Homework assignment
September 20, 2006, 2:00 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
DotCommonwealer and Notre Dame historian John McGreevy has generously offered to answer reader questions on his latest article here on Monday, September 25. So get reading, and keep your eyes peeled for John’s Q&A post.
N.B.: Only registered users of the Commonweal Web site are able to post comments on dotCommonweal. Don’t have a username and password yet? What are you waiting for? Sign up now!
This is the main reason. From McGreevy’s article……
“Much of this uneasiness with the national Democratic Party in the late 1960s and early 1970s revolved around race, with working-class white Catholics appalled by Democratic support for forced busing programs to alleviate racial imbalance in the public schools, and suspicious of efforts to integrate lily-white (and heavily Catholic) construction and trade unions. The sympathy for African-American civil rights displayed by many priests and nuns in the late 1960s evoked among some white Catholics a raw sense of betrayal. ”
Catholics became more affluent and had little sympathy for people in their former state.
At a time when many RC clerics, especially priests, are being tarrred and feathered for the sins and crimes of a distinct minority among them, it is refreshing to recall the role played by many RC clerics in the civil rights movement, either on the front lines during marches and demonstrations, or in a sometimes equally dangerous space–the pulpits in parishes.
BTW, I think Prof. McGreevy’s article is excellent. He covers many events and themes in a well-written piece that could easily serve as the outline for a very interesting book.
I wish McGreevy had asked a better question at the end of his piece. ‘Can we all agree to make abortion rare?’ is something every Democrat politicial would embrace; ‘and mean it’ is far too vague. How do we prove we ‘mean it?’ It can’t be by passing anti-abortion laws, which the ‘make it rare’ clause excludes. Teaching abstinance would work, but it would mean Democrats would have to oppose NARAL and PP and their money.
Everything is possible with God, I guess.
A key point in the article is this quote:
“In 1992, leading Democrats notoriously prevented Pennsylvania Governor Robert Casey, the country’s most prominent prolife Catholic Democrat, from speaking at the party’s national convention.”
Ever since that day, prolife Democrats have been persona non grata in their own party. The Democratic party’s claim to inclusiveness rings hollowly, and until it fixes that glaring inconsistency, the gulf will widen.
Ferde–
Yesterday the “Pregnant Women Support Act” was introduced in the House of Representatives. It’s a comprehensive package of measures designed to give pregnant women a safety net so that women contemplating abortion because of lack of financial resources, health care, etc. will hopefully choose life. It’s not a perfect solution to the abortion problem, but it’s more than a start, and it seems the type of program that Prof. McGreevy was likely thinking about when he posed his question about making abortion rare. The proposed legislation will hopefully get bipartisan support.
And, btw, the bill is supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Bob–
At the risk of sounding like a broken record or accused of being a lobbyist for the Democrats for Life of America, you may want to check out DFLA’s website:
http://www.democratsforlife.org/
DFLA is still a small corner of the Democratic Party’s tent, but it is an increasingly noticeable part. After the 2004 election, when the Catholic vote in key states like Ohio tipped the election to Bush, some Democratic Party presidential hopefuls for 2008, perhaps most noticeably Hillary Clinto, began to modulate their previous staunch pro-choice rhetoric. True, they haven’t become pro-life, but they quickly realized that if the Democratic Party doesn’t create living space for pro-lifers, many of whom are Catholic, then the same key states could easily go Republican again. The Democratic presidential hopefuls aren’t more open to the pro-lfe position because of its morality or persuasiveness–they’re just counting votes, of course–but that’s no different than most other political issues. I’m hopeful that organizations like DFLA will make real inroads into the Democratic Party’s stand on abortion.
Sorry, that should be “moderate their previously staunchly pro-choice rhetoric.”
And it’s a little know fact that Hillary recently changed her surname to “Clinto” to help distance herself from the negative aspects of her husband’s presidency. ;)
Here’s a good commentary on the article via a blogsite called “Reasons & Opinions”.
This particular comment is from “Morning’s Minion.”
http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/
DFL will merit our praise and support by going on the record as being committed (inter alia) to a change in law. Until that time, they cannot be taken seriously.
mlj-
I understand what you’re saying, but the DFL (which, not being a Democrat, I was not aware of) is a baby step in the right direction.
mlj–
So you’re saying that working to reduce abortions by 95% over 10 years is not enough to be taken “seriously”?
I consider myself strongly pro-life, but until a so-called “third way” is found on the abortion issue–where both extremes find at least some common ground (such as the Pregnant Women Support Act)–abortion will not become rare. Reversing Roe and making abortion criminal won’t make abortion rare, it will simply drive it underground. I lament the loss of every aborted life, but, in the end, becoming pro-life is a hearts and minds issue, perhaps the most important hearts and minds issue we face. Reversing Roe will do little to change hearts and minds. It is extremely unfortunate that it has to be this way, but without third way programs like the DFLA’s in place–as a bridge between the millions of abortions taking place in the U.S. today and a future when abortion is truly rare–there is little hope that American society will ever come to realize that all life, including that of the unborn, is precious.
And if you don’t buy what I’ve just said, then perhaps we can think about it this way. Organizations like NARAL and PP are vigorously opposed to third way programs. Why? Because they thrive, especially financially, on the existence of uncompromising extremes. The deeper and longer the wedge remains between ardent pro-life and pro-choice advocates, the better off NARAL and PP are. The Pregnant Womens Support Act, and DFLA’s 95-10 initiative, begin to remove the wedge.
