Asymmetrical Information

And just to add to this - it's this very presupposition that makes the response about female's rights irrelevant. This is also the part of the debate that seems to me to be given the least consideration by prochoice. To what degree can we have such strong confidence that the"bundle of cells" is that? What's the confidence interval there? Some people, maybe yourself, are about 50/50 sure it's not a person. So what kind of social policy is appropriate in the face of that kind of uncertainty? Becuase the costs of being wrong are so high, it seems that the policy should reflect some level of efficiency.

Whether or not abortion is murder is a question I cannot answer. A question that is seldom asked in this issue is: What is access to abortion doing to women's moral and spiritual health? The answer is, I think, that it is destroying women's moral and spiritual health.

Before respondents go nuts, I want to point out that very few abortions, obviously, are performed for the purposes of assisting victims of rape, incest, or for the health of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are performed as a method of birth control. Allowing women to kill for the purposes of birth control is a moral disaster. It has created moral arrogance and a contempt for men in women that is, quite simply, detestable and vicious.

For those who want to get into the issue of sexual equality (I loathe the word "gender"), I suggest that you consider how this society deals with men who are careless about fathering a child. We treat such men as criminals. We hound them for child support, lock them up in debtor's prisons, seize their property and financial assets without due process, etc.

Why do we hold women harmless for their sexual indiscretions? This is really the issue for me. We have effectively exempted women from responsibility for their sexual actions. Our advice to men who do not want to bear the custodial and financial responsibility for children is: "Keep your pants on." I suggest that we adopt the same advice for women.

"...a lot of people seemed dumbfounded by the fact that the Catholic bishops chose to elevate abortion as an issue above other important Catholic issues like the death penalty and social justice."

Uhm, it wasn't the abortion issue that confounded people; as a bet, a lot more people (multiples, not percentages) are familiar with the Church's position on abortion than its position on the death penalty or social justice. I think people were dumbfounded by the explicit way in which some Catholic clergy tied Church positions to a specific voting recommendation/command.

What I'm honestly curious about is contraception. Isn't artificial contraception a mortal sin? (Is there something worse than a mortal sin?) Assuming that abortion and artifical contraception are both mortal sins, (a)isn't the use of artificial contraceptives the most widespread social problem in the US, and (b) shouldn't, by the logic of your argument, the Church be devoting its resources and vote share to anyone who is not against artificial contraception? Are there dogmatic distinctions between artificial contraception and abortion?

I think part of the difference is that many of the dumbfounded people believe that while abortion is a controversial, "wedge" issue, other aspects of "social justice" are completely obvious. In other words, they believe that there is no moral case against, say, higher welfare payments, additional environmental laws, or laws forcing landlords to provide additional services, and that the only opposition to it is borne of greed, spite, and a desire for lower taxes. They really are unfamiliar with the conservative and libertarian arguments, or else just believe them to be nothing more than window-dressing.

So it gets broken down into a case of abortion, where they believe reasonable people can disagree, and a host of social issues where they believe that any opposition is inherently morally suspect and borne of evil. When you think of it that way, it's only natural to want people to push for the "obvious, non-controversial" things.

Those issues are, of course, one of many in which Republicans feel that they are "reality-based" and that Democrats are ignorant, whereas Democrats feel that they are moral and Republicans are evil. It's not just the other way around.

Megan, I think you are making a serious false assumption.

You say the Catholic Church considers abortion to be murder. This is quite incorrect.

The Catholic Church considers abortion to be the taking of innocent human life, and therefore objectively evil. But murder is usually the illegal taking of innocent human life (where "innocent" here refers to someone who doesn't deserve to be killed). Thus, where abortion is de jure or de facto an accepted social practice, it is merely sinful and evil but not murder.

You still raise interesting and valid points about defending human life. But you are referring to a defense of human life from abortion, and not from murder, according to the teachings of the Catholic Church.

P.S. I had to do a little googling to check this, since I am not Catholic.

Though not a biblical scholar, I have read recently where the one exact biblical reference to unborn children was dissected (Exodus I believe). This one line, oft cited by Fundamentalists for their view, clearly distinguishes between the value of the murder of a mother ("an eye for an eye") and the murder of the unborn child ("a fine"). Clearly the Bible while sanctioning that there are two beings, places significantly different values on the two. So much for the Fundamentalist argument.

The Catholic argument is far more a political one, the Catholic Church being in essence a "state" in its own right. While it clothes its arguments in moral imperative, this moral imperative is no more, no less than the word of its Pope (or others), the politically elected leaders of a political body. Has been that way since the Reformation at least.

Another point you're missing is that there are a number of high profile purportedly Catholic politicians who are proabortion, namely the two Senators from Massachusetts. I'm not aware of any high profile politicians who are death penalty advocates or who have presided over executions. I'm not going to pose as an expert on the subject but I believe the only NE state that has the death penalty is NH and I certainly don't believe they've executed anyone for some time. I don't recognize any high profile Catholic politicians in the south or SW where there have been any controversial executions.

Is Scharzenegger a (lapsed?) Catholic? Given that he's of Austrian origin, I'd bet he is. If he's not completely lapsed, it'd be interesting to know what his relations are with the Church are vis a vis abortion and capital punishment.

What about newly elected Colorado Senator Ken Salazar? Presumably a Catholic as well. I bet Colarado has a death penalty and he just finished a stint as Atty Gen there, so he might have had some capital cases under his supervision.

