Why Can't I Be Pro-Choice and Pro-Life?
Now that John McCain has re-energized the Republican right by choosing a running mate who is ardently "pro-life," the topic of abortion will once again play a big role -- possibly a decisive one -- in a presidential campaign. See for instance David Kirkpatrick, "Abortion Issue Again Dividing Catholic Votes," front page NYT 17 September.
Just in case you've forgotten, abortion politics played a crucial role in the re-election of George Bush. In Colorado, for instance, Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver (right where the Democrats just held their quadrennial jamboree) threatened to excommunicate any Catholic in his diocese who voted for John Kerry. It did not matter that Senator Kerry was the first Roman Catholic to be nominated for the U.S. presidency by a major political party in 44 years, or that he was personally opposed to abortion. Since Kerry did not think abortion should be re-criminalized, the Archbishop argued that voting for him was mortally sinful. Presumably, His Excellency leaves heaven wide open to voters for candidates who support such things as the war in Iraq, torture, capital punishment, the criminal neglect of the nation's real needs, and the political exploitation of the Catholic church.
Fortunately, Archbishop Chaput's fellow prelates are much more reasonable. Last November, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops stated that they did not aim to tell Catholics how to vote. Each voter, they said, should be guided by his or her own conscience and judgment of each candidate as a whole. Though "a candidate's position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion... may legitimately lead a voter" to reject that candidate, the bishops also state that Catholics "are not single-issue voters." On the contrary, they say, Catholic teaching on the dignity and sacredness of human life compels Catholics "to oppose torture, unjust war, and the use of the death penalty; to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants; ...and to overcome poverty and suffering." Nations, they say, "are called on to protect the right of life by seeking effective ways to combat evil and terror without resorting to armed conflict except as a last resort, always seeking first to resolve disputes by peaceful means."
In the spirit of the bishops' statement, then, does the phrase "pro-life" fit a candidate who not only aims to re-criminalize abortion but also supports or condones unjust war, torture, the bombing of populated areas, the death penalty, and the unconscionable neglect of poverty and suffering, as in the federal government's response to the victims of Hurricane Katrina?
And in light of the bishops' statement, why can't I be pro-choice AND pro-life?
"But pro-choice means pro-abortion, which means pro-death. So you can't possibly be pro-choice and pro-life."
OK, I confess. On two key points I'm pro-death. I would dearly love to kill the idea that pro-choice means pro-abortion, and that pro-life can mean only pro-criminalization of abortion. These two notions have so thoroughly poisoned the well of political discourse that we can scarcely recognize the water of life itself. But that is what we need to start drinking again.
First let me tell you something about my own life.
I'm the ninth and last child of a Boston-based obstetrician who delivered more than eight thousand babies in the course of a long and distinguished career and who vehemently opposed the legalization of abortion throughout his life. In a professional article, he even argued that abortion was never even therapeutically justified, let alone justified on any other grounds. I admired him greatly, and I know all too well that I owe my very life to my parents' willingness to let procreation run its course, no matter how prolific. But I also know that many young women who become pregnant now have nothing remotely like the support furnished to my mother, who regularly got several weeks of rest after each delivery and whose only job was being a mother and wife. That is just one reason why I do not believe that all pregnant women should be legally forced to bear children.
Does this mean that I support abortion? Absolutely not. There's a huge difference between supporting anything and opposing the criminalization of it. Basically, it's the difference between sin and crime. Though the bishops ignore this difference altogether, it was clearly recognized by the two of the greatest saints in the history of Christendom: Augustine and Thomas Aquinas.
Consider first what Aquinas wrote about prostitution. He found it unequivocally evil because it violates natural law and fails to provide for the care of offspring. He called it a "sin committed directly against human life" and therefore a "mortal sin" binding the soul to spiritual death.
But guess what? He also thought civil authorities should tolerate it. And for backup on this point, he quotes another great saint -- Augustine. "In human government," Aquinas writes, "those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain evils be incurred: thus Augustine says [De Ordine 2:4]: 'If you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust.'" (SUMMA THEOLOGICA 2-2.10.11).
Unlike the bishops, Aquinas and Augustine both understood the difference between sin and crime, between divine law and human law. Since human law aims not to promote eternal salvation but to ensure temporal order, it cannot -- says Aquinas -- "forbid all vicious acts" (SUMMA THEOLOGICA 1-2.96.3).
