Despite the claims of supporters and critics alike, Obama’s declarations on abortion have been inconsistent. It is not clear whether or not he is playing a political game, trying to find a way to get people from all sides on the abortion debate to support him. He is certainly not a pro-life candidate.[1] But he is also not a pro-abortion candidate, either.[2]He is pro-choice, which, as a moral position, makes little sense. When we see inconsistencies in Obama’s message on abortion, it is quite possible, indeed likely, that we are being shown something more than Obama’s position - we are also seeing what is going on in his mind, and the minds of the American populace at large, on abortion. America is divided over abortion; it is clear that our society is not pro-life, and yet America is not pro-abortion either. America is quite queasy over abortion, but America also dislikes what it sees as legalistic moralism overriding individual liberty. The individual is supreme in America, and as long as that is the case, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to promote a culture of life – because a culture requires more than a collection of individuals, but a community of people in solidarity with one another. As long as we do not think of ourselves as “our brother’s keeper,” we will find excuses for those social sins our society allows to exist.[3]This is the only way we can understand Obama’s position on abortion after looking at what he said in his third debate with John McCain.
Initially, Obama provides a rather straightforward pro-choice position. “But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.” There are two interconnected issues going on with this argument, and we need to examine them separately. First is the position of individual liberty. Obama is clear, the decision for abortion should be in the hands of pregnant women, and no one else. They can and should consult people on the matter to help make up their minds, but ultimately, the decision should be theirs – and theirs alone. No one should force them to have an abortion, nor should anyone force them to keep the baby. Abortion in such a situation is seen neither as good nor bad, but morally neutral. The individual circumstances that a pregnant woman finds themselves in should be the means by which the woman decides to keep the baby or not. Only one who does not find value in the baby itself, value in life itself, can hold even a neutral position such as this; no one who views life as a good can ever suggest that it should be left to the individuals involved as to whether or not to kill it. The logic of this position is clear, and it is clearly wrong, but it does flow from the logic of liberty and individual freedom trumpeted by the American system, and it is understandable how it is being used, why it is being used, and why it is seen as legitimate to many. The second issue in this statement is a matter of Obama’s interpretation of the American legal system.[4]He believes the American legal system ultimately ends up being pro-choice, and he does not think he is in a position to argue against the system as a whole. Like the way people argue for the death penalty, for deporting illegal immigrants, or for free-market capitalism, Obama thinks the best way to keep society going is to work within the system we have: a change in positive law could have dangerous unforeseen consequences, so we are better with the devil we know than what might happen with a radical change in the system. American positive law sponsors the ideology of individualistic liberty, thus the first aspect of his argument is actually being backed by the second, and what is said here for Obama is true for most of America. As long as Americans think positive law should be left unchanged, and individual liberty in all aspects of choice is the highest good a society can offer, there will be no cultural change in regards to abortion; those concerned with abortion should find ways to counteract such positions, while finding a way to keep the positive good behind them as well.[5]
If this were all Obama said on abortion, one could say he held a consistent, although morally unacceptable, position on it. But this is not all he said. When challenged further on the issue, he had this to say: “With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception,” and, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’ Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it’s always a tragic situation.” Here the position initially proclaimed on abortion is completely over-turned. No longer is it merely an issue of individual liberty which must be given the final word – here, we find Obama saying that restrictions on that liberty are possible, and he would be willing to support some of them, if his concerns about them are met. Where is the argument from positive law saying abortion is a right in America? Where is the argument that an individual alone is free to make the decisions for themselves? It is not here. And he points out something more; abortion is not morally neutral; rather, it is “always a tragic situation.” It is for this reason Obama wants to work for its reduction; however, he differs with many as to the method for said reduction – he does not appear to think there is a strong legal case which can be made for it, but he does think a case can be made for promoting social programs which undermine the causes for abortion. Why would anyone be concerned with reducing abortions unless they see there is some moral issue involved, and abortion is not a morally neutral activity? Again, Obama made it clear, abortion is tragic, and so he cannot support it, though he seems to think he can support the individuals who make those decisions.[6]
Thus, in one debate, we find Obama holding to two different positions on abortion: that it is a morally neutral activity which should not be legislated, and that it is a tragic action which can be legislated. Like many Americans, it does not appear he sees the contradiction in the positions. And like many Americans, one could suggest that the problem ultimately comes from a false conception of society itself. He, like most Americans, thinks as long as he has not done a positive evil, such as perform an abortion himself, or such as to cause a poor man to be thrown out on the streets, he holds no personal guilt in the matter. As long as we do not see how society as a whole, and those involved in that society, share in the guilt of actions done in the name of that society, grave intrinsic evils will be promoted by such societies. People will feel themselves separated from such evils. Catholics, who are to work for the common good through solidarity in subsidiarity, should see through such a smokescreen, and work to engage society so that it can at last realize the errors of individualism. But to do so is going to take work, because nothing will distance someone more than screaming at them at how evil they are for actions they do not think they have done: calling Obama a baby killer, for example, will turn him off from what you might otherwise have to say to him, because he will think “I didn’t personally kill any babies.”