Viz. SCMTim's comments on contraception: when last I was Catholic, yup, contraception was a mortal sin. I moved to "Catholic lite" (the Episcopal church - all the ritual, half the guilt) some years back, but I don't recall hearing that the official position has changed. However, back in the Vatican II days of the '60s there was the so-called "birth control encyclical." Catholics all over the world spoke through their clergy to indicate to the Pope that they wanted the no-contraception rule revisited, since the Church was no longer either an embattled minority in a non-Christian world nor a de-facto empire trying to cement its position as the biggest property owner ever. There was widespread recognition that (a) unplanned-for children constituted a financial burden that many Catholics felt they were unable to bear, and (b) the rhythm method was imperfect (to say the least) as a family planning device.

OK, so the Pope ignored all this counsel, choosing instead to keep his own (and, presumably, God's, if God spoke in clarion tones on this one, which I myself kind of doubt). Hence the birth control encyclical, which again struck down the notion that human beings had the right to interfere in the process of conception, beyond simply not having sex. Please note that even - oh, heck, how to euphemize... an "interruption in service" was considered contraception under the strictest interpretation of the rule. (I dunno whether it still is.) It's GOT to be the single most-broken rule in Catholicism.

All that being said, I'd bet big bucks that even Catholic clergy, pinned to the wall on the question, would make a distinction between standing in the way of a life's starting (contraception) and taking a life (abortion). I'd say it's a near-certainty that American Catholic clergy would, all but the "hard-liners." I don't know whether the giant '60s survey of Catholics' views on birth control encompassed abortion, but if it did, I'd venture that the Church, if not its members, maintained that distinction too.

I'm going by memory here (and not even personal memory), so please, better-informed people, correct me at will and leisure.

I've never heard Schwarzenegger referred to as a Catholic and I certainly don't believe he campaigned as one, though he may be a non practicing or private Catholic. He is proabortion but I've never heard his stance on the death penalty. California's also a lot differnt than the northeast. Salazar may have prosecuted death penalty cases but I'm not sure until two weeks ago that he could be described as high profile or even medium profile. Not that there may not have been some local controversy between either of them and the Roman Catholic hierarchy but it certainly wouldn't seem to be national in scope.

Gov. Schwarzenegger is Roman Catholic. I can't speak to the extent that he is practicing, but there is a rather famous picture of him crossing himself over the casket of Ronald Reagan at the funeral. A copy of that picture now hangs in the lobby of the museum in Simi Valley.

Jamie:

1. Thanks for the information. Do you know what the dogmatic justification for the prescription against artificial contraception is? I've looked a bit on the web (well, 10 minutes) and all I could find looks sketchy.

2. Weird. I moved to the Episcopal Church, too. At least out here in the West, it's a fairly liberal schism of the Church. Is your church fairly conservative, or is it mostly centrist Republicans?

There's also the distinction that the state executes prisoners but merely permits abortions.

Whether or not abortion is murder is a question I cannot answer. A question that is seldom asked in this issue is: What is access to abortion doing to women's moral and spiritual health? The answer is, I think, that it is destroying women's moral and spiritual health.

What exactly is the difference between 'moral and spiritual' health? Can someone be morally healthy but spiritually unhealthy?

Before respondents go nuts, I want to point out that very few abortions, obviously, are performed for the purposes of assisting victims of rape, incest, or for the health of the mother. The vast majority of abortions are performed as a method of birth control. Allowing women to kill for the purposes of birth control is a moral disaster. It has created moral arrogance and a contempt for men in women that is, quite simply, detestable and vicious.

Why has legal abortion created a 'contempt for men in women'? What's the connection and where's the evidence? As a man I've noticed no generalized contempt for men among women....in fact I've often seen the opposite. Women making excuses for bad behavior on the part of men while they are more than willing to harp on the moral failings of their fellow women.

For those who want to get into the issue of sexual equality (I loathe the word "gender"), I suggest that you consider how this society deals with men who are careless about fathering a child. We treat such men as criminals. We hound them for child support, lock them up in debtor's prisons, seize their property and financial assets without due process, etc.

Since you mentioned equality it needs to be mentioned that childbirth is inherently unequal. While both men and women have the opportunity and ability to raise children after they are born there is no question that women have a hugely unequal role in childbirth. Quite simply women give their bodies to have children (even with modern medicine childbirth takes a huge toll on a woman's body) and men do not. After childbirth both men and women are and should be equal in the eyes of the law regarding child support.

SomeCallMeTim:

What I'm honestly curious about is contraception. Isn't artificial contraception a mortal sin? (Is there something worse than a mortal sin?) Assuming that abortion and artifical contraception are both mortal sins, (a)isn't the use of artificial contraceptives the most widespread social problem in the US, and (b) shouldn't, by the logic of your argument, the Church be devoting its resources and vote share to anyone who is not against artificial contraception? Are there dogmatic distinctions between artificial contraception and abortion?

The distinctions are justified as far as Church doctrine goes. While two sins may be mortal it is logical to distinguish between sins that harm one's soul and ones that harm innocent people as well as your soul. I don't know if they have done it but the Church would be consistent IMO if they came out and said artificial contraception was a lesser of two evils if the only other choice was abortion.

Jack Tanner

Another point you're missing is that there are a number of high profile purportedly Catholic politicians who are proabortion, namely the two Senators from Massachusetts. I'm not aware of any high profile politicians who are death penalty advocates or who have presided over executions.

