Toward Common Ground on Abortion
I was one of those most impressed by President Obama’s address and overall performance at Notre Dame on Sunday. I recognize, of course, the old Italian proverb: “fra il dire e il fare c’è in mezzo il mare” — between words and deeds the sea lies in-between.
Michael Stokes Paulsen, of the University of St. Thomas School of Law, has suggested some planks in the bridge toward common ground. Here are some from the first two:
1. Mr. President, we all agree that abortion is, at least, a tragic choice. Will you, Mr. President, publicly state that it is your wish that women not have abortions, whenever humanly possible? Will you state that you think that the “choice” you wish to preserve should be exercised in favor of preserving the developing life of the unborn child? Will you lead in this way? Will you urge, and support through policy, adoption instead of abortion? If you are serious in seeking common ground, surely this is ground we can all share.
2. Will you propose this specifically for the African-American community, in a special way? Will you commit to working to reduce the incidence of abortion among African- Americans? Here, your prestige and prominence can be especially influential.
The rest are here.
I share some of Mr. Paulsen’s aspirations about abortion. But if I read him correctly, he is proposing another litmus test. Either Obama signs on or he’s not serious. Litmus tests rarely if ever make a positive contribution to sensible public policy debates. They are much more likely to poison the well.
Mr. Dauenhauer
I see the points as a constructive continuation of the dialogue requested. The open issue is whether President Obama also shares some of the aspirations articulated, as you say you do. And what he is prepared to do to further them. You are not saying, I trust, that any concrete suggestion can be construed as “poisoning the well?”
I assume that the vast majority of women who have abortions recognize that it is “at least tragic.” To these women, Obama would not be saying something to them that they did not know, and would perhaps come across a patronizing. To those who do not think abortion is tragic, I suspect Obama is unlikely to persuade them otherwise with such words.
Regarding African-Americans, I can’t decide how high my fury meter should go on this. The numbers are, indeed, large. According to The State of Black America 2009, published by the Urban League, the rate of abortion per 100 live births for 47.2 and for whites it is 16.1. But what exactly does Mr. Paulsen think Blacks need to learn on the issue of abortion? That life inolves tragic realities? Perhaps a few more statistics could help us discover what this means for African-Americans.
Incarceration Rate Per 100,000 2,142 (Blacks) 332 (Whites)
Homicide Rate Per 100,000 20.6 (Blacks) 3.3 (Whites)
Firearm-Related Deaths per 100,000 males
Ages 15-24 90.4 (Blacks) 13.9 (Whites)
Ages 25-44 66.3 (Blacks) 17.5 (Whites)
Ages 25-34 92.8 (Blacks) 17.0 (Whites)
AIDS cases per 100,000
he opposes protecting the lives of children (accidentally) born alive during an abortion
I believe this is a false statement. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act did not mandate any standard of care for infants born alive as the result of abortion. It declared them persons under the law. And since Illinois law already mandated life-saving treatment for viable infants born alive, the issue at hand was really the treatment of infants who were born alive, survived briefly, but had no chance of living more than a few hours. Even here, Obama said that if there was concern about the way these infants were treated, they could have compromised on a bill that mandated a standard of care in such instances. But instead of doing that, the “pro-life” forces continued to push for a bill that declared born-alive infants to be persons under the law. Now that such a bill has passed in Illinois, no one has been willing or able to say if it has actually had any effect
he supports mandatory abortion funding with tax dollars
I am not sure what the word “mandatory” in this statement means.
Mr. Paulsen provides a welcome antidote to the usual polemics, offerikng a substantive proposal (only after some initial attacks, unfortunately). But this DOES provide some concrete places to start.
I find Mr. Paulsen’s suggestions that the president should (a) vocally discourage abortion and speak about a “hope” that we can find a way to have the child and (b) offer a bill outlawing sex-selection abortion to be particularly intriguing. Without worrying about court battles, these sorts of things would start to send a message that while we tolerate abortion, we don’t endorse it. These would, without removing the constitutional right to choose, make real the claim that abortion is in fact tragic. We do this all the time with many public issues – tobacco, for example.
I do think Mr. Paulsen presses the issue too far by asking for a no-abortions-by-2050 pledge and by asking anyone to racialize the issue in overly-simplistic ways.
Sorry, I hit tab and what I had written somehow posted before I was finished; then, I had to take my middle mister to school. So,
AIDS cases per 100,000 Males 82.9 (Blacks) 11.2 (Whites)
Females 40.4 (Blacks) 1.9 (Whites)
I guess my point in posting these statistics is that there is great tragedy within some demographic portions of the Black population, tragedy which can certainly contribute to a woman’s choice to have an abortion. But, instead of crying out against the inequalities represented statistics such as these, it is suggested that Obama encourage Blacks not to have abortions.
Ooops. Just reread my posts. I hope it is clear that the first abortion rate per 100 live births in my first post is for Blacks (47.2), and the second is for Whites (16.1). I should also point out that these statistics are not up to date for 2009. The date of the data is provided in The State of Black America.
The problem I see with a lot of the Catholic pro-life critics of Obama is that they want him to be something like a “philosopher kings.” I would not have thought of putting it in that way, but there was a suggestion that Obama should debate Alasdair MacIntyre at Notre Dame. M.Z. responded as follows:
Obama is our president, and presidents are politicians, not moral philosophers or pastors. It is not up to Obama to make a religious or philosophical decision for the entire country as to when life begins. It really is a matter of religious belief, anyway, as evidenced by the fact that two ancient traditions (Catholicism and Judaism) disagree. While it is certainly fitting that presidents have an exercise some moral authority, in a government like ours, there is a limit to what is appropriate. Obama has said that he believes abortion is a decision that should be left to the woman, her family, and her physician. While it would certainly be appropriate for Obama act on the idea that ” a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion,” it seems to me it is going a bit far to require him to say, “I believe in the right of a woman to choose abortion, but I urger her not to, because I believe abortion is the wrong choice.”
I have said I believe that technology will eventually solve the abortion problem, pushing back the time of viability so far that every embryo is viable, and better methods of fertility control will make unplanned pregnancies rare. But the Catholic Church is against “unnatural” means of fertility control. So I don’t see how Catholics could support the idea of a constitutional amendment banning abortion in 2050 if one of the agreed-upon preconditions was scientific progress toward extremely effective fertility control. I must say that a constitutional amendment taking effect in 2050 is, in my opinion, a preposterous idea. It’s making a controversial decision for people far in the future, putting the burden on them when many of us won’t even be around.