I think that any proposal for the public square should be balanced (showing it has listened to all the arguments), practical (being capable of pasage without sufficent show of pure partisan power) and credible (dealing with the substance of the question, even if the outcome is not perfect.) That strikes me as the way most consensus is built and built upon publicly.
I think Bill Collier’s post is right along that line.
P.S. I found the article excellent in its historical perspective.
The 95-10 solution is a fraud. The underlying assumption that a significant number of the abortions in this country are the direct result of poverty is essentially false. Yes, I have seen the statistics – a majority of women who have abortions are “low income.” The Guttmacher Institute – a pro-abortion think tank – and NARAL consistently make this statement. First, low income includes everyone earning up to 200% of the poverty level – whether they have health insurance or not. If you look at income statistics for young people – those 25 and under – the majority are low income by this standard. In other words, the majority of women who have abortions come from the group of people of which they are a majority. There is no causal link. More to the point, Guttmacher’s own stats indicate about 1 in 4 abortions are performed on women who’s family income is over 300% of the poverty level. How do you get to 95%?
Additionally, if this were true, states that have more extensive medical welfare programs, like Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, New York, and Connecticut ought to have lower abortion rates than places like North Dakota or Utah, but they don’t.
We can debate whether a pregnant mother support program is good policy, but the attempt to press it as an “abortion prevention” measure is a cynical political ploy by some that I believe is duping a lot of people who feel guilty about supporting politicians who can’t see their way to opposing even so rational a limitation as outlawing late-term abortions.
Bernard–
I wouldn’t pretend to understand even 0.01% of Kant’s thought, but, and I’m reaching back decades to my memories of Fr. Cardoni’s modern philosophy class, when the Pope said in his lecture that “the modern self-limitation of reason” is “classically expressed in Kant’s ‘Critiques,’” I think the Pope may have been referring to Kant’s belief that we can’t really know reality in and of itself, that what is real is beyond human experience and understanding.
When Kant, an unknown professor in the town of Konigsberg, published his “Critique of Pure Reason,” which if I recall he had been working on for 20 or 30 years, it shook the philosophical world to its core, or at least the world of empirical philosophy of Locke and others that was dominating western thought at the time. (I imagine it was something like the effect an unknown patent clerk named Einstein had when he published a series of papers on relativity in the early 20th century that revolutionized physics.) Locke believed that all knowledge is the result of sensory experience only. The mind is a blank slate at birth, a tabula rasa, and our sensory experiences imprint on that slate. For Locke, there is no other reality, and how do we know that the sensory impressions are real in any event?
Along comes Kant, who tells the high and mighty in empirical philosophy circles that they have it wrong. He says that the mind is not a blank slate at birth, that it instead contains what we today in this Microsoft Windows world would call a built-in operating system that is capable of manipulating sensory experiences into other forms. To prove his argument, Kant set forth a list of items of knowledge we possess (I think he called them modalities) that cannot be the result of sensory impressions. The one I remember most clearly is passage of time. We inherently know that time passes even if we are deprived of all sensory input.
Sorry for this preliminary stuff, but I’m coming again to the Pope’s comments about Kant, who as brilliant as he was also realized that “reality” is limited by the limits of the operating system the mind is pre-programmed with. What is really “real” then, in Kant’s thought, is beyond the capacity of the human mind. This I where the Pope disagrees with Kant. In Kant’s philosophical construct, there is no room for “revealed” truth.
Ironically, though Kant did not believe that the existence of God could ever be proven, he did believe that it was not irrational to come to a belief in the existence of God through use of “logical understanding.” Kant believed that the world as we know it is not sufficient in and of itself, especially as to issues of morality, and that an external supreme power, which he identified with God, was a necessity for regulating human behavior. I’m no doubt oversimplifying (and likely not completely correct), but I think Kant believed that without God, there would be no meaning to our life here on earth. The Pope would no doubt agree with Kant on this last point, but not with Kant’s belief that we can never really know God, or Kant’s method of backing in to belief in the existence of God.
I’m sure there are many who can point out the mistakes in this analysis, but it’s the way I thought through the Pope’s remarks about Kant in his lecture, relying on the now dusty lessons of a teacher I remember fondly.
Folks, please ignore the above rambling about Immanuel Kant. I posted it in the wrong thread. My apologies, and I think it’s time to call it a day for blogging. God bless.
Thank you Sean! One of many great posts from you.
I appreciated McGreevy’s article. It’s a thoughtful discussion of a topic important both for our politics and our religion.
I’ve heard the question put to James Q. Wilson (who is cited in the article): what would it take to reduce recent political and religious polarization in the U.S?
He responded with what he called three rather unlikely scenarios: 1) the scale of government might be radically reduced, 2) a new congressional redistricting plan might be implemented, and 3) people might relax and spend less time becoming agitated about political debates. Since these are so improbable, he predicted a lengthy period of polarization.
Perhap we will even become polarized about how polarized we are. I believe Alan Wolfe took the position that the country is not polarized, only our elites are (for self-serving ends). On the contrary, Wilson argued, the larger non-elite population is genuinely divided as well.
Given the disparity in comments re: the DFLA I thought the participants might find the article “A little less confrontation, a little more action” in U.S. Catholic Magazine at http://uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?abbr=usc_&page=NewsArticle&id=10490 interesting.
Bill, Thanks for the legislative up-date. I think it reflects just the kind of thinking we need to get the abortion question moving the right way. And thanks for your comments. The Kant essay was a good read even if it belonged elsewhere.
