After Dr. Tiller
After abortion provider George Tiller was murdered in Kansas, NPR contacted Commonweal‘s editor, Paul Baumann, for a response. His contribution is up on their Opinion page today, along with short essays from the president of NARAL and “an anti-abortion doctor.”
From Paul’s piece:
Anti-abortion advocates have done a good job of making their fellow citizens aware of the plight of the unborn. They have not done a good job of coming to terms with the concerns of women, or the complexity of abortion as a social problem. Legal reforms are necessary, but insufficient. Abortion was common enough before it was legalized, and outlawing it will not end the practice. It is a stubborn biological, legal, and moral reality that abortion is not just about the rights of the unborn. It is also about the moral autonomy, physical integrity, health and well-being of women. There is no other situation in which one human being is as dependent on another as is an unborn child on its mother. If abortion is starkly drawn as a battle of competing rights — of the rights of the unborn versus the rights of women — the unborn will always lose. We need a different approach, one that will promote the flourishing of both mother and child — an approach that recognizes that their individual well-being is inseparable.
Please read the whole thing at NPR’s site. (And before you ask: “anti-abortion” is the NPR editors’ contribution; the original did say “prolife.”)
See David Gibson’s 5/18 post on this topic. The dot.Commonweal responses exhausted all possible views on the topic of abortion. If someone has a fresh take, let it be known, Sorry Paul.
NPR probably did everyone a bit of service by changing it to “anti-abortion” because Tiller wasn’t killed by someone who was pro-life. One who is pro-life doesn’t kill like that.
Baumann argues a pro-choice position. Is he speaking for the magazine? Is this the official position of Commonweal?
Henry,
Isn’t that kind of like saying no Catholic women obtain abortions, because a real Catholic wouldn’t have an abortion?
How many in the “pro-life” movement are really pro-life in the way you would like the word to be defined?
Baumann argues a pro-choice position. Is he speaking for the magazine? Is this the official position of Commonweal?
Kathy,
It seems to me Baumann says that we live in a democracy, and the solution to the stalemate should be achieved democratically. I guess you have in essence given up on the political process itself.
David,
It seems to me that Baumann says that in this democracy there must be legal compromise on abortion. That’s a pro-choice position.
“Abortion was common enough”….what exactly does that mean?
“Outlawing it will not end the practice”….what exactly does that mean? Outlawing has not ended any practice, so far as I know. We’ve outlawed rape, yet it still occurs, so we may as well make it legal?
Is this the depth of logic and insight we get from the editor of Commonweal?
It seems to me that Baumann says that in this democracy there must be legal compromise on abortion. That’s a pro-choice position.
Kathy,
Are you saying that Catholicism and democracy are incompatible? Isn’t John Paul II describing compromise here?
Are you saying that people are “pro-choice” who feel the best that can be achieved in the United States is some kind of middle ground between the Catholic position of no abortions, at any time, for any reason, and the other extreme of abortion at any time, for any reason?
I don’t want to go out on a limb and predict exactly what kind of consensus on abortion might be reached, but I will venture the opinion that there will never be a total ban in the United States that prohibits abortion in the case of risk to life of the mother. Are you saying Catholics must never stop trying to change the law even if getting everything they want is impossible?
I suspect most people in the pro-life movement are trying to help women with problem pregnancies as described by the pro-life doctor. They staff medical clinics, answer help lines, collect and distribute clothing and other items for pregnant women, refer women in need to various social and medical services, etc. They also peacefully witness to the sanctity of human life by praying and standing in respectful vigil near abortion clinics.
If there is any resolution to the abortion controversy, it will come about through some kind of compromise worked out by people near the center, both left and right. In other words, any final outcome will be a consensus, i.e., the kind of disagreement that most people in our country can basically live with.
I suspect most people of good will — whether on left or right — see Dr. Tiller’s murderer as a wacko and not at all representative of the pro-life movement.