Fr. Imbelli,
Mr. Paulsen concludes his list of questions by saying: “These questions test whether Prresident Obama means what he says or whether his words are merely words.” Is this an indication that he wants to “contribute to a dialogue?” Or is this an indication that like some bishops during the last election, Mr. Paulsen has constructed a set of “non-negotiables?”
No serious political leader can be expected to let anyone preempt a policy debate by introducing the kind of test that Mr. Paulsen sets out. When will we learn to distinguish serious political discourse from non-nogotiable demands?
Mr. Dauenhauer,
Judging from his Notre Dame speech and his invitation to the graduates to engage in principled and forceful discussion, I find President Obama less leery about the sort of exchanges that community organizers revel in.
I thought Professor Paulsen forcefully set forth some proposals that could move the discussion toward some practical steps that might indeed further common ground. The President could demur, qualify, offer alternatives. But I see the proposal as a good faith effort to move beyond “common ground” as some Platonic ideal to some concrete instantiation.
I haven’t had a chance to read the rest of Paulsen yet, but while we’re on the topic of “common ground” I want to also call attention to William Saletan’s current Slate piece. I haven’t spent much time with that either, alas, but I think he synthesizes the recent Gallup poll results and Obama’s speech in a thoughtful and potentially helpful way.
The President has esteblished a group working on common ground on the issue; let’s see what they come up with.
The Paulsen suggestions have some merit, but I strongly agree with Joe Petit on the racial aspect as being misplaced.
I think Mollie”s contribution is welcome as to how it’s not so easy to be prescriptive about this extremely complex and divisive issue in the minds of the American people.
I should abide by the “if you can’t say anything nice” rule, but of course…
I will be as restrained as possible. Two objections to Prof. Paulsen’s challenge in particular I think should be noted: I would second Joe Petit’s reaction regarding his singling out of the African-American community. Paulsen’s recommendation seems to indicate abortion is simply a lifestyle preference for blacks, which is paternalistic in the extreme. And black churches are very strong in preaching Dr. Paulsen’s message. But they have much else to deal with too, with very little support. Paulsen’s manifesto comes across as a white church talking down to poor blacks. Moreover, I think it best for Catholics to look at our own, first. Catholics abort at about the same rate as all other Americans. Perhaps we need better preachers, too?
In any case, same goes for the focus on abortion as the woman’s responsibiity. Much more goes into it, and I think the responsibility of fathers (or would-be fathers) is so often neglected. By both sides. Dr. Paulsen seems to strike the same note as the pro-choice camp, that this is exclusively a woman’s issue. The way mother’s are not supported and are too often left alone does make it a woman’s issue. And that’s too bad.
Anyway, as to the rest of his list, well, others have registered good objections. I also find it odd that Dr. Paulsen is demanding that Obama embrace policy proposals that the president sepcifically embraced at Notre Dame, such as adoption. Not sure what to make of that. Maybe he needed a longer list.
Here’s another suggestion for Obama, assuming that he wants to implement his rhetoric in any meaningful sense:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/05/19/2009-05-19_obama_want_common_ground_start_by_curbing_fetal_pain.html
Common ground should not be defined to demand common moral assumptions about abortion, especially when the demand is made by the president of the United States. Telling women what to think or how to feel is only one half step removed from telling them what to do.
And for every Gallup study there will be another study that throws doubt or ambiguity on the subject:
(May 14-17) “The 1973 Roe versus Wade decision established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, at least in the first three months of pregnancy. Would you like to see the Supreme Court completely overturn its Roe versus Wade decision, or not?”
Yes, Overturn — 30%
No, Not Overturn — 68%
Unsure — 1%
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm (lots and lots of polling data from many sources — if you look through, recent Gallup poll got attention mostly because it does appear to be a bit of an outlier).
Dr. Paulsen’s list certainly is thought-provoking. Regarding #3, banning abortion for sex-selection purposes: I’m not certain how we can make a person’s motive illegal. If we banned abortion for sex-selection, wouldn’t the parent(s) simply lie and say it is for another reason?
One of the policies promoted by pro-life advocates is that women at a certain minimum stage of pregnancy be allowed, or even required, to see an ultrasound image of the baby in the womb before consenting to the abortion. The idea is that ultrasounds show how human the baby really is. But that would also facilitate sex selection. So perhaps ultrasounds are a two-edged sword.
Is sex selection really a big deal in the US? I don’t think it’s an important factor in our culture.
Dr. Paulsen’s notion of eliminating abortion by 2050 is reminiscent of 19th century proposals to end slavery by a certain year far into the future. Lincoln supported some of these plans, IIRC.
Conceptually at least, the future deadline is an interesting idea. I suspect it would be a non-starter politically, because a deadline would seem to impede on a woman’s choice. As long as abortion is positioned as being within the realm of personal freedom/choice, it’s difficult to see it being accepte – after all, why would a woman’s choice by more constrainable in 2050 than in 2009?
To all:
Why are American people so obsessed by abortion? I don’t recall, here, any homily referring to abortion. All our prime Minister were pro-choice, Berlusconi as well. All were in very good standing with the Vatican. Prodi had some problems because was in favour of legal same sex partnership not because his views about abortion. Berlusconi’s wife had a partial birth abortion at the 7 month, because the baby was handicapped, and nobody in Vatican was shocked.
So what? Is it a cultural gap?
Intell on sex-selection laws (or the absence thereof) would be good. I recall covering some stories years ago as doctors catering to certain Asian communities where sex-selection is a tradition were found out and they suffered more than just a public opinion backlash, but I don’t recall what exactly. Sex-selection is such an out of bounds scenario (for now) that I wonder if the law has addressed it. Maybe it will have to. It is, I believe, officially unethical, but how braod those medical standards are, i dunno.
Are there any studies to substantiate the claim that a majority of girls/women consider all abortion “at least a tragedy”? I suspect that a majority of women consider the organism in the first few weeks to be no more than a blob of cells, “a wart” to use the favorite metaphor of 1960′s feminists. What’s tragic about eliminating a wart? Once the little body starts looking human, I suspect that girls/women’s thinking starts to change. There seems to be a psychological imperative to identify things by their shapes.
We need a study that asks girls/women “at what point is the fetus a baby with the same right to life as walking-around humans?” The study should use the word “baby”, not “person” which I suspect has little meaning to most young ones.
