to see major negative US reactions to Catholicism, just let it happen that RvW is overturned by a SCOTUS with a preponderance of moderate to conservative Catholic justices and full support of the ecclesiastical structure (not the church at large). I will be at the barricades myself.
Trust in the “conscience of the people and their elected representatives” is nonsense! That ill-founded trust resulted in disavowal of the rights of blacks and women to vote. It resulted in the denial of the full personhood of black men and women. A disavowal of the right of the LDS to practice their religion according to their consciences. A disavowal of the rights of people of different races to marry.
To paraphrase H. L. Mencken: “No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the voting American public.” And that is why the founders established this as a country built on laws, not (wo)men.
Following Jim McC: We saw in l’affaire Akin that there is a visceral negative response to the idea that a woman be forced by government decree to bear her rapist’s child. Or that a, say, 12 year old girl pregnant by incest be forced to bear her father’s child. There’s also little support for the government forcing women to continue pregnancies that would result in serious harm to the mother’s health, or which might endanger her life. Heck, in some RC circles, even the defensibly “orthodox” view that a woman whose life is clearly in imminent danger, the treatment for which danger involves terminating the pregnancy, may choose to do so, (a long and complex moral project, but I’d reference Rhonheimer for conservative bona fides on this one,) is controversial and attacked as insufficiently “pro-life.” RC magisterial teaching on abortion is way, way to the right of the consciences of the vast majority of US citizens, and I can’t imagine it ever being voted in by an electorate which includes women (and sympathetic men.) Istm that Ryan’s hedging/misrepresentation of RC teaching might be a way to preserve the appearance of being pro-life all the way without facing the political fallout that would result from actually promoting RC teaching on the subject.
And let’s face it–isn’t Ryan’s stance that holds that abortion is a matter of conscience, (including the “voter-conscience” that seeks the common good,) a pro-choice stance? All the way. And Romney has come down firmly on both sides of this issue.
I didn’t write particularly in support of Ryan’s position, but to question the interpretation given to Pope John Paul II’s position. I don’t have much doubt that if put to a vote in many states, abortion would not be declared illegal. What I would like is for Catholic legislators to believe, and to act upon the belief, that abortion is a great evil, and to do what they could to prevent or to limit the incidence of such evil.
Bill Mazzella:
Ad 3m, you certainly know that there are lots of women who are anti-abortion, just as there are many men who are pro-abortion. This tired argument has no bite.
Ad 2m, I didn’t cite “the rights of the unborn,” but if I had, I would be quite happy to include among them the right not to be born in squalor and poverty. And I do think it “shameful” (to use your inappropriate word) to think that it is better to be killed than to live in squalor and poverty. Perhaps we could go into favelas and slums and do them all a favor by killing them?
Ad 1m, that no one is forced to have an abortion does not contradict the fact that a whole class of human beings is excluded from the law’s protection.
“We saw in l’affaire Akin that there is a visceral negative response to the idea that a woman be forced by government decree to bear her rapist’s child.”
Not to split hairs here, but I think the visceral negative response to the Akin statement was its complete and utter ignorance about the workings of the female body, but I’ve heard these myths about “fear hormones” and such like from some pro-life proponents. I’m sure they believe these medical myths, but they muddy the waters and weaken their own credibility when they try to pass them off as facts.
“And let’s face it–isn’t Ryan’s stance that holds that abortion is a matter of conscience, (including the ‘voter-conscience’ that seeks the common good,) a pro-choice stance?”
I think that’s an interesting take, but I’m not quite persuaded that that’s true; I think he’s taking a relativistic stance. That is, popular opinion and its collective conscience should decide what’s not only legal but moral.
Ryan seems to believe that the Supreme Court foisted this decision on Americans who would otherwise have saved unborn human life left to their own devices. But that’s not the direction in which the country was moving in 1973.
Moreover, if the majority of Americans and their elected representatives are so “good-hearted,” why haven’t they passed a constitutional amendment to extend the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to unborn human life, effectively neutering Roe v. Wade?