David,
Is Commonweal a legislator? No, it’s a journal of opinion. As such it has the rare luxury of taking an unequivocal stance. Legislators often have to make hard judgments. Editors can say what they mean to influence legislators and the public. He’s not voting. He is advocating.
Is Commonweal a legislator? No, it’s a journal of opinion. As such it has the rare luxury of taking an unequivocal stance.
Kathy,
Commonweal is “a review of religion, politics, and culture.” I suppose one might argue the point (although I certainly wouldn’t) that a purely religious journal should confine itself to saying, “The Catholic Church teaches that life begins at conception, that abortion is murder, and that civil law must ban all abortions.” However, you seem to be arguing that “a review of religion, politics, and culture” should ignore the practicalities of politics and the view of current culture on abortion.
Kathy –
To be pro-toleration of the pro-choice position is NOT to be prochoice. There is a very, very read difference.
I suspect most people of good will — whether on left or right — see Dr. Tiller’s murderer as a wacko and not at all representative of the pro-life movement.
Clearly Scott Roeder was mentally disturbed, but the demonization of Dr. Tiller by those in the pro-life movement whose sanity is less in doubt than Roemer’s was at least partly responsibility for Dr. Tiller’s murder. To carry on a nationwide campaign branding one man as a “baby killer” and a “mass murderer,” and to publish his home address and the address of his church (where he was murdered) on the Web as part of “Tiller Watch” was an invitation to people with diminished self-control to take matters into their own hands.
Ann, “choice” advocates uphold a woman’s right to have an abortion. They advocate laws that keep abortion legal. Doesn’t Baumann’s essay advocate keeping abortion legal?
1) Iagree with the America editorial that if we keep on being polarized, we will weaken the voice of the Church in the public sqaure. (Of course, for some, America is not that “Catholic” either and, of course, their way is the way.)
2)On line at America, Douglas Kmiec has some questions aboput the science basis of Church teaching on abortion and on how to try to keep moving the proces along.
But the usual divide and impasse will continue here, so Michaerl’s original point is relevant – unless there be asome genuine desire to deal with that impasse.
David, your focus seems to be on those pro-lifers who strive and manage to get the headlines. My focus here, on the other hand, is on those pro-lifers who work behind the scenes and in their own quiet way to reach out to women in distress. I believe the latter folks far outnumber the people who get your ire.
Kathy, I didn’t interpret Baumann’s essay as advocating keeping abortion legal. I did see it as acknowledging the reality of the political climate and concluding that only some kind of consensus is a viable resolution of the issue.
Joseph, Baumann’s essay went deeper than you suggest. He set forth principles for action, including the “moral autonomy” of the mother. Not moral freedom (a thoroughly Catholic principle) but “moral autonomy”–the ability to *choose*.
I believe the latter folks far outnumber the people who get your ire.
Joseph,
I hope that’s true, but I am commenting what’s visible. If the “real” pro-life movement is getting a bum rap because of the self-appointed spokespersons, then maybe it ought to make itself heard.
Kathy, I condemn abortion, but what would you tell a woman who’s been advised by one or more medical specialists that she will most assuredly die if she carries her pregnancy to term? It is this situation where “moral autonomy,” i.e., “the ability to choose” may come into play. Speaking for myself, I’d probably keep my mouth shut and leave the moral outcome of such a situation to God.
David, I see pro-life billboards at various locations around my community. They’re typically religious in nature (but not condemnatory). They give a toll-free phone number, if I recall, where help can be obtained. If you believe that such groups “ought to make [themselves] heard,” what suggestions might you have for them that would not — at the same time — offend your sensibilities here?
I thought the article was pretty good in representing the views of both sides.
Henry Karlson has identified one problem with the language of “prolife” and “prochoice” (and “anti-abortion” and “proabortion”). Kathy has identified another. It seems to me describing this argument as “prochoice” renders terms like “prochoice” and “prolife” all but useless.
I’m on vacation for the weekend, so I’m closing comments here.