I suspect that most will say that the unidentifiable week’s-old body is definitely not a baby, And I suspect that most would say that if the fetus is viable then it is probably a real baby and should be protected, with some tragic exceptions. In other words, the “tragic” doesn’t enter until rather late, and the vast, vast majority of abortions are not late-term.
Can we ask bishops to at least agree that building a hundred million dollar plus churches is over the top since the master was poor and the money can go to help the five million children who die each year before the age of five lacking basic food and medicine?
Can we ask the bishops to come out strongly when Christian pastors are demonizing children in the name of Jesus? http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=7613395&page=1
Can we ask the bishops to give up large chanceries for more modest homes?
Plenty of constructive criticism above, notably Gibson.
Joe Petitt puts it in a nutshell. “But, instead of crying out against the inequalities represented statistics such as these, it is suggested that Obama encourage Blacks not to have abortions.”
Abortion is a freebie issue. It allows so many people to pontificate about it and do nothing else.
(Re: Posted by mary on May 21st, 2009 at 10:59 am)
It is a cultural thing, a huge cultural thing. You will notice no one, (although Bill Mazzella, as he often does brings some sanity to an issue) even attempts to answer youe question.
Personally, as a Canadian, I do not think Americans know. They have little realization that other Western style democracies don’t all behave as they do. In fact they really don’t give a dam, it simply doesn’t for the most part enter their thinking.
Notice few even mention the fact that the Vatican paper effectively supported Jenkins and decried the pro-life rhetoric. It just gets brushed aside.
This is just a typical American propensity to make every issue into a “War” There was the “Cold War”, the economic war with japan a few years ago then they went belly-up; the war on drugs, now immigration war and on and on and on.
As a country that lives beside this giant talking head some of us wonder why we don’t behave the same way. Some also want to be like them. Presuming you are a Brit, your question makes much sense.
I do wish the folks at Commonweal would discuss it. I call Commonweal an island of sanity in another wise very messy pond
David Nickol tells us: “It is not up to Obama to make a religious or philosophical decision for the entire country as to when life begins. It really is a matter of religious belief, anyway, ”
Mr. Nickol —
If it is a matter of religion for most, then all the more need for politicians and philosophers to help people to realize that in a pluralistic country they have the moral obligation to become philosophically informed about some matters. Otherwise the people are a flock of chickens, and the center can not hold..
Saying adults don’t need philosopher-kings is analogous to saying kids don’t need teachers (but only analogous). Yes — it is one of the functions of politicians to lead moral discussion, or at least show people where to find help with such issues. By the way. I very much liked David Gibson’s notion of having a U.S. Commission similar to the Civil Rights Commission to study the abortion issues. That commission certainly had a felicitous influence Having direct input to a government from philosophers is not unheard of even today. One of the leading English-speaking philosophers has been on commissions and committees of the English government. Of course, historically it has proven dangerous to philosophers themselves to criticize their governments. (So much for the claim they don’t have civic effect.)
Neither do I share your apparent assumption that most people are always turned off by serious philosophical talk. In my experience when people have a deep moral concern about an issue (and this includes many people of less than average intelligence too), they are interested if the issues are presented slowly enough and as clearly as possible. Most people are a lot smarter than they think they are, but the slower ones need some help. I know. I’m *terrible* at arithmetic.
Yes, we need philosopher kings. (Obama’s speech on the values of the Constitution this morning was a good start. Best speech yet, I think.
And, yes, philosophers such as Alasdair MacIntyre who write with such clarity could help the citizenry to understand the abortion moral issues and why they’re important. However, in my opinion, few — if any — really first=rate philosophers have done so. Francis Beckwith’s Defending Life is clear, but not very deep.
Why are American people so obsessed by abortion?
…because Americans love moral crusades of all types and the abortion issue is perfect for that, just as Prohibition was. “Onward Christian Soldiers” and “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” are our sacred anthems.
Yes, we need philosopher kings.
Ann,
I am not sure we are understanding each other. My meaning was that we choose politicians to be our leaders, and hopefully we choose wise men, and hopefully they have some knowledge of philosophy. But I am saying we expect our presidents to be politicians and our philosophers to be philosophers.
You would be far more knowledgeable about Plato than I would, but my understanding is that there would be philosopher kings who would be rulers, under the theory that a wise philosopher is the ideal ruler. We don’t have kings in the United States. We vote for politicians whose area of expertise is politics and government, not philosophy. If they have a deep understanding of philosophy, so much the better, I guess. But we don’t expect our politicians to debate philosophers over matters like when life begins. Sometimes presidents have to make philosophical or ethical decisions, but they make those decisions based on what they are told by bodies such as the President’s Council on Bioethics. In general, our politicians tend to be trained in the law, and I have no problem with that. We expect our presidents to make decisions about the economy without being economists, decisions about business without being businessmen or academicians who study business, decisions about foreign affairs without being career diplomats, decisions about the military without being generals or professors of military science, and so on.
We expect our presidents to be “deciders,” without being experts in all the fields they are called to make decisions in. I, for one, do not want to see Obama debate Alasdair MacIntyre on live television. This is not to say it would be a bad idea for them to meet and discuss issues. Debates happen before the elections. I am not saying Obama (and all of America) can’t learn from philosophers. I am saying we should not expect Obama to be a philosopher who has live televised debates with other philosophers.
Many people seem to interpret seeking common ground requires compromise. It seems self-evident to me that it means looking for areas in which everyone can agree and work together. That does not necessarily involve anyone changing his or her mind. Presumably, both pro-life and pro-choice advocates agree that it is better to prevent an unwanted pregnancy than to have to deal with it. That is common ground. It is not common ground to expect a pro-life president to promote a constitutional amendment that bans abortion in 2050.
Should be: Many people seem to think seeking common ground requires compromise.
The only reason to invoke philosopher kings (or kings talking to eminent philosophers) is that (as Obama recognized) the issue does end up hinging on a foundamental disagreement over rights – do women have the right to make this decision, or does the fetus/baby have a right to live and thus be protected? At any given point in history, we may have to pragmatically indicate that we need to figure out workable policies to negotiate this disagreement. But at the end of the day, it really does involve fundamental questions like slavery did. There was a “pluralist” solution to slavery – some people could hold slaves, and mounted religious justifications for doing so, others didn’t, and said you shouldn’t hold them at all. (Yes, the history is complicated, but it’s a blog….) In retrospect, I assume we all agree that the 13th amendment is a good and right thing, but it does not represent taking the “pluralist” option to the question of basic beliefs about personhood. And so pro-lifers, as inarticulate and John-Brown-like as they might be, are arguing about abolition in ways not different from those who argued that others should not have slaves, and that such slaves should be recognized and protected as persons by the law.
