Abortion and the Catholic voter
The New York Times has a piece today about Obama and the Dems and their efforts to appeal to Catholic voters who may be turned off by the party’s pro-choice dogmatism. It includes comments from the much-pilloried pro-life, yet pro-Obama, Doug Kmiec. I expect this won’t be the last of these sorts of stories.
On the other side, the Supreme Knight of the K of C (no, not the Colonel), Carl Anderson, gave McCain an all-but-endorsement speech at the Knights’ annual convention this week. According to the CNS story, Anderson–author of a popular book, “A Civilization of Love,” called for a “regime change” of sorts, namely the “regime of Roe v. Wade” by calling on Catholics to withhold their votes from any candidate who supports abortion. (Are there really “pro-abortion” candidates”?)
“It’s time to put away the arguments of political spin masters that only serve to justify abortion killing,” Anderson said.
In apparent reference to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, Anderson said change in the country can come only when the practice of aborting unborn children ends.
“We have all heard a great deal this year about the need for change,” he said. “But at the same time we are told one thing cannot change, namely the abortion regime of Roe v. Wade. It is time that we demand real change and real change means the end of Roe v. Wade.
“It’s time to stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians, and it’s time we start demanding that they accommodate us,” Anderson added as the 500 delegates from around the world stood up and loudly applauded.
Anderson said he was not singling out candidates from any political party for criticism.
Later, Anderson told Catholic News Service that he decided to focus on the same terminology that Obama is using in his presidential campaign “to get people’s attention.”
“This is kind of the touchstone for this whole election year; I’d like Catholics to think what real change, fundamental change in a Christian sense would mean,” he said.
(Ironically, the Knights convention included a video tribute from President Bush, who would hardly be considered an exemplar of Catholic social teaching.)
I know this post is poking a stick into a hornet’s nest, but the topic of abortion and Catholic voters (and pols) is going to be a persistent theme (and thread) up to November, and beyond. And that’s probably as it should be. Abortion is a central issue, and addressing it is a political as well as religious enterprise.
That said, I struggle to understand the absolute (Manichean?) divide that says it is impossible for a pro-life Catholic to vote for a Democrat, and cites Roe as the reason. In reality, Roe may well not be overturned, and even if it is it would just move the battle to the states. Abortion is a reality that exists far beyond the borders of Roe, and indeed some of the Catholic majority justices on the Supreme Court say that even if they don’t like the case, they wouldn’t use their Catholic distaste of abortion to inform their decision.
Republican presidents have come and gone, Republican congresses have come and gone, Republican (and Catholic) supreme court justices have come, and much remains as it has always been. In fact, the near-total focus on Roe seems to blind many to all the other ways that abortion can be reduced–or the ways that the purportedly anti-Roe party, the GOP, does not support life, in the seamless garment sense or otherwise.
And yet, this issue continues to be used to polarize and divide Catholics (see many posts below). It is a policy debate, a campaign issue, that is used as the yardstick for whether someone can receive communion. The Dems obviously aren’t perfect by any means. But the old approach seems to sanctify–and immunize–the Republicans on this issue. I have a sense some Catholics, beyond Kmiec, are trying to redress this Republican Captivity. Again, this is a longstanding debate. Is there any new light to shed on why a Catholic should be politically and morally bound to vote for anti-Roe candidates–or at least those who profess such a view with their mouths, if not their hearts?
PS: And saying a pox on both their houses doesn’t qualify as “new light”!
PPS: I now realize this post picks up on Peter Nixon’s very interesting post earlier about the George Wesolek essay. I don’t mean to stomp on that, just to re-focus it perhaps. Then again, it may result in polarization…
Start with the USCCB Faithful Citizenship document. It is fair and balanced and moves us away from single issue voting. Yes, abortion still is a focus but Catholics need to take a balanced and researched approach to voting for either party’s candidate(s).
Here are a couple of links that add a human element to this dilemma:
Shortcut to: http://www.newcatholictimes.com/index.php?module=articles&func=display&ptid=1&aid=376
I would say that this human story is where the Catholic center is. Frustration abounds with the public positions of folks like the Knights of Columbus whose loyalty demonstrates an inability to: a) use their reasoning to see that this is a complex issue; b) are unable to demonstrate a nuanced position but repeatedly make it black or white; c) it is an issue that illustrates the Catholic tradition of “the church ALREADY respects human life but folks are NOT YET able to fully live this….very few folks are just pro-abortion ……in fact, like Kmeic, they may be very pro-life but support legally the concept of pro-choice with limits.
Here is another link: Shortcut to: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_on_contraception_abortion.htm
I went to this lecture at Catholic U by EJ Dionne one time, and he was talking in much the same vein as you are here, David. So I asked in the Q & A, Why is it that the Democratic Party will not support a pro-life candidate? Isn’t this the bloc attitude that forces a wedge between parties of Catholics? And he answered, No, that’s not true, the Party does sometimes support pro-life candidates.
So after the lecture we were all eating cheese and crackers and a CUA sociologist–a real VOTF kind of guy, if you know whom I mean–told me: what Dionne did not say was that the D. Party will only support a pro-life candidate if the voters have demonstrated that they will not vote for someone who is pro-choice.
In other words, one-issue voting is the only thing that puts pressure on the Democratic Party to ch-ch-change. So if Catholics do it, as a bloc, there will be a shift.
So we should do it.
Kathy, I would challenge your characterization of what defines a “pro-life” candidate–I assume you mean someone who makes overturning Roe v. Wade primary. But perhaps not.
But I do think your insight about the politics of the issue is useful and has merit–in that a very good way to pressure the Dems to be more open is to vote for the other guys. Yet that in the end (and the beginning) is a political tactic, and it has morphed into a judgment on one’s (Catholic) soul. Moreover, so-called pro-lifers have pretty much (it seems to me) become captives of the GOP, with little to show for it, and, arguably, a less pro-life American society.
So what is the proper political tactic now? How do pro-lifers pressure the GOP? How do they keep the pressure on the Dems? Can we work from the inside? And given that this is about basic politics, what of statements like Anderson’s?
Here is a story in the NY Times today that sheds more historical light on the pro-life issue with the Democratic Party: Shortcut to: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/07/us/politics/07catholics.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin
This gives a different view and approach than the comments you cited from EJ Dionne.
David,
By “pro-life candidate” I mean a legislator who does not sponsor or vote for legislation that increases funding for or availability of abortion-on-demand (or an executive who vetoes such legislation.)
Honestly I don’t have much use for the GOP–I am not too concerned about how to change it. I think that the DP has the most hope for making a difference in the concrete lives of people. But it’s in hock to NARAL–how did that happen? Why? How do we change our slavish condition?
No matter how singularly you focus on abortion and RvW, I don’t see how you can sincerely believe that a vote for McCain is a vote for “real change, fundamental change in a Christian sense,” as Anderson suggests. Maybe Obama doesn’t stand for that either, but implying that McCain would bring “fundamental change” makes me think I’m watching The Colbert Report and waiting for the punch line.
Kathy, those are good questions. Answers?! Above all, what are Catholics then to make of the polarizing claims that “good” Catholics must vote Republican? Isn’t that doing violence to the church in the name of politics? It seems that if abortion is as central an issue as we say, and you seem to believe, we have to engage these hard issues with hard thinking and difficult choices.
I don’t consider it “stomping” at all, David. Carry on!
David,
I don’t think you can blame bishops (or Carl Anderson) for the Democratic Party’s failure to promote pro-life candidates. That’s the state of affairs that makes Republican candidates the only option.
It seems to me that Catholics have become to caught up in the “material cooperation with evil/proportionate reasons” argument. In previous discussions Kathleen Caveny has said we can’t get away from it, and although normally I consider her infallible (on issues about moral arguments, anyway), it still seems to me to be putting too much emphasis on the single act of casting a vote, as if that defined you. (Kind of like the married couple with ten kids being threatened with damnation if they engage in one act of nonprocreative sex.) I don’t want to minimize voting, but it is not the only way to promote an agenda. If every Catholic who cared about abortion contributed to/worked for pro-life causes, wrote letters to their senators and representatives, and made it clear how much they wanted change on this issue, it would be much more powerful than trying to form a voting bloc. I know many people are sincerely concerned about the morality of their vote for president, but I also think there are people who would be supporting McCain under any circumstances who are trying to coerce people into voting Republican.
I grew up as solidly a Catholic Democrat as anyone could be … until two issues in the 1970s forced me away. One was the Democrats’ approach to foreign policy (I’ll leave off any other description to avoid taking the thread in a separate direction) and the other was abortion.
I remember being impressed in early 1992 when Bill Clinton said that average people don’t lie awake at night worrying whether their daughter can get an abortion–they worry about whether she will get into college, find a good job, etc., and I thought/hoped he might be a change … but then at the Dem convention that year Al Gore went out of his way to stress that the Clinton-Gore team would be the pro-choice team … As Ronald Reagan–another former Dem–put it: I didn’t leave the Democratic party, the Democratic party left me.
Robert and Kathy: At the risk of sending the thread veering off course (but what the hell, eh?), what is your evidence that the GOP is unequivocally pro-life? Or is it simply a lesser evil choice?
David,
It’s not that all GOP candidates are unequivocally pro-life. But where are the viable pro-life Dem candidates for major offices? Nowhere (except Pennsylvania sometimes). So you have to choose from among the Republicans. It’s pitiful.
Kathy, leaving aside individual candidates, what makes the GOP, or the Republican administrations, pro-life?
I don’t think the GOP as such is pro-life, David. I think that for whatever reason, it is the only major party willing to support or front any pro-life candidates for important offices.
It’s been fun playing Whac-a-Mole with you, Kathy. But I think I’ll have to move on to the issues at hand…
Not sure why you think I’m being evasive, David. For my part, I’ve been wondering why you asked the same question several times.