To see the difference between sin and crime is also to see the difference between supporting a sinful act and opposing the criminalization of it. Do Archbishop Chaput and his fellow prelates all believe that we should criminalize divorce, adultery, and the killing of innocent civilians -- including children -- in bombing attacks on our enemies? If not, may I infer that that the bishops support all of these things? But if they don't support divorce or adultery or the killing of civilians in bombing raids, why do they claim that any politician who does not want to criminalize abortion "supports" it? If Sarah and Todd Palin were free to make the morally courageous choice of bearing a child whom they knew to be afflicted with Down's Syndrome, why must any pregnant woman with a defective child be denied the moral freedom to choose? Do we really believe the government should usurp the power of a woman's conscience? Do we really think motherhood should become a labor of law -- not a labor of love? And what would happen in this country if we suddenly decided to criminalize the exercise of a right that for 35 years has been treated as constitutional? Instead of ensuring "temporal order," as human law should, re-criminalizing abortion would bring legal chaos.
Why then do so-called "conservative" politicians call so loudly for laws against abortion? Let me venture to say why. Calling for laws against abortion is the easiest and cheapest way of appearing to support "life" while taking no other steps to do so -- even while promoting an agenda of death.
Let's recall some of the actions taken by Governor and then President George W. Bush, who partly owed his re-election to the bishops' ardent -- if sometimes indirect -- support for his "pro-life" agenda. In March 2003, he launched a wholly unnecessary war (firmly opposed by Pope John Paul II) that has taken the lives of more than 4500 American soldiers, maimed or mentally traumatized at least 30,000 more, and killed almost 90,000 Iraqi civilians. In March 2005, just about the time that he flew into Washington to sign the bill that called for re-inserting a feeding tube into the abdomen of Terry Schiavo, a six month old boy named Sam Hudson died after a Texas hospital removed his feeding tube because his mother could not afford to pay for it. The Texas Futile Care Law, which gives health care providers the right to overrule indigent family members in deciding when to end a life, was signed by Governor George Bush. During his six years as Governor, George Bush also compiled a record of executions unmatched by that of any other governor in modern American history. Rejecting all but one of the appeals for clemency that came to his desk, he approved the executions of 150 men and two women, including a mentally retarded man and a born-again Christian named Karla Faye Tucker Brown, who had made herself an inspiration to her fellow inmates. He mocked her appeal for clemency and did not even bother to read many of the others.
Did the thought of these executions ever cross the mind of the president as he knelt at the bier of the first pope in history who unequivocally rejected capital punishment? In 1997, thanks to the persevering efforts of Sister Helen Prejean, John Paul II revised the Catholic catechism to make it oppose capital punishment under all conditions, no matter how grave the crime. And three years ago, the Catholic bishops of America launched a vigorous campaign to end the death penalty once and for all.
This is just one of the many ways in which the Catholic church and its members can rediscover what it means to be truly "pro-life." In my dictionary, pro-life does not mean pro-criminalization. It does not mean forcing every woman who becomes pregnant to bear a child, regardless of her physical, financial, or psychological capacity to do so. It does not mean pre-empting her right to make a moral choice. It means instead a commitment to see that every pregnant woman who wants to bear a child gets the pre-natal care she needs, and that every infant born into this world gets the care that he or she needs to grow and thrive. When we are now spending ten billion dollars a month on war and killing in Iraq and Afghanistan, why can we not spend a microscopic fraction of that amount to ensure the health of all pregnant woman and their children?
To be truly pro-life in the public sphere is to oppose everything that leads to the proliferation of death, starting with unjustified wars. It is to favor all policies that nurture life and health, such as adequate health care for all. It is to work for the preservation of this green and fragile planet against everything that threatens its very existence. It is to do everything we can to ensure that our children and grandchildren do not inherit a planet irretrievably cooked to death, a burden of debt so staggering that they cannot hope to pay it off, a world of conflicts that we do not know how to settle except by launching more wars, spilling more blood, ruining more lives, killing more children.
That's what I mean by pro-life.
The original version of this post grossly misrepresented the November 2007 statement of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. With apologies to them, I offer this revised version.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Thank you for your interesting article. Pro-choice certainly should not mean pro-abortion. Does anyone wish that someone would have an abortion, or hope that someone has an abortion? Of course not, yet the 2 are, as you noted, placed hand-in-hand. Pro-choice means just that, choice, and there should be no criminalization attached. And would someone please explain to me people who are anti-abortion and also pro-death penalty? I mean, at least Catholics are consistent. Taking a life is taking a life - whether it is an innocent fetus or a repulsive murderer.
In St. Joseph's as a child I sat during mass beside my mother and four sisters listening to the priest pontificate about abortion - under any circumstances even to the detriment of the woman was this never to happen.