And this is at least one reason, I think, why Americans on both sides get worked up about this. However far away it sometimes appears, America remains a culture based on a set of very high ideals, and people get worked up about these ideals and believe we should actually live out the ideals. This is true on BOTH sides of the abortion spectrum. Americans are zealous about basic principles, because the culture is founded on the principles – and the belief that somehow we’re the special beacon to the world to embody these principles. I’m not saying I endorse that view – but I do think it’s part of why Americans get so worked up about issues that seem to call for philosopher-kings. Because we’re a culture built on a philosophy.
“Why are American people so obsessed by abortion? … Is it a cultural gap?”
Hi, Mary, while I can’t speak for all Americans, I can say that I don’t know the answer. In his outstanding book “American Catholic”, Charles Morris suggests that the US may be the place where the church actually ‘works” more or less as it is supposed to. So maybe the question should be, ‘Why aren’t Italians more obsessed with abortion?’ :-)
I think a big part of the reason is it so conflict-laden in the US is historical, i.e. the way that it was made law was via the judiciary rather than the legislature, so there was no political consensus around it when it was legalized across the nation.
What Mr. Paulsen is proposing isn’t common ground between pro-life and pro-choice, it’s just pro-life. The part about speaking especially to African Americans on abortion is disturbing. I think polls seem to show that a majority of people want abortion legal, with restrictions. One article I saw about compromise on abortion was by Beliefnet’s editor – Safe, Legal & Early — A New Way of Thinking About Abortion – but it’s not pro-life.
“What Mr. Paulsen is proposing isn’t common ground between pro-life and pro-choice, it’s just pro-life.”
Hi, Crystal, I disagree. For example, amending the constitution to ban abortions by 2050 represents a compromise position between entirely-pro-choice and entirely-pro-life, and encompasses consensus around the (supposedly) shared principle that abortions are tragic.
Given that the status quo is nearly completely pro-choice, any compromise solution will necessarily make things more pro-life-friendly than is currently the case.
“I think polls seem to show that a majority of people want abortion legal, with restrictions. One article I saw about compromise on abortion was by Beliefnet’s editor – Safe, Legal & Early — A New Way of Thinking About Abortion – but it’s not pro-life.”
Thx for the link. Interesting idea. I’d accept the proposal as an interim solution – it’s definitely better than what we have now.
“Incarceration Rate Per 100,000 2,142 (Blacks) 332 (Whites)”
Hi, Joe, in the spirit of treading where angels daren’t … Dr. Paulsen seems to be implying that some proportion of abortions by African American women are freely chosen. That’s the only reason I can think of for suggesting that the President speak out – that he thinks it could make a difference. In response, you presented an array of statistics that suggest, I suppose, that things are more complicated than that. What do you actually find objectionable about his suggestion?
For example, I read Dr. Paulsen’s suggestion as a call by the President to personal responsibility. Would such a call be salutary, problematic, or something else?
Even if the President talked about abortion in the African American community, and his words ignited a national conversation on the problem, that could be a step in the right direction. Do you agree?
[A]mending the constitution to ban abortions by 2050 represents a compromise position between entirely-pro-choice and entirely-pro-life, and encompasses consensus around the (supposedly) shared principle that abortions are tragic.
The difference is that those on the pro-choice side of the issue believe that allowing such medical decisions to be a matter of law enforcement ends up harming women. But, of course, in this debate, women are invisible and thus expendable.
Besides, asserting that this is a compromise seems like some sort of bad joke. Why not simply come out and say that the goal is to enshrine Church doctrine into law and be done with it?
Jim, It is historical but it is not an isolated “historical”. Canada went through the same process. The judiciary declared the law to limit abortions unconstitutional and the difference is the law undone has never been replaced. We simply have no law for or against. In fact if I remember correctly it was 40 years ago this month.
We also do not have the acrimonious debate America is having. We have American Pro-life want-a-bees or maybe wish-a-bees; ie. they wish we had and would like us to have the same level of engagement.
So why do we wish. This is the first year the bishop’s have officially supported the March for Life which helped raise the numbers to 12,000 at Parliament Hill over the 8000 last year.
And like Mary we never have homilies on the topic. We have a little “rose” fund-raising campaign in May each year sponsored by the CWL.
Don’t get me wrong, although I was critical there is much to admire in America’s engagement of issues, if only because it has an impact on our Nation no matter what.
I think Antonio, catches a glimpse of it, but why did these become your mantra. Is it a factor of size, wealth, education, the generation of books/magazines etc. and time.. I suspect all combine to make America dynamic in debate. But oh the price so many citizens have paid in a negative way as a result…eg. loss of life in unnecessary wars; loss of life as a result of lack of health care for all citizens…etc etc…Joe’s data on Blacks and Paulsen’s suggestion says more about the issue than most I suspect realize.
Enough said.
Jim,
Banning abortion, even some time in the future, won’t be seen as a compromise to pro-choice people. I think that until the reasons why people have abortions is addressed, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies is given as much attention as helping already pregnant women to keep their babies, a compromise on abortion won’t be reached. But if Mr. Paulsen is an example of the pro-life point of view, then compromise isn’t want pro-life people really want.
“Dr. Paulsen seems to be implying that some proportion of abortions by African American women are freely chosen”
Jim, please tell me there is a typo in this, or that I am somehow misreading you. Of course, the vast majority of abortions by African American women are freely chosen; as, I assume, are those undergone by almost all other women. This does not mean that they are freely chosen easily with no consideration for the gravity of the choice.
I think the assumption of one who wishes to respect the moral integrity of women must be that women are not cavalier about having abortions; that they do so knowing they are ending a life; that they often do so wishing that they were in a different place in life or the world. No doubt, there are exceptions to this, but I still think my assumptions are sound in the vast majority of cases.
I can remember often hearing the phrase “Where there is life there is hope.” I am now struck by how easy those words role off the lips, lips that, in my case, certainly had no idea what it is like to grow up in some neighborhoods today. It seems that many of those who utter this phrase are implicitly claiming that the women who choose to have an aborition are somehow dense, ignornant, etc. when it comes to judging the future. I assume they are not. I also assume that most of these women do not share the conviction that the life growing inside them has the same moral status as a born child, teenager, adult.
FWIW I think that there is a massive breakdown in any sense of a wider meaning to life in many poor black neighborhoods. It is not an accident that life on the street is often called “The Game.” Life in many of these streets is characterized by a focus on the present, not the future.
