Recently, Ryan Anderson from First Things Blog defended President Bush’s pro-life record. Though he did not link to us, he mentioned that “several members of the blog Vox Nova” argue that Bush has not done too much against abortion. He links to Christopher Blosser from the Catholics in the Public Square blog to prove his point that many contributors from Vox Nova are ignoring the facts.
From reading both Ryan’s and Christoper’s points and the arguments being made by my fellow contributors– Henry, Morning’s Minion, Michael Iafrate, Nate Wildermuth, and Gerald Campbell–it is evident that pro-life success is defined quite differently depending on perspective.
Both Ryan and Christoper argue that pro-life success is equivalent to legislation. And if one accepts their definition of success, they are absolutely correct. Wow, President Bush has been the most successful president in US history regarding pro-life leadership and laws! The problem for both Anderson and Blosser is that none of our contributors look to legislation alone to draw their conclusions. They look to the numbers. And when the numbers are read, problems begin to emerge for many pro-lifers. The only organization that has thoroughly researched abortion is Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher Institute. And when we look at the research of the AGI we will notice a few significant points. First, abortion rates have steadily been declining since 1981. All of us should agree that any decline in abortion is a success. According to Anderson’s and Blosser’s logic one MAY conclude that anti-abortion LAWS affect abortion RATES, but if that is the case, then why was there a peak in abortions in 1989 under pro-life President Bush I and steep declines in abortion under pro-abortion President Clinton?
I started to ask these questions. I served on the Board of my State’s Right to Life office and I had to ask some hard questions. For instance, why was the abortion rate highest for Alaska Native women when they make up a small percentage of people in my State? Then, my questions went national. Why are African-American and Hispanic women more likely to abort than White women? When a person reads the same report she notices that a majority of women who abort are already mothers and over 50% of them are economically poor. I had to conclude that if pro-lifers REALLY are interested in decreasing abortion rates, then maybe changing our society and culture to support life AFTER birth would be the best option. I think the Feminists for Life technique is the most promising one to follow for concrete results. The other fact we notice from the report, is that the number of abortionists decreased tremendously during the same decline in the number of abortions, so abortion became more difficult to obtain. Troubling statistics for pro-life people shows that the numbers of doctors willing to offer abortions via “medicine” are increasing slightly. Since over 90% of all abortions occur in the first trimester, then our work is still cut out.
Another fact we see is that 80% of all women who abort are not married. Again, President Bush has worked to use the Government to support marriage and abstinence education. The problem–for people who care about decreasing abortion numbers–is that while those who partake in abstinence education delay sex until they older (good!) they don’t save it for marriage (bad!). We know the numbers of teens having sex outside of marriage has been declining since 1990 (the sharpest drop under pro-sex outside of marriage President Clinton) so the majority of those having abortions must not be teens! So delaying sex until older, doesn’t necessarily mean that the person will not get pregnant and not abort.
For me, all of the above made me question the typical solutions put forth by the Andersons and Blossers within the pro-life movement. I had to conclude that legislation does not equate with what occurs around the nation. After reading about nations around the world that do not have legalized abortion, I had to conclude that anti-abortion legislation does little to affect rates. POVERTY is INHERENTLY linked to abortion. If we pro-lifers REALLY CARE about abortion rates, we need to focus on poverty in our country and more pro-family legislation such as, paid sick leave, paid paternity/maternity leave (this promotes breastfeeding which helps overall health care and decreases illness tremendously), increased daycare subsidies, paid healthcare, to name a few.
I care deeply about abortion. It is the reason I voted not once, but TWICE for President Bush. And if it were only abortion legislation that I looked at, I would be able to sleep better at night. I have believed along with many fellow American Catholics that it is our DUTY to “vote the pro-life vote.” And pro-life has ALWAYS been defined as the “lesser of two evils.” So it was with this mindset that I voted for President Bush and his Congress that supported him. It was with this mindset that I was able to ignore what was happening in our country outside of the whole abortion issue. To many pro-life Catholics, abortion is such a deal breaker that regardless of ANYTHING ELSE it is what really matters. So I, like many of my fellow Catholics who were instrumental in getting Bush elected a second time, we share the responsibility for the pro-torture, pro-rendition, pro-war crime legislation and actions of the Bush Regime. And EVEN when a law school is convening a symposium to prosecute Bush and his Administration for war crimes, many of my fellow pro-life Catholics CONTINUE to argue he is the MOST pro-life president in history. It is barbaric! How on earth have we reached a point where abortion is completely disconnected from the culture of life where we can celebrate Bush’s anti-abortion legislation and overlook crimes committed in our name for our own protection! El Salvador has one of the strictest abortion laws in the world! How is THAT for pro-life! And yet, the SAME government responsible for restricting abortion, is the SAME government responsible for 98% of the massacres and genocide within that country! How could ANY pro-life person celebrate a government that does that! I haven’t even looked at the illegal abortion rates in El Salvador and do not feel it is necessary.
Is abortion so sacrosanct to the pro-life movement in America that no other human life or human atrocity matters? At what cost have we won this pro-life legislation? That is my question. So yes, Anderson and Blosser. Continue to feel pride in Bush’s anti-abortion legislation! You are correct that Bush and Congress have passed more anti-abortion legislation in history.
But for the 90% of women, it doesn’t impact them. And for those innocents who have been tortured in our name at different Military instillations around the country, it is little comfort! And for those of us, American Catholic pro-lifers who no longer believe in the traditional Right to Life/Republican strategy, Anderson’s and Blosser’s arguments sound so hollow!
I guess the solution is not to vote for Bush this time around. Now let’s see, who’s in favor of infanticide? Oh yeah, that’s Obama.
So the point of this post is that we shouldn’t give Bush credit for his anti-abortion initiatives because you believe he has endorsed torture and an unjust war? Or we shouldn’t call him “pro-life” because, according to you, he really isn’t?
But surely you don’t really think that, to Anderson and Blosser and the rest of the folks in the pro-life movement, “no other human life or human atrocity matters”?
It does not follow that, because these commentators separated the abortion issue from other life issues in these small online commentaries, they don’t have any concern about other culture of life issues.
I really don’t understand why you would think that.
I think you missed the point Phillip. I won’t speak for RCM (great post btw!), but I think the point is that legislation is not the answer. I’m not sure I will be able to vote for either McCain or Obama in good conscience, however, the most significant drop in abortions in the US (that’s goal here, legislation is only a means) came under Clinton. Perhaps electing someone whose policies will help the poor and whose concern is legitimately for persons (Obama has stated a great concern for pregnant women, granted he has no respect for the unborn, however the Repub agenda has shown more respect for laws than for persons) will start a chain reaction which will lower the incidence in abortion. I think it is a legitimate hope.
I’m not sure its enough to garner my vote, but legislation clearly is not the only answer.
I really don’t understand why you would think that.
Because people vote for and defend Bush and the Republicans on precisely those grounds. I know thats why Ivoted for him.
I would agree that legislation is not the only answer. But making more permissive laws, including allowing infanticide, is certainly not the way to go.
Radical Catholoic Mom
I know the war and the conflict in Iraq for isntance is a touchy subject with people of good will on both sides disagreeing. It does not matter to me if A LAW SCHOOL is doing a seminar for Prosecuting Bush for War crimes. As a former Law student Law Centers often do silly things. If they prosecute Bush I guess they better prosecute all of Congress that is voting for all this LEt me get past the areas of disagreements as to Policy in Iraq and elsewhere.
As to poverty is there a link. Perhaps there is in some cases. But I do have to wonder why a recent devastating report on Abortion in the UK has shown a huge increase under a Labor Govt (that is to the left of the Unted States Democrats) where basically they are now the Abortion Captial of Europe
I read a very interesting article the other day at the Catholic News Servce. It d in part:
“WASHINGTON (CNS) — Theologian Georgia Masters Keightley believes the way Catholics live out their faith obligations to social activism ought first to be by creating neighborhood food pantries and participating in town council elections.
After she was elected mayor of her hometown of Crawford, Neb., in 2002, Keightley said, she changed her tune about political activism from what she stressed as a professor at Trinity College in Washington.
In three years as mayor — effectively the primary municipal employee of the rural, 1,100-person town — Keightley said she saw how small steps can make all the difference in helping people in need. For instance, the simple act of moving a food pantry to a less conspicuous location was a way of protecting the dignity of needy people who previously had to line up on Main Street in Crawford, she explained.
Now back in the Washington area, but not teaching, Keightley said her emphasis in the classroom today would be much less about obligations to participate in national politics. Instead, she would emphasize applying the church’s principles of social responsibility at the local level, “where you can really make a difference.”
Yet the kind of political involvement by Catholics that has been making national news in the last few months has been more of the highly partisan national variety, after two prominent priests and a Catholic law professor became publicly enmeshed in this year’s presidential campaigns.”
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803291.htm
THere is an interesting insight here and one I brought up before on here. That is that Catholic Social Justice thought should really embrace the political reality of Federalism. That is not all solutions to poverty or indeed to such issues as reducing abortion can be found at the Federal level. I would suggest for instance that perhaps the soultions to such a problem would differ as to Native Americans in Alaska and the very poor Blacks in the Ninth ward of New Orelans to the very poor of West Virgina
I must say after looking a the disaster of New Orleans that has been under Democrat Rule forever and having the benefit of every Federal Program in existance I tend to think the problem was not the Federal Govt and their lack of caring about poor people no matter if that Govt is headed by a Carter, A Reagan, or a Bush.