1. Pro-Choice is not Pro-Abortion anymore than pro-free speech is pro-KKK rallies....even though the KKK benefits from free speech ideology.

2. Name one high profile politician who 'presided over' an abortion? George Bush, if rumer is correct, wouldn't count 'cause he wasn't a politician when he was young. BTW, you are aware that Bush is an advocate of the death penalty and has presided over executions?

Booton, I'm not sure your analogy works. What if someone supports allowing husbands to beat their wives, or parents to beat their children within an inch of their lives? Would you argue that being "Pro-Choice" on marital relations (hey, you can always just get divorced if you don't like it) or on how to raise your kids doesn't mean that you are in favor of the beatings happening? Do you also deny that Stephen Douglas and other "pro-choicers" were effectively pro-slavery? Or others of the "Well, I wouldn't own slaves, but I'm not going to stop someone else from doing it" variety? Maybe not in his mind, but certainly in the mind of abolitionists. It's the same thing with abortion; even if you don't agree with the reasoning, really it is the only natural conclusion in the eyes of those who do.

Speech is non-rival, and most of the arguments in favor of free speech argues that good speech drives out bad, and that banning some speech is a dangerous slippery slope. Obviously the calculations change when there's a particular direct victim involved.

Boonton -

Pro-choice is just a euphemism for proabortion. If it's unclear what is meant I'll clarify it - pro-legalized abortion.

George Bush is not a Catholic. The specific issues that the Roman Catholic church addressed in the election were with it's members and their stances on abortion and specifically addressed to Roman Catholic politicians.

"Since you mentioned equality it needs to be mentioned that childbirth is inherently unequal."

This is the cheap sophistry of feminism. Childbirth is not unequal... men and women have different roles. This does not mean unequal.

The complaint against God and nature which is feminism is the bottom line of your response. So women carry the child and give birth. So what? Men carry equal burdens in other arenas of life.

Your response indicates the nearly total brainwashing with feminism that is now ground zero for the intellectual. Feminism was a mistake. Feminism is a lie. Feminism is evil. And feminism is not necessary for a woman to achieve, to be competitive or to fully develop herself as a person.

I look forward to the day when feminism dies completely and is subject to the ridicule and hatred it so deserves. I think that will be just about the day we stop justifying the murder of our children by women.

My problem with the Catholic church leaders who raised abortion as a political issue is that they do so unevenly, thus making them appear to be no more than cheap partisans. I haven't heard the Catholic bishops raise the issue as strongly against pro-choice Republicans like Guiliani and Tom Ridge.

Childbearing and childbirth aren't inherently unequal? Tell that to these stretch marks, mister. Or the sciatica. The poodge below the belly button that nothing seems to get rid of. My hair's texture and color, for heaven's sake. The houseplants whose lives were shortened by my, ahem, vehement exclamations during labor.

That being said, this is why I don't understand why women aren't much more adamant about what the man brings to the party - that is, either commitment and responsibility, or effective birth control. We bear the brunt of a "mistake," no matter which person makes it. I don't rail against God - there are as many benefits as there are disadvantages to being the childbearer - but let's not kid ourselves that this is a burden shared equally. Child-rearing, yes.

SCMTim: Dogma for contraception as a sin, hmm... A little research myself... Here we go. "Humanae Vitae [this is the birth control encyclical I was talking about - J] defines contraception as 'every action which, in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible' (14). Such an action actively eliminates or witholds the procreative good of the marital act. This is sinful because 'every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life' (11). Since one of the two ends of sexual intercourse is procreation (the other being unity of husband and wife, 12), engaging in sex while deliberately frustrating the procreative act is, as Pope John Paul II has repeatedly called it, 'a lie in the language of the body.'" Link: http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock93.htm .

I find elsewhere that the sinfulness of contraception is traditionally based (i.e., in contrast to the practices of pagans in the Roman world, who freely practiced what contraception they could, as well as abortion), explained by this encyclical and bolstered by the doctrine of papal infallibility. Whew!

More to SCMTim:

The Episcopal church we attended in Seattle was fairly liberal but comprised mostly retired folk, who seemed uncomfortable with the playing out of some liberal issues from the pulpit (we had a gay associate whose initial contract was not renewed, nominally because of budget concerns - and to be fair, we never did get another associate - but I always questioned that motivation). Our Houston church was fairly staunchly conservative. We just started attending a church here in the western 'burbs of Philly, and I don't have a feel for it yet - this county went Republican, so if I had to guess, I'd say this church will reflect its community as our others have. But I dunno yet.

Booton, I'm not sure your analogy works. What if someone supports allowing husbands to beat their wives, or parents to beat their children within an inch of their lives?

A fair enough argument but even in that case there is difference between one who thinks that people should have 'choice' versus one who thinks it should be done.... For example, someone may think parents should be allowed to spank their kids without getting into legal trouble, but feel that spanking was a poor way to be a parent. They would 'pro-choice' on spanking but not 'pro-spanking'. Now compare this to someone who thinks that spanking is the best way to discipline kids. They deserve to be called 'pro-spanking'.

Applying your thinking how are we to tell the difference between a KKK supporter who wants them to rally because he thinks they are right versus a free speech supporter who wants them to rally because he feels they have a right to make the wrong choice?

Likewise, how would you differentiate between a pro-choicer and someone who supports China's policy of mandatory abortions?