Bill D. leads off with the germane comment and we drift into the usual partisan stuff that the letter is NOT talking about – Faithful Citizenship asks us to consider a range of important issues and to focus on the common good.
In my view, and I’ll be happy to stand corrected, the K of C has sold its sold to partisanship.
PS I’m also weary of those who answer questions with questions!
I can’t vote for Obama because of his positions on abortion and destructive ESC research, and I can’t vote for McCain for many reasons, including his support for destructive ESC research. So I’m in political limbo for all intents and purposes. It used to be a very lonely place, but I’ve met others in the void like me, and it’s given me time to think about the relationship between Catholic Social Teaching and politics. I’m not close to having all the answers, but the intellectual exercise has been interesting.
I’d like to be more closely aligned with the Democratic Party. My definition of pro-life is perhaps broader than the term is used in the media. I associate “pro-life” with the consistent ethic of life, and I include concern for the environment within that framework. On the whole, I think the Democratic Party is more pro-life than the Republican party as to the various touchstones within the consistent ethic of life, but I think Kathy was correct when she said the DP is “in hock” to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc. on the issue of abortion, the most important of the various components of the consistent ethic of life. There are many books and articles that detail the shift in the DP on the issue of abortion. The shift began slowly in the 70′s, and it gathered speed when pro-choice organizations began pumping millions of dollars into the DP. Stalwart anti-abortion DP party leaders such as Teddy Kennedy, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Jesse Jackson did a complete 180 on the issue as their political campaigns benefitted from pro-choice funding.
At least one DP leader, Governor Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, refused to change course, however, and he became something of a pariah in his party. Perhaps the most dramatic sign of the shift in the DP on the abortion issue took place at the 1992 Democratic Convention when Casey was not allowed to speak to the convention because of his pro-life stand on abortion. When Casey died in 2000, Nat Hentoff wrote a remembrance about him in The New Republic:
http://www.swiss.ai.mit.edu/~rauch/nvp/civil/hentoff_casey.html
For me, the most telling quote in the article is from James Carville, who had worked on a couple of Casey’s campaigns:
“He [Casey] was just the kind of person that made the whole Washington [Democratic] establishment completely uncomfortable…They could never understand him.”
IMO, Casey wouldn’t be understood today in the DP if he were alive. David Gibson asked if there is any way to work inside the DP to effect change. Though it is still a nascent organization in many ways, the Democrats for Life of America provides some hope, IMHO. DFLA strength is slowing growing in the House of Representatives, and I imagine one day their pro-life votes will cause party leaders to sit up and take notice. At least I hope so.
“Kathy, leaving aside individual candidates, what makes the GOP, or the Republican administrations, pro-life?”
I’m not Kathy, nor a Republican, but David, wouldn’t the existence of a pro-life plank in the national and state party platforms indicate that there is a pro-life consensus within the party?
I don’t track these things consisently, but since the Reagan years, I believe that pro-life planks have been the rule rather than the exception in Republican platforms.
“(Ironically, the Knights convention included a video tribute from President Bush, who would hardly be considered an exemplar of Catholic social teaching.)”
That President Bush evidently admires the Knights really says nothing about the Knights’ own commitment to the sanctity of life – which, I have every reason to believe, is deep, sincere and far from “single-issue”.
And, if I may whack the hornets’ nest myself: why is it self-evident that the President “would hardly be an exemplar of Catholic social teaching”? In your estimation, is he worse, better, or about the same as presidents over the last, say, fifty years in this regard?
David,
The GOP is “pro-life” because it its party platform always urges overturning Roe v Wade and most–not all–candidates oppose legalized abortion–plain and simple. In our political lexicon, that is what pro-life means … now, if you want to say that the GOP does not support progressive social issues, povery issues, anti-war issues, etc., you are correct. But even if those issues deal with life-threatening/life-supporting matters they are not “pro-life” issues. By the sdame token, someone who supports scholl vouchers cannot really be called “Pro-choice” because that term means supporting abortion rights.
It’s like the old argument about the term “American” .. yes, Canadians and Mexicans and even South Americans are all from the Americas–but everyone knows what you are talking about when you say “American” (i.e., a citizen of the United States) and the people who pretend otherwise are just trying to pick a fight … so I’m sorry, but if you want to find a way to needle the GOP for not supporting the seemless garment view of life, you’ll need to find some way other than to question their “pro-life” credentials. The term refers only to abortion.
I think David asks the critical question: “Is there any new light to shed?” I rather doubt it, at least in this venue at this point in time.
It may be naive to assume that moral reasoning drives moral judgment. Perhaps we work backwards, *from* decisions reached at a gut/intuition level *to* justification of these decisions. I suspect that most have us have already formed the judgment that either McCain or Obama is relatively closer to our moral schema. I have, certainly. I believe we develop our story and then stick with it. Refutation often forces us to dig deeper for justification rather than question our foundational assumptions.
I find it troubling that, after individuals make political decisions, we come to regard them as ‘obvious.’ The counter story…the rationale for the other candidate…becomes tinged with disdain. We loose track of the fact that other entirely reasonable and authentically moral individuals can reach very different conclusions.
William Collier, thanks for your comment, which I think would resonate with many people.
Jim P, and Robert: Party platforms are not indicative of anything really, just convention sops to various blocs, and efforts at providing cover to various voters. They are irrelevant to campaigning and governing. (And it goes for both parties.) Candidates and parties say things all the time. Do you take evrything they say at face value?
Robert: I appreciate your comment, but it sounds like a political statement that really has nothing to do with abortion or Catholic teaching and positions.
In brief: What has the GOP done to back up their claims?
With the hope I don’t sidetrack this discussion, here’s another take on the Catholic politician: Today’s Washington Post has a column by George Will (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080602514.html), in which he speculates about the possibility that Gerry Brown will run for Governor of California again. Will describes Brown as “a Catholic in everything but theology” who “regrets the end of the Latin Mass and three years ago had Gregorian chants and medieval music at his wedding,” but who “is dubious about certain important dogmas — the incarnation, heaven, etc.”
“Jim P, and Robert: Party platforms are not indicative of anything really, just convention sops to various blocs, and efforts at providing cover to various voters. They are irrelevant to campaigning and governing. (And it goes for both parties.) Candidates and parties say things all the time. Do you take evrything they say at face value?”
I’m sorry, David, but platforms are not to be dismissed as utterly worthless and useless. They communicate to the public what the party stands for. In that sense, they perform a very useful function.
But perhaps you question the notion that parties really do have, or strive to have, core, consistent values. Are parties only “get-out-the-vote” organizations in your view?
A lot of wrangling and fighting goes into platform planks. The amount of blood figuratively spilled suggests that they are have *some* value.
While it’s true that no candidate or official is bound by their party’s platform, hopefully the platform, and the individual candidate, reflect at least to some degree what voters can expect.
This becomes very important, for example, in assessing whether Democrats or Republicans should be in control of a legislature. The party that controls committee assingments and chairmanships is in the driver’s seat for legislation, approval of judicial and cabinet appointments – even the power to impeach. It all matters.
“In brief: What has the GOP done to back up their claims?”
Again, the disclaimer: I’m not a Republican.
Two things come immediately to mind.
The current occupant of the White House, a Republican, has severely limited Federal funds available for embryonic stem cell research.
He also nominated, and helped steer to approval, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito – the latter after pro-life activists howled in protest over the Harriet Myers nomination. Those successful nominations bore fruit when those justices were part of the majority in Carhart v Gonzalez, upholding the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
Also – a Republican president, President Reagan, with a Republican Senate, pursued policies that resulted in the final collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. It seems pretty clear that the world became safer for a time, and nuclear annihilation less likely, because of that great event.
Robert–
Was “seemless garment” a Freudian slip, or another instance of your ironic wit? ;)
We could argue all day about what “pro-life” means, and such wrangling is something pro-choice advocates would enjoy. You have to admit, “pro-life” is not the better moniker in the pro-life v. pro-choice debate. As Ann Oliver often reminds us, semantics are very important.
But even if you and I can’t agree on what “pro-life” means, I hope you’ll agree that being opposed to abortion means much more than a reversal of Roe v. Wade. It also includes social programs (don’t gag…you said you were once a Democrat) specifically designed to reduce the number of abortions by providing safety nets to pregnant women and new mothers. We can argue about the details of such programs, but I think “pro-life” must, at a minimum, also comprise a comprehensive policy to create circumstances where abortion will be the last option a women with an unwanted pregnancy thinks about. Reversing Roe v. Wade won’t be enough to push abortion to the bottom of the options list.
A friend pointed out that with the kind of Democratic majority in the Senate that is now likely, no anti-Roe justice will be named to the Supreme Court during the next four years. When weighing a McCarin presidency in terms of abortion versus a McCain presidency in terms of a lot of other life-and-death issues, that should be kept in mind.
Jim P: I appreciate the value of platforms, but I think I’d be much more skeptical (hopefully not to the point of cycnical) about what they mean in real life. I think there has been some honest self-criticism and regret among the “pro-life” movement about what they ever got from Reagan. As far as Reagan “winning” the Cold War, I think that too is a highly debatable point–without taking all credit away from him. And is the world safer today, in nuclear terms, given the failure to follow up on the Cold War fallout?
The so-called parital-birth abortion ban is a third rail, but again, I’ll go there–I see that debate as largely also a matter of scoring political points for the GOP, though it turned out to be as useful for the Dems, and just further polarized the abortion debate. The act regarded a very small number of admittedly terrible abortions, but it made no pretense of ending those procedures. In fact, there are no indications that the act has limited “late-term” abortions because abortionists have simply used a different procedure, killing the fetus before extracting it. Again, it was a means to burnish the party’s pro-life crednetials without actually doing anything substantially pro-life. Indeed, it could be argued that in political terms it further hardened positions and wasted valuable resoruces instead of trying to pass measures that wouldr educe abortion.