THe Federal GOvt has a role at times . George Bush , McCain, Brownback, and others led not one but twice to try bring immigration reform to the UNited States. That should have been a much easier task last year since both houses are controlled by the DEMOCRATS. Needless to say starting to provide stability to families boith here and SOuth of the Border(There are whole villages with no men) would perhaps go a long ways to alleviate poverty and some other very depressing stats as to abortion and Social vlaues we are seeing in the Hispanic community.
The above initatives that you propose as a possible solution could be enacted on a State and indeed a local level.
The actions both good and bad of State Governors and Legislatures as to promoting Economic Development and the people that are on the ground floor to best attack these problems such as family stability and education are often just ignored. As a Louisiana resident at times I wonder why Mississippi is doing more to provide good jobs than my own State. That has nothing to do with the Federal Govt.
I would propose that the missing dynamic is an active robust Catholic Social Justice ethic on the local and State level.
As to anti abortion legislation. THe key thing is that Griswald and Roe and their descendants are still holding us back. We have to fight for every incremential voctory we can get. No anti Abortion legislation is going to have a huge drop in numbers because under the current Roe Framework yoiu can pretty much have a abortion till almost birth!! These steps from the Bush Bio Ethic Panel to fighting inch by inch is important. It sets the framework for more and more till hopefully we can gertRoe Overturned. That is just the reality.
At least on the abortion issue we have had the power of the bully puplit for years. I would suggest having that in peoples hands that fight to have big chain abortion clinics open is not a postive direction
JB,
I think you may have misread my comment; perhaps I shouldn’t have put the space in between the last sentence and the last paragraph.
I want to make a narrow, limited point, and not a partisan or even particularly political one; everyone else can have a happy time discussing how to vote and how a given politician’s record ought to be evaluated.
But it needs to be clearly stated that the abortion issue, for Catholics, is not only about the number of abortions.
Obviously, that number is of critical importance and needs to be weighted very heavily. But the fact of the matter is that even if there were zero abortions, a law allowing abortion would remain an unjust law, a threat to the rule of law itself, a teacher of evil and distorter of conscience, a cause of scandal that can lead to spiritual death and a profound assault on the common good.
Regardless of whose political dogma it may be, it is also the clear teaching of the Holy Catholic Church, articulated both in the Catechism and at length in the encyclical Evangelium Vitae, which goes so far as to call conscientious objection to such laws a grave obligation.
It is about the numbers. But it is also about the law.
Both Ryan and Christoper argue that pro-life success is equivalent to legislation.
I don’t think “pro-life success” is equivalent to abortion Rather, I would say 1) that any such legislation must be concurrent with non-legal efforts (for instance promoting and providing alternatives to abortion); 2) that the pursuit of pro-life legislation and efforts to promote a legal recognition of the unborn should continue.
The intent of my post was to counter those who simply waive aside such legislation as having no value whatsoever and portray the GOP — unfairly, IMHO — as passing such legislation as nothing more than throwing pro-lifers a bone.
Which is precisely why — for example — I’m interested in Obama’s opinion on federal funding for Crisis Pregnancy Centers and his other plans for encouraging alternatives to abortion besides promoting the widespread use of contraception and “emergency contraceptives”. To what extent has Obama gone into a promotion of adoption as an alternative to abortion? (It won’t change my vote for him, but I’m curious).
I don’t recall mentioning El Salvador. A principled opposition to torture is one reason why John McCain appeals to me (though I haven’t made up my mind).
After reading about nations around the world that do not have legalized abortion, I had to conclude that anti-abortion legislation does little to affect rates. POVERTY is INHERENTLY linked to abortion.
Is this to contend that under Obama’s administration we will alleviate poverty to such an extent that we will experience a radical drop in abortions? (This brings to mind a related discussion of this matter by DarwinCatholic: “Poverty and Abortion: A New Analysis”).
The link between poverty and abortion does seem plausible. One problem, though, is that while the abortion rate has been declining pretty consistently since 1981, the poverty rate has not. (Darwin did a post a while back looking at this question, which can be found here). That doesn’t mean there isn’t a connection between abortion and poverty, but it does suggest that the decline in the abortion rate over the last 25+ years has had some other cause besides a reduction in poverty.
Also, one shouldn’t fall into the trap of thinking either that because abortion declined under Clinton his policies had something to do with the decline (or even that the decline under Clinton proves legislation can’t reduce the abortion rate). Most abortion restrictions are state, not federal, and during the 1990s states passed a whole slew of restrictions on abortion.
Whoops, looks like I cross-posted with Christopher.
Zach,
You are correct. I think I misunderstood.
For those who are interested, here is an analysis of the effect of state restrictions on abortion on the abortion rate during the Clinton years.
Christopher is winning his credentials with First Things.
Oh joy. Perhaps his advoates here can throw him a “Mission Accomplished” party.
I know who has a spare banner.
A little Shy,
That is a very good point
Blackadderiv,
I know the subject of Republican Judges has been discussed to death on here but from that Heritage Report study I noted this that I had not thought of.
“First, pro-life legislation received increased legal support during the 1990s. Although parental involvement laws predated Roe v. Wade,[13] they were struck down in many cases by state and federal courts in the subsequent decades. In the 1990s, this trend halted as conservative jurists appointed by President Ronald Reagan and President George H. W. Bush gave these laws a better chance to withstand judicial scrutiny. In addition, in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, [14] the Supreme Court abandoned its trimester framework in favor of a doctrine of “undue burden,” which gave parental involvement laws and other types of pro-life legislation broader constitutional protection.”
It is not much and not the result we wanted but at least there was a incremential gain in some respects
Mark
Did you know Neuhaus is the one who encouraged Pitstick to get her book published?!?!?
Jh,
Yeah, the Casey decision was a huge disappointment for the pro-life movement, but compared to Roe it was actually an improvement.
Christopher is winning his credentials with First Things.
Well, I’ll take recognition from First Things over praise from Doug Kmiec any ol’ day. ;-)
A principled opposition to torture is one reason why John McCain appeals to me (though I haven’t made up my mind).
Principled opposition to torture paired with a principled plan for war without end. Yep, my kind of candidate.
A little of what “A little shy” was referring to:
DECLARATION ON PROCURED ABORTION
11. The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental – the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others: all discrimination is evil, whether it be founded on race, sex, color or religion. It is not recognition by another that constitutes this right. This right is antecedent to its recognition; it demands recognition and it is strictly unjust to refuse it.
20. These arguments and others in addition that are heard from varying quarters are not conclusive. It is true that civil law cannot expect to cover the whole field of morality or to punish all faults. No one expects it to do so. It must often tolerate what is in fact a lesser evil, in order to avoid a greater one. One must, however, be attentive to what a change in legislation can represent. Many will take as authorization what is perhaps only the abstention from punishment. Even more, in the present case, this very renunciation seems at the very least to admit that the legislator no longer considers abortion a crime against human life, since murder is still always severely punished. It is true that it is not the task of the law to choose between points of view or to impose one rather than another. But the life of the child takes precedence over all opinions. One cannot invoke freedom of thought to destroy this life.
21. The role of law is not to record what is done, hut to help in promoting improvement. It is at all times the task of the State to preserve each person’s rights and to protect the weakest. In order to do so the State will have to right many wrongs. The law is not obliged to sanction everything, but it cannot act contrary to a law which is deeper and more majestic than any human law: the natural law engraved in men’s hearts by the Creator as a norm which reason clarifies and strives to formulate properly, and which one must always struggle to understand better, but which it is always wrong to contradict. Human law can abstain from punishment, but it cannot declare to be right what would be opposed to the natural law, for this opposition suffices to give the assurance that a law is not a law at all.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19741118_declaration-abortion_en.html
“Principled opposition to torture paired with a principled plan for war without end. Yep, my kind of candidate.”
It appears he hs plan and it is working
Note Anbar Provience Security being turned ove this week r to the Soverign Nation of Iraq. Partly because of Senator McCain’s insistence on a plan.
Also it seems Darwin Catholic’s argument is quite devastating to the “better social policies” will reduce abortion argument.
JB,
You answered Zach as I would have: he got sidetracked by one point of RCM’s that happened not to be the biggest point.
Chris Blosser: The intent of my post was to counter those who simply waive aside such legislation as having no value whatsoever and portray the GOP — unfairly, IMHO — as passing such legislation as nothing more than throwing pro-lifers a bone.
If this is true, then your post does not do what it intended. You should have attempted to prove that the GOP is not merely “throwing pro-lifers a bone.” Instead, you narrowed your post to a mere quantitative list of legislation, which RCM rightly criticizes. So while I do not doubt your intentions, the fact remains that you center only on legislation.
One problem, though, is that while the abortion rate has been declining pretty consistently since 1981, the poverty rate has not.
Not really a problem to RCM’s thesis. The abortion rate and poverty rate do not need to be parallel. A simple case can exhibit this. Say woman A and B live below the poverty level. Both choose to have one abortion. Ten years later, woman B now lives above the poverty level while woman A remains below. Woman A has two more abortions. The abortion rate statistically remains the same in each case (2 abortions) while the poverty rate for the two woman changes. The choice to have abortions still is linked to poverty with or without the poverty rate being stable. The reason for this is that abortion rate and poverty are not calculated in the same fashion. This simple example, which is quite plausible in reality, challenges the notion that poverty rates and abortion rates must be parallel in order to show that abortion is linked to poverty.