Boonton:

Your counter-arguments are persuasive on their face... I can't really figure out what's sitting wrong with me about them. It's something along these lines: free speech is not, per se, a life-and-death issue. (Here in the US, anyway.) Spanking is not a life-and-death issue. China's mandatory-abortion policy is pro-abortion but anti-choice in that the person or family who exceeds their child quota has no choice about whether to abort (I'm kind of making this up because it's late and I don't have time to look up what China's policy actually is, so if I'm totally off base, please cut appropriate slack).

The basic pro-choice argument is that abortion should be legal throughout pregnancy, and available to any pregnant female person at her discretion alone - yes? So shorthand for this argument could be stated "pro-legal-abortion-on-demand," but the word "abortion" connotes - heck, DEnotes death and is therefore too charged to use in the debate (with any expectation of winning). But when people say they "respect a woman's right to choose," the logical question is "Choose what? Regular or decaf? Glasses or contacts?" What they respect is a woman's right to choose whether or not to abort, and only that.

I am a work in progress on this issue, in the spirit of full disclosure. I was totally pro-choice until I had my first child. I started evolving then. I am now leaning pro-life, but I don't want to see abortions return to dirty back alleys and all that cliched stuff - I just want to convince girls and women not to have them, and to take away the perceived necessity for them to the greatest extent possible (so if I were still Catholic I'd be encouraging others to break the contraception rule too, as a lesser evil).

I haven't heard the Catholic bishops raise the issue as strongly against pro-choice Republicans like Guiliani and Tom Ridge.

Probably because (a) neither of them have really been in a position to do anything about abortion politically and (b) neither of them currently hold any elected office. Besides which, Secretary Ridge’s position on abortion is virtually identical to President Bush’s (supports waiting period; opposes partial birth abortions; and thinks it should be legal only in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the life of the mother).

'I haven't heard the Catholic bishops raise the issue as strongly against pro-choice Republicans like Guiliani and Tom Ridge. '

A little inside politics on this. Two of the main targets of the RC church political meddling were Kennedy and Kerry who are communicants in the Archdiocese of where? Boston. Before Cardinal Law was forced to leave his child molestation ministry and flee the country to hide in the Vatican where his crimes are apparently condoned he was very involved in both national and local politics. Former Boston mayor Ray Flynn was Ambassador to the Vatican under Clinton. When it became obvious that Law was an accomplice to the serial molesters he came under investigation of state AG Tom Reilly which is why he has fled the country. In the unmeasurable arrogance of the Archdiocese they are dishing out their retribution to politicians who they think betrayed them and since they have a number of ways to do so in Masachusetts, meddling in politics, opposing gay marriage, church closings to pay off their victim settlements, they're doing what they can to reestablish their power in the state.

Thorley, Bush's position on abortion is by no means close to that of Ridge. Ridge is pro choice. Bush opposes ALL abortions, with some narrowly tailored exceptions(rape, incest, life of mother). Yes, Ridge supports some restrictions on abortion such as a ban on the so-called "Partial Birth Abortions", but is pro choice in that he supports the basic concept of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, with some reasonable restrictions attached to that right. He does not oppose abortion with the narrow exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother. Far from having a virtually identical position to Bush, his position is almost diametrically opposed.

This is the cheap sophistry of feminism. Childbirth is not unequal... men and women have different roles. This does not mean unequal.

The complaint against God and nature which is feminism is the bottom line of your response. So women carry the child and give birth. So what? Men carry equal burdens in other arenas of life.

Why the phobia of calling a spade a spade. Women's role in childbirth is unequal. That's not a complaint against God or nature, its just a simple statement of fact.

Another statement of fact is that men do not carry equal burdens in other areas of life. Name one!? A man can father a child without even knowing about it. Can a woman who does not spend 9 months in a coma do the same?

I look forward to the day when feminism dies completely and is subject to the ridicule and hatred it so deserves. I think that will be just about the day we stop justifying the murder of our children by women.

I notice you seem to make your arguments by childish name calling. Perhaps the day will also come when you can move beyond that.

Jamie:

Your counter-arguments are persuasive on their face... I can't really figure out what's sitting wrong with me about them. It's something along these lines: free speech is not, per se, a life-and-death issue. (Here in the US, anyway.) Spanking is not a life-and-death issue. China's mandatory-abortion policy is pro-abortion but anti-choice in that the person or family who exceeds their child quota has no choice about whether to abort (I'm kind of making this up because it's late and I don't have time to look up what China's policy actually is, so if I'm totally off base, please cut appropriate slack).

Thank you for a very good post. Generally I think groups should be called by what they define themselves as unless their names are overtly deceptive. I don't mind calling an anti-abortion group 'pro-life' even though that does sound like you are accepting their assertion that unborn babies...even when they are just a single cell...are alive (the debate isn't really over when life begins since technically a sperm and egg are alive *before* fertilization...its about when *human* life begins).

I would say that a lot of issues in US history would have been life or death but were not because of free speech. Intellectually I think there is a good argument that there are some things that are best left to individual choice even if many individuals will make very bad choices.

My leaning is toward the feeling that women bear the burden of giving birth to children it is both their choice and their responsibility. The state shouldn't force women to carry children 'at the point of a gun'...to use a libertarian phrase often invoked in debates about the income tax.