In any case, ending the Cold War is not an anti-abortion measure, I think it is safe to say. So what are we left with? The Bush legacy? Yikes.
Father K: I don’t think the Will column is off track–it’s actually a good story, and one that I think points to the phenomneon (as noted in Peter Nixon’s earlier post) of the split between “social justice Catholics” and “catechism Catholics” (yes, crude categories that are not black and white–fire away), that is those who see the locus of Catholicism in orthopraxy (and often let core beliefs fall away, like Jerry Brown) and the orthodox folks who believe that right belief is the sine qua non of doing good. I’d like to see both inform the other, as right practice brings many to right belief, and right belief brings many to the right action without which belief (according to the New Testament) is empty. It seems we in the church are stuck in a mindset whereby these two psyches travel on parallel tracks, and abortion is stranded in the middle, or perhaps the captive of the abstract world of the right.
Somewhat apropos of Peter Steinfel’s point, Mark Silk critique’s the Times story I linked to in the post, by denoting how fractured and fragmented is even the white Catholic vote:
http://egghead.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/SpiritualPolitics/2008/08/what_catholic_vote.html
Of greater import, perhaps, is his analysis of a ne Time mag poll, which shows “values” like abortion and gay marriage are way down the list of voters concerns:
http://egghead.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/SpiritualPolitics/2008/08/time_poll_sez_1.html
Which could make the discussion here somewhat irrelevant–in terms of cocnrete politicala ction and results–or perhaps should incline us to a more nuanced view of how to pursue certain goals when our ideals are impractical.
“The act regarded a very small number of admittedly terrible abortions, but it made no pretense of ending those procedures. In fact, there are no indications that the act has limited “late-term” abortions because abortionists have simply used a different procedure, killing the fetus before extracting it. Again, it was a means to burnish the party’s pro-life crednetials without actually doing anything substantially pro-life. Indeed, it could be argued that in political terms it further hardened positions and wasted valuable resoruces instead of trying to pass measures that wouldr educe abortion. ”
Well, David, I see you are being relentlessly practical today :-)
Whether, as you say, “it made no pretense of ending those procedures” or not, I can’t say for certain, but if the law doesn’t in fact ban so-called partial-birth abortions, despite the popular name affixed to it, then we’ve been sold a bill of goods. And if the law really does legislate as advertised and, in contravention of that law, clinics continue to perform the partial-birth procedure, then they should be prosecuted. No?
Beyond that – because a heinous act only affects a relatively small number of victims doesn’t mean that the laws of a society shouldn’t prohibit it. I could rewrite the quoted passage above, substituting “waterboarding” for “late-term abortion” (more or less – I haven’t been through the actual exercise :-) and try to make a case that torture isn’t worth legislating against.
And beyond that – I’m crawling out further on the branch here, because I make no pretense of legal expertise – the gang of law professors at First Things seems to be of the opinion that Carhart v Gonzalez is a landmark in the long slog against Roe v Wade; one in particular believes that it marks the beginning of the end of the Roe regime.
Jim: Just a word to say how much I appreciate your interventions and the engagement you bring to them, and topics like this. I’m no expert–just adept at trying to sound like it.
I should note a dubium as to whether these political “machinations” as I might call them do in fact contribute, in a crude way, a braoder revulsion or rejection of abortion, or a lower incidience of recourse ot abortion than would normally have occurred, or, as noted above, a political strategy whereby the opposition (Democrats) have been forced to at least make different noises on abortion, if not concrete concessions.
I do not know the answer, and might guess that one could argue the opposite of those claims. But if true it is a worthy if bare-knuckled stance, given the stakes.
It might be relevant to note here that nobody knows what the 2008 Democratic Party Platform says because it hasn’t been written yet. (News Flash: Howard Dean and the platform committee are in Pittsburgh now and will be hammering it out on Saturday.)
Assuming that the 2008 abortion plank will be similar that that in the current platform written in 2004, the Dems are likely to claim that every woman has the right to make a decision about abortion for herself. I believe “safe, legal and rare” language is in the 2004 plank, but I won’t swear to it. Easy to find out for yourself, though, by accessing it here:
http://www.democrats.org/a/2005/09/the_2004_democr.php
If the 2008 platform follows the 2004 platform, there will be associated planks supporting health care for pregnant women and children, programs for families with handicapped children, etc., all demonstrating the party’s belief that women should not choose abortion simply because they can’t afford to have a baby and take care of it once it’s born.
Whether the 2008 language will be persuasive, individual Catholics must decide.
However the platform shakes out, I realize a lot of Catholics believe that the best way to get the Democrats to soften or remove any abortion plank is to vote against them–or simply not vote–in November.
But there is another strategy, and that’s to gripe about the platform before mid-June of any presidential year, when the Democrats solicit testimony, comments and complaints to the platform committee.
As a Catholic and a Democrat, I made my feelings known last spring by writing to platform@dnc.org before the June 15 date and telling them what I thought the plank should say.
The e-mail address and deadline were right there on the platform page linked above.
There’s also a mailing address where you could send complaints and suggestions signed by any number of disillusioned would-be Democrat friends, relations, fellow parishioners, K of C members, Commonweal readers, the Catholic League and others.
If you’ve have made an effort to affect the platform through party channels and have been ignored, then it may be that your conscience will call you to withhold a vote once the platform is composed.
If you have NOT made your views known to the party during it’s comment period, perhaps your good sense will encourage you to try to do so next time so you don’t have to squander a vote in 2012.
My views on Carhart, for what they are worth.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1926
David,
My last statement was intended solely as a definition of what the term “pro-life” means … not a judgment on how well or poorly either party measures up to morality, Catholic social teaching, or even consistency versus hypocrisy.
Regardless of what the Queen of Hearts might believe, words do have definite meanings–and thus within our country “pro-life” means opposition to legalized abortion. There are other terms–not as well known, I’ll admit–such as “seemless garment” to refer to the belief that other issues are also “life” issues.
Whoops–my “seamless” argument is beginning to tatter from stealing time from work to quickly make comments (without the automatic spell checker to which I am now in thrall).
Thanks for that link Cathy Kaveny. I recalled your column now, and it probably informed my own ambivalence on that topic.
Jim,
I think the other David may be conflating the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. The first prohibits a certain abortion technique. Whether the procedure is being used illegally, I don’t know, but it doesn’t save any lives. I believe even the Supreme Court pointed out, in upholding it as constitutional, that nothing prevented the doctors performing the abortion from using another technique. The AMA supported the bill, once it was amended to permit the technique to save the life of the mother. Of course a partial birth abortion is ghastly, but the legal victory succeeded in requiring doctors to substitute one ghastly technique for another.
The Born Alive Infant Protection Act requires that if, in the course of an abortion, a baby is born alive, it must receive all appropriate medical care. Barack Obama is still accused of being in favor of “infanticide,” since he was instrumental in blocking the Illinois version of the bill, before the federal version passed. But this saves no lives, either. If there is any chance the abortion will result in a live birth, the doctors kill the fetus in the womb (lethal injection, I think) to make sure it is not born alive. (Obama’s position, as I understand it was that the ban was an attempt to undermine Roe v Wade, and that the law already required medical care for babies born alive when abortion was being attempted, so there was no need for the law.)
Whether or not getting these two pieces of legislation passed was a victory for the “pro-life” cause, no lives have been saved.
It sounds like a lot of people are twisting themselves through ethical and theological contortions to justify voting for Obama despite his truly awful record on abortion-related issues … why not just admit that the OTHER social problems being mentioned matter more to you? I have no trouble saying that while abortion bothers me greatly–because it involves the destruction of innocent life–the death penalty and war in general do not bother me as much … not when the former involves someone who committed a heinous and violent crime and the latter involves the security of my country.
I can imagine the responses THAT will bring … but I’ll have to imagine until tomorrow, because the work day is nearly done….
Just a word of thanks to everyone for what seems to me a very high level of conversation and civility.
Cathleen, I think your views are always worthwhile. (I really appreciate it when scholars take the trouble to write for the many-headed throng). I hadn’t yet read that column in Commonweal, but I’m perpetually behind in my reading, and don’t always read the issues in date order. This morning I read an outstanding article on why St. Joseph’s college downstate from ND is a notable example of Catholic university. I think that issue came out during Lent, :-(.
Amen, amen, I say…
Surely the best reference in this discussion is that to Nat Henthoff’s obituary on Robert Casey. Behind Nat’s sensitivity on the issue is certainly his memory of the treatment of another helpless, friendless group in Germany in the 1930s. Many complaints were proffered about single issue voting.
I have been trying to discover whether Planned Parenthood does anything to help possible parents. The organization has quite a large budget. But I do not find in its reports, despite its name, any references to the number of mothers assisted by that organization. Its answer to parenthood seems to be “DON’T”.
Ah, well, we now have the Baby Boomers coming to retirement. Too bad that cohort did not plan more carefully for the cohort which is meant to be supporting their retirement.
I add a note about the USCCB. Newman’s opinion of episcopal synods was that they are the very pits of discord and disharmony. He thought councils were great mischief makers.
As a politically conservative and liberal Catholic Canadian, I often think that I am fortunate not to have to vote in American elections (not that anyone HAS to vote). I find I tend to side with the republicans on social justice “life” issues such as abortion, fetal stem cell research and to a lesser degree euthanasia. However, I side with the democrats on the restricted use of the death penalty.
Given this balance, in the wider sense of the word “pro-life” the republicans sure have more claim to the moniker than the democrats. In the widest sense of pro-life, in the sense of every moral issue being a life issue, foreign policy, economics, education, healthcare etc. are a hard fit into the “seamless garment” when the seamless garment is large enough to cover a baseball stadium. Where do we stop? Traffic, smoking, and alcohol laws all result in life or death situations but I think it would be a bit of a stretch to claim to be more “pro-life” because one party has a platform to reduce traffic accidents.