Hope is profoundly about the future. It is also about a wider sense of meaning in life. Those who have this sense of meaning having the freedom and resources to direct their lives toward a future that they think is better. We who do not live with the code of the streets often do not recognize the many ways our lives operate around the assumption that the future can/will be a better place. We simply take this for granted. Many in some neighborhoods do not.
Finally, I think one place where there can be a bridge between the two sides might be a conversation about the radical value of human life. Once one becomes convinced of this (created a little less than God (Psalm 8:5)), the need to fight poverty, etc. becomes all the more urgent. However, I also think that the radical value of human life can be said to exist more in potentiality rather than actuality at the earliest periods of a pregenancy (I do not think the Psalmist meant DNA). Nonetheless, one who held such a position could also see the importance of working to make actual as much of that potential as possible.
mary,
I commend you to read the link that Historyman provided in a prior discussion. It situates the issue of abortion in American culture. Think prohibition.
http://books.google.com/books?id=nIbX3rw-BqkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=prejudices#PPA1,M1
Here is my proposal for a compromise. Have all women register as either pro-choice or pro-life. No changing registration allowed. Once registered, only those on record as pro-choice would be able to obtain legal abortions. Those registered as pro-life would also get a guarantee that their tax dollars could not be used for embryonic stem-cell research, with the understanding that they could not take any advantage of future therapies developed through stem-cell research.
For those registered as pro-life, the laws of Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador would apply to them if they obtained an abortion.
“I think that until the reasons why people have abortions is addressed, and the prevention of unwanted pregnancies is given as much attention as helping already pregnant women to keep their babies, a compromise on abortion won’t be reached.”
Well, if we want to look to the underlying cause of abortion, it’s really impossible to discuss without recourse to sin, and any proposed solution that doesn’t focus on ethical living will not solve the problem.
It’s all there for us in Christian living: the right way to order our lives (chastity of continence for unmarrieds; openness to children, conjugal fidelity, and parental responsibility for married couples), and the grace to live in this ordered way is available to us through the sacraments. Until 50 or so years ago there was a widespread consensus about this in the West, and our laws and policies reflected this consensus. Since that time those principles have been under assault from a variety of quarters, and we have compounded the problem by engaging in collective amnesia concerning our traditional wisdom. But it’s still there to be grasped.
Governmental policies about trimesters of pregnancy or availability of artificial birth control aren’t going to get us very far.
Thanks Jim, John and Anthony.
I’m Italian, John, not Brit.
Maybe the referendum in 1981, when almost 70% of Italian people kept abortion legal, settled this issue forever in Italy.
The church took note of this, she already had excommunicated, quite uselessly, all people belonging to communist party, she couldn’t excommunicate all the Italian people.
“The difference is that those on the pro-choice side of the issue believe that allowing such medical decisions to be a matter of law enforcement ends up harming women. But, of course, in this debate, women are invisible and thus expendable.”
Look, Antonio, go back and reread the original post. The point of the exercise is to follow up on the President’s call for compromise. You respond (a) by indicating that those who enjoy the privileges of the unjust status quo have no need to compromise and (b) by casting your opponents’ arguments in the worst possible light. The only thing left is to loudly complain that pro-life people have no interest in compromise.
Oh, wait …
“Besides, asserting that this is a compromise seems like some sort of bad joke. Why not simply come out and say that the goal is to enshrine Church doctrine into law and be done with it?”
“Well, if we want to look to the underlying cause of abortion, it’s really impossible to discuss without recourse to sin, and any proposed solution that doesn’t focus on ethical living will not solve the problem.”
The cause of abortion is an unwanted pregnancy. The reasons people don’t want to be pregnant are many – ill health, financial problems, incest and rape, and just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak I don’t think a focus on ethical living is going to help much. What would help would be ways to allow women more control over becoming pregnant.
David Nickol — re your early comment regarding the different perspectives in Catholicism and Judaism on when life begins, the First Things website this morning had a summary of fascinating remarks made by Britain’s Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks, about that very issue:
“Rabbi Sacks rescued the conversation by stressing that the Jewish position regarding abortion is quite close to the Catholic position. His exposition is worth a detailed summary, as it is a close to an official Orthodox Jewish view as we will hear in the English-speaking world. Only in the case of danger to the life of the mother, and only after extensive investigation by competent Jewish authorities, would Orthodox Judaism ever permit abortion. Abortion on demand is inconceivable. As to the question of where the human person begins, Judaism makes a distinction between human life, which is everywhere and always sacred, and the human person. The mother is a person; the fetus is human life. In the exceptional event of a conflict the person takes precedence. Physis (nature) is gradual, but nomos (law) is discrete. Precisely because we cannot say with precision where life begins we cannot allow that abortion is permissible at any stage of pregnancy. Unlike the Catholic position, which proceeds from natural theology, the Jewish position emerges from the legal consideration of the human person, which requires the community to establish a distinction—and that distinction is the event of birth, the physical separation of the baby from its mother’s body. Rabbi Sacks emphasized that the Jewish and Catholic positions converge on nearly the same result, with the only distinction being abortion to save the mother’s life.”
http://www.firstthings.com/spengler/?p=147
(Apologies to Fr. Imbelli for going off-topic)
Jim, there are few things that I find more depressing than seeing a bunch of men agreeing that there is a “shared principle” or “consensus” that abortion is tragic. The only compromise you are suggesting is to make abortion illegal later rather than sooner. There is no suggestion about exceptions related to threats to the health or life of women, much less any thought to what, exactly, such a regime would mean for women in other respects. I have always found it ironic, especially with regard to late abortion, that pro-life advocates consider it a victory if even one fetus is saved, but seem largely inured to the possibility that the same restriction resulted in the death of one or more women.
The moral calculus is totally one-sided. I suspect this is what Antonio means when he suggests that women are an invisible or expendable part of the equation.
I want to chime in to say I’m so glad to know the reason we have these interminable and unending discussions about abortion here(as per Mary and as evidenced by thread numbers) is because we do the”correct” thing here.
I guess Jim P. will be glad to drop a line to Osservatoreo Romano about their piece ion Obama’s speech (see David’s thread over at Pontifications.)
Actually, that approach strikes me as the self serving approach taken by the Right to Lifers who (to my mind inordinately) keep harping on their one theme.
Many issues of Catholic life tend to be submerged under the weight of the one.
Folks who approach matters like Obama continue to be accused of missing the one great priority and the critics are unwilling to discuss tactics.