Eamon O'Brolchain wrote:

Thorley, Bush's position on abortion is by no means close to that of Ridge. Ridge is pro choice. Bush opposes ALL abortions, with some narrowly tailored exceptions(rape, incest, life of mother). Yes, Ridge supports some restrictions on abortion such as a ban on the so-called "Partial Birth Abortions", but is pro choice in that he supports the basic concept of a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, with some reasonable restrictions attached to that right. He does not oppose abortion with the narrow exceptions for rape and incest and life of the mother. Far from having a virtually identical position to Bush, his position is almost diametrically opposed.

Allow abortions, with limits; no partial-birth

Abortions should be legal only within the first trimester of pregnancy.
Abortions should be legal only when pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered.
Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and parental notification requirements.
Prohibit the late-term abortion procedure known as “partial-birth” abortion.
Support “buffer zones” at abortion clinics.

With the exception of “buffer zones” this is virtually identical to President Bush’s position. Do you have anything to the contrary?

The Exodus passage authorizing lenient treatment for the accidental death of a fetus right is next to a passage authorizing similar lenient treatment for the accidental death of a slave.

Clearly, abortion and slavery should be banned at the same time. (They were banned within a few decades of each other.)

There is another anti-abortion passage in the Bible. Noah was given a commandment usually translated as "Whoever shed the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed." The prefix translated as "by" can also be translated as "within." (The term translated as "man" refers to humans in general.)

Bootoon-

"For example, someone may think parents should be allowed to spank their kids without getting into legal trouble, but feel that spanking was a poor way to be a parent. They would 'pro-choice' on spanking but not 'pro-spanking'. Now compare this to someone who thinks that spanking is the best way to discipline kids. They deserve to be called 'pro-spanking'."

While logical, the next time I hear someone use that term for spanking or anything else will be the first. There are a tremendous number of political causes, nearly all of which can be framed in terms of choice. Can you possibly imagine the Civil War being described as the conflict between the anti-slavery and the "pro-choice" forces? I don't think so, yet certainly there were people who wanted slavery to remain legal (or didn't care if it did) yet owned no slaves themselves and were personally morally opposed to slavery.

"Likewise, how would you differentiate between a pro-choicer and someone who supports China's policy of mandatory abortions?"

To be honest, I know a few friends who call themselves "pro-choice" but support China's policy of mandatory (or strongly encouraged) abortions. Aside from that, though, I think that there's a difference between free speech and the other situations.

With free speech, people are in favor of allowing it at least partially because a general rule of allowing free speech protects the speech we ourselves like. They support free speech, and even speech that they hate, because laws which could ban speech we hate could someday be used against our own speech, or speech we like. Even so, there are exceptions-- like for libel or slander, for false advertising, for fighting words, for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Also, speech can be combated with more speech. Most of us believe that the permanent effects of bad speech are small when it is combated with right reason.

I don't really think any of that analogy holds for most of the other situations. I don't know of many who support the legality of abortion primarily on the standpoint of other medical procedures being legal. "I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal, despite not agreeing with it, so that breast implants won't be banned!" To be fair, perhaps there are some who fear that contraception would be next, though. I guess there are also some people who say an analogous thing of "I don't approve of abortions by the well-off for birth control purposes when they could just use contraception, but I want it to remain legal so that poor people who shouldn't be bringing kids into the world will avoid having another unwanted child that won't get raised properly."

At the same time, having your own kid doesn't really make up for an abortion, not more than "Don't like slavery? Don't own one!" makes up for slavery.

Boonton--

To put it another way, I believe that anyone who thinks that "States' Rights" is or was a codeword equivalent to support for slavery and discrimination should at least consider carefully whether the same arguments apply to "pro-choice" and supporting abortion.

While logical, the next time I hear someone use that term for spanking or anything else will be the first. There are a tremendous number of political causes, nearly all of which can be framed in terms of choice. Can you possibly imagine the Civil War being described as the conflict between the anti-slavery and the "pro-choice" forces? I don't think so, yet certainly there were people who wanted slavery to remain legal (or didn't care if it did) yet owned no slaves themselves and were personally morally opposed to slavery.

While the terms 'pro-choice' was not in use at the time this touches upon a real distinction. There were abolitionists who were 100% opposed to slavery and 'pro-slavery' factions who supported slavery and felt it should be recognized in all the states (they approved of the Dred Scott decision). Between these two sides there was a large group who felt that each state should be allowed to decide the issue for themselves. If we were going to have a serious discussion about pre-Civil War views on slavery we would have to recognize all three positions as relevant to the history.

To put it another way, I believe that anyone who thinks that "States' Rights" is or was a codeword equivalent to support for slavery and discrimination should at least consider carefully whether the same arguments apply to "pro-choice" and supporting abortion.

I accept that there are pro-choicers who view abortion as a great modern advance that opens up opportunities for women they didn't have before. I don't think anyone serious views the choice to have an abortion as a great thing. After all, even if you seriously believe that are no moral issues surrounding abortion it still remains more expensive and more physically unpleasent than simple birth control.

But this is still similar to the free speech analogy. The KKK may not support free speech, they think they should be allowed to march because their message is right. When this issue is debated, though, the two relevant sides agree that the KKK has the wrong message...it's the 'free speech is good' ideology that is the most relevant argument. The dominante argument presented by pro-choicers is that, freedom of choice. I have not heard many pro-choicers make the 'abortion is great' argument so I think it is fair to address the argument that is actually presented...not try to guess the unspoken arguments a supporter of abortion rights might agree with.