I submit that Americans aren’t that interested in saving BORN human life if they can be persuaded it’ll cost a lot of money. How much more difficult is it gong to be for them to want to save an embryo they can’t even see?
I’ve read that almost a third of Catholic women get abortions. If even they are willing to do so, why would Ryan think everyone else would vote against the legality of abortion?
Oops – I stated that incorrectly – it’s that almost a third of the women who get abortions are Catholic … http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/women_who.html
About being “pro-choice”
The Church itself teaches that one ought to choose what one sees as right — even when others, including the Church, sayits wrong. This position might be called “pro-choosing to follow one’s conscience”. This implies that if a woman think it is right to kill her unborn child, then that is what she is bound (mistakenly) to do. Her choice would — in itself — be virtuous.
But we must distinguish the “morality” of a good intention from the “morality” of the act that is intended and the morality of the end of the activity. The first “morality” refers to a good mental act, the second refers to a good or bad activity or outcome of that act. If I think it is right to shoot my neighbor, then I ought to do it, even though the shooting and his injury/death are not a moral good in the same way.
Distinguish, then: good intention/choice, good activity, good outcome. Sometimes good intentions produce evil activities and outcomes.
Ann, yes, one is reminded of pavings in the famous road to Hell …
Katha Pollitt, in a recent issue of The Nation, scathingly addressed the Akin debacle and the pro-life movement’s claims that we can’t destroy unborn human life because it might turn out to be another Mozart or Einstein. She admits all that could be true, but the question is whether the victim should be required to “bear her rapist’s Wonder Tot.”
Like Pollitt or not (and I’m sure most here don’t), she gets to what is most repellent about pro-life talk to those who remain unpersuaded that abortion is always wrong in all cases–because it dismisses the real physical trauma the rape victim has suffered. A pregnancy after a rape is bodily damage, as much as the scar from a crushed skull a friend of mine suffered after an assault in Boston.
The pro-life crowd needs to stop looking for silver linings in pregnancy after rape. If the bodily damage cannot be undone by committing an even greater sin than the rape itself (which is how I understand the Church’s position), then pro-life groups need to explain how they would they would help women who have been damaged by this crime.
Google “helping women after rape pro-life,” you’ll get a variety of hits that merely tell you abortion is never justified after rape or that abortion will just cause more trauma.
Google shelters for pregnant women through pro-life sites, and you’ll mostly get linked to homeless shelters.
Google “prenatal care for rape victims” and you’ll come up with info like this one from a Catholic site that is mostly preoccupied with post-rape protocols that might cause a fertilized egg to be expelled.It ends with an exhortation to the victim to “love as Christ loved.” http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html
Perhaps the reason the Catholic view of abortion fails to find traction among a majority of America’s “good hearted” people, is because it is essentially a response that is much more preoccupied with the rapist’s unborn embryo than the pain of the woman who has been victimized. In addition, many pro-life movements don’t see abortion after rape as their biggest challenge because “only” about 1 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are performed after rape.
Here’s a thought experiment a la Margaret Steinfels: What if NRLC or the Catholic Church moved its emphasis to this one percent of women who became pregnant after rape? What if it sheltered them, paid for their prenatal care, provided intensive counseling, found adoptive homes for their babies or helped them with the difficult task of accepting their babies? What if PROVED that there was a better alternative than abortion after rape? It seems to me that if this most difficult of all situations could be answered effectively, the whole abortion industry would crumble in a heap.
My apologies for such a long rant above.
I should also note that, according to NRLC, which uses Guttmacher and CDC states, that 1 percent of women who abort after rape would amount to about 12,000 women nationwide. http://www.nrlc.org/Factsheets/FS03_AbortionInTheUS.pdf
Part of the Church’s problem is that for all the black and white moral certitude, its position is ambiguous if it allows exceptions in any case whatsoever. However not allowing any exceptions is untenable politically.