Sean, I don’t think the Pregnant Women Support Act is intended to be an ‘abortion prevention’ measure as you state it. It appears to be an alternative for women who would choose abortion because of their economic status. If ten lives a year were saved, would it be worth it? Five? Two?
The government has no right to steal my tax dollars and use them to bribe women who don’t have enough sense or morals to control their own reproduction.
Right now there are adoption agencies that will put pregnant women in touch with infertile couples crying out for children, couples who will pay for prenatal care. If a woman can’t support her children, she should give them away to a loving home.
Any attempt to help women with unwanted pregnancies is nothing more than a return to the old days of the Welfare Queens, who were rewarded for having children out of wedlock with multiple fathers, and dependency on the dole was passed down from generation to generation.
Abortion must be banned at all times and for any reason whatsoever. What kind of mother chooses her own life over that of her child’s? A good mother is a dead mother.
There is no middle ground.
Let’s see: Have I successfully inculcated the method used by so many of our conservative friends on these blog responses–the appropriately snide tone? A political position that will leave poor women with no choice but losing their babies through abortion or adoption? Unreferenced figures to prove my point? And, above all, the most coldy correct interpretation of the Catechism?
I’m sure someone will step in to slap me down if I haven’t.
Jean,
I’m not sure why we can’t do both: implement laws that make abortion illegal, and provide support for women in crisis pregnancies. If one were to walk into any given crisis pregnancy center, I’d bet most of the volunteers working there would describe themselves as “conservative.”
Bill, briefly.
I’m sorry that I introduced Kant. Just my pedantic self getting in the way. For now, let me just say that I disagree with most of what you say about Kant. Perhaps the only relevant point for these discussions is that Kant did not think that the existence of God could be proven, especially not in the ways proposed by Aquinas. I happen to agree with him, though I also think it not unlikely that what Aquinas meant by “demonstration” is not what Kant meant by proof. So they might not be so far apart as might appear at first. But enough of my twattle about this. Apologies to all for letting myself go off on this tangent.
Jean,
You were most convincing. I was startled that it was coming from you until that last paragraph.
I just can’t comprehend why criminalization has to be the only solution. It only swings the pendulum to the opposite pole. Thus solving nothing and continuing the political debate. Besides it is clear it not going to happen even with this Supreme Court.
Why, if even the right-of -centre, U.S. Catholic can contemplate a middle ground can the absolute prohibitionist’s not?
Great post Jean. Notice that most people who talk about this issue are men–led by the celibate ones. A fraction of right to life people follow the seamless garment.
Bomb Iraq and plan to bomb Iran. Choose life.
Why this fraud issue predominates our time is amazing to me. We do speak more about abortion than Rowanda, Darfur, the plight of Iraqis, etc.
We may not use the word jihad but…..
From McGreevery: ” The sympathy for African-American civil rights displayed by many priests and nuns in the late 1960s evoked among some white Catholics a raw sense of betrayal. ”
As Damon Linker points out those priests of the 60′s are the Theocons of our time. Cardinal law was one also.
Does this mean they got bored or could not handle elite lay opposition? There is something there.
Ferde,
Those who promote the 95-10 solution and politicians like John Kerry when he spoke at Pepperdine recently are clearly making the case that their proposals will prevent abortions – that’s what the 95 means.
I am not taking a specific position on the Pregnant Women’s Support Act either way – I haven’t studied it. I am simply saying that linking it to the abortion debate is fatuous and a cynical political ploy. There is no evidence that any social welfare program will reduce the number of abortions. Will it reduce the numbers by even ten? Maybe, but I suspect something like parental notification would reduce them far more, and these same people are against that. Even more to the point, we know that outlawing partial birth abortions would save about 1500-2000 lives a year. That number alone should give us pause let alone the nearly 1 million other abortions.
As for criminalization, the reason it makes sense is that it is a crime just as slavery was a crime even when it wasn’t against the law. I have said this before in other posts. We wouldn’t accept a little rape or a little slavery, why do we accept a little homicide? No one says criminalization is the only method to prevent abortions, but those who say that social engineering will stop hundreds of thousands of abortions a year are speaking nonsense.
Listen up, Catholics!
The proper role of the government is NOT to help people, it’s to PUNISH them.
If you think the government CAN help reduce the number of abortions, you are either cynical or stupid, falling for the cynical tricks of pseudo-Catholic politicians like John Kerry and Ted Kennedy who are making pro-life noises just to get more votes or to stay out of hot water with their bishops.
Don’t be dupes!
We must make criminal examples of women who have had abortions. They must go to jails built with our tax dollars for the purpose of punishing pre-meditated murderers like this.
Their children must be taken from them and given to decent homes where they will learn about Catholic doctrine and punishment.
Doctors who will not follow Catholic doctrine regarding abortion, regardless of their own religious teachings, must be forced to do so by law. If they persist in performing abortions, they must be convicted as murderers.
Where they have performed many abortions, they must be considered as criminals against humanity.
Where Catholic doctrine may allow the death penalty in some cases, this must be considered for these doctors.
These measures and ONLY these measures will end abortion once and for all, not all this namby-pamby “help,” which I haven’t studied, but I know won’t work.
Jean,
Two points. First, the very most basic thing a government can do to help its people is to protect them from getting murdered. Very close to that would be restrainign their urge to murder for whatever reason or to profit from murdering helpless people (abortion clinics).