But I am loath to think that the mental gymnastics performed by some Catholic pro-choice democrats can even be remotely linked to a pro-life position. Just because one favors reducing the number of abortions performed doesn’t make one any more pro-life than someone who wants to reduce their taxes makes them a libertarian or anarchist. The whole point of the pro-life movement is not to stop abortions by fiat but to incorporate into law a legal recognition of the rights of the unborn to a natural, uninterrupted development. Like the abolitionists of before, pro-life isn’t satisfied with reducing to zero the number of abortions just like the abolitionists wouldn’t be satisfied with reducing the number of slaves to zero, but rather that there be a legal recognition of a group placing them on an equal constitutional footing. If murder was legalized tomorrow but the murder rate dropped to zero, I would still fight to have murder re-criminalized because of the function of law in our society as a representation of collective morality.
As for Obama, I am a little perplexed and often frustrated. Part of me wants him to win, not because his foreign policy is better (I think it is naïve and underestimates the power of ideology in fermenting discord), nor do I think his economic policy is superior, and definitively not because I think he would advance a pro-life agenda (I am rather certain that his Supreme Court appointees would make Stevens or Ginsburg look like Alito and Scalia) but rather because he will succeed in rebuilding some foreign relations because of what he is, not his policies.
Europe loved to hate Bush during the first election (I was studying in Austria at the time) not because of his policies but because of what he represented. In fact, it was the exact opposite of what the Europeans thought: Bush was the isolationist and Gore was the stated “nation builder” in their platforms. This would be the key to Obama’s success but also his failure.
His failure will be his fall from grace. Obama cannot deliver what he promises much less what the mostly ignorant electorate believes he promises. I will refrain from allusions to Mugabe but I not that most populist leaders end up disappointing the wave of hope they ride into office on. JFK is a notable exception only because he wasn’t around long enough for the novelty to wear off. Perhaps that is Obama’s greatest hope (God forbid) for a legacy as positive as the aspirations of the multitudes prior to the election.
Gabriel,
I am not sure why it is relevant, but try checking out Planned Parenthood’s annual report.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR_2007_vFinal.pdf
The percentages here are for numbers of clients served, not dollars spent. Financial information is at the back of the report.
38% Contraception
29% Sexually Transmitted Diseases/Infections Testing and Treatment
19% Cancer Screening and Prevention
10% Other Women’s Health Services
3% Abortion Services (289,750 abortion procedures)
1% Other
The following is what they see as their mission:
You might feel they should change their name, but the services they offer, as shown above, are in keeping with their stated mission.
To what organization would you refer a woman who did not want to become pregnant, who was pregnant accidentally, or needed prenatal care or medical or financial help caring for her children? Do the major pro-life organizations provide these services? That’s not a rhetorical question. I really don’t know. I don’t believe the National Right to Life Committee does, but I could be mistaken.
If murder was legalized tomorrow but the murder rate dropped to zero, I would still fight to have murder re-criminalized because of the function of law in our society as a representation of collective morality.
What if re-criminalization of murder would lead to murders being committed again? Would you prefer to havemurder legal, with no murders, or murder illegal with people getting murdered? I know what I’d choose.
And shouldn’t Catholics push for legal prohibitions against divorce and contraception? Should there be laws against masturbation or even impure thoughts, which would be unenforceable, but would state the position of society? And what about heinous acts that we could all agree are loathsome but which no has thought to commit yet?
David, we make laws where laws are needed. The murder rate might drop to zero due to social service access and education (and pigs might fly) but the very nature of democracy requires a legal and constitutional understanding of the rights of each person, including the right to life. The pro-life movement isn’t merely looking for the outlawing of abortion (though some might) but rather the legal recognition of an entire group of human beings being denied the most basic right.
As to divorce and contraception and unimaginable crimes:
“If we assume that there is a natural right to own property and that it is wrong to violate another’s right, what constitutes stealing needs to be clearly defined by positive law, and penalties for stealing have to be determined. It does not necessarily follow, however, that every kind of infringement of the moral law should be prohibited and punished by the State. For the legislator should have in view the common good. And the common good is not always best sserved by legal enactments.” Frederick Copleston on Thomas Aquinas in “A History of Medieval Philosophy”
David–
Thanks for the link to the PP annual report. PP’s income for FY 2007 was almost a billion dollars, of which 33% ($336,700,000) was taxpayers’ money in the form of federal grants and contracts. I don’t deny that PP provides some beneficial services, but the 289,750 figure you cited for the number of abortions performed by PP medical personnel in FY 2007 constitutes approximately 20% of all the abortions performed in the U.S. during that time period. PP may be listed as a non-profit, but it’s clearly in the abortion business, too, and I don’t think it should be receiving federal funding.
William,
It is prohibited for federal funds to be used for abortions, so Planned Parenthood must keep the abortion services separate, and any federal funds that go to Planned Parenthood must be used for the other services they provide. Some make the argument that government funding frees up money from other sources and allows more to be spent on abortions. That may be more or less correct, but applying the exact same principle to “faith based initiatives” like Catholic Charities, which keep their “secular” operations seperate from the religious ones, it would mean they could not accept federal money because it would violate the separation of church and state.
Something that seems to be overlooked in this discussion is a point that Mr Anderson is trying to make vis-à-vis the nature of abortion and what it means to have abortion on demand – how it affects the entire legal and moral culture. It affects how we treat children, marriage, family, sexuality, medicine and economics. For those who rant against materialism, the “right” to abortion is a profoundly materialistic concept. There is nothing more materialistic than viewing people primarily as consumers of resources and burdens. Abortion emphasizes fear over hope and the selfish over the selfless – self-interest over caring. Abortion on demand demeans women – rather than fighting to recognize women’s dignity, the proponents of abortion on demand caved in to the sexist view of women as sexual objects and helped institutionalize it.
In a world where a mother has an absolute right to destroy her child, why should we care about the poor, immigrants, and the elderly?
Sean, I’d be more persuaded by your point if the GOP indeed cared about the poor, immigrants, the elderly–or advocated positions that demonstrated such care. But the Republican party is the (ostensibly) pro-life party, and it does not do those things. How does that figure?
This is slightly off topic, but did anyone hear the report that the FBI said that a possible motive for the anthrax killings was that Ivins was anti-abortion and had targeted Daschle and Leahy because they were pro-choice.
How low can they get? True, Ivins was a devout Catholic but to pin these killings on him for this reason does not hold water for me. Everything I have heard against this man so far is circumstantial. I hope Congress will lead an investigation of their own into this case.
Interesting blog, and I wanted to give kudos to Jean Raber for the time she took to enlighten/remind us how to get involved on an action oriented basis. It takes time to really affect action, and that is what prevents many from doing so. Thanks for the reminder, Jean.
David:
A case can be made that Democratic policies hurt the poor, ultimately, in a myriad of ways, and, further, that Democratic pols are no less hostage to moneyed and corporate interests than the GOP.
It would be interesting to be in a discussion space in which all political parties were treated with a hermeneutic of suspicion, not just one.
“Sean, I’d be more persuaded by your point if the GOP indeed cared about the poor, immigrants, the elderly–or advocated positions that demonstrated such care. But the Republican party is the (ostensibly) pro-life party, and it does not do those things. How does that figure?”
Dang it, aren’t there any Republicans on this site? I keep finding myself speaking up for them, and I really, really don’t belong to the party.
David, when Newt and the Contract With America congressional crowd put time limits and back-to-work provisions into public aid funding, and the Great Triangulator acquiesced, my recollection is that one – not all, but one – of the motivations that drove that legislation was the firm conviction that people are better off working than not working. Not just better off economically, but better human beings. At a profound level, they were concerned for the welfare of the poor. And there is a Christian social-teaching basis for the importance and dignity of work.
Also, my understanding is that the new public-aid scheme is generally considered to be successful.
Yes, I also believe there are not a few conservatives who hold the poor in contempt, just as I believe there are liberal politicians who find it convenient to keep constituents in destitute captivity. But at their best, both parties do genuinely care about the poor, the elderly and immigrants. But their underlying philosophies are often very different, and they yield competing policy agendas.
David,
As we have discussed before, it seems to me that the best way to “care” about the poor is to have policies that result in fewer of them. I submit that in most circumstances, free markets do this better than government programs. Is a better way to “care” about immigrants to have no borders, multilingiulism, and protectionist trade policies that keep them in a permanent underclass or to engourage free trade so they can prosper in their own home countries and immigration policies that help those who do come become full participants in the economic and cultural life of America? To “care” for the elderly is it necessary to support aid programs that give the same benefits to a destitute widow and T. Boone Pickens?
It is interesting that you imply that abortion is somehow a fraudulent issue for the GOP because they have been so ineffective at doing anything about it. I submit to you that the Dems are frauds on their flagship issues as well. From the War on Poverty to today, the social welfare policies of this country have been dominated by “progressive” ideas and we have a country even more deeply divided by race (even with less overt racism) than ever and illegitimacy rates through the roof. The public education establishment has been dominated by the Democratic Party for half a century, and is has spiralled in to abject failure. I submit to you when Democratic power brokers claim to care about the poor, or education, or immigrants by throwing money at their problems, the only care about maintaining a power base.
I don’t say the GOP is God’s party, but there is a difference between the parties on important issues, like abortion.
Thanks, Jim, for the useful clarification that “caring” is not co-terminous with “government spending.”
As for Mr. Gibson’s inquiries upthread as to what Republicans have ever done re: abortion, I’d refer him to this lengthy list: http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/2008/01/countering-gop-bush-duped-pro-lifers.html
“To what organization would you refer a woman who did not want to become pregnant, who was pregnant accidentally, or needed prenatal care or medical or financial help caring for her children? Do the major pro-life organizations provide these services? That’s not a rhetorical question. I really don’t know. I don’t believe the National Right to Life Committee does, but I could be mistaken.”