Misrepresentation of John McCain’s “100 years” comment? — Not surprising on this blog.
However, I think regardless of whose in office (Obama or McCain), we’ll see U.S. troop presence in Iraq for quite some time.
Here’s my simple empirical analysis, a little out of date now: http://vox-nova.com/2007/05/22/abortion-and-economics/
Even though the methodology is rather basic, the point is stark: not only are both abortion rates and ratios related to poverty, but the largest declines in poverty coincided with the largest declines in abortion (the Clinton years).
Also it seems Darwin Catholic’s argument is quite devastating to the “better social policies” will reduce abortion argument.
(Phillip pronounces from his armchair to Dawin on his own armchair)
Oh dear, here come the Fox News talking points”: there is no “misinterpretation” of McCain’s Iraq comments. He said he’s be happy with occupying troops there for 100 years.
So while I do not doubt your intentions, the fact remains that you center only on legislation.
Such legislation, while not sufficient unto itself, counts. I know some on this blog speak as if it didn’t.
I alos love the way some people will clutch at straws to show that poverty does not matter, when the truth is staring them in the face.
Oh dear, here come the Fox News talking points”: there is no “misinterpretation” of McCain’s Iraq comments. He said he’s be happy with occupying troops there for 100 years.
Which the Democrats portray as “endless war.” Let’s get the rest of the sentence:
Phillip,
It also says the following in Declaration on Procured Abortion:
In the most simplistic terms, it seems to me that the right would prefer that abortion be prohibited by law, but without a “reform of society” that would make sure “there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion.” Whereas the left would not want the legal ban but would be more willing to “reform society.” It has always seemed that the Church is calling for both, but the “pro-life” movement is focused only on a legal ban, yet they claim to speak on behalf of the Church.
So the phrase “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed” means “endless war”? That’s not fair or accurate.
Of course not to be confused with Policritus on his armchair.
But it is part of the job of statistics to explain the population as a whole. Individual A and B may do something, but statistics accounts for this and corrects for individual circumstances (examples) in order to explain what is happening across the board. So such examples, while interesting, don’t undermine the stats.
Christopher,
I would have less of a problem with McCain’s statement if he had said when in the next 100 years the peaceful occupation of Iraq would start and the killing would stop. By the way, do the Iraqis want us there for 100 years?
the largest declines in poverty coincided with the largest declines in abortion (the Clinton years).
And the largest declines in abortion also coincided with state-level restrictions passed in the wake of Casey (1992), such as parental consent, etc. So your empirical point is completely unproven given that you didn’t even purport to control for such issues. (Moreover, as you well know, your analysis ignored the staggering rise in abortion during the 1970s after Roe. There is absolutely zero evidence that poverty policies would ever have as much effect on the abortion rate as THAT.)
David,
I don’t disagree with you. But you will now have to make the argument that GOP policies are not ordered in any way to helping others or the development of society. I don’t see policies advocated by the GOP that limit adoption, deny help for families like the Dems support of abortion is definitely ordered to denying the right to life.
It occcurs to me that real and substantial progress might be made on the abortion issue if pro-lifers did more outreach to Liberals (beyond just telling them to vote for Republicans – an obvious non-starter.)
Pro-lifers don’t have a lot of growth potential with Republicans and conservatives: they are already convinced. So, reach out to liberals: have a fellow liberal explain opposition to abortion in a way that makes sense to the world-view of your typical Democrat, using progressive world-views and framing. I do this myself: there is lots of growth potential here, believe me. Support for abortion is pretty soft among the lots of the rank and file democrats I’m acquainted with.
Matt
Come on. It’s not as fun as calling people monsters and saying they are sacrificing children and eating their entrails.
I would have less of a problem with McCain’s statement if he had said when in the next 100 years the peaceful occupation of Iraq would start and the killing would stop. By the way, do the Iraqis want us there for 100 years?
Talk to the residents of Anbar province pre/post Al Qaeda’s occupation, I’d wager they’re thankful for U.S. presence. But ultimately I’d say it boils down to the Iraqi government.
Obama’s present plan is that he’d like to “to bring home one to two combat brigades each month, with all brigades out in 16 months, and keep only a small number of troops in Iraq to protect US diplomats and launch limited, targeted strikes on Al Qaeda.” (He has indicated in an interview with the BBC that he will “will revisit” this plan in office depending on what is currently happening on the ground). I haven’t seen a reason to think that McCain would think any differently.
When it comes down to it, regardless of whatever plan you’re talking on the campaign trail foreign policy on Iraq is going to be decided based on the present circumstance.
Darwin’s many errors:
Now from a moral point of view, I think one must conclude that the point is irrelevant. Individual human beings are moral agents and as such, although they may find themselves under huge temptation to sin based on external pressures, they are free to choose right or wrong action. Thus, while it may be that in a period of relative prosperity people feel less pressure to commit certain crimes and/or sins, we must not see the duty of society to be simply to make sure everyone is too wealthy to want to sin; rather society must retain a strong enough moral sense to encourage right behavior in good times and in bad.
This amounts to saying that moral decisions are made in a vacuum. External pressures come to bear on moral judgment, as does the formation of conscience and knowledge of sin (basic Catholic moral teaching). If a person is found to be unaware of the moral magnitude of his/her sin, culpability is diminished, but not eliminated. As the popes have taught countless times, basic human rights (e.g., life, property, health care, economic stability, shelter) are conditions of freedom of choice. In the absence of these rights and factors, sin prevails.
In Table 2, Darwin’s snapshot appears to take the individuals in poverty statistic from the middle of each President’s term, which does not account for the trends of increase/decrease following the previous president. Thus, Clinton inherits the highest poverty rate from Bush I, while Bush II inherits the lowest poverty rate from Clinton.
As you can see, what we have is a steadily improving economic trend throughout the period. You can argue that the Clinton administration provided a better economy than Reagan and H. W. Bush did, but only if you concede that W. Bush has done an even better job than Clinton.
Including the problem of static rates that I just mentioned, Darwin appears to shift toward median income, which is highest under Bush II. But does this take into account increase of wages due to inflation over time? It is a non sequitur to suggest that Bush II has done a better job than Clinton.
Going back farther, Carter and Nixon/Ford had the lowest poverty rates of any recent president(~11.9%), while JFK/LBJ had by far the highest (~17.5%). The does not seem to be any clear correlation between administration party and economic well being.
Here, Darwin assumes the the economic and social platforms of both parties have been relatively similar since the 1960′s. But this is far from true as any good Democrat or Republican knows! If we stretch the data across a century, we can expect an even more obscure correlation. In other words, further Darwin stretches the history back while implicitly suggesting that neither party’s socio-economic platforms have changed much, the more he can obfuscate the clear correlation that developed since the Reagan administration.
In his final tables, Darwin makes the same mistake as Blackadder, suggesting that abortion rates and poverty rates must be parallel or similar if there really is a link between poverty and abortion. The intent here is to show that there is not much of a correlation because there is not parallelism. But this is poor statistics, because it fails to account for multiple abortions for a single person. The abortion rate involves the number of abortions and the population irrespective of how many abortions a single individual or family has. The poverty rate indiscriminately graphs, taking account a ratio of 1 per individual or 1 per family. Thus, while the poverty rate may decrease, the abortion rate may increase, depending on how many abortions are performed. The poverty rate may increase and the abortion rate decrease. There may also be parallels. The real work in attempting to analysis the abortion/poverty correlation is in calculating the percentage of abortions that are performed in the cases of poverty-stricken women and families, as well as many abortions are attributed to poverty.
Policraticus,
I didn’t deny that there is a connection between poverty and abortion, only that you can explain the fall in the abortion rate over the last 25+ years as being the result of a fall in the poverty rate.
“Christopher is winning his credentials with First Things.
Well, I’ll take recognition from First Things over praise from Doug Kmiec any ol’ day. ;-)?
But I surmise you will screech like all other (neo)-theo-con castrati (Weigel and Neuhaus) as you sing again innocuous ditties about an Iranian invasion, as you did the Iraqi one.
To please the political court, my son, you have all but surrendered your most vital organs.
Well, I’ll take recognition from First Things over praise from Doug Kmiec any ol’ day. ;-)?
Not me.
“basic human rights (e.g., life, property, health care, economic stability, shelter) are conditions of freedom of choice. In the absence of these rights and factors, sin prevails.”
I think you have it exactly backwards. Poor socio-economic conditions produce more saints than prosperity does.
Not to mention saying something like this is tantamount to denying free will. These things are not necessary conditions for “freedom of choice”. If this were the case, it would not be possible to be both a saint and be poor.
But I surmise you will screech like all other (neo)-theo-con castrati (Weigel and Neuhaus) as you sing again innocuous ditties about an Iranian invasion, as you did the Iraqi one.
Weigel opposed an Iranian invasion in his Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism (2007). But thanks for revealing your ignorance and reminding me why I shouldn’t waste my breath.
Policraticus,
Looks like we cross posted.