They can dump off the issue on sin without discussing the issues women face in the predicament -maybe that’s derived because of the old boy network of the American hierarchy -who, as I’ve mentioned, some think we dare not criticize.
As the newest threrad indicates, the broadest perception is that life is sacred but let’s not deal with it by legislatinga bortion out.
Instead, really deal, as best as possible, with the causes.
Of course if you’re going to say that’s sin, then there’s no common ground.
The point of the exercise is to follow up on the President’s call for compromise.
Jim,
The word compromise doesn’t appear in Obama’s Notre Dame address. Common ground appears four times, and that is what his approach is all about. If you think Obama is advocating compromise, you have completely misunderstood him.
If the two sides can’t agree on what is in the above quote, then that’s the end of it. He didn’t say anything about negotiating a compromise.
Joe, thanks for the excellent points regarding lack of hope, particularly for those who live on the street. I wasn’t sure why you were rolling out those grim statistics about incarceration rate, homicide rate and the like – I was wondering if you were trying to paint a picture that suggested that somehow abortion among African Americans was more compelled by circumstances than would be the case for the overall population.
I share the same assumptions you do about the motives of women of all races who seek abortion. It seemed that you were quite offended by what Dr. Paulsen wrote, and I’m trying to understand what it was.
FWIW, and not presenting this to disagree with anything you say, I found a US census report that indicates that for Blacks in the US, the following percentages live in households whose income is below the “poverty line”:
1959: 55.1%
1973 (year of Roe v Wade): 31.4%
2004 (most recent year in report): 24.7%
During that same period of time, the overall population of African Americans increased from 18 million to 36 million. So during a period of time when the African American population doubled, the poverty rate was more than halved.
Here is the report, if anyone is interested: http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf
I’m not presenting these numbers as unalloyed good news. Of course a household can have income above the poverty baseline and yet not have enough; and one quarter of Black households below the poverty line is not something we should find acceptable. At the same time, it seems that the overall trend is one of progress. Everyone (I hope) knows that there are millions of middle class African American households, and some are upper middle class or higher.
I don’t know how the abortion rate among African Americans breaks down across income quartiles or quintiles, but given that 1 out of every 4 pregnancies terminates in an abortion, it seems nearly certain that it’s a trend that reaches far beyond the underclass, if we use economic measures to define the underclass.
In my previous post, I floated the suggestion that Dr. Paulsen’s request of the President was to be understood as a request for a Presidential call to personal responsibility. I’m still not sure what you think about that suggestion (and of course you’re under no compulsion to say). More than anyone here, you’re willing to talk about racial disparity, and I’d welcome your thoughts on this. Forgive me if I’m pushing too hard on this.
James Englert,
Thanks for that interesting information. The Catholic and Jewish positions seem to me to be both very close, and yet in another respect very far apart. There would be agreement on maybe 99 percent of all current abortions, but the difference on the other 1 percent (true danger to the mother) is enormous.
“Jim, there are few things that I find more depressing than seeing a bunch of men agreeing that there is a “shared principle” or “consensus” that abortion is tragic. The only compromise you are suggesting is to make abortion illegal later rather than sooner. ”
It wasn’t my suggestion, Barbara, it was Dr. Paulsen’s. Is there something about the suggestion that, if it were made by a woman, it would therefore be more worthy of consideration? Otherwise, shouldn’t we consider it on its own merits, rather than according to the gender of the person who raised it?
“There is no suggestion about exceptions related to threats to the health or life of women, much less any thought to what, exactly, such a regime would mean for women in other respects.”
Setting aside the amply demonstrated fact that broad-based “health” exceptions for the woman render any restrictions practically meaningless, why would you think that any real-life amendments or laws wouldn’t address these questions?
“The moral calculus is totally one-sided. I suspect this is what Antonio means when he suggests that women are an invisible or expendable part of the equation.”
The laws as they exist today are totally one-sided. Shouldn’t your righteous anger be directed toward the legal regime and industry that slaughters over a million infants a year? Or perhaps you have a suggested solution to that problem that doesn’t impinge on a woman’s “right to choose”?
“The word compromise doesn’t appear in Obama’s Notre Dame address. Common ground appears four times, and that is what his approach is all about. If you think Obama is advocating compromise, you have completely misunderstood him.”
Fair point, David. Maybe I’m jumping too quickly to “compromise”. Although, if peace and tranquillity is really what people want, finding common ground won’t be sufficient.
Btw, as I stated previously, there is nothing to dislike about the President’s one-line principles. Let’s see what the real policies end up looking like. Hopefuly, sooner rather than later.
“The cause of abortion is an unwanted pregnancy.”
And the reasons we have unwanted pregancy are …?
“The reasons people don’t want to be pregnant are many – ill health, financial problems, incest and rape, and just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so to speak I don’t think a focus on ethical living is going to help much. ”
Actually, we know that ethical living helps very much to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. It works better than any other solution. Ask anyone from your grandmother’s generation. And it works very well during times of ill health and during financial problems. Clearly incest and rape are more difficult, but why don’t we deal first with the 95%+ of cases that don’t fall into those categories? “Wrong place at the wrong time” made me smile – it’s not quite the same thing as getting splashed by a passing car :-). I’m assuming by that you meant, succumbing to a passionate moment (perhaps against your better judgment?) It’s a fair point – we all do things we later regret, and sometimes those things do have serious consequences. In my opinion, terminating the pregnancy via an abortion is worse than any possible consequence for the mom, short of a life-threatening situation resulting from the pregnancy (like an ectopic pregnancy). And I’m okay with taking actions to save the mom’s life that might also terminate the pregnancy.
“What would help would be ways to allow women more control over becoming pregnant.”
Men and women don’t have an unfettered right to conjugal relations. Living an ethically ordered life with respect to sex gives women almost complete control over becoming pregnant. It also gives men 100% control over an unintended impregnation.
What you see as one-sided I see as neutral. The government does not endorse abortion, and the federal government and most states refuse to consider it as a health care service for purposes of payment under either government or commercial health plans. Many states actively restrict it and try very hard to tip the scales in the other direction.
Why do I think such protections would not be put in place? Well, for one thing, no one advocating such changes in the law said anything remotely suggesting that they would be.
Do I think a suggestion should be considered on its own merits rather than based on who made it? It’s not that I haven’t considered the merits of the suggestion, it’s the notion that a bunch of men are nodding their heads in agreement that their exists a consensus that I find so bothersome, just as I find it almost astonishing that the next thread is assuming based on a single poll that the entire consensus in American society on the question of abortion has changed. It’s called selective group think and it has a way of tuning out the voices of those outside of positions of influence in the group, and in the Catholic Church, that always means women and often means African-Americans.
