There is a lot of heat in the ongoing abortion debate, but there is very little light.
Today is the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision by the Supreme Court of the United States through which women have the legal right to terminate their pregnancies up to the point where the child may live on its own.
Anti-abortion activists claim that pro-choice activists "murder babies."
Pro-choice activists claim that anti-abortion activists "don't care about women" and "want to pass laws about their vaginas."
Both claims are, in this case, hyperbolic and ridiculous.
Roe was decided because, before it was legal, women sought and received abortions from sympathetic or enterprising physicians (or others, sometimes resulting in death from infection or hemorrhage). So it seems likely that since abortion happened before Roe, overturning Roe won't end abortions.
People have, for thousands of years, abandoned or outright killed their very young or their very old. Babies were abandoned or killed because of birth defects or lack of resources for their care. Very old people were often killed or abandoned because of sickness or lack of mobility. So it seems unlikely that this issue is unique to the 20th and 21st centuries.
What if the best way to end abortions has nothing to do with political activism or the SCOTUS?
Cultures and societies have killed their babies and their old for millenia. It didn't start with Roe/Wade, and it won't end there, either.
I think it's our job- or at least I see it as mine- to make a difference in the circles of people I interact with to raise awareness of the preciousness, the sanctity of life. If you change hearts and minds, abortion will stop, the law notwithstanding.
Pax et bonum
Strange... I see my job to show that as long the unborn child once born will not be protected along with his mother by laws regulating the newborn child's survival, abortion will continue.
ReplyDeleteThe preciousness, the sanctity of life applies to women who are raped. As long as this side of the sanctity of life will not be protected, abortion will continue.
etc etc etc
Agh!
How about changing the mores of society so that women don't feel the need to recur to abortion? Social policies in the US--what remains of them, that is--and public support for poverty alleviation measures are scant. Programs for poor mothers and children are ineffectual, difficult to access, and there is outright hostility among the public against the poor and their children.
ReplyDeleteWomen don't need to be poor to face obstacles and hurdles when facing the world while pregnant and single (and often married but in dire straits, or victims of rape), and the blame for their fertility and/or abortion is placed solely on them. It is not like the fathers are chastised by the public and media, insulted, chased and forced to support the children they father, tagged as monsters if they abandon them, etc. If we had a society in which women need not fear to face the world alone with a child (or add one child too many to an already straitened family)---and probably have that child suffer--that is, if we had a society in which children are not unwanted, it would be another story. Plus, I would disagree that killing a child who is already a viable member of society is the same as an abortion of an embryo, for example, but that is another story. Teaching the sanctity of life to a culture that fights every single poverty alleviation measure for underserved children and seems to overwhelmingly support the death penalty (despite so many studies showing the injustice of the system) is easier said than done. But I agree, it should be done.
Meanwhile, blaming for the whole thing on women (and often girls!) who recur to abortion (and their providers) is unhelpful and unjust, but that is what anti-abortion advocates do. I wonder if those activists also advocate for better measures to improve the lives of poor children? Better schools for the poor? Decent housing? Ensure access to health, family planning and proper nutrition? Sex education in schools? Serious anti-rape legal measures and education? At this point, it is a blame game and if the very material and real social problems that form the structural underpinnings of society are not improved significantly, all that is going to happen is that women who feel desperate or pressured enough will continue to do recur to abortion, or else have unwanted babies that will add to the growing masses of the poor. If if were illegal, all that would happen is that we'd have illegal abortions and its terrible consequences.
I am not a gung-ho believer in abortion, and I would not consider it as an option for myself. But then, I have been privileged with access to support of all kinds. Therefore, I am not going to sit in judgement of women who recur to it without having been in their shoes. The world is a harsh enough place as it is.
Gun-control legislation, just as all the social welfare legislation, have failed over the time, yet you don't advocate to abolish them. Contrary, you want to expand them. At least, have a little bit of decency and admit you're simply devoted to your religion of leftism and all of its tenets.
ReplyDeleteIt is already established by the results of empirical studies that the abortion isn't really about poverty, but it's really a last-resort contraception method. So all your whining about poverty as a major issue is a smokescreen to cover your real motives - to expand already enormous welfare state. And yet, it won't prevent abortions at all.
If organizations like Planned Parenthood profit for performing abortions, I don't see them to let go a serious stream of money flowing to them. Remind me, what you think of profit-driven people and organizations?
Sex education hasn't proved to be any solution to any problem it was intended to be, but you can't expect different results from doing the same thing (pushing more for the sexual revolution even if it's disguised as education). And those two issues are intimately interlinked as the careless sex without consequences requires tools like abortion. Given your devotion to the religion of leftism and one of its core teachings on sexual revolution, I'm not surprised about the way you defend it, even if it's thinly veiled as being non-judgmental or anything of this sort.
Blaming women is unhelpful and unjust? Are you kidding me? Who's spreading legs and, if it goes wrong (sic!), seeks an abortion, huh?
I knew I'd get it from BOTH sides with this one.
ReplyDeleteAre you suffering from some kind of a Martyr Syndrome, Thom? You were hardly attacked by anyone. If you feel attacked, then it's probably because of me, but certainly not because of what those two ladies wrote. They just rephrased your own thoughts on the subject.
DeleteI didn't say "attacked." You should read more carefully.
DeleteAnd no, you didn't get it from both sides with this one either.