What if NRLC or the Catholic Church moved its emphasis to this one percent of women who became pregnant after rape? What if it sheltered them, paid for their prenatal care, provided intensive counseling, found adoptive homes for their babies or helped them with the difficult task of accepting their babies? What if PROVED that there was a better alternative than abortion after rape? It seems to me that if this most difficult of all situations could be answered effectively, the whole abortion industry would crumble in a heap.
———-
That ignores the feelings of women who are unwilling to see their genes trapped forever in a human cage with the rapist’s genes.
What rape victim would like to be incarcerated for the rest of her life in a tiny room with the monster who raped her? How much worse to see herself and the rapist locked in a chimera.
I hope I’m not trying to ignore anything, Gerelyn.
I merely think it’s interesting to speculate about whether, in the “hearts and minds” battle over abortion, the pro-life movement, which has largely become a political-lobby that spends money on campaigns and press releases than on women and babies, would gain more traction by shifting its efforts to where it says its heart is, particularly in these most extreme cases.
It’s a reason why I do not now and have never supported any of the NRLC or state chapters. Talk is cheap. And often, as Akin has demonstrated so aptly, stupid.
Expecting a woman who has been raped to turn herself over to social workers who will shelter her, direct her, rule her, instruct her, etc., while she brings to term a baby in whose body and mind she will be forever united with the monster who raped her is . . . Akian.
Yes, well, as everyone here knows, I am the most orthodox of Catholic pro-lifers and best buds with men who have intrinsically disordered notions of the female body.
My prayers are with any woman who is raped and pregnant and struggling to do the right thing. I don’t think there are easy answers. Or even any answers in this lifetime.
“That ignores the feelings of women who are unwilling to see their genes trapped forever in a human cage…”
That naturalism is priceless!
Gerelyn ==
You call your attitude towards the child of rape a Christian one? It’s just a “chimera”? No value in itself?
“What I would like is for Catholic legislators to believe, and to act upon the belief, that abortion is a great evil, and to do what they could to prevent or to limit the incidence of such evil.”
Joe K,
Neither you nor any bishop or pope “know” that abortion is a great evil. There is zero evidence. The fact that the dna is human proves nothing. The great evil is that you and the Fathers of the church have no idea about the rights of women.
Bill;The church would never say that those born into squalor and poverty have no rights;the church is engaged with the problem of economic injustice too.
There IS an exclusiion of a whole class of people from the laws’ protection-the unborn.Just because they are not all killed in uturo does not mean the law protects their life-as legalized abortion obviously does not.During slavery-an enslaved person could be freed by the whim of his/her master-but a whole class of people had no protection under law[protection of the right to live free]].That not all unborn life gets killed -is ethically irrelevant.
Neither does the “prayful decision” [I feel sick reading those words;"let me pray to Jesus-who suffered horribly in solidarity with us- about whether I should inflict horrible suffering and death on you "] made by women have anything to do with the ethics of killing a human life.Not if you believe in God and that life is a gift from God.And that God so loved the world[meaning everyone]-so how could a christian choose to inflict suffering and death on a being we believe God created and loves who has harmed no one? How can that be in keeping with His call to follow Him?How is inflicting suffering and death on someone- love? How is it just?Even an atheist can see that inflicting suffering on an innocent defenseless human being is unjust and that if you take away someones life-you’ve taken away everything.Abortion is the eradication of the ethical-not a grappling with ethical dilemnas as presented by supporters.Even an atheist can recognize that as humans we’re equal.How can you justify taking away an innocent human life to suit you?Not only is it against our faith -it is inhuman. Jesus came to make us more human -not less.To want to kill an innocent human because their presence is a problem for you -is to act in denial of faith in the presence of God.It’s the antithesis of christian faith.And therefore so too of christian love which is human ethics and applicable to all people.