What your example shows is how the poverty rate could decline without a corresponding change in the abortion rate, even if the two were linked, if there was also a corresponding increase in the number of multiple abortions over the same period. What we have, however, is not the poverty rate falling while the abortion rate remains constant, but the abortion rate falling steadily while the poverty rate bounces around between 10 and 15%. For a change in the rate of multiple abortions to explain this, we would have to assume that the number of women who had two abortions in one year rose dramatically from 1989 to 1993, only to fall again from 1993-2000, only to rise again from 2000 to 2004. If true that would be a rather astounding coincidence.
No one is even addressing the decrease of abortion “providers” during the same period. Zach and Christopher: focus on the argument or you will be asked to leave.
I think you have it exactly backwards. Poor socio-economic conditions produce more saints than prosperity does.
Voluntary poverty vs. involuntary poverty, my friend. Find one saint or pope who commends involuntary and poor socio-economic conditions.
Not to mention saying something like this is tantamount to denying free will. These things are not necessary conditions for “freedom of choice”. If this were the case, it would not be possible to be both a saint and be poor.
Tantamount? Hardly. Constrains are always on the will, be they exterior or interior. Remember Augustine’s anti-Pelagian works, Aquinas sections on grace in the Summa, and the social encyclicals of the 20trh century. The will is not abstact in its execution. It operates in a context of interior and exterior constraints. This does not mean it is fully bound. Hence, there is no pure “freedom of choice” in any natural state.
Matt
Come on. It’s not as fun as calling people monsters and saying they are sacrificing children and eating their entrails.
Sorry for suggesting it – you’re right, caricature and sanctimony are such fun. ;)
For a change in the rate of multiple abortions to explain this, we would have to assume that the number of women who had two abortions in one year rose dramatically from 1989 to 1993, only to fall again from 1993-2000, only to rise again from 2000 to 2004. If true that would be a rather astounding coincidence.
I would not say “dramatically.” Also, the rates do not take into consideration that more women may be under the poverty line then men at these times, which is plausible given the the trend of poor single-mothers having abortions.
Weigel opposed an Iranian invasion in his Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism (2007). But thanks for revealing your ignorance and reminding me why I shouldn’t waste my breath.
But, more importantly, he cheerleaded like a little schoolgirl for the Iraqi one. As you did.
Couple points, as I type one handed (I’m holding my daughter’s liitle bundle of”punishment”). You apologists for “pro-choicers” would also do well to consider that the unborn are also “the poor”, so to argue that a “pro-choicer” is better for the poor is a little silly considering that they sanction the willful destruction of the poorest of the poor. Further more, even while you’re wrong about their domestic policies being better for the unborn, your political heroes are all for exporting funds to spread the destruction throughout the world. i.e. rescinding the Mexico City policy. So even if, one could truly quantify that x number of abortions didn’t happen due to Dem policy, there’s no doubt the number of babies killed in the third world would increase due to their benevolence. Don’t the lives of Latin American or African babies count for anything?
Funny too, Bill Clinton gets credit for a drop in the abortion rate, yet, it’s in the crisis pregnancy centers and such where we can see the individual women changing their minds and choosing life. Why can’t those “hypocritical anti-abortion” types get credit for a reduction in the abortion rate?
RadicalCatholicMom,
Just to say this is a very moving and persuasive post. One of the best. It deserves serious reflection and further development from the rest of us.
I’m holding my daughter’s little budnle of “punishment”)
Am I rightly to conclude that you are now a Grandpa?
As the popes have taught countless times, basic human rights (e.g., life, property, health care, economic stability, shelter) are conditions of freedom of choice. In the absence of these rights and factors, sin prevails.
So on that account, sin must have gone way down since the Industrial Revolution. Before that time, even the richest person on earth lacked many of the things that almost all Westerners today take for granted (dentists and doctors who can actually accomplish something and who have anesthesia with which to do it, grocery stores, sanitary water, etc.) And for some reason, Jesus seemed to think that the poor are blessed — not cursed with the inability to choose anything but sin.
Darwin can certainly speak for himself, but this deserves comment:
Darwin assumes the the economic and social platforms of both parties have been relatively similar since the 1960’s. But this is far from true as any good Democrat or Republican knows!
As you should have been able to figure out, Darwin wasn’t trying to argue that Democrats are systematically worse in terms of poverty rates. He was simply trying to refute the arguments of partisan hacks who have claimed (on this very blog) that Democratic Presidents are always better for poverty, and that therefore electing a Democrat will make poverty go down, and that therefore electing a Democrat will make abortion go down as well. In fact, you are making the very point that also refutes those partisan hacks — Democratic and Republican policies have differed so much over the past century that it just isn’t meaningful to put forth such a correlation in the first place. You may have violated some sort of internal policy against ever disagreeing even slightly with left-leaning VN contributors, but you just explained why Morning’s Minion is wrong.
Weigel opposed an Iranian invasion in his Faith, Reason, and the War Against Jihadism (2007). But thanks for revealing your ignorance and reminding me why I shouldn’t waste my breath.
And Cheney opposed an invasion of Iraq in 1994. When Weigel was writing his book, Iran was not yet this defiant of the international community’s warnings. I’d be curious to know Weigel’s position now.
Also, Poli, your simple example would make sense only if the effect of poverty on abortion rates doubled in a particular time period. In other words, you’re suggesting that at time 1, poverty causes 2 women to have 1 abortion apiece. At time 2, one woman has moved out of poverty and doesn’t have an abortion, but the other woman now has two abortions per year (quite an achievement, in a sense). So, in your hypothetical, poverty does affect abortions, but the poverty rate moved while the number of abortions remained the same.
OK, but in order for that to be true, poverty would have to have DOUBLE the impact on the abortion rate in time 2 as in time 1 — it’s now causing 2 abortions per woman per year rather than 1. I don’t think you have any plausible explanation for how that could be true.
I guess one way to answer the question is to ask the people themselves. This review of several studies (not a meta-analysis it seems) comes to the following summary:
Summary: This report reviews available statistics regarding reasons given for obtaining abortions in the United States, including surveys by the Alan Guttmacher Institute and data from seven state health/statistics agencies that report relevant statistics (Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Utah). The official data imply that AGI claims regarding “hard case” abortions are inflated by roughly a factor of three. Actual percentage of U.S. abortions in “hard cases” are estimated as follows: in cases of rape or incest, 0.3%; in cases of risk to maternal health or life, 1%; and in cases of fetal abnormality, 0.5%. About 98% of abortions in the United States are elective, including socio-economic reasons or for birth control. This includes about 25% for primarily economic reasons.
Full article here:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html
Overall this study concludes that 25% are for economic reasons. This does not necessarily translate into poverty causing this 25%. It doesn’t seem that the studies reviewed provide data if the people who chose for economic reasons were poor. Most studies reported state the person said “they could not afford a child” at that time or for “economic” reasons.
McCain supports a 100 year occupation of a middle eastern country. That’s what I said, and that’s what you quoted to back me up. I love it when people mis-apply a Fox News talking point.
And Cheney opposed an invasion of Iraq in 1994. When Weigel was writing his book, Iran was not yet this defiant of the international community’s warnings. I’d be curious to know Weigel’s position now.
Of course it may be subject to change. But last time I checked a Catholic was entitled to consider the evidence on that matter.
No one is even addressing the decrease of abortion “providers” during the same period. Zach and Christopher: focus on the argument or you will be asked to leave.
NOBODY is even addressing your point, yet you’ll single Zach and I out? That’s rich. I’m responding to Michael Joseph’s comment. If you think that warrants my dismissal, so be it.
I think SB, JH and Darwin are better qualified than I to discuss economics and statistical judgements, so I’m fine with listening.
So on that account, sin must have gone way down since the Industrial Revolution.
Have you ever read an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII? He’ll put to rest your silly historical assumptions with papal authority.
Before that time, even the richest person on earth lacked many of the things that almost all Westerners today take for granted (dentists and doctors who can actually accomplish something and who have anesthesia with which to do it, grocery stores, sanitary water, etc.)
Technological and occupational advancements render “poverty” relative to an historic epoch. Perhaps you can leave your enclave of similarity and talk with some of the poor in urban America. See what they think of your attempts to marginalize their destitution by pointing to the luxuries that you and your family enjoy.
In fact, you are making the very point that also refutes those partisan hacks — Democratic and Republican policies have differed so much over the past century that it just isn’t meaningful to put forth such a correlation in the first place. You may have violated some sort of internal policy against ever disagreeing even slightly with left-leaning VN contributors, but you just explained why Morning’s Minion is wrong.
Ah, but you fail to see my point, SB. When we pronounce in 2008 that Democrats are better at solving the economic ils, are we talking about “the past century,” like you and Darwin pretend to? Or are we really talking about micro-moments and generations in political moments (i.e., recent political history). Given the span of our own politically active lives, our own memories, and the state of each party, we can generally point to a twenty to twenty-five year period where the current state of each party has remained fairly stable on economics. That is what I mean and MM means when we talk about Dems and Repubs.
Sorry, should be closed italics after “you will be asked to leave.”
But last time I checked a Catholic was entitled to consider the evidence on that matter.
???