I admit I’m not well-versed in the services that are currently available – a gap in my knowledge that I intend to rectify. But … I don’t believe that such women are totally without recourse right now.
I would refer a woman in this situation to Catholic Charities, and I’m confident they would help her qualify for whatever Federal, state, local and private services are available.
In addition, there are a variety of other local community organizations in our area that would accept referrals.
Here’s what I do know: for medical care, our county (Cook County, IL) provides low-cost or free services via a system of neighborhood clinics and county hospitals. I don’t know all the details for pre-natal care in particular, and I suspect that whatever is available wouldn’t be as good as having an ob/gyn via HMO or private insurance, but it’s something.
If the woman is in danger from husband, boyfriend or family, there are shelters in our area that would take her in. To what extent such services are available elsewhere in the state, I don’t know.
If the woman needs baby clothes, furniture, or other “baby supplies”, there are several private agencies in our area that would be able to supply them. Save caveat as above regarding such availability elsewhere.
If she isn’t in danger of abuse, but simply needs a place to live – that could be a problem. Federal assisted housing is terribly underfunded, to the extent that the waiting list in this area is something like ten years. I admit I don’t know what the solution would be. Catholic Charities has some residential programs, but I doubt they have enough units to meet demand. Possibly another private agency would be able to help. Not very reassuring, I know.
I don’t doubt that more could be done in terms of Federal funding.
1-800-AngelOK: that’s the hotline for The Gabriel Project. It’s a parish-based, locally responsive organization in at least a few states.
They could probably use volunteer help with their websites, eg http://www.gabrielnetwork.org/, http://www.gabrielproject.com/contacts.htm
“As for Mr. Gibson’s inquiries upthread as to what Republicans have ever done re: abortion, I’d refer him to this lengthy list: http://thepublicsquare.blogspot.com/2008/01/countering-gop-bush-duped-pro-lifers.html”
Stuart, thx, that is a good list.
This discussion is heading into the realm of competing political philosophies, which is good, though I’m not sure I have time today to give it adequate attention. (Probably better for the blog. And my paycheck.)
I would say that while one should not assume motivations, it seems hard to me to argue that the GOP has been terribly concerned or compassionate about the poor, immigrants, elderly. At best, I’d say it was tough love.
I also think that, in light of the demonstrable results of GOP policies, that at least this era’s version of “conservative” economic policies have not been very good at easing problems for the underclass, or even the working and middle classes.
I’d also ask how it is that you justify a free-market, change-the-society approach to these issues while not countenancing such an approach when it comes to abortion?
As for the list of accomplishments, I did not find that terribly convincing, at all. And Dems could counter with a similar list.
Just some sparks for the tinderbox…
As for the list of accomplishments, I did not find that terribly convincing, at all. And Dems could counter with a similar list.
1) Not as to abortion, they couldn’t.
2) The list might not be “terribly convincing,” but it’s a lot longer than an empty page, which is what you seemed to have been implying.
3) Keep in mind that until and unless Roe were overturned, there’s only so much that legislators and Presidents can even hope to accomplish.
So the Brownback Act requires the doctor to show the pregnant woman the sonogram before the abortion while Bush & Co. scream at any showing of dead soldier bodies from Iraq or Palestine. Tell me this is not gross hypocrisy.
We are not permitted to see indisputable humans dying while we are forced to see what scientists recognize as “potential” humans.
Not just scientists but theologians – see link: Shortcut to: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/News_Tracker/moderate_RC_position_on_contraception_abortion.htm
Also, just the ordinary American Catholic and voter – any survey indicates that the middle of the road Catholic does not support abortion but also does not want our laws to criminalize it.
I do believe that T. Aquinas posited that there was life at conception but personhood happened later.
David,
All real love is tough love. Loving and caring mean doing what is right and beneficial for the beloved, not what feels caring or what makes us feel good about helping.
How exactly can you have a “free market” approach to abortion? The reason that abortion cannot be left purely to individual choices is the same reason that any act that involves protecting an innocent person can’t. Even libetarians accept that the one legitimate function of government is the protection of innocents and fundamental rights.
What “demonstrable results” are you talking about? Are you saying most people are worse off than they were in 1980? That is demonstrably untrue. If you are talking about the much discussed “shrinking middle class” and division between the rich and poor, explain exactly how that is the result any policy. First, most of that “shrinkage” is the result of more people becoming wealthier, not poorer. And the size of the gap between the haves and have nots always, always, occurs during periods of major economic transition – i.e. the transition to a post industrial economy.
T. Aquinas thought human ensoulment happened at “quickening,” when the mother becomes aware of the movements of the fetus. He held no position on conception because he had no concept of conception, so to speak. The mammalian ovum wasn’t discovered until the early 19th century, the human egg confirmed later still. Before then, it was thought that semen contained everything important about the offspring. Hence the tradition’s perhaps obsessive concern with male masturbation. (Female masturbation was apparently okey doke for Catholics until Humanae Vitae.)
The reason that abortion cannot be left purely to individual choices is the same reason that any act that involves protecting an innocent person can’t.
Of course, the “pro-life” side says abortion takes innocent lives, and the abortion-rights side says that while a fetus is a potential human life, it is not a person with rights. Therefore, there is basically no disagreement that we ought to protect innocent life. The disagreement is over whether a fetus actually is a person, a question many feel can be answered in the affirmative by appealing to religious beliefs. And since laws in the United States must be based on secular principles, separation of Church and state would be violated if abortion were prohibited on the grounds that a fetus is a person. Of course, there are other grounds for prohibiting abortion, but the “pro-life” gives as its main reason for opposing abortion that life begins at conception.
David,
The distinction you make is untenable. Your so-called “secular” view is itself based in a western Judeo-Christian view. There is no such thing as a neutral secular principle.
Whether a person is a person is a matter of fact, not opinion or legal edict. If you travel to a foreign country where a Christian, or a woman, or a child under the age 13 is a considered non-person or a lesser person is it in fact the case. We may disagree about the fact, but there is no denying it is a fact. What any person’s reasons are for his opinion about a fact are is irrelevant. Which one of us is wrong is the only issue.
There are many people who hold the opinion certain people, the profoundly retarded, people with limited brain function, etc. are not really persons because they can’t function as such, yet the law protects them. What secular priciple is this based on? What purely secular principle stands for the principle that innocent people should be protected at all?
If personhood is simply what we agree it is based on some secular justification, there is nothing to keep the strong from designating the weak non-persons. Soylent Green anyone?
“The mammalian ovum wasn’t discovered until the early 19th century, the human egg confirmed later still. Before then, it was thought that semen contained everything important about the offspring. Hence the tradition’s perhaps obsessive concern with male masturbation. (Female masturbation was apparently okey doke for Catholics until Humanae Vitae.)”
Important information, Lisa. More to the point, female sexuality is virtually unknown to the Boys of the Tiber who reacted in the HV era to women insisting to them that they were sexual beings also. How did the Boys respond? Like oh yeah then masturbation is wrong for you too. On the other hand, other women were listening. Why do you think tens of thousands of nuns left to get married? So Augustine was wrong after all. Not to mention that suddenly women were getting some respect in society.
At any rate, an abundance of men keep commenting on female issues. We do need female bishops. But how can we do that when the evil Anglicans already did?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93385756
Being a Pro-Life Catholic can get you into trouble with the FBI. Ivins stance on abortion
was offered as a motive for the anthrax letters.
Sean,
If you want to claim that a one-celled entity, four one-thousandths of an inch wide, with no eyes, ears, heart, or brain is so obviously a person that no one can deny it, you are free to do so. But your insisting on it doesn’t make it true.
You are certainly aware that it was the Supreme Court that ruled laws must have a secular purpose. It is not something I made up.
David,
The Supreme Court has held that a law must serve a secular purpose, but it has never said that a law that comports with a religion’s doctrines can not do so. There are many laws that are consistent with Christian beliefs, but that doesn’t make them unconstitutional. The laws against bigamy, for example, are historically grounded in Judeo-Christian monogamy. At least as many religions and cultures in the world reject this view, but it is the law nonetheless. The idea that (assuming away R v. W) laws prohibiting or limiting abortion would violate the establishment clause is just plain wrong.
I didn’t say my insisting an embryo is human makes it so – any more than you insisting it isn’t makes it not. What I said is that whether it is one or not is a question of fact, not opinion. You and I can disagree about whether a red car is attractive or not, but if we disagree about whether it is a car, one of us is wrong.
If you must have evidence that a being is human, what would that evidence be? Those who claim the facts do not support the personhood of the unborn, it seems to me, have a much harder time with the evidence than those that don’t. You can’t have a functional definition. If you try, you always slip down a slippery slope to euthanasia, infanticide, and eugenics. Temporal definitions likewise fail because they are inevitably arbitrary. Moreover, if the protection of innocent human life is on the highest order, shouldn’t you err on the side of life?
You don’t have to be Catholic to believe this.
You make some good points. Please realize that the church’s position on abortion has changed over the centuries. Unfortunately, since 1968 papal proclamations have more closely aligned themselves with the monantism movement of the 19th century – reaction against the enlightenment, the loss of the Papal States, some temporal power limitations, etc. As a result, the hieararchy esp. Pius IX promulgated dogmas e.g. immaculate conception, papal infallibility via Vatican I which were actually not majority opinions and not supported by either theologians nor scriptural exegetes. This “creeping infallibility” continues today. We need to make distinctions between the deposit of faith and dogmatic announcements (popes can make errors), the infallibility of the apostolic church (do not confuse this with the papacy), and moral announcements that are not dogmas. Since 1968, more and more papal pronouncements use the term “intrinsically evil or disordered” which stops all discussion, is anti-dialogic, oppresses bishop conferences, makes synods useless, etc.