DeleteI don't know if this contributes to the debate or derails it, but:
ReplyDeletehttp://coloradoindependent.com/126808/in-malpractice-case-catholic-hospital-argues-fetuses-arent-people
I saw this. Unbelievable.
DeleteUnbelievable? Those lawyers do everything possible to win and people like do everything they can to not to recognize fetuses as people. So, what's your beef, then?
DeleteBecause it's a "Catholic" hospital.
DeleteSo a Catholic hospital can't take an advantage of law even if it's possible? They argue against accusation of wrongdoing and possibility of any damages that might stem thereof. While I wouldn't stumble upon this question, because I would focus on the fact that it wasn't possible to save a woman, and the probability of survival of those twins was rather hypothetical as it is impossible to determine this issue beyond any doubts.
DeleteAnd it's funny - whatever a Catholic hospital does, it's always wrong? Catch 22?
It's ironic that the hospital is named after Thomas More.
DeleteI agree, Kevin. Laws denying personhood and protection to unborn innocents are unjust. That's what this March is all about. I'm sickened that the hospital administrators are going along with their lawyers (and the insurance company?) in pursuing this line.
DeleteThey are simply fighting the ridiculous lawsuit. It's not about personhood or anything related.
DeleteThe "change hearts and minds" thing is right on, Thom. The law is what it is. It doesn't make anyone abort a pregnancy, aka, kill a baby. I've said this before, and it fits here, I think. The problem with the whole legal debate deal, and Christians being a part of that, is this: What we generally believe (what I believe), that human life begins at conception, is not philosophically self-evident. Many speak of it as if it is just that - that all sides can obviously see this. They cannot.
ReplyDeleteWe believe what we believe because of our faith. Others believe that the essence of what "human life" means is something different. So, if someone genuinely and sincerely doesn't believe this child is fully a human person, then they also do not believe that what is going on in an abortion is "murder."
We need to give each other a break. And, personally, I would vote that we, as Christians of whatever stripe, should get out of the political and legal arena about the whole thing. That's not our battleground. We can't ultimately win this kind of philosophical fight - not in that arena - because, again, it's not philosophically self-evident.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteThanks, Alan. I agree with what you said here.
DeleteOnce again, you prove how much the truth hurts. Suppressing it won't make it go away, Thom, but, I guess, it might make you feel better about yourself.
DeleteHi Thom,
ReplyDeleteI've been reading your posts for a short bit now. Peter responds with defensive and insulting comments which shut down dialogue. I have no idea what you deleted but I thank you for mediating. Do you personally know him? As people who care about the pro-life cause, we need to be careful how much credence is given lines like "Blaming women is unhelpful and unjust? Are you kidding me? Who's spreading legs and, if it goes wrong (sic!), seeks an abortion, huh?" One has to take some pity on him as he clearly has no interaction with women or anyone who can articulate the many facets of the issue. We need to be sure it is clear that he does not represent the rest of us who struggle to affirm a culture of life.
No, I don't personally know him. I don't know why he continues to behave the way he does.
DeleteExposing hypocrisy of people like you is enough to comment here. The culture of life you like to speak about is nothing more than smokescreen for ever expanding and even more expensive welfare state. That's all and even you don't try to hide it. Once again - abortion is simply a birth control method used because everything else failed. Poverty, whatever it means, is one of the least significant factors when deciding about abortion. How is that possible? Maybe you should look at the statistics concerning the abortion numbers, especially those from the well-developed countries with wide social safety nets. And what about responsibility? Right now, it's pathetic to claim that people don't know how they could get pregnant, especially if you live in a first-world country. So, it's understandable to ask what is the connection between sex and abortion, and there is one. If you don't see it and pretend most of the pregnancies are from immaculate conceptions, then there's very little to talk about.
DeleteI find it much more convenient to ignore you, generally.
DeleteOf course, it's easier, but, in the end, it won't help either.
DeleteI challenge you, because I'm seriously curious about this alleged unity between Catholics. Frankly, I see none and have no hope of having one. Does it bother me? As long as you claim to be a Catholic, yes it does, but given your gay-pagan-leftist streak, I'm confident it will change soon.
Thom, thanks for this post. I do see abortion as a human rights issue for the unborn (particularly when the baby is close to viability). But there are legitimate civil rights (human rights) issues for women, and I do understand that balancing the rights of both of those parties -- both of whom are worthy of respect and dignity, and both of whom are God's beloved -- is incredibly complicated. Much more complex than folks on the extreme edge of either position will admit.
ReplyDeleteAccurate and age-appropriate sex education can play an important role in PREVENTING unintended pregnancies -- logically, the surest route to having fewer abortions. I'll admit, as well, that I'm at odds with my church on contraception. I certainly would rather have a couple contracept instead of getting pregnant with a child they are unable or unwilling to parent. And we're foolish if we do not see the education of boys/young men as an essential part of the equation. The talks I have with my son on responsibility, mutual respect, and the practical matters of living on this planet are just as important as the conversations other parents have with their daughters. So often we forget that a teenage boy, or a man in his early twenties, is just as much responsible (if not much more so) than the girl/woman who walks through the doors of the abortion clinic. How about we charge our sons with not getting anyone pregnant in the first place -- as well as acknowledging that a woman in a crisis pregnancy always deserves to be supported and treated with respect.
I agree, Steve. Thank you for saying this so well.
Delete