Yes sir, MZ, a grandpa for 4 months now. I’m already leaving my turn signal on and complaining about how youngsters these days complain. ;)
It’s “silly” to point out that Jesus said the poor (and that means poor in first-century Palestine) are blessed, not accursed with having a hard time choosing anything but sin? Forget modern Popes; I’d suggest that you go back to a more basic text: Matthew 5.
When we pronounce in 2008 that Democrats are better at solving the economic ils [sic], are we talking about “the past century,” like you and Darwin pretend to?
I’m not even sure what this is supposed to mean. In any event, check out this post: http://vox-nova.com/2008/04/03/democrats-republicans-and-the-economy/ Morning’s Minion is the one who claimed that from 1948 to 2005, “Democrats are simply better for the economy across the board.” You just pointed out the reason that MM was wrong: both Democrats and Republicans have changed since 1948 (actually, you referred to changes since the 1960s, but that’s immaterial — the point is that it’s silly to do what MM did, which is to look at such a broad time period and purport to discern that one party is automatically superior to the other even when it implements different policies). In fact, that was one of the very points I made in that thread. You unwittingly agreed with me! :)
Perhaps you can leave your enclave of similarity and talk with some of the poor in urban America.
Get off your high horse and do the same: Go talk to the urban poor, and see what they think of your theory that “sin prevails” in their lives due to the fact that they don’t have good health insurance or a nice Whole Foods nearby.
Back to the original post:
According to Anderson’s and Blosser’s logic one MAY conclude that anti-abortion LAWS affect abortion RATES, but if that is the case, then why was there a peak in abortions in 1989 under pro-life President Bush I and steep declines in abortion under pro-abortion President Clinton?
I’m sympathetic to the overall point that Presidents don’t have that much affect on the abortion rate, and that they do affect much besides the abortion rate. But the above passage is a non sequitur. You ask why there was a decline in abortion under Clinton, who didn’t sponsor anti-abortion laws? Well, Blackadder already pointed you to the answer: After the Supreme Court loosened up somewhat in the 1992 Casey decision — which affirmed Roe but allowed states to restrict abortion to a greater extent — many more states passed restrictions on abortion, such as parental involvement laws. The result was that abortion rates went down — a result that had little if anything to do with whether Bush or Clinton was President at the time. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda07-01.cfm
That may be a plausible explanation, but it has to contend with a number of awkward facts– while abortion was declining consistently since the 1980s, the sharpest decline took place during the Clinton years, and the pace of decline slowed under Bush. Why pick that point to slow down?
Now, it just so happened that what makes the Clinton years stand out was that for the first time since 1973, productivity started to grow, and — as used to be the case before the 1970s– these gains were largely shared, leading to rising median incomes and falling poverty rates. This all ended when Bush came to power. Now, before you start crying about how presidents have little impact on these things– my argument imputes no causality. But it does impute causality from economic conditions to abortion.
I know you take great umbrage over my simple ststistical analysis, but I believe it accurately shows a relationship between poverty and abortion (the coeffcients I would not trust at all for predictive purposes). It fits with the evidence I described, and also with the evidence from Guttmacher on the people who actually have abortions– the poorest, most economically deprived, women.
Final point: if you guys persist in turning a blind eye to these issues, you are only harming the pro-life cause. Like it or not, there is a passionate “pro-choice” base out there. If we are to have any influence on policy, any ability to persuade, we must be –in the first instance– consistent. This is the major error of the political pro-life movement– by forming the political allegiances it forms, it gives the impression of not caring too much of life after birth, and of not adopting the consistent ethic of life that the Church calls us to adopt.
Well, SB, if you would prefer to “forget” the modern popes along with their authentic interpretation of Matthew 5 in favor of your own private interpretation that seeks to legitimize the plight of the poor, then I think we’re done here.
RCM,
I second what Gerald C. said above. I’m delighted to read your thoughts on the matter and you’re voicing exactly what has concerned for a couple of years now. If I would’ve been able to vote, I would’ve done it twice for Bush as well… needless to say, I wouldn’t be very happy right now. Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Well, SB, if you would prefer to “forget” the modern popes along with their authentic interpretation of Matthew 5 in favor of your own private interpretation that seeks to legitimize the plight of the poor, then I think we’re done here.
Point me to any legitimate interpretation that really and truthfully states that poor people are more likely to be sinful (which necessarily implies that rich people are more holy). I can’t think of anything more contrary to the spirit of the New Testament, and I therefore hope that you are egregiously misrepresenting what Popes have said.
legitimize the plight of the poor
That is a completely incompetent misreading. I did not “legitimize” anything about poverty. In fact, I think (for example) that catastrophic health insurance would be best provided on a national basis, and that poor people would be much better off under such a system. At the same time, I absolutely despise the patronizing and elitist claim that they need such health insurance so that they can be less sinful.
That is a completely incompetent misreading.
The incompetency belongs to the one making outlandish claims about biblical and Church teaching while telling us to “forget” modern papal teaching. Sheesh.
At the same time, I absolutely despise the patronizing and elitist claim that they need such health insurance so that they can be less sinful.
1) No one said anything about the poor needing “such health insurance.”
2) No one said giving the poor “such health insurance” would make them “less sinful.”
3) No one said the poor are “sinful.”
Yeah, your charge of the incompetency of others sure sticks.
That may be a plausible explanation, but it has to contend with a number of awkward facts– while abortion was declining consistently since the 1980s, the sharpest decline took place during the Clinton years, and the pace of decline slowed under Bush. Why pick that point to slow down?
Those aren’t awkward facts at all — the pace of abortion decline increased after abortion restrictions were enacted in the 1990s, and then when the glut of the possible abortion restrictions had already been passed, the pace of decline slowed down (as is the case with anything, the largest improvements come at the outset, and then marginal improvement slows down). Why is that awkward?
Poli — your earlier post expressly said that in the “absence” of a set of “rights,” including the “right” to “heath care,” “sin prevails.” What does this mean other than that people are more likely to sin if they don’t have enough health care?
Disliking stupid arguments in favor of health care doesn’t mean I’m trying to “legitimize” the lack of health care.
I wonder who George Tiller will be voting for;
A murder investigation has been opened involving Shelley Sella, a California abortionist employed by George Tiller, who according to a former employee is reported to have intentionally stabbed to death an infant born alive during an abortion at Tiller’s Women’s Health Care Services abortion clinic in Wichita, Kansas.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062402.html
The incompetency belongs to the one making outlandish claims about biblical and Church teaching while telling us to “forget” modern papal teaching.
I’m not making “outlandish” claims, and you haven’t even pretended to justify such a charge. To be sure, it was ill-put to say “forget” modern Popes; what I meant was that Matthew 5 is a better guide to true Christian thinking about the effects of poverty than the (insane) implication that “sin prevails” in conditions of poverty — which would necessarily imply that rich people are, by virtue of being rich, better able to overcome sin. Again, I can think of nothing that is more directly opposite to the New Testament, and I devoutly hope that you are either misrepresenting Church teaching or that you didn’t mean what you wrote.
If you meant something else, you should step off your pedestal for just a minute and explain yourself.
What does this mean other than that people are more likely to sin if they don’t have enough health care?
Why do you use the word “more” when I never used a comparator?
To be sure, it was ill-put to say “forget” modern Popes; what I meant was that Matthew 5 is a better guide to true Christian thinking about the effects of poverty than the (insane) implication that “sin prevails” in conditions of poverty — which would necessarily imply that rich people are, by virtue of being rich, better able to overcome sin.
Herein lies your entire interpretive malady. Matthew 5, you assert, is “a better guide” to thinking about the effects of poverty. You seem to imply that Matthew 5 is a “better guide” than the papal interpretations of Matthew 5 to which I refer. By stripping away the papal interpretations, I assume you are falling back on your own interpretation of Matthew 5. I see three problems here: 1. You trust your own interpretation over that of the Church; 2. Matthew 5 has a specific context, namely Jesus teaching to those who are neglected, impoverished, voiceless, and religiously oppressed. His preaching to them does not insinuate that they are without sin (immediately after the Beatitudes, Jesus increases the severity of the Law and outlines common sins); 3. Jesus states that he has come to call sinners and heal the sick, spending most of his ministry to the poor.
That being said, your take on Matthew 5 is a twisted and opportunist account to attempt to refute me, which I find comical because not only did you forget that Matthew 5-7 is a contained teaching, but also you seem to be entirely ignorant of the papal teaching on poverty in the modern world. I am astonished that a lawyer would be lacking so many important details while attempting to argue.
If you meant something else, you should step off your pedestal for just a minute and explain yourself.
If I’m on a pedestal, it’s because you have put me there. I’m just observing someone who finds it far more important to argue than to know.
No one is even addressing the decrease of abortion “providers” during the same period.
I will address the point. It is sometimes said that overturning Roe would not have a significant effect on the abortion rate, since abortion would remain legal in some states and women who wanted abortions would simply travel to where it was legal. Yet to the extent that the decline in the abortion rate is due to a decline in the number of abortion providers this would tend to disprove this argument. If you can significantly reduce the abortion rate just by making it such that someone has to travel from Mobile to Birmingham, then presumably requiring women seeking abortions to travel from Mobile to New York City would also have a significant effect.
Rick: Who are you talking about? Did you not NOTE that I voted for Bush TWICE? Did you NOT read that I have served for 17 years in the pro-life movement? Who are you talking about? It is MUCH easier to dismiss what I argue by saying “She is a liberal apologist for pro-aborts” than to deal with the argument itself. I think one CAN argue whether social policies for those who are born will decrease abortion rates. But at LEAST that deals with the argument!