My point – in terms of the decision around life and personhood or fact and opinion, the church does not use the latest in scientific research, medical studies, etc. For example, genetists know that the potential for life is found in both the sperm and the ovum; when united this zygote needs to be implanted in order to continue to grow. Geneticists know that this period of tiime takes 14-21 days before they recognize an actual genetic code and DNA helix. Science also knows that roughly 30-50% of all zygotes do not survive. Is this abortion? Genitics tell us that until the zygote develops the helix it is unable to be called a person. Yes, it is potential life but so is sperm, ovum, etc. Again, we can differ on this but the hierarchy has closed down all discussion and reached the arbitrary definition that life starts at conception. A geneticist would take this in stages and clarify the meaning of conception.
Mr. Nickol,-
In none of the examples you cite of Planned “Parenthood’s” activities is there is any mention of maternity and care for the pregnant woman and for her child. Now what is parenthood but this – a mother and a child?
You should indeed make an effort to discover the many [thousands] of groups addressed to the care of mothers and their children. Open a phone book and look under pregnancy. Have you heard of the Foundling Hospital in New York City?
For the glories of the Democratic Party in dealing with poverty and discrimination and education, I refer you [as a beginning] to Thomas Sowell’s writings on the subject. They reveal the regular and continuous failings in such as the War on Poverty. There are now more poor people than before the “war”.
For public education – dominated as it is by that branch of the Democratic Party called the NEA – one finds examples of its abysmal failure all around us. Just lately I have read Stanley Fish’s SAVE THE WORLD ON YOUR TIME. He, a college professor of English, recounts that he must teach his students the basic rules of grammar. Remember diagramming sentences in grammar school? Now college students are unable to do it.
For Mr. De Haas, not the hierarchy, but the Holy Father has terminated the discussion about the personhood of the zygote. All the scientific measurements in the world will never display a person. The testimony of “Mr. Genetics” about the beginning of personhood is irrelevant until Mr. Genetics can display personhood in his microscope. Some one has to determine what “Mr. Science” says about the number of zygotes that survive. One “scientist” tells us that 80-90% of zygotes fail to survive. Now we read that it is “roughly” 30-50%.
We have the great fortune to have a teaching authority which can settle such questions as that of personhood and our responsibilities, at the beginning as at the end of lfe. Either we accept the teachings of the Magisterium or we do not. But, as Newman wrote, if we do not we cannot honestly call ourselves Catholics. .
Mr. Austin,
You’re correct that science cannot discern the presence of a “person.” Personhood is a philosophical concept, not a biological one. Indeed, the magisterium teaches this, e.g., in Donum Vitae. However, it then states that, given the uncertainty of the personhood of the embryo, it is never permissible to take direct action to harm it, in case it is a person. To my knowledge, this rigorist stance in the face of uncertainty is rare, if not unique in official current Catholic teaching in realms other than sexuality and reproduction. The magisterium teaches that one should take no action in defense of the life or well-being of the mother if that means directly harming the embryo. No self-defense for pregnant women, if the threat comes from the life she carries within her. But–to paraphrase Sojourner Truth–ain’t she a person, too?
The problem for many people of good will, Catholic and otherwise, is raising the uncertainty to an absolute imperative to defend the embryo, even at the cost of the woman’s life or well-being, or even at the cost of preventing the development of potentially life-saving treatments from stem cells. To such people, it seems obvious that personhood, while not a matter of intelligence or the other eugenically-adopted criteria for worth, surely requires something more than merely the presence of a complete set of DNA in an egg. And the mother and those potentially helped by stem cell therapies are undoubtedly persons, whose lives should not be held hostage to an uncertainty raised to an absolute.
As usual, this discussion goes on and on.
I think for it to continue well, folks would be served well by reading the Fr. Hollenbach article Bill DeHaas referenced in the new social theology thread and how to approach engagement on these issues.
Thanks, Bob. You may also want to go to the America blog and read Richard McCormick’s article on the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae. He clarifies a number of issues and suggests that we get “bottlenecked” because we focus on the wrong approach and issue. LIsa, your common sense examples are what I mean by inconsistent and why the majority of Catholics just don’t listen.
Finally, I think it was also Cardinal Newman who said (paraphrase): “I will drink to the pope but first to my conscience be true!”
Gabriel,
I can see why you or anyone opposed to abortion would disapprove of Planned Parenthood, and I would not attempt to argue you out of your view. But why you insist that Planned Parenthood should do something other than it self-chosen mission because it has the word “parenthood” in its name puzzles me.
My question was not whether there are any organizations that provide care for mothers or mothers-to-be. It was whether any of the major “pro-life” organizations do. I am not arguing that they should. Organizations have a right to define their own missions and the scope of those missions. I am merely countering your question about Planned Parenthood with a similar question about the major “pro-life” organizations such as the National Right to Life Committee.
Sean,
My point is that a law prohibiting abortion would violate the separation of church and state if it were enacted declaring that (1) life begins at conception and (2) we know this to be the case because the Catholic Church teaches it. There would have to be a persuasive case made, without an appeal to religious teachings, that life begins at conception. Alternatively, the argument could be made that it is basically agreed that, beginning at conception, there is a potential human life involved, and potential human life is worthy of legal protection. Abortion when outlawed was not treated as murder.
I would say that whether or not a fertilized egg is a person is a question of definition, not of fact. Ernst van den Haag suggested in The National Review quite some time ago that sentience is a key factor to consider:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Abortion%3B+a+civilized+exchange.-a03926899
The link takes you to the full van den Haag article, a rebuttal by John T. Noonan, and a response to Noonan from van den Haag. All of it is well worth reading.
It seems to me that at conception and during the earliest weeks of pregnancy, an embryo is in roughly the same category as someone who is brain-dead. What exists is living, but it is living in the sense of a heart being transported for transplant, or a human-tissue culture being kept alive in a lab. It is not a person (in my opinion) and it’s empirically verifiable that it is not sentient.
Lisa Fullam has an excellent answer a few messages above to the question, “Why not err on the side of life?” In a nutshell, my take on what she said would be to say that when a woman’s life is endangered by a problem pregnancy, we know the woman is a living, breathing, thinking human being. So why should we “err on the side of life” for the fetus?
David,
No one is saying that we institute laws “because the Catholic Church teaches it.” As I said, I support laws against bigamy, consistent with Church teaching. You confuse individual motivation with purpose. In short, “separation of church and state” has absolutely nothing to do with the issue.
You are relying on a functional definition of personhood. If I could show that a profoundly retarded and disabled child was no more “sentient” than a porpoise would I be justified in killing him to avoid the expense of caring for him? If the only reason such a person is a person is because the law says so, that is an extremely dangerous view. A person’s “personhood” would rely solely on the decisions of other human persons. As Catholics, I believe, we can not hold that view, but you need not be Catholic to believe that. Our entire system of government and laws is based in part on the principle that people have rights as people inherently, not dependent of the decisions of other people. If those rights can be taken away simply by adopting a different definition for what a person is, then they can’t be inherent. Substitute “white” or “male” or “healthy” or “non-Jew” for sentient and you see what I mean. Following your logic, the disabled, infirm, and elderly have a lot to worry about.
We should also stop the reliance on danger to the mother’s life as a principal reason for permitting abortion on demand. Of the more than 1 million abortions that occur in this country every year, how many truly invole a threat to the mother’s life? Look at the statistics gathered by the State of Kansas on late term abortions. Even the abortionists themselves, in more that 5 years of reporting reported not a single case among thousands of abortions where the mother’s life was in danger, and only one (as I recall) that involved a medical emergency. Serious harm from abortions themselves are just about as likely. Unfortunately, we can’t know for sure since the abortion industry has been very successful at blocking reporting requirements. Moreover, if that was the real concern, than why does the abortion lobby oppose limits or safeguards that have absolutely nothing to do it? Perhaps it is necessary to address the very rare case differently, but permitting abortion on demand to address this risk is like dropping a bomb on a mosquito.
It is true that abortions to save the mother’s life are rare, but a law banning all abortions would prohibit those, too. Also, in real life, while there are cases in which a mother’s life is clearly in imminent danger, situations are far more common in which pregnancy poses an increased risk to the mother which might result in no harm, or may wind up killing both mother and fetus. Hence the “health” exception in most current abortion laws, which some pro-life groups are seeking to eliminate becase it may be invoked indiscriminately.
Another consequence of banning all abortions is indirect. In the ER (or in the MD’s office in situations in which a metabolic condition substantially raises the risk of pregnancy,) doctors who know there are severe penalties for performing an abortion may take chances they ordinarily wouldn’t. Such legally mandated risk-taking can also kill women. One well-publicized case of this was that of Jazmina Bojorge, among the first to die after Nicaragua passed a “no exceptions” ban on abortions. I have also heard–but cannot document–cases like that of a women arriving at at US Catholic hospital hemorrhaging in the early stages of a miscarriage and being sent to another hospital for treatment. Imagine, sending a woman bleeding–perhaps to death–on another ambulance ride, in the name of upholding Catholic teaching.
With all respect to legislators, perhaps the law is too blunt an instrument to change the practice of abortion. Better, perhaps, to undertsand why women have abortions (often financial, professional/educational, or familial pressures, or lack of information about or access to contraception,) and to seek to ameliorate them, instead of threatening doctors and women with prison. That would be slow and difficult work, but there’d be fewer Jazminas.
For more on effects of restrictive abortion laws, see: http://www.boston.com/news/world/latinamerica/articles/2006/11/26/nicaragua_abortion_ban_called_a_threat_to_lives/
Mr. Nickol,
One can argue until the cows come home. But one cannot argue if the terms are being continuously changed.
My point about the word “parenthood” in the name of the chief abortion organization in this country is that it is a lie. That organization shows no interest in parenthood, but only in its prevention. Similarly with birth “control”. Birth control is what doctors do when helping to deliver a child. What is meant is birth prevention. [There is a similar confusion with "population control". That control is usually carried on with machine guns].