Second, this is a red herring: “We must make criminal examples of women who have had abortions. ” No one actually advocates this; nor has anyone done so in the past. Even 19th century laws against abortion treated the women having them as second victims of the crime (first being the baby).
Wow, Jean. You’re really having fun with this alter-ego. For a moment there, you were creeping me out.
Jimmy Mac’s post from yesterday afternoon (sorry, I don’t know how to link to it) included a link to some comments from the Reasons and Opinions blog regarding the hijacking of Catholic anti-abortion sentiment by Evangelicals (see http://reasons-and-opinions.blogspot.com/).
I wonder if anyone else found this post helpful, especially in offering some explanation as to how we ended up with the bizarre situation of prominent Catholic thinkers throwing in their lot with Republican neoconservatives and still claiming to be completely “orthodox” and faithful to the Magisterium. Having recently moved to the Bible Belt, I am amazed at how many Catholics in my area actually think in the way Jean is parodying, right up to the point of arguing that all abortion providers be summarily executed. I always scratched my head about these folks, but now it’s making a little more sense.
Thanks, Jimmy Mac, for providing that link.
Jean,
No need for hysterics – the numbers just don’t add up.
Connecticut – percent of people in poverty – 8.8% – abortions per 1000 women per year – 18
Massachusetts – 9.8% poverty rate – abortion rate 18
Washington 11% poverty – 20 abortion rate
Delaware – 8.5% poverty rate – abortion rate 21
Mississippi – 17.7% poverty rate – abortion rate 11
Kentucky – 15.4% poverty rate – abortion rate – 7
West Virginia – 16.4% poverty rate – abortion rate 8
There are states with high poverty and high abortion rates like New York, and low poverty and low abortion rates, like new Hampshire, but if you were to identify a trend it might even be that states with high poverty, on average, have lower abortion rates. At the very least, there is no correlation.
As for health care availability, places with the most accessible health care for the poor, like Washington DC, California, Hawaii, and Massachusetts, have some of the highest abortion rates.
We can debate the worthiness of any social welfare program, and our obligations as Christians to the poor and how best to meet those obligations, but to say that poverty and abortion are so intertwined tha through social programs we can reduce them by 95% is simply false. I do think many of the politicians who are pushing it really are trying to have it both ways. How, for example, can a person like John Kerry vote against a ban on partial birth abortions – a horrific procedure that the AMA has said is never medically necessary – and then say he is morally opposed to abortion? When he is behind this type of movement, you have to excuse me for being skeptical.
As for your point about doctors being forced to follow Catholic doctrine – the opposite is more the case. NARAL and Planned Parenthood have been advocating (fortunately unsuccessfully) requiring training on abortion techniques for all obstetricians for years. Here in Massachusetts, Catholic Hospitals and pharmacists are fighting to keep the option to not provide “emergency contraception.”
Mark–
I also found Jimmy Mac’s link very helpful. Blogger “Morning’s Minion” is very articulate and thoughtful, and he/she, while commending Prof. McGeevy’s article, does point out some areas that might have been more developed (though in McGreevy’s defense, he takes on a large and unwieldy subject and does a fine job in developing it in the space limitations he likely had).
I’m sure you also accessed the internal link in Morning Minion’s latest piece to the 7/19/06 post that he/she had done on the internal inconsistency in being “pro-life” on abortion but not, for example, opposed to the death penalty. I thought Morning’s Minion did a good job undercutting the arguments that some pro-lifers offer for their support of capital punishment, and for their oppositiion to other programs at the core of Catholic social teaching.
In the 7/19/06 post, Mornin’s Minion also
quotes, very effectively IMO, from Villanova Law School Dean Mark Sargent’s article, “The Coherence and Importance of Pro-Life Progressivism.” (If I remember correctly, Grant provided a link to this excellent article a few months back.) If I had my way, this article would be read, discussed, and debated in every Catholic institution of higher learning. Morning’s Minion quotes as follows:
“The antithesis between principle (with respect to abortion) and prudence (with respect to everything else) is dramatically overstated. The question of how to deal legally and politically with the intrinsic evil of abortion is not just a matter of absolute principle. There are at least some prudential issues to be considered by both citizens and lawmakers as to how the moral evil of abortion is to be handled as a matter of law in a pluralistic democracy. The question of whether and how abortion should be criminalized in a society in which a majority of the people believe that it should be permissible in at least some circumstances is a grave one not capable of easy resolution. Equally grave is the more specific and essentially empirical question of whether overturning Roe v. Wade would in fact lead to criminalization of abortion in every state, and whether it would reduce the number of abortions at all. To what extent, furthermore, is a position that concentrates on preventing or limiting abortions of a particular type (such as partial birth abortion), or in as many circumstances as politically or legally possible, more prudent than universal criminalization? Can one not make the prudential determination that the best way to counter the moral evil of abortion is by reducing the number of abortions through transformations of culture and reduction of economic incentives to abort rather than through a legal rule widely perceived as illegitimate or unenforceable? These questions all suggest that the legal status of abortion is not purely a matter of principle, but also one of prudence.”