ETA: Rick:”Funny too, Bill Clinton gets credit for a drop in the abortion rate, yet, it’s in the crisis pregnancy centers and such where we can see the individual women changing their minds and choosing life. Why can’t those “hypocritical anti-abortion” types get credit for a reduction in the abortion rate?”
Once again, I don’t think you read my post very well. I DO NOT argue that Clinton made the abortion rate decrease. If you READ the post, I note that the abortion rate has been decreasing since 1981. I am attacking the logic that because President Bush passed a bunch of anti-abortion laws it means he is “pro-life.” I argue that is fallacious. It takes more than laws to make changes in the abortion rates. And THE strategy for RTL and Republicans has been to change the laws with little else done. I believe 100% that it is the CPCS and Churches and outreach–human to human–that brings real, legitimate change. Also education. I am NOT arguing against pro-life work–which I have DEDICATED 17 YEARS OF MY LIFE (I am 30 years old, YOU do the math)–I am arguing against supporting crappy politicians who are corrupt and anti-life in major other parts of their work merely because they can pass a law. We CAN do better and considering that 1.3 million kids are STILL being killed, we HAVE to do better!
I am disgusted that our country’s choice for “pro-life” has been a man who has worked very hard to strip away born people’s constitutional and natural rights and dignity from them. If THIS is what YOU call pro-life, I want NOTHING to do with it, Rick. I want the Catholic Church’s teachings on Life and Dignity. But, please, do NOT condescend and assume that I am pro-abortion. Oh, but wait, that may mean you actually have to READ what I wrote!
Blackadder: Ireland’s abortion rate is high, higher than in continetyal Europe, and there are no abortion provders in Ireland. They simply fly to the UK. In the US, you note that some states would keep it legal. How about the largest states with the greatest population centers, where the most abortions take place- like the Northeast and California?
And Gerald and Katerina, thank you.
Poli,
You still haven’t addressed how “sin prevails” in conditions of poverty. In what papal teaching do you find this idea?
Herein lies your entire interpretive malady. Matthew 5, you assert, is “a better guide” to thinking about the effects of poverty.
Clarification: A better guide than anything that you have said, given that you refer with a wave of the hand to Church teachings but never specify what those are.
Zach puts it concisely. You may not have said that poor people are “more” prone to sin, but whatever. You did say that “sin prevails” where people lack healthcare, property, etc. Once again, I ask you (and if you still refuse to answer, it can only be because there is no truthful answer), where does any Pope really teach that giving people “healthcare” makes sin any less likely to “prevail”? I really doubt that any Pope could ever have said something so patently foolish.
RCM,
I sympathize with your pro-life buyer’s remorse with regard to George W. Bush, but let me add some thoughts and a note of caution. First of all, the term ‘pro-life’ has become a notoriously slippery term, and I think the abortion discussion here at Vox Nova would benefit greatly if we were to either do away with the term or clarify in what sense we are using it. As far as I can see, there are three distinct ways in which the term is used in discussions here and elsewhere.
Pro-Life 1) Favoring legislation which restricts abortion and/or recognizes a right to life for the unborn. [Legislative Change]
Pro-Life 2) Favoring social, political, and economic policies or practices which would result in a lower abortion rate. [Change hearts/minds and societal/economic conditions]
Pro-Life 3) Possessing a broad and consistent vision of the human person and society which is shaped by Catholic Social Teaching in its entirety. [The Consistant Ethic]
One may quibble with one or another of these uses of ‘pro-life. However, my intent is descriptive; these are three ways ‘pro-life’ is commonly used in discussions around abortion. The reason the Vox Nova com boxes so often become partisan and divisive is that ‘Pro-life’ is being thrown around somewhat heedlessly. Someone may say, for instance, “Obama wants to pass permissive abortion legislation, therefore he is not Pro-life.” And another may respond “Bush advocates torture, therefore he is not pro-life.” The former is using ‘pro-life’ in the sense of definition (1), the latter is using it in the sense of definition (3). Another example is in this very post. You say:
El Salvador has one of the strictest abortion laws in the world! How is THAT for pro-life!And yet, the SAME government responsible for restricting abortion, is the SAME government responsible for 98% of the massacres and genocide within that country!
Here you are (rightly) pointing out that the El Salvadorian state is pro-life in a limited sense(1), but does not consistently respect the full dignity of the human person(3). The ambiguity of what defines being ‘pro-life’ is drawn out by playing the two notions against each other.
Having made this distinction, I think (I hope) nearly everyone here would count themselves as pro-life in all three senses. However, I suspect many here would also accuse their interlocutors of being pro-life in one [or two] respects, but not all three. The latter accounts for the endless and tiresome accusations and denunciations. What accounts for this difference between how we view ourselves and how we view our fellow Catholics [but political antagonists]? The reason is that someone can claim to be pro-life with regard to definitions 2 & 3 while diverging widely in how such pro-life stances are carried out. With regard to 2, the only limit to how we can make society more welcoming to human life is our own creativity [Feminists for Life is a good example of such apostolic creativity]. Catholics can have pragmatic disagreements about what works and what doesn’t work while agreeing in principle that we should do everything possible to lessen the abortion rate. While we can quibble about matters-of-fact, there is no need to anathemize each other. With regard to 3, the Church has said that the principles of Catholic Social Doctrine can be instantiated in many different political and economic contexts. While the interpretation of these principles are not open to limitless plasticity, charity demands we give others the benefit of the doubt and that we are as fair as possible in reading and reconstructing their arguments. Following this advise has to further benefits. First, it strengthens one’s own counter-argument. Second, a respectful mode of discourse is evangelical. What are the chances that some non-Catholic stumbling into a typical comment box in St. Blog’s would be able to say with Tertullian, “See how they love one another”?
I’m not advocating an empty and duplicitous “lets all just get along” attitude- just basic respect.
Lastly, a note of caution. The prevailing political winds in our country seem to be favoring radical change, and this desire for change seems to extend to our assumptions about the politics of abortion. While the pro-life movement can always use new and fresh ideas, the way forward must embrace, as normative, all three senses of ‘pro-life’ given above. While their may have been a danger over the past two decades of over-emphasizing pro-life (1) to the detriment of pro-life (2) & (3), the danger now is that we will overcompensate and emphasize (2) to the detriment of (1). While people may be frustrated with an seeming lack of progress with regard to legislative change and cynical about the Republican’s commitment to such change [bracketing whether this is justified or not], this is no excuse to ignore our duty to protect innocent life and reflect the dignity of unborn persons in law. Throwing in the towel is not an option here. Neither is postponing this grave duty to a more auspicious time. The time to fight for legislative change is now and should continue as long as the law allows the unjust destruction of unborn human life. This is an end in itself and not merely one among other possible means of lowering the abortion rate.
Thank you, Br. Matthew — wise words to take to heart (as usual).
“The time to fight for legislative change is now and should continue as long as the law allows the unjust destruction of unborn human life.”
During this discussion, for clarity’s sake, I am exclusively considering Brother Miller’s Definition #1:
Pro-life techniques for this has been to embrace Republican power politics and cynical political ventures. No attempt at outreach to a broader constituency is considered.
It is a non-starter, as mentioned, for liberals to embrace the neoconservative servants of wealth and military might at all. But this is the full assessment of groups like the NRLC. That’s it. One is pro-life exclusively on the merits of one’s party voting (or, as one archbishop flippantly tells it, one has to explain oneself to these victims in the after-life).
The pro-life movement, for example, is to embrace Rick Santorum and all his very “difficult” positions on war, torture, and poverty in order to be pro-life. And never to criticize him, for fear of weakening pro-life support.
So, in answer to methodology, I posit that Pro-life leaders talking to Republicans and their power brokers about getting their candidates in is but 10% of the job. Time to talk to others, and to consider why many folks embracing an anti-abortion stance in the center or to the left feel very alienated from the activities of the pro-life movement. Without this, no broad change in legislation, outside some hardly populated states, will occur.
The activities of the pro-life movement and their frequent cuddles with Republicans has been a barrier to legislative change in this country.
(RCM has written one of the best, most reflective posts I’ve read on the pro-life movement.)
Brother Matthew: I agree 100% with you that pro-lifers can disagree about the methods to bring down the rates. My argument has been that calling President Bush “pro-life” merely because he has passed anti-abortion legislation is obscene when we take into account what his administration has done in other life arenas. Period. Blosser and Anderson ONLY focus on the abortion issue and I HAVE to ask “does torture of prisoners at our mercy, not matter?! Does respect for international LAW not matter?” They don’t even bring those issues into consideration when speaking about his “pro-life” record and to me that is obscene. It makes the pro-life movement look TERRIBLE that we can say “Yep, we won our victories” and ignore the costs of those victories. As Daniel Conway points out, the habit has been to slide those “other issues” away and only look at abortion by itself. That is not cutting it and it is that attitude that is alienating non-Republican pro-lifers AND even driving Republicans out of the Party like myself and my sister. I am organizing a Democrats for Life group in my state and every single one of us are former (young) Republicans who have left the Party due to the absolute dirtiness of the Republican/pro-life match. Here I only focus on Bush. In my State, our pro-life Republican legislators are going to prison for their corruption. The FBI investigation continues. There may be more who fall.