To myself I wondered, why would God want my mother to die when she had us and dad to take care of? Why would something have more rights than my mother? And at eight years old I was aware of this thing called abortion.
My feelings on abortion are this. It should be legal, safe and used sparingly. A parent who forces their daughter to have a baby is no different than forcing incest upon them. Choosing to have an abortion must be excruitating but as all significant life choices should be. And anyone who chooses to have one should most likely not be a parent - this does not exclude them later to be a parent when the time and circumstances are right.
Complicated thoughts? Yes. But it's a complicated matter.
After seeing this as a pivotal issue on USA voters I googled this.
Quote
Downward Trend Continues
After reaching a high of over 1.6 million in 1990, the number of abortions annually performed in the U.S. has dropped back to levels not seen since the late 1970s.
Two independent sources confirm this decline: the government’s Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry.
Source: http://www
To balance this stat, we would need a study of unplanned pregnancies carried to term to see the whole picture.
Looking at half the story does not justify any change in legislation.
Many folk do not realise that many oral contraceptives do not necessarily prevent conception but prevent the ovum attaching to the uterus so in effect, they too may be "guilty" of abortion of a foetus albeit only 2 weeks old - think about that.
Yep, you can be pro-choice and pro-life. (And for those hardline pro-lifers, please keep in mind those women who came before that fought for you to be able to make that choice.)
Thank you so much for this wonderfully thought out piece. I wish more people of faith would be able to think objectively about this sensitive issue, instead of just following the hard-line fundamentalists.
Nice article. I always wondered why wanting people to choose life meant having a prohibition against abortion.
I personally would find it disgusting if someone chose abortion as their only choice for birth control, but I would never want to keep a poor 19 year old from doing what she feels is best for her own life.
why can't I be Christian and not be be RadicalExtremist?
why can't I be Pro-Troops and be anti-war?
why can't I be Conservative and not be Fascist?
YOU can, but Republicans can't.
Well, it would be more accurate to say : That is what a moderate Republican could be.
I'm also Pro-Choice -- in that I think abortions should be a private family matter -- and Pro-Life -- iin that I believe that abortions should be rare.
That abortions should be rare is one thing all sides can agree upon.
Those who are Pro-Choice should support education about using birth control (along with abstinence, okay) so that fewer unplanned pregnancies occur. Fewer unplanned pregnancies = fewer abortions.
Palin knew she was carrying a Down syndrom baby because she had an amniocentesis, the test that screens for Down syndrome. Why would she have an amnio if she was going to carry the baby to term no matter what?
Until every Pro-Life supporter adopts one unwanted baby, they will continue to prove themselves the hypocrites they are.
Let’s count how many people in this country wish there were more abortions performed here. Hm, I am not in the professional polling business, but my informal queries among friends and acquaintances produced, let’s see, hm, zero. Everybody agreed it would be so nice to live in a world where there was no need for such a medical procedure, and where no one ever had to face making such a heart wrenching, difficult, personal decision.
Everyone also agreed that we would like to live in a world where every child is a wanted, planned, much anticipated, much cherished, well cared for and healthy child.
We only disagree on how to get there. So it’s really just an implementation problem. That’s where we need to make choices: Sex ed - no sex ed; birth control - no birth control; health care for all - health care for those who can afford it; no child left behind - The No-Child-L
Hear Hear! Education and access to information about sex, contraception and abstinence should be available. Because we know, and at least 6,000 years of human history (Wink) have told us that teens WILL have sex, whether you approve or not.
Absolutely James!! I've proudly called myself a Pro-choice
What a terrific article! I am a cradle Catholic and have been struggling with this. I went to Catholic school for 12 years. I was in high school post-Roe v Wade when Humanae Vitae was discussed during religion class. The nuns never made a big deal about it. Fast forward to 2008: I have 6 children, all attended or are attending Catholic schools. I have witnessed nothing but hypocrisy from students, faculty and staff regarding "pro-life.
Thank you for your insights. Hope your husband returns safe and sound.
I sympathize, JillQ. The problem is not the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion, a document that defined it as a sin for a Catholic woman to get an abortion, but the 1987 Ratzinger document "Instruction on the respect for human life..." that defined what, according to Ratzinger, the proper law of civil society should be with respect to abortion: absolute criminalization in all cases with no exceptions. This is both a dubious logical conclusion based on the Congregation on the Doctrine of the Faith's previous discussions about the relationship between its own rulings on matters of morality and the laws of civil society, but also illustrates what some people think is an illegitimate usurpation of authority by the CDF over matters that the Church really shouldn't be involved in.