Rose-ellen,
It is not a human life. Otherwise, please start collecting all those miscarriages that people put in garbage bags and toilets. There is no proof that the fertilized egg is a human person. Yes we should respect human life. But our emphasis should be on all those Charlemagne killed and the popes had killed by giving indulgences to crusaders. Or Augustine had killed because they did not agree with them. Understand the fetus is not a human being. There is no proof. Certainly we should revere Gods gift. But revering God’s gift also means we should provide for that potential person should we elect to bring into the world.
Bill: we do not know that the embryo is not a person. There is no proof that it is, but there is also no proof that it isn’t. The official position of the church, I think, (before imagination and rhetoric got out of hand) has been that in the absence of such knowledge, the prudent attitude is to assume that it is a person right from the beginning.
In fact, most women who have abortions (or miscarriages if they are aware of it happening) treat it seriously. Most would much prefer not to have found themselves in situations where they had to resort to abortion. They do not see it as murder, but still as something of significant import. Why? Maybe because an embryo, even if it is not yet a person, is at least a potential person: in the natural course of events, over a few months it will develop into a person. Even a miscarriage early on will often be mourned by the would-be mother, like the loss of a dream that was just starting to become real!
Probably, you would not deny the personhood of the 7 months fetus, that would be viable if taken out of the womb. On the other hand I am with you in not understanding the belief that a 1-day old fertilized egg is already a person. But even if the month-old embryo, that has not yet developed so many basic, essential features, is not yet ensouled, abortion still signifies the ending of a gradual process of development of a new human being. In the absolute, that is not a good thing. It may be chosen by pregnant women over seemingly worse alternatives, but only as the lesser of two evils, I think, and it should be a heavy decision. I do not think it serves the pro-choice side to dismiss the contention that abortion is a great evil.
Bill: Why should all our emphasis be on the past victims of emperors and churchmen? Fixating on that can blind one to contemporary ills, such as poverty, hunger, ignorance, and abortion. And, not so by the way: St. Augustine did not have anyone killed because he disagreed with him.
Joe, the contemporary ill is that bishops preferred their reputation over children’s safety and that Indian and African priests are paid to come to the US while their parishes need them more. The contemporary evil is that Romero and Dorothy Day are passed over while Pius IX is beatified. The contemporary evil is that the bishops obsess about abortion and same sex marriage while up to ten millions children die every year before the age of five lacking “basic food and medicine.”
As far as Augustine is concerned are you saying he did not approve of the killing of the Donatists? Here is his justification.
nisi hoc terrore perculisi — under the terror of this danger—Augustine on saying that many Donatist would not have changed their minds unless they were forced (under the terror of this danger). Ep93.5.17
Joe, when are you going to acknowledge this about Augustine. Time to take him off his pedestal.
Claire, no one is saying that abortion should be taken lightly. I wrote that one should revere life.It is just that this a supreme fraud. Everyone knows that Roe vs Wade will never be overturned. Yet the issue is injected into every campaign. Most of all it is a patriarchal matter which mostly men exploit.
It is not a human life. Otherwise, please start collecting all those miscarriages that people put in garbage bags and toilets.
Bill,
Your life began as a fertilized egg; you are living proof its IS a human life. That is a basic biological fact. Nor does a miscarriage prove it was not a human life, it is simply a human life that was very short. How God deals with those whose lives were so short, its likely none us of will every know while here on earth.
On the other hand I am with you in not understanding the belief that a 1-day old fertilized egg is already a person. But even if the month-old embryo, that has not yet developed so many basic, essential features, is not yet ensouled,
Claire,
I think you are focusing on the word ‘person’ when the actual focus is on human life. The fertilized egg will self-direct its development into a human being you recognize and call a person given the right conditions. As such, it is the beginning of a new independent human life and deserves protection afforded all human life, in the same way the church teaches that we cannot kill those in a coma, etc.
Neither you nor I nor anyone can know, if or when a body becomes ‘ensouled’. That argument is an obfuscation of the basic biology of life in a sexually reproducing species.