And what of the other issues, the “prudential” issues?:
“Conversely, questions of just war, capital punishment, the amelioration of poverty and other social issues involve the principle of life in such a way that not all disagreements can be dismissed as merely prudential disagreements or arguments about means. Catholic or Christian values with respect to these problems are not infinitely elastic. Clearly, neither the Gospel nor Catholic social teaching provides exact prescriptions for resolving specific problems of tax policy, international trade or labor relations, are certainly the institutional Church defers to the judgment of the laity with respect to those questions. But there is a set of core values rooted in the Gospel that tilts the scales toward a view of these questions that cannot be easily assimilated into the capitalist world view of neo-conservative economic ideology. Indeed, those who would dismiss those aspects of Catholic social teaching that contemplate the possibility of state action for the common good, or to achieve greater solidarity with the poor, or to support subsidiary institutions threatened by unrestrained capitalism, may themselves be inspired more by secular libertarian ideology than the Gospel. Similarly, rejection of the Church’s critiques of capital punishment and unjust wars may be more expressive of secular conservative or nationalist ideology than of religious conviction.”
My thanks, too, to Jimmy Mac for the link.
The statistics are clear: High poverty rates actually prevent the likelihood of abortion.
Decreasing income for women is clearly the moral imperative of every Catholic. Ensuring that the minimum wage stays low is certainly one way to do this. Taking a firm stand against universal health care is another. Cuts to Headstart, WIC and other “safety nets” might also be considered.
Tax savings from these program cuts would allow us to build more prisons to house abortionists and women who murder their unborn babies.
Further, Catholics are being victimized by NARAL and Planned Parenthood by forcing Catholics to live in a society that does not follow Catholic doctrine.
Specifically, these groups prevent Catholics from banning doctors from learning how to perform abortions for any reason whatsoever.
These groups also block Catholics from banning the sale of drugs Catholic doctrine clearly consider immoral.
It is not enough for us as Catholics to follow Catholic doctrine by refraining from abortion and other prohibited activities outlined in the Catechsm. There are immortal souls in danger here, and we must do whatever we can to prevent them from imperiling themselves and others by their own lack of moral discernment.
Mark & Bill;
Your graciousness is very much unanticipated and appreciated.
JM
The notion that a woman is a “victim” of an abortion is laughable given Catholic teaching about abortion.
If abortion is murder then a woman who seeks out a doctor and asks him to kill her unborn baby is as guilty as a woman asks someone to help her drown her toddler.
Moreover, the Church excommunicates women who have had abortions for any reason whatsoever, and the Church does not excommunicate those it views as victims of crimes. For example, the Church does not view rape victims as sinners for having sex out of wedlock.
Some pre-Roe v. Wade state laws DID allow for penalties against women who had abortions, including incarceration (Oklahoma for example). Your state’s pre-Roe laws are easy to find online in most cases.
There are many fundamentalists and evangelicals who support the death penalty for abortionists. These are not isolated wingdings; these are people currently in government or in the mainstream prolife movement. Among them are Tom Coburn (R-OK), Randall Terry (new Catholic convert), and Dr. James Dobson, who supported both Coburn’s and Terry’s bid for election.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200603090011
The Rev. Mike Bray, defender of abortion bomber Paul Hill, has written “A Time to Kill” calling for pro-lifers to stop shilly-shallying on this issue and follow Hill’s example. His book has been endorsed by evangelical and fundamentalist ministers as well as Pro-Life Virginia.
http://www.armyofgod.com/MikeBray.html
If some Catholics feel they can work with the aforementioned folks, be my guest.
But I will continue to stay out of the pro-life groups and work though other channels on the abortion issue until those groups pick their friends more carefully.
I appreciate John’s exceptionally helpful treatment of Shifting Allegiances. The question for the take home final is an apt one: “Can Catholics and other people of goodwill agree to make abortions rare, and mean it, or will the issue remain a rhetorical ploy Republicans exploit and a moral scandal to which Democrats are blind?”
I await this final with trepidation, in part because the conversation above suggests we are poorly prepared. Like Tom, I would have believed there was a consensus involving changes of hearts and minds as well as laws and support services, all grounded in a nuanced appreciation of the issue.
But Sean advises us that the 95-10 proposal is a *fraud,* while Bill has reiterated his oft repeated insistence that intensive focus on abortion and certainly any restrictive legislation is a *fraud*. Meanwhile Jean, whom I regard as among the most sensible among us, finds the prolife movement to be grotesque and deserving of sharp ridicule. Sigh.
Could we at least agree on these propositons?
…that birth is an arbitrary and artificial dividing line for protecting new life?
…that abortion involves killing?
…that there is nothing absurd about advocating legal protection for the unborn?
…that such protection may not be achievable in the United States?
…that this is sad?
…that abortion restriction involves an invasion of the sphere of autonomy that is ordinarily granted to men and, more recently but incompletely, to women?
…that such restrictions are problematic, especially when advocated by a community not known for its bona fides re: women?
…that there are times when fetal claims to life outweigh maternal claims to autonomy?
…that there are times when they do not?
…that prolife advocates oversell the utility of abortion restrictions and that their imposition may well leave the procedure exceptionally common?
…that prochoice advocates underappreciate the ability of law to shape behavior and the personal/social ramifications of the death-dealing represented by abortion?
…that both prolife and prochoice activists feel beseiged, that both groups bear wounds (sometimes as badges of honor, sometimes not) and are pushed futher to the extremes when beseiged?
…that either/or, black/white interlocutors incapable of handling ambiguity dominate this conversation and that both/and voices need to be heard?
So what do you think, guys? What is your study plan for the final?
Aside: Cathleen’s “What’s Keeping Catholics Apart?” article in the 9.22 issue is spot on and quite relevant to our preparation for the final exam. Cthleen, I hope you post it here for discussion.