It would be interesting to know just when in history contraception became a sin to Catholics. Was it early on, when Catholics were the only Christians, or was it one of those things that was added after the bubonic plague devastated Europe? The latter is when the Church began selling indulgences--the Church desperately needed the money to replace the loss of over 1/3 of their tithing income.

Boonton--

In that case I accept that you are a fair-minded individual. However, just as in the case of slavery, I think it's perfectly natural that the people who wish to ban what they see as an immoral act don't make a strong moral distinction between the "pro-choicers" and those who favor the act itself. Abolitionists did view those who truly favored states' rights on slavery as pro-slavery, and most textbooks will describe such a position as pro-slavery.

Indeed, these days even describing the allegiance of many of the Confederate side (and some on the Union, like many of the Democrats) as pro-states' rights or something like pro-choice will draw strong opprobrium. People will indeed merely guess that those are merely code words for racism and pro-slavery beliefs, then and now, and still publically accuse people of holding such sentiments.

If you wouldn't do that, then I certainly apologize and don't mean to lump you in with those people. Would that more people showed your logical consistency and good faith.

Colorado Cradle Catholic here.

Contraception became "wrong" for us in the '60's, during the same timeframe as, but not part of, Vatican 2. It was never a decision made in "Ex Cathedra", where the Pope speaks with the authority of God. As far as I know, it is NOT a mortal sin, but probably a little higher than a venial sin. There were many reasons why the decision was made, but I suspect the Roman heirarchy regrets it now, because it was the beginning of the independence of the American church.

One of the reasons the decision was made is that it was felt that by separating the sex act from procreation would also cheapen sex and women.

There is heavy discusion now about BC methods, barrier vs. abortificant. It will be years before a decision is handed down, but I suspect that we will be allowed the barriar method. However, I can state the one method we allowed, Natural Family Planning, does work rather well. If followed faithly, it has a failure rate similar to the Pill.

Re: Salazar

Ken is a Pro-choice Catholic politician. You have to be if you are going to be a Democrat, they don't allow pro-life people to join the party :-).
He and our Archbishop went at it hammer and tongs, and the Colorado Springs Archbishop all but said to not vote for him. We have had no executions here in about 7 years, and only 2 or 3 since the death penalty was re-authorized. It is difficult to get one authorized here, which I am happy about.

--Stephen

...and bolstered by the doctrine of papal infallibility.

Right-o, Mark Horn. Infallibility isn't invoked lightly (or as often as non-Catholics might think). I actually don't know for certain whether infallibility was part of the Humanae Vitae package - I overstepped. The principle I was trying to get at is that when the Pope uses his authority as head of the earthly Church to say something (as in an encyclical), Catholics take him seriously, whether or not they actually follow through on what he says. It's not just a Sunday homily that people might doze through. (Not that I would, you understand... ;-) )

So far, this has been a very philosophical discussion. I would like to make it a bit more practical.

There are a number of relatively effective birth control methods available at relatively low cost. I believe, though I lack data to support my belief, that the number of abortions performed annually in the US today far exceeds the number which would be required to correct the results of rape, incest and contraceptive failure combined. The remainder are the result of conscious irresponsibility. Abortion seems to me to be a radical approach to dealing with conscious irresponsibility.

I understand that much of our society now accepts the premise that anyone should be able to have casual sex with anyone else any time they feel the urge. I suspect that a significantly smaller subset of our society accepts that unprotected casual sex is a wise choice, for a variety of reasons well beyond unintended pregnancy. I am sure that an even smaller subset of our society accepts the concept that society should pay for the "correction" of the unintended (but not unanticipatable) consequences of unprotected casual sex.

As an adoptive parent and the father-in-law of another adoptee, I have some very practical, very personal problems with abortion on demand.

The Catholic Church considers many aspects of this issue to be sins, of greater and lesser degree. These begin with the fornication or adultery, include artificial contraception of all types (with the exception of the 81 mg. aspirin tablet pressed tightly between the knees) and end with abortion. However, the official positions of the Church are not always the positions of individual confessors. Confessor "shopping" for many Catholics bears a strong resemblance to "judge shopping" for many lawyers.

I believe that the "choice" to have sex and the subsequent "choice" to have unprotected sex should always be free choices. However, once conception has occurred as a result of such free choices, I believe the time for "choice" is over, with the exception of the choice to place the child up for adoption. The current debate on these issues almost totally ignores the responsibilities which may result from such free choices, which is also the case with several other cultural debates in our society.

Ed,

A very good post however I can tell you from experience that humans are still, despite the cultivation of our higher intellects, part animal and often we do things totally against our interests when sex is involved. That's human nature, like it or not.

Your position amounts to, basically, forcing women to give birth 'at the point of a gun'. That's the logical conclusion of the gov't banning abortion since a woman who does not want to give birth would, presumably, be stopped from having an abortion (by an officer with a gun if necessary).

I would lean towads the view that the state has the ability to command our bodies only to a very limited and external extent. The state, for example, should not force me to donate my organs or blood if I don't want to. Even if the procedure is very minor physically to me and it would save lives. Likewise, I have trouble accepting the position that the state has the right to force a woman to use her body in such an intimate way...even if the cause is good.

Boonton:

You're right, we're still - IMHO - not just "part animal" but mostly animal. Nevertheless, we manage to function as civilized people most of the time.