Biologicaly -an embryo is human-that’s what humans are at that stage of development. They’re not skin cells, brain cells-etc., but already there developing humans. If you want to say that at a very early stage -they feel no pain and have no consciousness-then that is true but they are alive ;embryoes ,zygotes are alive humans[not living skin cells, nerve cells etc.]Personhood is whatever we say it is-some say if you’re in a vegetative coma you’re no longer human,some say if you’re unable to connect with others you’re not human[severly developementally damaged people].The human[christian] ethos is of the seemless garment of life-whatever degree of consciousness, and no matter what degree of cognitive developement.There are different ways[manifestations] of being human-from the initial cellular stage, through and to the natural end of life. These arbitrary criteria pro choice people choose for when humans should be considered sufficiently human to have the right to stay alive -violates the God given principle of the sanctity[goodness] of life [the individual human life and the gift of life itself].That miscarriages happen all the time in nature-is no invitation to abandon the principle that life is sacred and good. Illness and suffering are also common to humans.The world is fallen-both in the womb and outside the womb.
That the church has held beliefs that were evil and has a history of committing evil deeds including mass torture and mass murder-does not mean that abortion is not evil.
We can’t fully control the future of people who are brought into the world.We encounter obstacles to our well being as we are not omnipotent.So too for people we love.But of course we have an obligation to concern ourselves with the quality of life for all people .And the church does. The church is not against birth control-it is against artificial birth control and the killing of already alive innocent humans. There is nothing to discover about knowing when or what a human being is;a human being is a human life-that which is alive and which is biologically human[as oppossed to biologically an animal or plant or skin cell or nerve cell of a person's body].Degrees of dependence, vialbility, consciousness, autonomy etc.[personhood] are irrelevant to the innate right to life of already alive humans.It’s fundamentally wrong to take an innocent life and to justify doing so on utilitarian grounds[it's a problem for me to have or raise a child so I should be allowed to take a life] is obviously unethical.Life is full of problems and when a human life is reduced to being a problem-that is inhuman.
“That the church has held beliefs that were evil and has a history of committing evil deeds including mass torture and mass murder-does not mean that abortion is not evil.”
Does not mean it is evil either. But it does mean that there is something seriously wrong with leaders who live in secure comfort while others seek to make ends meet.
“But of course we have an obligation to concern ourselves with the quality of life for all people And the church does.”
Not true in so many cases. Why do we have all these African and Indian priests here when their countries rank among the poorest and have more need of them? This is a big scandal and no one is really objecting.
Bruce, from a faith perspective it is the “person” whose life is sacred. As to a non-religious perspective on human rights to life, I regretfully do not know much about its rationale.
Rose-Ellen: Mass murder, mass torture, innocence, contraception, seamless garment, utilitarian arguments, vegetative coma, etc.: yours is a sweeping, catch-all declaration that does not address the specific points raised here, but instead is much broader, and too general to lend itself to discussion, I’m afraid.
Claire,
I think you are confusing two issues. From a faith perspective we are called to a ‘personal relationship with our God’; we are not called to be persons. We are created by him as human beings. Human beings have a right to life as a result of His creating them, regardless of whether they accept, reject, or ignore the personal relationship God wills. Trying to define who is a human ‘person’ and deserves their life is what has lead to past discrimination against the mentally ill, etc.
Bill,
You keep trying to argue that because we sin against human life in mass torture, murder, etc, that we should just accept the similar sin of abortion. Of course, that just does not follow. We are supposed to be the best we can be, not simply no worse than the worst we have been or are currently.
So be perfect,* just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Bill: Yes, I’m saying precisely that: Augustine did not approve of the killing of Donatists. Your text–nisi hoc terrore perculisi–should be: nisi hoc terrore perculsi and it means “unless impelled by this terror” (Ep 93, 1). The text contains nothing that would indicate that the Donatists, to whom it refers, were terrified because Augustine was threatening to have them killed–which is what you claimed in your post. They were certainly going to face persecution if they did not become Catholics, but it did not include execution.
Bill, when are you going to acknowledge this about Augustine? Time to get over your obsession with him.