You move into medicine when you so casually use the term “brain dead”, There is no consensus on the meaning of this term. It sounds good. But how is it measured? What of those who were pronounced brain dead and then revived? Likewise with your casual reference to the fetus as not being sentient. Interference with the growth and development of the fetus is interference with a living thing. If you reject the Church’s teaching that the living thing is a human being, you may well do it. But you must not claim to be a Catholic. If you reject the Church’s teachings, it is not as though you disagree with a professor. For a Catholic it is a sin.
You confuse two issues with the choice between harm to the mother and harm to the fetus. Firstly, it is exceedingly rare. The Church’s teaching is also quite straightforward: you try to save both. This difficulty is not unknown to doctors. It is decided on a case by case basis. There is a great deal in the Jewish literature on the subject. In the days when there was some moral clarity among the Jesuit fathers, one made the point quite simply: you do not try to decide beforehand about matters moral. You wait until the problem arises, and you pray.
Sean,
It seems to me that those who accept the Catholic doctrine that human life (in the sense of personhood) begins at conception are trying to inject that doctrine into American law and are being required to do so by the Catholic Church. It was never the case, prior to the “pro-life” movement, that personhood was recognized as beginning at the moment of conception. The Catholic Church does not stop at teaching that abortion is immoral, and that Catholics must support measures to reduce or end abortions. It also says, almost as a separate teaching, that abortion must be prohibited by law. Consequently, Catholics who sincerely believe that a legal ban on abortion would not solve the problem, or possibly might make it worse, are considered to be in dissent, at least by “hard-line” anti-abortion Catholics.
It would obviously not be a church-state problem for Catholics (or others who accept the Bible as God’s word) to support laws against stealing because it is prohibited by the Seventh Commandment. However, it would seem to me that supporting laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sunday (because it is the Sabbath) does pose a church-state problem.
Our entire system of government and laws is based in part on the principle that people have rights as people inherently, not dependent of the decisions of other people. If those rights can be taken away simply by adopting a different definition for what a person is, then they can’t be inherent.
The problem with this statement is that I am not proposing a change in the definition of personhood. You are, and the pro-life movement is. Under current law, no one questions whether even the most profoundly disabled people have a right to life. Remember that the Terri Schiavo case was about determining her own wishes, not about whether keeping her on life support was too burdensome on others. I find the current legal definitions of person reasonably adequate. It is the attempt to change them that I object to.
I agree with you that cases in which the life of the mother is endangered don’t justify abortion on demand, and of course almost all “pro-life” politicians would support permitting abortion in the case of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. I suppose you will say that the “pro-life” movement would be happy with a legal ban in the United States that allows those exceptions and no others, since if effective it would decrease the abortion rate drastically. But wouldn’t fully faithful Catholics be obliged to oppose those exceptions? If the law is meant to teach rather than simply regulate behavior, wouldn’t allowing exceptions for rape and incest send a “mixed message” about life beginning at conception?
“But you must not claim to be a Catholic. If you reject the Church’s teachings, it is not as though you disagree with a professor. For a Catholic it is a sin. ”
Then there is hardly anyone left in the church. Most Catholics are for contraceptives. If you press the argument on consistency of doctrine there will be no Catholics left. The truth is in Christians living the life of Christ, which too many in the hierarchy have shown they are not doing.
Gabriel,
I don’t believe you would like Planned Parenthood any more if they changed their name. Regarding “birth control,” the yearly report more frequently uses the word “contraception.”
Using neurological criteria for determining death is as valid as using heartbeat and respiration. “Brain dead” is not a special category of death. In fact, many people whose hearts have stopped beating and who have stopped breathing can be resuscitated. The Catholic Church has no quarrel with using neurological criteria for determining death. It has been approved by John Paul II and the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. If you search the web, you can find that there is dissent from those who apparently want to be more Catholic than the pope. Apparently dissent is a terrible thing when dissenters are more “liberal” than the pope, but when they are more “conservative,” they are to be regarded as heroes.
You refer to Jewish literature on the subject of the life of the pregnant woman, but Jewish teaching has been clear for thousands of years that the mother’s life takes precedence over the life of the unborn child. See the following:
It seems to me that this thread moved us past the usual dichotomies, at least for a while, and that strikes me as a very good thing.
Before we trot out the sad case of Jazmina Bojorge once again, it should be noted that the infamous law that supposedly led to her death was not in effect when she died. Moreover, her physician (who was on record opposing the new law) confirmed that it played absolutely no role in her treatment or death. Another example of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.
David,
You may think prohibiting the sale of alcohol on Sunday poses a Church-State issue, but the federal courts do not. It is still illegal in some states. No need going over plowed ground, but the religion interfering in politics argument is a red herring. I also think it appeals to the unhealthy, and sometimes biggoted, view that the Catholic Church desires to impose its rule on free societies.
If you know the definition of a person currently used, I’d love to hear it so I know what I am proposing to change.
Sean,
Sunday “blue laws” may not have been the best example, but the issue is clearly a real one. A better example would be attempts to force public schools to teach “intelligent design” as a competing theory to evolution.
I don’t see how it can be denied that the Catholic Church in various countries has brought pressure to bear on the issues of contraception, abortion, divorce, and gay rights. For years before the gay rights bill was passed in New York City, the Archdiocese of New York and the Salvation Army lobbied heavily against it.
I looked up New York’s homicide laws, and in the definitions it says, “‘Person,’ when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who has been born and is alive.”
Defining a person as a human being who is sentient would, it seems to me, be a very broad definition that would in no way endanger even the most profoundly disabled and would also include the unborn for all but the earliest stages of pregnancy.
A good definition of person needs to cover more than human beings, of course.
Sean,
Regarding the Bojorge case, do you have a source, other than a blog, that describes the Bojorge case as bogus? My sources are the Washington Post (dateline, Managua, FWIW) and the Boston Globe (dateline, Managua,) reported by different journalists.
Now here, at the risk of creating a repeating blog loop that will result in a virtual black hole that may collapse the known blog-universe, I cite Jean Raber from this very blog, posting on Nov. 28, 2006. She wrote:
“The lawmakers passed the no-abortion ban Oct. 26. It was pretty much a done deal when Mrs. Bojorge was admitted to the hospital Oct. 31.
Actually, she was admitted to three different hospitals which claimed they did not have the equipment to make a diagnosis about whether her baby was still alive.
She died, near as I can determine, about Nov. 3 or 4.
Stories from El Diario Nuevo indicated that doctors dithered about treating Mrs. Bojorge, because the bill would go into effect as soon as Pres. Bolanos signed it.
Bolanos’ only hesitation in signing was that he wanted harsher penalties for lawbreakers on the bill. He signed Oct. 26 law on Nov. 20.
It is true the hospital where Mrs. Bojorges died is investigating the incident. It is also true that her family says she died because she was denied an abortion.”
Also, if you do want to disregard the WaPo and the Globe and even Jean Raber, the Lancet and the UN also cite the ghastly rate of death and maiming from illegal abortions in regions where laws prohibit safe, medically-supervised abortions. The Lancet (hardly a left-wing agitator!) notes that the rate of abortion varies fairly little when it is legal or illegal. What varies is the rate at which women die. Again, a datum not taken seriously by pro-life groups. Yes, the Lancet data is new, and needs confirmation, but it should give abortion abolitionists pause, if they mean to be pro-women’s lives as well as pro-fetal lives.
The story of Jazmina Bojorge is not bogus, and I don’t think the initial reports claimed the law was in effect when she died. It had just been passed, but it had not been signed. It was a very controversial bill, and surely every doctor in Nicaragua knew it had been passed. It’s not hard to imagine doctors, under the circumstances, being wary of “getting in under the wire” and doing something made illegal under the new law, even though that law had not been signed.
One individual case doesn’t prove anything either way. I do think it is fair to say that the anti-abortion proponents of Nicaragua (and many other places) are more concerned, in some tricky pregnancy situations, about the lives of fetuses than they are about the lives of mothers. And the obverse goes for those who are pro-choice being more concerned about the lives of mothers than they are about the lives of fetuses.
Here’s an article I just found that I have not had time to do more than skim (I am at work), but it looks relevant:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/oct/08/health.lifeandhealth
It appears the law goes much farther in forbidding treatment for ectopic pregnancy than the Church does, since there is no objection to ending (indirectly) an ectopic pregnancy according to Catholic medical ethics. However, the Church in Nicaragua, as I recall, basically wrote the bill passed in Nicaragua, so why it is more severe than Church teaching is a question that so far I have been unable to answer.
The Nicaraguan law had been passed but was not signed into law when Ms. Bojorge died. Her treatment was not prompt, and she bled to death. So much smoke has been blown around her case that it’s impossible to tell what part if any the law played. The doctor says it played no part; the family says hospital staff were confused about what to do and that delaying her treatment contributed to her death.
I think it’s important to remember that in a country like Nicaragua, there is a private and very good health care system and a public and very spotty (to put it nicely) health care system. Women like Ms. Bojorge are consigned to the public health system, where even getting to a clinic is often difficult due to poor roads, and where the clinic may not have anything like an ultrasound machine to help the doctor determine what’s going on.
Doctors have protested that without good diagnostic equipment, they’re in double jeopardy. They can let a woman die if they can’t ascertain that the fetus is dead, which means malpractice. Or they can inadvertently remove a live fetus, which means they’re liable for prosecution under the no abortion law.
In my view, passing a no-abortion law in Nicaragua is hardly a moral victory when maternal death rates are already very high, when poor women do not have adequate transportation to clinics, and, when they get there, cannot get prompt diagnoses and treatment or afford to go to a private hospital.
Providing ultrasound equipment and training to Nicaragua’s public health clinics might be a good project for some U.S. parishes …
Oops, forgot to mention that I wrote about this story when I was actively blogging here in late 2007. Archive dates are below:
Nicaraguan abortion law update
December 15, 2006
Jazmina Bojorge
November 28, 2006
Nicaragua’s new abortion law
November 18, 2006
Mr. Nickol.