I agree with so many differing posts that it's hard to name a position. I agree that Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere, and I don't especially want to see it disappear even though I abhor the idea of abortion on demand. I agree that (more or less effective) abortion has been with us for thousands of years and won't go away just because we make it harder to get. I agree that abortion is almost always a convenience (albeit perceived as a necessity) after either a failure of birth control or a change of heart, rather than a worst-case option for victims of rape, incest, etc., and statistics back up this position. I agree that for the government to interfere with my own personal body is a repellent thought, but I also agree that the difference between a fetus and a newborn can range from complete un-viability through weeks or months in a preemie ward to a few hours of labor, and that being the case, is there no circumstance under which the government is permitted to put the life of an unborn person ahead of the privacy right of a born person?

In other words... what's a person of good will to do? And this is why I prefer to leave Roe v. Wade in place but work assiduously toward a world in which an abortion is not the answer to an unplanned pregnancy, or even remotely considered a form of birth control. I'd love to see it become something that's technically legal but socially repugnant (like chawin' and spittin', only more so, considering the gravity of the question). That's my compromise with myself. I'm not altogether pleased with it, which is the definition of compromise, I guess.

Jamie,

In many jurisdictions, smoking is illegal in a variety of public places, primarily because of concerns about the potential impacts of second hand smoke on others in the environment. However, abortion is legal despite the obvious adverse impacts on the aborted. We seem to be lacking a little proportion.

When they were growing up, my kids used to tell me: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Obviously, my kids are "older".

Huh. Interesting point, Ed - I'd never thought of it from that perspective. So (as always) the whole question really hinges on whether one acknowledges the humanity of a fetus or not, since, as you say, there's no doubt about the deleterious effect of an abortion on the fetus...

Unfortunately, that doesn't further the debate, since the humanity of the fetus is already the sticking point. The Catholic Church's position is completely logical, IMO: sperm and egg, while not human, have potential to become so and therefore should be treated respectfully by not interfering with their natural course; fertilized egg is fully human in its chromosomal structure and will, barring (ahem) Acts of God, eventually be born as an indisputable human being. No way it's going to be born as a petunia, say, or a puppy. Creating a pseudo-category of "potential human" doesn't change the fact that the potential human will become a fully-realized human if not stopped. So how do we get past this impasse? Or do we?

Jamie,

As you indicate, the semantics of the debate are very interesting and revealing. I have never heard an "expectant mother" refer to the life form in her womb as a "fetus". I suspect that no "expectant aborter" or "post aborter" refers to that life form as a "baby". Abortion is an apparently an acceptable "choice", but abstinence is not.

The "potential human" issue gets really interesting in the case of "partial birth abortion", when the level of "potential" has clearly exceeded the required threshold. I see no liklihood of respect for "sub-threshold" "potential human" life, when we cannot agree to respect "potential human" life which requires only safe passage the rest of the way through the birth canal.

I have four unique grandchildren because two couples (or perhaps just two expectant mothers), my older son's and my younger son's wife's, saw the "choice" issue differently. Both my son and my daughter-in-law are strongly anti-abortion, "strangely enough" (credit to James Taranto, Best of the Web Today).

As you indicate, the semantics of the debate are very interesting and revealing. I have never heard an "expectant mother" refer to the life form in her womb as a "fetus". I suspect that no "expectant aborter" or "post aborter" refers to that life form as a "baby". Abortion is an apparently an acceptable "choice", but abstinence is not.

That's odd since I'm not aware of anyone who has seriously argued against rape laws. Banning rape, by definition, is embracing the idea that one should always be able to choose abstinence.

Ed has an interesting point but it's one of those things that are interesting only in trying to figure out why it is wrong. Assume I concede that 2nd hand smoke harms non-smokers (something that the evidence does not clearly show despite the rush to embrace anti-smoking laws). There still remain extreme differences between 2nd hand smoke and abortion.

1. The infringement on liberty of the smoker is minor. He is forbidden only to smoke in enclosed public areas.

2. There is no easy for the smoker to be free to smoke without infringing on non-smokers. A 'space suit' that allowed the smoker to smoke while shielding his fellow customers from the waste is unlikely to be cost effective.

Banning abortion because of its harm to the fetus is the exact reverse. The liberty of one person is deeply infringed for the benefit of another. The anti-abortion logic, at this point, seems to turn towards punishment. Since only a tiny fraction of abortions were preceeded by rape then the woman 'should live with it'.

Reality is that if you are consistent then what you are advocating is more extreme than any form of welfare ever imposed on a taxpayer. You are mandating that a woman's body be used for another's behalf. This is a deeply problematic position. While we all consider it praiseworthy to freely sacrifice yourself for another (such as the women who dies in childbirth, the person who throws himself in front of a bus to push a child to safety, or even something as mundane as donating blood etc.) it is questionable whether the gov't has the right to force us to do so.

Nothing like this is being asked of the smoker in the case of second hand smoke. If the non-smoker follows him home he is under no legal obligation to accomodate him by not smoking.

Boonton,

Absent rape and incest, the pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex is the result of a woman exercising her "right" to have sex. The abortion is the rejection of responsibility for the reasonably expected consequences of her actions.

I understand that pregnancy is difficult. However, the consequences of carrying such a pregnancy to term are substantially less severe than other predictable consequences of unprotected casual sex, particularly HIV / AIDS.

"You are mandating that a woman's body be used for another's behalf."

If you accept that the fetus is "another" (human being), the discussion really gets interesting.