Could we at least agree on these propositons?
…that birth is an arbitrary and artificial dividing line for protecting new life? Yes.
…that abortion involves killing? Yes.
…that there is nothing absurd about advocating legal protection for the unborn?Yes
…that such protection may not be achievable in the United States? 100% protection? Yes, not achievable.
…that this is sad? Yes.
…that abortion restriction involves an invasion of the sphere of autonomy that is ordinarily granted to men and, more recently but incompletely, to women? Yes, it is establishing the degree of that invasion that is one of the main sticking points.
…that such restrictions are problematic, especially when advocated by a community not known for its bona fides re: women? Yes, although having a community not known for its bona fides re: women as advocates should not be one of the issues, IMO. It is still a community that is well versed in all we are to hold sacred and on that score, their counsel should be considered.
…that there are times when fetal claims to life outweigh maternal claims to autonomy? Yes, but again, establishing how and at what point that maternal autonomy will be usurped is what is so critically at stake.
…that there are times when they do not? Yes, and once more it is determining who and by what method this assessment is made that is so critical.
…that prolife advocates oversell the utility of abortion restrictions and that their imposition may well leave the procedure exceptionally common? Some, yes.
…that prochoice advocates underappreciate the ability of law to shape behavior and the personal/social ramifications of the death-dealing represented by abortion? Some, yes.
…that both prolife and prochoice activists feel beseiged, that both groups bear wounds (sometimes as badges of honor, sometimes not) and are pushed futher to the extremes when beseiged? Yes.
…that either/or, black/white interlocutors incapable of handling ambiguity dominate this conversation and that both/and voices need to be heard? Oh Lord, yes.
The most important element that has been stripped out of the entire abortion debate is being able to even entertain the notion that there is not now, nor will there ever be, a single right answer or solution to the problem of abortion.
Across the board criminalization will not solve the problem. Across the board free access will not solve the problem. Unending support for pregnant women will not solve the problem.
The variables are endless and no person’s situation will fit into any one category. This is what gets lost in the fray.
Politicians and advocates keep trying to come up with solutions that will satisfy the most cases and assume that by doing so they will arrive at the most moral solution. That simply isn’t true.
I would answer “yes” to all your questions, Mike McG.
But the $64,000 question is what are we going to do about it?
Very little of what I read on this blog acknowledges that people who have abortions are real live women with real live problems and not just statistics: The diabetic mother who risks medical problems during pregnancy, the older mother facing the birth of a handicapped baby, the college girl whose boyfriend and parents don’t want her to “ruin” her life with a baby, the poor woman who has no health insurance, the mother with HIV who doesn’t want to pass it on to her child, a drug-addicted mother who isn’t even able to take care of herself let alone a child, a homeless mother.
What if those people show up at the abortion clinic and decide to change their minds? Will abortion clinic workers call the pro-life office and seek their advice?
They did 30 years ago when a friend of mine sought an abortion. But then the rhetoric wasn’t so fierce or the self-righteousness on both sides so high.
Donna and Jean: thank you. I’m hopeful others weigh in.
Jean: I second the motion about the $64,000 question, but I wonder if it might be wise to table it until we can identify and celebrate some points of convergence.
The activists don’t want to see it tabled, but it is our turn to talk.
The $64,000.00 Question –
First, overturn Roe vs. Wade. It is badly reasoned and not based in any way on the Constitution. No change or even compromise is possible so long as it is controlling precedent. That case stopped any discussion of this issue as a matter of policy in its tracks.
It is ironic that those who criticize the pro-life side accuse it of not compromising when it has no way to compromise in the first place. Roe v. Wade itself seemed to allow for some compromise, that is reasonable and easily agreed upon limitations and control on abortion, but it has been the NARAL’s and NOW’s and Planned Parenthoods that have been adamant and, unfortunately successful, in thwarting any reasonable compromise. For me, the acid test of this has been partial birth abortion. The vast vast majority of Americans favor outlawing this abomination, but the tiny minority – many polls say less than ten percent – who oppose this change have been successful in blocking it in the courts. We will see how the federal law fares. This is one of the reasons I call the 95-10 crowd a fraud. When that policy is touted by the likes of John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, who voted against a partial birth abortion ban, I have a hard time taking them seriously. They have been successful in stopping almost all action in this area through the court system, and are now using the representative system to get something they already want, and call it compromise. Compromise involves give and take, not take and take.
Again, I am not saying programs that support pregnant women are without merit, but that they are not really likely to affect abortions. They should be addressed on their own merit.
Next, permit states to enact those reasonable restrictions that the society generally can agree on such as partial birth abortion bans, parental notification, waiting periods, and informed consent rules. This is real compromise on this issue.
Without Roe v. Wade, will some states outlaw abortion? Probably, but most won’t. I know that, most pro-life advocates do too. Even in states that outlaw it, it has never been treated as murder. In the 50’s and 60’s physicians who performed abortions were most often fined, and only a very few ever lost their licenses or went to jail. Women were almost never punished, even in states where abortion was illegal. This relatively lenient treatment is a recognition of the stresses and problems Jean cites in her last post.
