In the course of yesterday's post, "Calling all...," someone referred to an article in America by Dennis O'Brien, which I called to his attention. Here is his reply:

Thanks for the referral. I found the discussion pretty depressing.

(1) Who is a "pro-choice" candidate? I assume it is someone who does not want Roe reversed. That does not mean that he/she is necessarily pro-abortion. We have laws which prohibit the possession and use of marijuana. I might well vote to repeal those laws not because I am in favor of drugs but because the law is ineffective and harmful. (I am more absolute on that than on abortion. I see no reason to ever take recreational drugs.)

(2) A candidate might have read my article in America (unlikely) and decided that while Roe is hardly a high example of constitutional law (is there a right to privacy? how far does it extend), pragmatically it is one possible solution to a very messy moral situation. If Roe is reversed, we are back with criminal law in the states which means:

(a) that there would be all sorts of abortion prohibition/permissions so that women would simply move from state to state -- except the poor who would get back-alley treatment;

(b) One would have to face just how terrible is abortion as measured by the penalties.

Abp. Chaput seems to regard abortion as some species of "murder". The penalty should be severe. Under the 19th and early 20th century Crimes against Persons act in UK, the penalty was life imprisonment for the woman and the abortionist. That would fit Chaput's view. In the 2006 South Dakota proposed legislation "banning abortion" which was ardently supported by the dioceses in SD, it was specifically stated that there was no penalty for a woman who sought or obtained an abortion. (A fine or up to 10 years in prison for the abortionist.)

What does the woman say to Jesus at the last judgment? "I sought and obtained an abortion, I received no legal penalty, my Church supported no legal penalty, now you tell me it was murder!"

In sum, as far as I could see from the postings no one is willing to look at the excruciating problem of actual legislation. Folks who say that all action individual, social and political is moral are correct. (Even Aquinas said that!). The problem is that legislation can be so drawn that it makes the problem worse. It satisfies the moral urge of the legislator but does nothing to change the situation. Dan Callahan decided after his world-wide study that legislation does very little if anything to prevent abortions and a recent survey of places with open and restrictive legislation showed that the rates of abortion were similar. So, if you want to prevent abortion, stop smoking, cut down recreational drug use -- punitive and restrictive legislation is not only a failure it probably makes the situation worse. I vote for the conservative candidate who wants to repeal Roe but is opposed to universal health care or the liberal candidate who is the reverse. Which one addresses the abortion issue constructively?

Dennis (OBrien)

Margaret O’Brien Steinfels is a former editor of Commonweal. 

Also by this author
© 2024 Commonweal Magazine. All rights reserved. Design by Point Five. Site by Deck Fifty.