Of course I've accepted it in this discussion. If I accepted the opposite position then it would be almost impossible to mount an anti-abortion argument. What I'm getting at is that I see holes in the pro-life argument even if you are willing to concede a fetus is a human beign, which is a different debate.

The problem with your argument seems to be that it wants to use pregnancy as a punishment for 'casual sex'. Hence your insistence on seperating 'rape and incest pregnancies' out from all the others....something the Catholic Church does not do.

Suppose I consented to give my kidney to someone who needed it. Suppose I then changed my mind after I saw the hospital table. Can I be forced to 'honor my promise' by the gov't? Can the police strap me down to the table and force me to go thru with the donation? I think most people will concede that while it may be cowardly, I do have the right to withdraw consent to giving my body to someone else.

I'm really skeptical of an argument that rests its case on hidden fine print that causes a woman to irrevokably surrender her body whenever she consents to have sex. How could you justify such a legal theory for teenagers who are presumably too young to consent to binding contracts?

Ahhh! Accepting responsibility for one's actions is now punishment. That changes everything!

Consenting to have sex, or actively seeking it, is a "choice". "Hooking up", or other casual sex, is yet another "choice". Having sex without protection is yet another "choice". Apparently, refusing to accept responsibility for one's choices is now also a "choice". Ain't choice wonderful!

I remember guys in our Catholic college (40 years ago) who were perfectly willing to have sex (which the Church did not approve), but unwilling to use contraceptives (which the Church also did not approve), because the Church did not approve of contraception. I was not sufficiently sophisticated at the time to understand the distinction. I have made little progress since. I still don't get it!

But if you accept the premise of the Catholic Church that abortion is murder, then I think that their current policy priorities are the only conscionable ordering

And if you accept the premise of Adolf Hitler that gays, Jews, and gypsies are subhuman, what is conscionable then? From completely idiotic and false premises what conclusions can be drawn? It is, appararently, your mission to answer this question. Godspeed.

Consenting to have sex, or actively seeking it, is a "choice". "Hooking up", or other casual sex, is yet another "choice". Having sex without protection is yet another "choice". Apparently, refusing to accept responsibility for one's choices is now also a "choice". Ain't choice wonderful!

I notice that you dodge the issue I raised. If by having sex a woman 'chooses' to surrender her body to another if pregnancy happens to result then how do you address minors or the mentally handicapped? A basic premise of contract law is that both parties must be able to enter the contract. You normally cannot have a 16 year old waive her rights in a contract because the law, in most circumstances, does not recognize that a minor has the ability to knowlingly enter into a contract.

Turning it around to 'accepting responsibility' is really a dodge. There is nothing in Roe.v.Wade that says a woman is able to dodge the financial, emotional and physical consquences of either having an abortion or going through to birth. Of course if abortion is outlawed then the consquence of pregnancy is either going through to birth or committing a crime. That's hardly very enlightening. If it's illegal to criticize the government then the consquence of doing so will be jail. Defending such a law by simply saying dissidents should 'take responsibility for what they say' sounds tough but really is quite empty rhetoric.

Would those who want to criminalize abortion also criminalize other acts that could do harm to the unborn fetus, such as smoking, alcohol consumption, poor diet, poor prenatal care, excessive physical trauma, or working in toxic or hazardous areas by the mother?
If abortion is "murder", then would a miscarrage be "involuntary manslaughter", requiring a police investigation? Does a birth defect child have legal rights to sue the mother for insufficient support when he or she was a zygote?
This opens up a large can of worms, doesn't it?

--Cobra

Cobra,

The "can of worms" is already open. For example, drug abuse and physical assaults on the mother which cause miscarriage or fetal injury are already an issue. Connor Peterson has been judged to be a victim of second degree murder, though he was less developed than he would have been had he were an unwilling participant in a "partial birth abortion".

Companies have already been sued for allowing pregnant women, or women of child bearing age, to work in certain environments; and, also, for preventing them from doing so. Drug companies have been sued for the effects of drugs like Thalidomide.

We are not even consistent. A woman pregnant with a "child" can frequently receive ADC benefits, while a woman pregnant with a "fetus" can have an abortion. Go figure!

Regardless of all of the other arguments, the 280 million population of the US would be aproximately 330 million (almost 18% greater) in the absence of abortion, all other things being equal. I find that a sobering thought.

Ed,

It is indeed sobering, that in one thread, these conservatives want to force women to bear unwanted children, and in another, strip government aid for unwanted children once they're born. In my estimation, that's far more cruel, and a much higher burden on society.

--Cobra

Regardless of all of the other arguments, the 280 million population of the US would be aproximately 330 million (almost 18% greater) in the absence of abortion, all other things being equal. I find that a sobering thought.

Or if everyone waited until marriage to have sex the US population would probably be a lot less than 280M today. I'm not sure how much you can really read into this since wel all know abortion would never have been absent if Roe.v.Wade had gone the other way and we know that not all pregnancies would have happened if abortion was illegal.

BTW, an economist recent estimated that a good portion of the drop in crime was due to abortion being legal. He observed that states that legalized abortion before Roe.v.Wade experienced a drop in crime that came sooner and was more dramatic than pro-life states. His theory was that since abortions happen more often in dysfunctional situations there were fewer children born to familes that would not have done a good job raising them.

If you base policy too much on what you think is good for 'all of society' you may end up with a pro-abortion policy like China's.

Comments are Closed.