If the last 8 years has not caused my fellow pro-life American Catholics to examine consciences, I don’t know what will.
Daniel,
I am curious where you find that the National Right to Life has as their criteria to support neo cons and as you put it servants of wealth and Military might. THeir position is support the person that has to be anti abortion. Needless to say Ron Paul is quite opposite of what you say the Pro-life groups are in league with but the movement has been behind him for years. I could give other examples
The National Right to Life organization is basically a organization that has two issues on its plate. that is abortion and Euthanasia. It does go beyond them because many of their members will disagree in good faith on other concerns. We can see how bad it just gets here.
I recall an observation I used to make.
I am a big fan of Sister Helan Prejean that is one of the leading Anti Death State executions folks in the country. I don’t alwys agree with her but I have enjoyed her presentations. I have found that in my past experience in this area a good many of the anti Death Penatly folk were Pro-Choice. I saw this in the legal community and in the grassroots. THough in more Catholic areas of the state it would even out to a degree but not by much. When it came election time they often voted for the Pro Choice anti Stae execution guy or gal running.
Sister Prejean sometimes was lightly criticized and had her faith called into question because she was working with these folks. Mostly though many anti abortion Catholic wanted her to speak out in a big way on abortion We knew she would ally and yes even raise funds for ACLU and we know where they stand on abortion, I also cautioned people despite this to be careful in asserting that Sister PRejean was not fully Pro-life. That this was a special calling.
I think perhaps this was the proper stance. I also would urge those that think they know the souls and the personal politics of people involved in the Right to Life and other Anti Abortion groups to perhaps use similar discretion
Daniel,
I’m afraid Catholic forays into politics are always going to seem at least a little cynical and unseemly, especially given the stark chasm that exists between the clarity and wisdom of CST and the shady horse-trading which is American politics. Cobbling together an effective coalition often means sharing the same political tent with some very seedy characters. One can only hope that pro-life activists of both parties will be able to be salt and light to their fellow party members. In this regard, while I share your concern that the pro-life (in the sense of ‘pro-life’ def. 1) movement needs to court a broader constituency, it will be easier to do so to the extent that Catholic Democrats exercise an ad intra mission to their own party, to make that party more responsive to pro-life legislation. In fairness, one might also ask that Republicans do more to use their influence to make their party more ‘pro-life’ [in the sense of def #3].
RCM,
I believe my 2:24 comment also applies to your most recent comment. More power to you in taking your business to the Democratic Party- they can benefit from you and your devotion to the pro-life (in all senses of the word, I hope) cause. However, do so with eyes wide open. You are still going to be sharing a tent with a very seedy- though different- cast of characters. And don’t be too hard on your Republican brothers and sisters. Rather, encourage them to be a force for change within their own party. Hold their feet to the fire if they grow complacent, but don’t be upset if they do the same to you.
Radical Catholic Mom
I understand your position.
However to be fair You did not mention Bush’s efforts on Immigration reform that was supported by the Bishops (isn’t that Pro-life) or Bushes efforts in Africa that have saved many people. So if you wish to complain about their sins of leaving stuff out then one can exmaine parts of your post and go well why did you not mention this.
One reason why they did not go into that was because well they are talking about Pro-life one
As to Dirty Republican I am not Dirty. I have been involved in the party since I was 20.
I am fully aware of the corruption especially in her home state of Alaska. As a Louisiana person I know where you are at and very much have been in your shoes as to Corruption. However that does not represent the entire Republican party. Just like here in Louisiana when Democrats go to prison that they do not represent some “Dirt” that is indicative of the whole Democart party. It is easy to fall ffor that and in fact I have in the past. By the way some of those folks were Pro-life too
That being said I commend you for starting up Pro-Life Democrat groups. I do not want all our antio abortion eggs in one basket. If people that do not agree with many facets of the Republcan party but want alternatives to present then what you doing are crucial.
UNtil those laternative are presented then people have no right to complain about the lack of choices that the antio abortion communty has to offer
[Br. Matthew] Cobbling together an effective coalition often means sharing the same political tent with some very seedy characters.
Case in point … ;-)
“One can only hope that pro-life activists of both parties…”
Lets seek out some clarity on this matter. Seems to be this begs for some definitions: current pro-life leaders and groups-NRLC for example, therefore should consider the “r” to be standing in for Republican? Or are these movement folks truly for a “movement” as opposed to be the abortion “issue-educators” for Republicans?
In all fairness, the pro-life talent is either just “pro-life” as RCM with party conflicts and guilty compulsions when voting Republican, or are Republican. Few Democrats are influential as pro-life poliicians, but then again, the NRLC would be eager to support the opposing Republican even if one existed. They only support pro-life Dems when the opponent is a pro-choice Republican.
Difficult dilemma. The pro-life movement, which has been an arm of the Republican party for years, should have broadened its appeal, to have truly been a movement, as opposed to a Republican political support.
Again, Mormons get more daily converts than the pro-life movement. Why isn’t there outreach?
ATH e Pro life moivement Daniel does seek to bi partisan, We see that in numerous states, In my state many democrats are huge parts of the right to life movement
RCM,
Again I think your premises are wrong. It does not seem that 50% of abortions are tied to poverty and abortion is inherently linked poverty. In some cases it is so. But in most cases it is not. Even with the AGI study which shows high percentages state “financial reasons” for having an abortion, these financial reasons are not necessarily that the person is in poverty.
From their report:
“The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by diverse, interrelated reasons. Nearly three-quarters of respondents indicated that they could not afford to have a child now, and large proportions mentioned responsibilities to children, partner issues and unreadiness to parent. The in-depth interviews revealed that these reasons are multiple dimensions of complicated life situations. For example, financial difficulties are often the result of lack of support from one’s partner, or lack of a partner altogether; and the financial and emotional responsibility to provide for existing children without adequate resources makes it too hard for some women to care for another child.”
So it seems it is more a lack of support from the partner as a primary motive which may (or may not) result in a person being in poverty.
But even given that, many who choose abortion do so for non-economic reasons. Therefore laws that prevent abortions may very well prevent a number of these.
As for torture issues, again , since Bush is not running for President this year and since McCain has said he is opposed to torture, I am not sure how this enters into the calculus.
Morning’s Minion,
You say, “Ireland’s abortion rate is high, higher than in continetyal Europe, and there are no abortion provders in Ireland. They simply fly to the UK. In the US, you note that some states would keep it legal. How about the largest states with the greatest population centers, where the most abortions take place- like the Northeast and California?”
I assume you mean that the abortion rate among the Irish is higher than among continental Europeans, given that if people from Ireland flew to the UK for abortions, this wouldn’t raise Ireland’s abortion rate. Question: what’s your source for this statistic? If abortion is, as you argue, connected with poverty, how plausible is it that everyone (or even most everyone) who would have had an abortion under a legal regime will buy plane tickets to another country in order to have one?
Abortion was legal in California and the northeast prior to Roe, yet the number of abortions performed in those states was a lot lower than it is now. Likewise, to the extent that the decline in the abortion rate over the last 25+ years has been due to a decline in abortion providers, that suggests that people will be less likely to have abortions if they have to travel to get them than if they don’t.
Blackadder,
Morning’s Minion has a propensity to make unsubstantiated and vague claims and expect you to just believe them. The proper thing to do with people like that is ignore them. MM happens to think that Irish people are stupid as well. The only statistic he/she has for this is her interpretation of the recent vote by the majority of Irishmen against the Lisbon Treaty. In her rabid attack on that popular vote, MM was blinded enough to accuse those who oppose the Lisbon Treaty as suffering from some sort of disease of Americanism. That was her substantiation of her claims, that the majority of Irish Catholics think like Americans… sweet. Don’t dig too hard for “evidence”, you might be surprised as what she comes up with.
Joseph,
Morning’s Minion is a he, not a she. He’s also from Ireland, so I doubt he thinks Irish people are just stupid. I don’t know what basis he has for his claims about the Irish abortion rate (which is why I asked), but I don’t think he just made the whole thing up. You would do well to be more respectful of the other people at this blog, however vehement your disagreements with them may be.
Br. Miller makes a very useful analytical point with this:
The consistent attitude that I see from several folks on this blog is sneering condemnation of anyone in category 1 for failing to be consistent with category 3. “Pro-lifers who seek legislative change alone, or who aren’t also death penalty activists and anti-war activists, etc., aren’t really pro-life,” they sniff. (Oddly enough, the same people fail to criticize people like Gerald Campbell for being in category 2 rather than category 3.)
But as JH points out, you could take the same “purer than thou” approach to any political issue whatsoever. If you are against the death penalty, guess what: lots of your political allies are going to be anything but down-the-line Catholics. If you want to do something about global warming, guess what: you’re going to be allied with the zero population crowd and the Gaia worshippers, etc. If you want to increase poverty programs, guess what: you’re going to end up working with legislative allies who despise the Pope.
But I never see anyone around here writing post after post condemning 90% of anti-death-penalty activists for failing to be against abortion, or condemning most environmentalists for failing to be fully Catholic, or condemning some anti-poverty crusaders for failing to support school vouchers, etc.