Finally, I think it is grossly unfair to paint pro-life advocates as a sterile, uncaring bunch whose position is based on nothing more than a theoretical respect for life. Many, if not most, I know have been touched by abortion in some way. Most studies have found that a majority of women (sometimes as high as 80%) who have had abortions later regret it. Many suffer from years of spiritual and psychological damage. It is instructional that Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) was once feted as a champion of women’s rights, but once she came out against abortion and publicly converted, her once enthusiastic supporters labeled her “mentally unstable.” One of the most active pro-life advocates I know in my area is a woman whose mother was raped and who kept her child against her parents’ advice – all of them are happy with her choice now. There are thousands upon thousands of such stories behind pro-life movement. People who either didn’t care, or were on the opposite side of this controversy, who now hold a pro-life position. I know because I am one of them.
In the spirit of Mike’s call for celebrating areas where we agree, let me try to find some common ground with Sean–or at least seriously try to identify areas where it’s hard for Catholics to agree.
Sean says: First, overturn Roe vs. Wade. It is badly reasoned and not based in any way on the Constitution. No change or even compromise is possible so long as it is controlling precedent. That case stopped any discussion of this issue as a matter of policy in its tracks.
Jean says: I am not a constitutional scholar, so I don’t know how badly Roe v. Wade is reasoned. But if the relatively conservative judges appointed to the court in the past 30 years have not been able to throw it out, I have to wonder whether your statement is true. In any case, it is untrue that change or compromise have been stopped. Many states HAVE placed limits on abortions, albeit small, and the courts have upheld their rights to do so.
Sean says: … but it has been the NARAL’s and NOW’s and Planned Parenthoods that have been adamant and, unfortunately successful, in thwarting any reasonable compromise … The vast vast majority of Americans favor outlawing this abomination [partial birth abortion], but the tiny minority – many polls say less than ten percent – who oppose this change have been successful in blocking it in the courts.
Jean asks: Granted, there are strident voices out there claiming to speak for women, and politicians sensitive to women’s rights issues are afraid to cross them for fear of looking misogynistic. Prolife feminists need to do a better job distancing themselves from the pro-choice sisterhood. All that said, why is there such focus on a legislative solution to this problem? Most surveys show that Americans are willing to accept abortion in some circumstances, so it’s doubtful there will ever be an abortion law that reflects Church teaching. Catholics who want to prevent abortions will still have to provide the support structures for women who are victims of rape, incest, or whatever else new laws might allow for. So I support focusing on putting those structures in place rather than going the legislative route.
Sean says: Again, I am not saying programs that support pregnant women are without merit, but that they are not really likely to affect abortions. They should be addressed on their own merit.
Jean says: Having a baby costs a lot of money, Sean, and this is an issue you duck every single time it comes up. I had a high-risk pregnancy at age 41. The cost of the prenatal care and monitoring, C-section delivery, and extended hospital stay amounted to well over $100,000. Without the bucks, Sean, how are you going to persuade a low income earner with no health care program who doesn’t buy your pro-life arguments not to have a $250 first-trimester abortion?
Sean says: Without Roe v. Wade, will some states outlaw abortion? Probably, but most won’t. I know that, most pro-life advocates do too.
Jean asks: How do you know?
Sean says: Even in states that outlaw it, it has never been treated as murder. In the 50’s and 60’s physicians who performed abortions were most often fined, and only a very few ever lost their licenses or went to jail. Women were almost never punished, even in states where abortion was illegal. This relatively lenient treatment is a recognition of the stresses and problems Jean cites in her last post.
Jean says: I cited Oklahoma law that allowed for incarceration of women who had abortions, and for doctors who performed them. I don’t call that “lenient.” Moreover, you’re completely ignoring my concern about elements in the pro-life movement who would be even less lenient toward women and doctors than in the pre-Roe era. If you want to be friends with people advocating executions for abortionists, you run afoul of other Catholic teaching.
Sean says: Finally, I think it is grossly unfair to paint pro-life advocates as a sterile, uncaring bunch whose position is based on nothing more than a theoretical respect for life.
Jean says: I’m not painting all pro-life advocates this way. But you rightly guessed that that’s what I see in your posts. I see a vast difference between the people who work with women trying to navigate a problem pregnancy on an individual basis, and the professional mouthpieces in the pro-life groups who primarily focus on lobbying politicians and whipping up anti-abortion rhetoric. As recently as two years ago, the state group was trying to enlist women in our parish to drive around the Capitol building honking our horns in protest on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I’d have to think hard to come up with a more brainless response to the abortion problem than wasting gas and disturbing the peace of residential areas around the Capitol building. I can only conclude that such people want a quick and easy way to look like moral pillars of the community without any real effort on their part. If these people want to do some good, let them go work with real women with real problem pregnancies.
Mike,
I appreciate all the people of good will on this thread who attempt to solve this problem. As I see it we will continue to spin our wheels and very little will change while some dishonorable people make substantial political gains while exploiting this issue.
Meanwhile, in a church which has rarely taking the injunction “The church must always reform itself”, we are losing perhaps the greatest opportunity in our history to really reform the structure of the church.
Not only the pedophilia crisis shows how the structure of the church is flawed. The abuse in finances, which is making headlines daily, show that the clergy are consistenly robbing the people’s money for their own benefit.
If you do not believe this show me where transparency prevails in reporting parish funds, let alone diocesan. None of the auditing really watches the collection of money from the beginning to end and most reports are too general.
This is the real acheivable opportunity of our time. Meanwhile, VOTF is continually swiped at by even liberal Catholics–forget the lack of participation in this uniquely qualified organization.
No matter what you read there are three basic goals; “Prayerful Voice will provide opportunities for prayer, worship, reflection, and faith development that will strengthen VOTF’s commitment to its stated goals:
Support those who have been abused
Support priests of integrity
Shape structural change within the Church.