You also make a caricature of the contemporary Church, which once again you obsessively identify with the hierarchy. You overlook the countless ways in which in Churches all over the world Catholic believers are tending to the poor and starving. No one has to choose between care of the unborn and care of the born, and the great majority of those committed to the first are also committed to the second. Your dichotomies prevent you from seeing things as they are.
Bruce, “Human beings have a right to life as a result of His creating them” does not distinguish between humans and animals, who are also here on earth as a result of His creating them. But our relationship to God is different from that of animals to God, because we are “persons”.
our relationship to God is different from that of animals to God
Claire,
Agreed. But it is because we are human beings capable of a personal relationship with God. For all we know, God has a personal relationship with each of us from the moment of conception until natural death, irregardless of our abilities or lack thereof. We cannot take another human life – thou shalt not kill – regardless of whether we think them ‘persons’ or not. Its simply being a human created by God which makes our lives sacred, nothing more and nothing less.
But it is because we are human beings capable of a personal relationship with God. – I suspect that “capable of” does not exactly capture your idea (So if we were not capable of it, our lives would not be sacred? It depends of what we are capable of?) – but let me assume that you did not have any kind of elitism in mind. At this point, this is circular: you gave me a reason (“because [of our] relationship to God”) that no one can know for sure. It’s not biological. It seems to me that it’s no different from being a “person”, being “ensouled” (those terms I used, that you said obfuscated the issue).
God has a personal relationship with each of us from the moment of conception on: how do you know that? I think that it is equivalent to saying that a human being is a person from the moment of conception. It’s a belief you hold, not an argument.
Bruce, I hope I am not too anal. Abortion is such a heated topic that I hesitate to discuss it at all.
Claire,
I thought your comments were perfectly reasonable, though I did try to qualify the God/person relationship with a ‘for all we know’.
What I keep imagining you believe is that at some point after fertilization humans acquire
another characteristic, which you call personhood or ensoulment, and at that point, thou shalt not kill becomes effective. But I contend that the only physical point where we humans can observe another distinct new human is at conception. Personally, I dont even know if I have a soul; I just know I have a physical body and an intelligence which somehow seems different than the body. But is that a soul? I certainly dont know.
I had one thought after my previous post which I hope you dont mind my sharing. It has to do with the interaction between the embryo and the mother. What we know is that embryo is self-directed and when it implants the mothers body responds, albeit unconsciously. To me that is one of the most personal relationships any two humans ever have and it is certainly personal, though I doubt that is what you meant.
But I contend that the only physical point where we humans can observe another distinct new human is at conception. It’s not perfect b/c of special but not exceptional cases such as twinning, but I agree that it’s better than other physical characteristics.
However, to my mind, identifying that with the existence of a human strand of DNA is a severe reduction of what it means to be a person. Why are you looking for some physical characteristics to determine at which point we “have a personal relationship with God”? Having a personal relationship with God is not something purely biological.
Less seriously: your last thought reminded me that when I was pregnant with my daughter, I had a nightmare in which my body had inside it, not a developing embryo, but a gigantic tapeworm! So much for the intimate relationship between a pregnant woman and the child in her womb… (I had probably stared at too many photos of embryos at the blob stage). When, many years later, I told my daughter, she was quite indignant!
“identifying that” should read “identifying personhood”
Claire,
Funny story.
I agree that having a personal relationship with God is not something purely biological. But neither you nor I can observe or know anything about another’s personal relationship with God (or anyone else) except through the physical, eg hearing, seeing etc. So I have to believe that the physical conveys to us what God expects us to know.
Also, I just read this footnote about God’s relationship to the fetus.
From a scriptural standpoint, there is no question that the fetus is an object of God’s love and protection. See, e.g., Luke 1:44 (“For at the moment the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the infant in my womb leaped for joy.”); Jeremian 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you.”); Psalm 139:13-15 (“You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother’s womb. My very self you knew; my bones were not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, fashioned as in the depths of the earth.”).