The following is from an article by Jack Balkin on abortion rights, the full text of which is available at:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925558
If we want to speak of finding common ground, I believe this is a good place to start.
The article begins with a discussion of women’s historical legal status as characterized by the following legal opinion:
As Justice Bradley explained in his 1873 concurrence in Bradwell v. Illinois,69 which upheld a general prohibition on women becoming members of the Illinois Bar, “It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfil the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases.”
The gist of Balkin’s abortion rights reasoning is stated in the following:
To understand how courts should enforce the right to abor-tion, we should recognize that it is actually two rights. The first is a woman’s right not to be forced by the state to bear children at risk to her life or health. The second is a woman’s right to decide whether or not to become a mother and assume the obligations of parenthood. When a woman becomes pregnant, the first right is the right to protect her bodily integrity—her life and her health. The second right is a right against state-enforced compul-sory motherhood; it is the right of a woman—as opposed to the state—to decide whether she will take on the life-altering set of responsibilities that come with being a parent. These two rights derive from the constitutional arguments for why criminalization of abortion is class and caste legislation.
The first right to abortion is not time-limited—it continues throughout pregnancy. Women should always have the right to preserve their life or health when it is threatened by the continuation of a pregnancy. The second right, however, need not continue throughout pregnancy; it requires only that women have a reasonable time to decide whether to become mothers and have a fair and realistic opportunity to make that choice. The state’s interest in protecting unborn life is at its strongest in the later stages of pregnancy. But letting states vindicate this in-terest when it is strongest is not necessarily inconsistent with the second right to abortion. When a woman’s health and life are not at risk, the second right requires that women have a right to a fair and realistic opportunity to choose whether or not to be-come a mother, and in most cases this choice can usually be made in the earlier stages of a pregnancy. In fact, about 88 per-cent of all abortions occur in the first twelve weeks of pregnancy (roughly the end of the first trimester). Only 7 percent occur be-tween weeks thirteen and fifteen, and only 4 percent occur be-tween weeks sixteen and twenty. Twenty weeks is about halfway through the average pregnancy. Only 1 percent of abortions oc-cur after that point, and only a vanishingly small number of abortions occur past twenty four weeks, the point of viability.
I am not surprised at all to see another lengthy debate/discussion on abortion on dotCommonweal. I am, however, surprised that no one has started a thread on the so-called “duel” on national security between Obama and Cheney this morning. Had it not for the ND event last week, there’d have been 3 threads on the duel by now. Where is Margaret?
A note to Barbara: Thanks for your response to my little post in the previous thread on ND & abortion. It’s quite a take on abortion from Nesbit, isn’t it? As someone interested in history, I thought the shift from viewing abortion as one sin among other sins to the the biggest sin of all, is darn fascinating. Especially during the late 19th-century, which saw a historical development of sentiments towards pregnancy, the fetus, etc. I’d add animals too, as the 19th century saw a change in how people in industrial societies regard animals.
Btw, I’m responding here because that thread looks to be done.
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=3198#comments
Jim – thanks for the stats on African-Americans and the poverty level. If I am doing my math correctly, the folks below the poverty level were reduced by 50% but the population increased from 18 mil to 36 mil. Thus, we continue to have the same number of African-Americans below the poverty level.
Wonder how they count the high number of incarcerated blacks? Are street people included?
“It’s called selective group think and it has a way of tuning out the voices of those outside of positions of influence in the group, and in the Catholic Church, that always means women and often means African-Americans.”
For sure the last hurdle may be women. Among prominent women it is interesting that the two we have on this blog, Peggy and Cathy, never tip their hands the way ESL, Johnson, Chittister and others have. Though I know that Caveny and O’Brien Steinfels have very strong views on this subject. Certainly, Barbara is pointing out to the males here that they are evading the gender issue. Kathy, as I see it , is the exception rather than the rule no matter how much she may argue to the contrary.
This is a gender issue and it is pitiful the way males insist that they own it.
There are tons of women doing pastoral work and with degrees in theology. Increasingly so. One day we will wake up sharing the church with them, inexorably.
“Wonder how they count the high number of incarcerated blacks? Are street people included?”
I’m dreaming, right? I didn’t just read this, right?
O.K. I am awake now.
Bill D. It’s easy to count people behind bars, and, no, I do not think they count street people.
Jim
Personal responsibility and racial inequality is complicated issue that would derail this thread. I have sent you something via e-mail.
Mr. Nickol –
I doubt we are really very far apart. Since we aren’t a monarchy, I was using “philosopher=king” metaphorically. No, we don’t expect politicians to have that sort of competence. But tht doesn’t mean they don’t *need* some philosophical competence, at least in the concepts and principles involves in ethics and political philosophy, especially those upon which our Constitution is based.
Yes, most politicians are trained in law, and the smartest lawyers tend to have the kind of minds that are good in logic and philosophy. What I’m proposing is really not “beyond their pay grade”. We just elected a lawyer who I’m quite sure is more than competent to understand the issues.
Mary,
Sorry, I hope you did not take offence at my Brit guess. I suspect a referendum would not help much in America.
I was thinking while I was gardening this afternoon that another cultural aspect might be the simple two party system in the USA. Canada and even more so Italy and most other European countries have multi-party systems which have to work together to form governments.
I suspect over time this creates a certain psychic thing which works towards finding compromise and not vilifying the opposition too much. America has never had to do that.
The debate is good and in forums like dotCommonweal mostly informative but at times gets, I’m sure you will agree, very tiresome.
As far as pro-life political action is concerned their leadership is unwise in the politics of the possible. It is not very mature. They have set themselves up for failure.
It is not about compromise. It is about winning and losing another American cultural characteristic. Italians and Canadians do not win at much other than football and hockey. Ah we can’t forget Fiat got Chrysler.
Note even in Paulsen’s paper the issue is for pro-life to win. The Church in America has established a no win position. I do not know where the idea of “from the moment of conception” arose but I bet it is not a phrase you hear often in Italy..but ultimately it is a losing slogan which ties the hands of the pro-life movement and the Church to find accommodation with secular state society.
Vilifying secularism as sinful etc etc is also not a winning argument. Enough said.
It has been remarked earlier that in Europe you don’t find Catholics so taken up with the abortion issue as is the case in the U.S.