The bottom line is that if your set of political values is fully consistent with Catholic teaching, you are very much in the minority in America. And therefore, you are NEVER going to have any success unless you are willing to work with people who agree with you on one particular issue while disagreeing with you on other issues.
Hence I ask — not expecting a forthright reply — why so many people around here seem to feel compelled to shout down “pro-lifers” as hypocrites, as too partisan, etc.? If all of you took that same attitude across the board, as to all issues, I could understand it as a consistent approach (even while I would think it foolish). But why single out pro-lifers, as if they’re the only people in the world who fail to be fully Catholic in all respects?
Why do certain folks around here feel compelled to demonize only one set of activists (pro-lifers) as if they’re the only people in the world who fail to be fully Catholic?
Blackadder: see Tables 1 and 2 here: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3310607.html.
Ireland’s abortion rate is not that high, but it is certainly not low, and on par with western Europe.
According to Tables 1 and 2, the abortion rate for Ireland is 7, whereas for England and Wales it is 17. That strikes me as being a pretty sizable difference, wouldn’t you say? If something similar were to happen to American abortion rates in a post Roe world, we could expect the number of abortions performed to drop by hundreds of thousands.
But such sharing a political tent does not entail (the exponentially counterproductive) also lending vocal, faulty justification for the abhorrent usage of military might (you know, what many of us call formal cooperation in evil)..
And you should not wonder why the strategy of primarily legislative efforts will suffer tremendously in the near future. The country will send away another wave of Republican politicians this November, and your crowd has a share of responsibilty in these ‘setbacks’.
That was a response to:
….[Br. Matthew] Cobbling together an effective coalition often means sharing the same political tent with some very seedy characters.
Case in point … ;-)
Brother: (by the way, off topic, I love the Dominicans! I am trying to get a 3rd Order going up here!) The only way we will have converts is to go into the fire. I don’t have a problem AT ALL if people justly criticize the deeply pro-abortion group within the Dems. Change has to start somewhere. Likewise I WANT Republican Catholics to convert their party, but they cannot do so if they do not condemn and weigh what has been done in their names and to call Bush pro-life without also including his deeply pro-torture for those born actions then their is no conversion.
Phillip: I appreciate you addressing the argument I make, Thank you. I believe that FFL has it right that there is no real choice if a woman cannot provide for her child. If we make women choose between herself and her child, we can see 45 million abortions later, that the woman wins, hands down. It is time to stop making her make that choice and GIVE her the ability to choose both herself and her child.
Regarding Bush not running again, this is not about this year’s election. This is a direct response to Anderson and Blosser, two Catholic pro-lifers who argue for Bush’ pro-life record. I argue that his record is fine when it comes to anti-abortion legislation (doubting that it will have much effect, though) but for those born has been a scandal! I am speaking about pro-life from the perspective of the Church.
SB:”The consistent attitude that I see from several folks on this blog is sneering condemnation of anyone in category 1 for failing to be consistent with category 3. “Pro-lifers who seek legislative change alone, or who aren’t also death penalty activists and anti-war activists, etc., aren’t really pro-life,” they sniff. (Oddly enough, the same people fail to criticize people like Gerald Campbell for being in category 2 rather than category 3.)”
If Bush was not connected with war crimes (Abu Ghraib, GITMO, and widespread abuses and torture elsewhere, according to the General who was responsible for the investigation), I would be MORE than happy to say “Yay! Bush has done a great job!” But when we include his war crimes with his anti-abortion legislation, his overall pro-life record is scandalous. The pro-life movements alignment with torture supporters, and human rights violators only damages our message! It is scandalous and Catholic pro-lifers have a deep responsibility to speak out for the Church’s message. Legislation cannot be disconnected from reality! To me it is the same as El Salvador’s anti-abortion laws (good) and the same people responsible for committing genocide against the indigenous populations (bad). And it is the bad that overwhelms the good because it undermines the entire argument for the sanctity of life. Life does not stop being holy once a person is born!
RCM — I wasn’t referring to your post on Bush, actually. I was thinking more of certain other bloggers around here who never speak of the pro-life movement without getting a crick in their neck from sticking their nose so high in the air.
RCM,
That misses the point though. It may be that if a woman has to choose between the baby and herself, she may very well choose herself. But that is not inherently tied to poverty. Again with the two studies I provided, perhaps 25% of abortions were due to economic concerns which again does not translate to poverty being an inherent cause. For some it is. For most it isn’t. For the former, poverty programs may aide in reducing abortion. For the latter laws will likely do so and potentially have more of an impact.
RCM,
The point of my post is that it is easy to talk past one another on account of ill defined language. Christopher and Ryan Anderson were making a predominantly pro-life (1) case for Bush. Their argument had a limited scope. You, as a pro-life activist, point out other aspects of Bush’s record (torture, etc.) makes him less than pro-life (in the sense of pro-life (3), a definition with a more general scope). Rather than getting upset with Ryan and Christopher for their pro-life (1) defense of Bush, it might be more productive to challenge them to widen their scope. In a sense, that is exactly what you are doing, but I think you are doing so by playing off two notions of pro-life (2) and (3), against another (1). We must be committed to strengthening all three. In order to be pro-life in the fullest sense, we must be committed to all three notions. My fear is that in the current political climate, pro-life (1) may be devalued or tossed aside. I see this, for instance, when people reduce the value of pro-life legislatation to its effect in reducing the incidence of abortion. This is to subsume pro-life (1) into pro-life (2) and to assume a functionalist account of law. For instance, laws against murder are ‘good laws’ regardless of whether it lowers the murder rate (lets assume it doesn’t lower the rate because a weak police force doesn’t have the power to enforce it).
That said, I welcome your desire to change the democratic party and your willingness to hold others accountable for changing theirs. However, be aware that any political party, to the extent that one is active in it, will, like any social structure, excert homeostatic pressure to conform to the status qou. Understanding the power of those pressures and their danger takes self-knowldege and humility and resisting those forces takes fortitude, integrity, and a strong faith. So persevere in that task and try to (compassionately) challenge those who have knuckled under to some extent. And I wish you well in your endeavor to start a chapter of the OPL’s in Anchorage. Say hello to Fr. Vincent for me, he is a good friend.
BTW, the “knuckling under” comment wasn’t meant as a veiled reference to anyone here.
When my mother died I was very young,
And my father sold me while yet my tongue
Could scarcely cry “Weep! weep! weep! weep!”
So your chimneys I sweep, and in soot I sleep.
There’s little Tom Dacre, who cried when his head,
That curled like a lamb’s back, was shaved; so I said,
“Hush, Tom! never mind it, for, when your head’s bare,
You know that the soot cannot spoil your white hair.”
And so he was quiet, and that very night,
As Tom was a-sleeping, he had such a sight! –
That thousands of sweepers, Dick, Joe, Ned, and Jack,
Were all of them locked up in coffins of black.
And by came an angel, who had a bright key,
And he opened the coffins, and let them all free;
Then down a green plain, leaping, laughing, they run,
And wash in a river, and shine in the sun.
Then naked and white, all their bags left behind,
They rise upon clouds, and sport in the wind;
And the Angel told Tom, if he’d be a good boy,
He’d have God for his father, and never want joy.
And so Tom awoke, and we rose in the dark,
And got with our bags and our brushes to work.
Though the morning was cold, Tom was happy and warm:
So, if all do their duty, they need not fear harm.
Br: Thanks for your thoughtful points. Also, Fr Vincent is my confessor! Love him!
Mark: Excellent poem. Love Blake.
Doctors of death Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas were the dissenters today, trying to uphold the constitutionality of CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, not for murderers, but for child rapists.
These conservative Catholics sure do make us proud, do they not?
As much sexual abuse occurs in the home, just imagine what the effects of a sons/daughter’s testimony would be, if he/she knew that it would contribute to his/her parent’s execution by the state.
Family values.
Mark — think of the phrase “rule of law.” Supreme Court Justices are not given the role of enforcing Catholic doctrine, nor am I clear why you would wish for such a theocratic regime.
Mark,
The four dissenting justices weren’t the only ones to disagree with the majority in that case. A certain presidential candidate has also stated his disagreement with the decision. (Hint: the candidate to which I refer is not John McCain).
SB,
Nice try! They had to INTERPRET what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
BA,
I know. Very sad…
Mark — is that supposed to be a response to anything I said?
I heard a sermon similar to this when Bush was running (and yes, this was pre-9/11. But the priest was talking about how some Catholics vote singularly on the Abortion issue, but that it is our responsibility to look at the WHOLE picture, and how pro-life encompasses how we care for those who are living amongst us. He wasn’t telling us how to vote, but asking us to open our minds and be educated voters instead of focusing on one issue. I’ve voted democrat ever since. Not to say I wouldn’t vote republican, just seems the democrats embrace social welfare moreso than the other party.
Just stumbled across this post. I love you, RCM! I like the description of your “buyer’s remorse” over George W. I never voted for him, but I voted for Nader in 2000 (shunning Gore over abortion), because George W’s promise of a “humble” foreign policy made me feel I could live with him as president.
Boy was I wrong!
How many deaths in Iraq are those legislative victories worth, anyway?
The problem with single-issue voting is that it’s really blank check voting. Pro-lifers seem to think they must swallow everything done by those who are right on abortuon. (And yes, as somebody put it, NRLC might as well be an arm of the Republican Party.