Meanwhile, we stay mired in abortion, same sex marriage, what the pope is saying when we have the opportunity of centuries before us. Do the headlines drive us or do we make them?
Jean,
Just a few responses.
- I actually am a lawyer. Others disagree, but many legal scholars, including many who might be called liberal, have identified RVW as one of the worst reasoned cases in the court’s history. As far as its subsequent treatment that there has not been a majority willing to overturn it – although there has always been at least three justices who would have since it was decided – doesn’t make it any better reasoned. A lot of bad cases survived for decades before they were overturned – e.g. Plessey v. Fergusen – separate but equal. As for some restrictions having been enacted – yes, that’s true, but not a single one has been made it through the courts without challenge, and most had to be watered down before they went into effect. The reality today (despite Planned Parenthood’s claim to the contrary) is that there are no significant restrictions on abortions in most states.
Surprisingly, the greatest reason for less availability for abortions is that fewer and fewer doctors are willing to perform them, and fewer and fewer medical students are willing to train to do them. This, despite the fact that the practice is fairly lucrative for physicians with a very low incidence of problems that other doctors face – e.g. malpractice claims, emegency calls, expensive high tech equipment. Another interesting factoid is that the overwhelming majority of abortionists are men – far in excess of their percentage of the profession. I heard a story on NPR in which a doctor who had formerly performed abortions noted that he had encountered very few female doctors who could perform abortions after they themselve had become pregnant.
I know it is expensive to have children – I have a few of my own. My point is that there is not a proven cause and effect relationship. All the evidence shows this. If ready access to health care will reduce abortions why hasn’t it done so in the places where it is available? If poverty “causes” abortion, why do women who live at 300% of the poverty rate have abortions at the same rate as women below the poverty level?
Did I say anything about executing anyone?
As for whether people in the pro-life movement care about pregnant women. As of today there are more clinics and centers providing pre-natal and post natal care by pro-life groups than there are abortion clinics. In other words, pro-life people and groups, including the Church, put there money where there mouth is far more than they are given credit for.
Surprisingly, the greatest reason for less availability for abortions is that fewer and fewer doctors are willing to perform them, and fewer and fewer medical students are willing to train to do them. This, despite the fact that the practice is fairly lucrative for physicians with a very low incidence of problems that other doctors face – e.g. malpractice claims, emegency calls, expensive high tech equipment. Another interesting factoid is that the overwhelming majority of abortionists are men – far in excess of their percentage of the profession. I heard a story on NPR in which a doctor who had formerly performed abortions noted that he had encountered very few female doctors who could perform abortions after they themselve had become pregnant.
Sean, you have responded none of the points I raised about my concerns over certain elements within the pro-life movement and their tactics.
Neither have you done Mike the courtesy of responding to his points.
So I can only assume you are here not to find common ground but to give us all the benefit of your superior points of view, and I leave the field to you.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, then what?
The way I read it, Roe v. Wade established abortion as a fundamental right and while states could enact laws restricting abortion, these laws had to be subject to strict scrutiny.
So if Roe v. Wade is overturned, then does that negate abortion as a fundamental right? Without that designation, states could (and some most likely would) designate abortion as a criminal act for which there would need to be some punishment and some enforcement of that punishment. Then they have to think about who is actually the criminal and who should be punished and to what degree. Then you have people whose circumstances don’t exactly fit into the legal definitions and so try to circumvent the law by having abortions illegally.
How does that solve anything?
This back and forth of polling information, statistical information, case studies, etc. is meaningless because there the search is for the root cause of abortion and there isn’t any “root cause”. (If we could only find out what’s CAUSING abortions, we could solve the problem!)
We could sit here until we’re all old and gray and discuss different scenarios as we look for insight into what “causes” abortion, and for each scenario there will be a counter-scenario. For each rape or incest victim who was saved from emotional and psychological breakdown by having an abortion, there will be a rape or incest victim who gave birth without regret. For every poverty stricken woman who could not fathom the burden of one more, there will be an equally impoverished woman who found the way to feed one more. It goes on and on and on.
All this proves is that the decisions surrounding pregnancy and birth are deeply, intensely personal, and the reasons pro or con as varied as the individuals involved.
And yet as deeply personal as it is, it is also a decision no woman should be left to make alone. In no other situation is a person expected to make a decision regarding life and death without assistance.
So perhaps what the abortion argument really needs is a focus on the decision making process itself, rather than the circumstances or the outcome.
Perhaps what needs to be pushed for is the establishment of a multi-modal evaluation process where every pregnant woman seeking an abortion has her case assessed on its own merits and the ultimate legal treatment of that person decided by the outcome of that assessment.
Perhaps this case-by-case assessment system would help states more easily define what constitutes a truly criminal abortion without unduly punishing those whose circumstances deserve a more empathetic and forgiving treatment.
Donna, this sounds like the system that was in place in Ontario 25 years ago or so. A panel of three doctors assessed the medical and emotional status of the person applying for the abortion.
Not sure exactly how the decisions were made, but U.S. women who had docs in Ontario (I lived onthe border) claimed that there was a lot of maneuvering on the part of docs on both ends of the abortion spectrum to get appointed to the panel.
It sounded kind of like a crap shoot, though there must have been criteria for each panel to consider.
If John B. is monitoring, he can provide further info and correct my memory, and tell us how this system is working out.