Editor of Vatican newspaper says ‘Obama is not pro-abortion’
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16067
(Gian Maria) Vian (editor in chief of L’Osservatore Romano) “Let me be clear, L’Osservatore stands where the American bishops are: we consider abortion a disaster. We must promote, always and at every level a ‘culture of life’.”
“What I want to stress is that yesterday, on this precise and very delicate issue, the President said that the approval of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. The fact that he said that is very reassuring to me. It also underlines my own clear belief: Obama is not a pro-abortion president,”
F.Y.I. http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=4999
and this : http://www.jillstanek.com/
John Borst
“ I was thinking that another cultural aspect might be the simple two party system in the USA. Canada and even more so Italy and most other European countries have multi-party systems which have to work together to form governments.”
Yes you are right.You know in Italy to define a diplomatic person, a man searching a common ground, we say :”this man is a Democristiano”, that’is a man belonging to Christian democratic party, because they were very clever at this.
After the meeting between Card George and Obama, when I read the Card George’s remarks ( “It’s hard to disagree with him because he’ll always tell you he agrees with you,” he said. “Maybe that’s political. I think he sincerely wants to agree with you. You have to say, again and again, ‘No, Mr. President, we don’t agree (on abortion).’…”) I laughed because Obama is really a democristiano, so very close to the Vatican way of thinking, whereas Card George is so American and so far from the Vatican.
Mary inquired earlier about why Americans are “obsessed” with the abortion issue. I don’t know if obsessed is the most expressive verb, but her comment reminded me of something Judge Noonan once wrote (the same Judge Noonan who spoke after President Obama at Notre Dame). It took me a bit of time to find what I was thinking of, but I eventually found it in his book “A Private Choice,” where the Judge undertakes a series of 21 “inquiries” on abortion in America. In his first inquiry, “On the Nature of the Present Conflict and it Resolution,” Judge Noonan has this to say about what I think is one of the primary reasons why the issue of abortion continues to vex the U.S.:
“Tocqueville long ago observed that we are a nation of lawyers and that every national issue is turned into a judicial question. Abortion as a public matter has been primarily a matter of what judges have decided the public must do. Without the courts the whole controversy would have had a very different, and much smaller, shape. The federal judiciary has created a new constitutional liberty, fed it, fostered it, and protected it. The Supreme Court in behalf of this liberty has revolutionized the legal structure of the family. Individual federal judges have not hesitated to set aside the oldest of laws–that on murder itself–and the most basic of constitutional distributions of power–that giving Congress the power of the purse–to make the new liberty effective in America. The impact of the acts of the judges on the Constitution, on federalism, and on the legal position of the family is evidence to be assessed by every participant in the American political process as each participant decides whether the judge-made liberty of abortion should be fortified, expanded, or expunged.”
In addition, shortly before the passage from his book quoted above, Judge Noonan offered what I think is insight that relates directly to President Obama’s comment in his ND speech that some aspects of the abortion issue are irreconcilable:
“Part of the public controversy is intractable. It depends on assumptions and judgments about what human beings are and about what human beings should do for one another. These convictions and conclusions are not easily reached by argument. They rest on particular perspectives that are bound to the whole personality and can shift only with a reorientation of the person.”
Nancy,
You really ought to read more widely, awe, in fact you do if you subscribe to Commonweal (do you in fact read the magazine, have you read it for 10 or more years…it helps to have a long term perspective). Regardless, pro-life webbies are so one-sided and full of vindictive that I have long ago given up on any kind of objective discussion coming from such sources.
I find it interesting that many such sites are trying now to undo the Obama/Jenkins “common ground” message by attempting to address the “theological” components of the speeches, especially Obama’s. To me that is a good sign that they in fact failed in this most ungracious of political ploys and that they are now fighting a rear guard action.
It is not likely, as many here suspected, to produce any move toward common ground or any sort of compromise. What has clearly been exposed for the first time publicly is that the only acceptable pro-life solution is a 100% ban through recriminalization of the procedure.
Politically that is simply not even close to being on the table. A slow move to a more educated & supportive move to decrease abortion, well supported by science will do a long way to lowering the numbers. The “killing babies” model only serves to discredit those who use such tactics.
That nearly 70 bishops can’t see this through the fog of their own bias demonstrates that a knowledgeable concept of leadership is lacking within their ranks. This group are moving toward demagoguery in their behaviour towards their fellow Catholics, again a position not likely to win many converts to their position.
I still think the debate as to means not ends has shifted even if the pro-life radicals do not know it yet.
John, to be Pro-Life, one must Respect the Sanctity of all Human Life from the beginning. The Catholic Church is Pro-Life because the Right to Life is a Universal Truth. God is the Creator of all Human Life from the beginning.
Nancy…you and I live in two different universes. You seem to imply I do not believe what you wrote.
I am not talking about that common belief…I am talking about the means to bring us closer to that end which we seek.
Saying the end over and over and over again as if those who discuss the political reality of achieving such a goal is both insulting and useless.
It is why unless pro-life including leadership of the Catholic Church in America (it this is peculiarly American) compromise and seek a common ground are doomed to live in frustration forever.
Nancy tell me this: we violate the right-to-life in so many other ways why should this violation be any more sacred than any other post born person. And don’t tell me because it is an innocent baby…at some point a life, is a life, is a life.
OH! And BTW, you never answered the question….do you subscribe to Commonweal?
John, you and I live in the same Universe, the one that God created. However, you and I do not follow the same Word of God. From the beginning, I recognize The Truth is absolute, while you see the truth as relative. Christ said, “IAM Truth”, he did not say, relatively speaking, IAM Truth. God, The Blessed Trinity, is a Perfect Relationship of Love from the beginning. The Creative Love of God is Lord and Giver of Life to every Human Being from the beginning.
Ann, I beg to differ. I think I am very deep, at least as deep as Dewey Cox: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u5x9pdInTU
:-)
Frank
http://francisbeckwith.com
;-)
Prof. Beckwith –
No offense intended. I didn’t say *you* weren’t deep, I said your “Defending Life” isn’t, meaning that it doesn’t get down into all the root philosophical issues, including counter-arguments and the scientific data that is necessarily part of some of the arguments. Such a short work couldn’t possibly do all that. But I’m a firm believer that until some learned philosophers such as yourself writes about the root issues for the educated public, the so-called abortion “debate” will get nowhere.
(My deafness prevents me from hearing music. I’ll never know Dewey Cox and barely remember the Boss. Sigh.)