You are good at dodging an issue by changing the language. First, it’s brain dead, now it is neurological. But can the soul be ? What is actually the case is simple: we don’t know. But doctors and college graduates have a horror of saying that, although it is the first rabbinic rule: “Teach your tongue to say, I do not know”.
If you read the Jewish laws and the commentaries closely, you will find that there is a great hesitation in the matter of abortion. {This is not the case in the secular state of Israel].
The objection to the lie which is called Planned “Parenthood” was voiced best by Orwell: “White is black, Truth is false”. Why must the aborters present themselves as planning for parenthood?
You ask is any of the pro-life organizations do anything for the mothers and children. The answer is simple. They all do. And many attempt to help the mothers after their children have been killed.
For Mr. Mazzella’s majority attitude on morality, I can but refer to the saints of the Church. They remind us that we are all sinners. And that it is not easy to avoid sin. But it is easy to practice the habits of the bordello and still go to Mass and Communion.
That the Church says that humanity begins at conception seems clear enough. We are fortunate to have a direct link to the Almighty to help us keep this clear. Trying to hide from the teaching is like Adam in the Garden of Eden; it works for a short time, until God comes to call.
You are good at dodging an issue by changing the language. First, it’s brain dead, now it is neurological. But can the soul be ? What is actually the case is simple: we don’t know. But doctors and college graduates have a horror of saying that, although it is the first rabbinic rule: “Teach your tongue to say, I do not know”.
Gabriel,
Apparently you want to be more Catholic that Pope Pius XII, Pope John Paul II, the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, and The National Catholic Bioethics Center.
http://www.ncbcenter.org/FAQ_BrainDeath.asp
I agree that Jews have a great reverence for life, including unborn life. However, the fact remains that they do not agree with the Catholic teaching that life begins at conception and an unborn child is a person with full rights to life.
You ask is any of the pro-life organizations do anything for the mothers and children. The answer is simple. They all do. And many attempt to help the mothers after their children have been killed.
Does this include The National Right to Life Committee? Do they provide prenatal care, adoption services, and aid to poor mothers struggling to take care of children? I really don’t know, but saying “they all do” does not answer my question.
“That the Church says that humanity begins at conception seems clear enough. We are fortunate to have a direct link to the Almighty to help us keep this clear.”
Gabriel,
We are indeed all sinners but the hierarchy has made plenty of mistakes. God is wise enough not to give anyone of us such a direct link. “By their fruits you will know” the children of God. Not their dogma.
David,
I don’t know what you mean by “bogus,” but the Jazmina Bojorge situation has been repeatedly misused. Certainly, her tragic death was connected to her pregnancy. But it is incontrovertible that the law was not in effect when she was admitted or when she died. The idea that the medical staff was confused about this is at least speculative if not ludicrous. Believe me, when a profession or industry is about to be affected by a major legal change, they know exactly what the status is. It is not even clear that an abortion would have done anything to save her life. The only people who are saying so are abortion advocacy groups.
Again, I am not saying that maternal life and health are never a concern. They are, but they are extremely rare. To use them as the justification for millions upon millions of abortions is misleading and frankly cynical.
I think don’t find it useful to stack up the bodies here, i.e., big pile of aborted babies against tiny pile of dead mothers, ergo abortions save very few mother’s lives, so let’s whittle down the bigger pile by outlawing abortions.
Isn’t this the kind of utilitarian/materialistic thinking that got us abortion in the first place?
I do think it bears repeating that maternal death from pregnancy complications is low in the U.S. because people can get to hospitals that have diagnostic equipment, and interventions can be made quickly.
Access to health care is linked to the ability to preserve all life. And that access is often severely limited in poor areas of the world. And it’s getting scarcer in the United States.
Jean,
I absolutely agree. My problem is that pro-abortion advocates build on unreasonable fears to promote their agenda, and in fact prevent discussion about the very things you wisely point out will help. They don’t let the facts get in the way of the story they are telling.
With early identification and treatment the kind of tragedy that they use to fear monger would go from extremely rare to virtually non-existent – but that’s not where their energy is spent. If getting health care and making a wise health care decision is the real reason for their advocacy, then why oppose parental notification or one day cooling off periods or greater heal agency oversight of abortion clinics. They fight these things tooth and nail.
I submit to you that if tomorrow we could prove that absolutely zero maternal deaths or injuries could be prevented using abortion, its advocates (after they tried to bury the evidence) would still be waving coat hangars.
The Lancet (hardly a left-wing agitator!) notes that the rate of abortion varies fairly little when it is legal or illegal. What varies is the rate at which women die. Again, a datum not taken seriously by pro-life groups.
Nor should it be taken seriously by anyone. If you want to know whether abortion laws affect the rate of abortion, it’s rather worthless just to compare the abortion rates in Brazil vs. Scandinavia. That doesn’t tell us anything unless the study controls for a wide variety of factors that affect abortion rates from country to country. A much better route would be to look at what happens when a given country legalizes abortion (for example, as when the abortion rate nearly doubled in just a few years after Roe v. Wade), or what happens when a country or state passes an abortion restriction/ban.
Abortion statistics by country are highly unreliable and wouldn’t give you the information you are looking for. A significant % of abortions are still done secretly wether it is legal or not. I do agree with your point “wide variety of factors that affect abortion rates from country to country”.
Abortion touches on many issues including the rights of women, mothers, mothers to be – 50% of the world still lives in cultures that treat women as second class citizens; 50% of the world’s primary concerns are starvation, disease, bad water sources, jobs, etc. According to you, we should just ignore this. The church needs a consistent ethic of life and not a single issue.
In terms of the Jewish religion: For Jewish theologians, the debate is rooted in context and temporality.
If the mother’s life, or physical or mental health is at risk,
(including, for some the situation in which having a severely disabled
child, such as a child with Tay-Sachs, would threaten her mental health)
the abortion is not only be permitted, it is mandated. Not only does
Jewish tradition have a developmental view of the moral status of the
embryo and fetus, but also the tradition’s focus on life and health for
the mother is the primary ground for the debate. Moral status of the
embryo in Jewish considerations of abortion is based on age and proximity
to independent viability.
In that capacity, there are discussions about the nature and character of
the contents of the womb at various stages of embryonic and fetal
development. There are other considerations, such as quickening (the
development of a spinal cord) and the external visual changes in a
woman’s body that also warrant differing social responses and a different
consideration of the pregnancy. The discussion and commentary takes two
courses, either that fetus is a part of the body of a woman, (ubar
yerickh imo ) and hence, does not have a equal moral claim; and a
later understanding, put forward by Maimonides, that in the case where a
pregnancy is endangering the life or health of a woman, the fetus can be
considered a “rodef” (an aggressor, lit: one who pursues) and killing a
rodef is a permitted act of self-defense. The decision about the language
of the choice is framed by the woman herself (it is she that names the
situation as unendurable and thus asserts her moral voice over the voice
of the fetus), but the discourse is to be made in conjunction with a
spiritual teacher, a rabbi, a discourse is not wholly private, nor wholly
public, opening the possibility that the discourse is primarily based in
the context of a supportive and caring community.
Abortion appears as an option for Jewish women from the earliest sources
of the Bible an and mishnehic commentary. Clearly seen as an emergency
option, it was nevertheless clearly available under several
circumstances. Most sources begin with the one Biblical text that refers
to an interruption in a pregnancy:
“And if men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit
depart and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, you shall give life for life…” (Exodus 21:22-23)
What is occurring here? The Biblical Text assumes the following
conditions obtain: that the event described–an induced abortion–is an
accidental occurrence, that is not in woman’s control, that the being
lost is of value since it is perhaps, the property of the husband, that
the being that is “departed” is not a life in the way that the woman is a
human life, that a crime of some sort has been committed, but that it is
not a capital crime. Since the penalty for the loss of the fetus is a
monetary fine, which is typical of a property dispute, subsequent
commentators understood the fetus as distinct from the mother.
Sean, we agree in spirit here to some extent.
My concern with the legal ban on abortion in Nicaragua is that where diagnostic equipment is not to be had and pregnant women present with some life threatening condition, doctors face a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t” legal conundrum, and I think any abortion ban needs to address those extenuating circumstances.
Where we don’t see eye-to-eye, I think, is on the efficacy of no-abortion laws. I have yet to see evidence that the Nicaraguan law has stopped any abortions. The country’s old law allowed abortion only to save the life of the mother. About six abortions per year were legally performed under that law.
The rest of the thousands of abortions performed were already illegal. Most illegal abortions aren’t reported to any official statistics taker, so those on both sides can make guesstimates that support their contentions.
I won’t say “a pox on both their houses,” but you can’t vote for John McCain either, and call yourself a consciencious Catholic, because he has no plan to help the poor in a time of capitalistic riot.
We need a third party, a Catholic party, that lives up to the caveat laid down by Pius XI, which is that the party must be one that teaches–and teaches hard! he stresses it so often you know he’s not pussy-footing– both traditional Catholic morals and traditional Catholic economics. You can’t separate these two elements without falling into error.
And yet what a party that would be. It would gather the disaffected from many pockets, from socialism (you know, traditional Marxism was surprisingly orthodox morally, especially in the trenches), from traditional liturgists longing for a refuge from the neocons they share the pew with. There is a huge bloc out there who do not support homosexual anything (except a spirit of personal tolerance), hate divorce, hate abortion, love social justice. They would support a graduated tax system to promote wider distribution of property. They would support more cooperatives. They will not support gay marriage. (And they are right not to.) Many are protestants. Many are Muslims, for that matter.
A new Kansas state regulation may shutter the family preparing market in-state. According to the AP, the KS State Rules and Regulations Board all approved limitations upon abortion that will likely eliminate abortion as an option for women in the state. The KS Department of Health and Environment can begin implementing the new rules as early as Friday. I read this here: New Kansas abortion rules will usurp the right to choose