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
http://cap
Update: Proposed Regulation Undermines Access to Reproductive Health Services
Tell HHS Not to Finalize Harmful Regulation
On August 26, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed a new regulation that would complicate three federal refusal laws which already allow healthcare providers to refuse to provide abortion and other reproductive health services to women. This time it's not a draft. If implemented, this new rule could devastate women's access to basic reproductive health care by broadly allowing health care providers to refuse to perform services they deem morally objectionable.
We live in a religiously pluralistic society, and as a nation we believe in protecting religious expression and freedom. With regard to abortion and contraception, this means we must accommodate both the physician who objects to providing abortion services and the patient who wants and need this service. A physician's objection to abortion must never result in a woman being denied a service she wants, needs and is legally and morally entitled to.
Finalizing these rules would impose, through government mandate, a narrow religious ideology and undermine the commitment of major religious traditions to accessible reproductive healthcare.
We are asking all Americans of faith to register their opposition to this proposed new rule, by sending an email to Secretary Leavitt at the Department of Health and Human Services.
the best argument for pro-life, pro-choice within a Catholic perspective:
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the CDF) has jurisdiction over all matters of morality and faith. The CDF has ruled that as a matter of morality, abortion is wrong.
The relationship between moral doctrine and secular law is complicated. The CDF has ruled that moral rulings are to guide the conscience of the individual, but the laws of civil society are to induce desirable behavior (i.e. you can have immoral thoughts and still behave legally, and vice versa). Civil law should promote moral doctrine up to the point that it starts to conflict with other rights and moral principles, at which point a compromise or balance of interests should be made. Beyond that, it is unclear that the CDF has any jurisdiction to dictate specific civil laws since their authority is over matters of morality.
Ratzinger, when he was prefect of the CDF, made a ruling that the civil law must be a hard mirror of the moral law of the Church, so that if the Church prohibited something as immoral, the law must also prohibit it.
The best law for a civil society is that which prevents the commission of immoral acts without violating the human rights of others. It is possible to protect the woman's right to choose, while designing government policies that reduce and even minimize the incidence of abortion in society. That should be the Catholic goal.
The Catholic Church's goal was once world domination, now it should stay out of politics or lose it's tax exempt status!
One might hope that the Catholic Church would threaten to excommunicate any Catholic (including the five on the Supreme Court) who supported the death penalty, which is directly contrary to Catholic teaching.
Perhaps the catholic church understands something that I don't think you do. That is that the Supreme court justices' opinion when speaking for the court simply is a means to interperet whether or not, in their legal opinion, the constitution supports such a penalty. By saying "yes" to that answer, it doesn't mean that they personally think it is a good idea.
on a related note -- a few of my clients and I were talking today and wondering what the Rabbis would be telling their peeps in a few weeks at the High Holiday Services
hmmmm
There is more nonsense talked about abortion than almost anything else I can think of. For those that say that life begins with the fertilisation of an embryo remember that for a Jew, who worship the same God, life begins when the head emerges. Is it right to force Jews to accept a religious belief they do not share. I have always been told that God man free will. That gives him the ability to make the right decisions and the wrong ones. It should not be if any political party to dictate how we should act on our conscience. Of course it may be that those who think that women should not be able to choose in reality believe that women are incapable of choosing and so should be subservient to men.
If life begins with the fertilisation of an embryo then IVF treatment should cease immediately as this results in the destruction of a number of fertilised embryos. People talk about exceptions for rape and incest but there should be no such exceptions, an embryo as a result of rape is just as much alive as any other embryo.
Above all I am disgusted by the hypocrisy of the so-called pro-lifers. Many of them are fervent supporters of the death penalty, that is just as much taking a life. Every over 30,000 of us die in firearm related incidents. A genuine believer in pro-life would also be a fervent supporter of gun control.
The Church has a history of forcing Jews and anyone else with different beliefs to comply usually under penalty of death....H
To be clear: despite what you now often hear Catholics argue after Biden's recent comments (that it is science, not faith, that justifies the "life begins at conception" principle), the truth is that the Catholic Church's conclusion that life begins at conception is based on the writings of Tertullian, who in his "Apologeticum" wrote in the 2nd century that "To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed."
For contemporary Church authorities, this is the "evidence" that life begins at conception that is cited as authority in almost every official Church document that has ever been published ruling on this question. Although I have to admit, the "fruit in its seed" comment might lead to some crazy conclusions if you take it to its ultimate conclusion.
Technically, the Catholic Church (more specifically, Ratzinger in 1987) issued a declaration that IVF treatment is morally wrong and therefore should be criminalized (as well as surrogate motherhood).
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