So what are we to do? Are we to entirely ignore the guilt that a politician has for keeping to the status quo? Obviously not. One must point out the issue of society guilt and take the blame upon oneself, not point out the blame on others. That will attract the attention of others – when we are willing to confess our own sins, we get the plank out of our own eye, showing it can be done. Then, like St Paul on Mars Hill, perhaps we should learn about the other, find out where they are at, and engage those areas which can fruitfully lead to a change in position. For example, Obama and America are, as has been said, queasy about abortion. Start with that. Start with their own assumptions. Lead the discussion using their own ideologies, and show how it connects to something greater, truer; bring the limited truth they have into the context of the greater Truth. That is the way one engages society, that is the way one transforms a collection of individuals looking after themselves into a culture of life. Take their interests and concerns and show how they relate to a greater whole which, if followed, best realizes those interests. And for many, it is Obama’s recognition that there needs to be a way beyond the impasse, that there needs to be dialogue between those who are pro-life and pro-choice, which leads them to the hope that if he were president, Catholics might actually be able to engage him on issues of life. He already has shown he understands the tragedy of abortion; that would be a good place to begin our dialogue.
Footnotes
[1] Neither is John McCain. But those who are pro-life can argue for which of the two they think will best suit pro-life interests, and there can be differences of opinion here.
[2] This is not to say no one is pro-abortion. For example, those who demand population control like China are pro-abortion. One could also suggest that those who make a living on abortion tend to be pro-abortion, although someone like P.K. Dick in The Crack in Space could imagine an abortionist who is concerned about the ethics of abortion and would like to give up the practice but feel trapped into its practice because of the demands placed upon them by society (which I expect is the case with many abortionists in China).
[3]These sins do not end with abortion. People treat abortion as “someone else’s problem” because they are not doing it themselves and it does not affect themselves directly. The same is true with other grave problems such as worker’s rights or extreme, humiliating poverty. Is not a common reaction to the homeless man or woman on the street is to walk by them thinking, “I didn’t cause the beggar to be like that, so it is not my problem”?
[4] I believe he is fundamentally correct; those who are against abortion often ignore the legal setting and context, and so try to find ways to read it out of American positive law. But that is a flawed approach at best. The same error is to be found in those who try to use American positive law to stop the death penalty. It cannot be found in American positive law. To stop abortion or the death penalty, we are going to need to radically change American positive law. Until then, judges and politicians should be expected to follow what is within the system itself, though politicians could be judged more harshly because they should also be working to find ways to change the structure of society itself.
[5] We do not need a totalitarian system to overcome abortion. But we do need to change society so that it once again works for the common good without losing personal (not individual) liberty in the process.
[6] Is this a political way of saying, “Hate the sin, love the sinner?”
“And for many, it is Obama’s recognition that there needs to be a way beyond the impasse, that there needs to be dialogue between those who are pro-life and pro-choice, which leads them to the hope that if he were president, Catholics might actually be able to engage him on issues of life.”
I do not believe there should be hope that he would listen or engage the Catholic position on abortion. Obama has a track record against engaging the Catholic position in any meaningful way other than against it, received too much funding and support from the pro-abortion groups, and he has stated that FOCA is a top priority. FOCA is using our tax dollars to fund the killing of babies.
Amy Wellborn has a great recollection of the effects of putting our hopes in someone who was very clear in supporting abortion, the executive orders of Clinton two days after his inauguration to wipe out the modest gains in protecting our unborn children. http://amywelborn.wordpress.com/2008/10/21/back-to-the-future/
SC
Catholics have always believed in hope; you have no hope? We are saved in hope, you know. Imagine the context of the early Christians in the middle of outright persecution. They still engaged their persecuters, hoping that there will be a change because of that engagement. It was a slow process, but it worked. The idea that we just give up on someone as incapable of dialogue is dualistic to the extreme, and counters the whole Christian call to act as witnesses for the Gospel. We are called to witness in truth, through charity, and without hope, that is not possible.
Obama, btw, is not Clinton. But you know, I bet I could imagine people saying, “Don’t trust that Constantine, just look at what happened under Diocletian.”
Don’t you think Obama’s remark about not wanting his daughters to be “punished” with a pregancy suggests he thinks that abortion, if still tragic, is at times not morally blameworthy? It may be that those of us who have seized on that statement misinterpret what he meant, but I’ve tried to see how it could be meant otherwise and I fail to. It suggests to me that his gut reaction is more “pro-abortion” and not merely neutral or even conflicted. As McCain pointed out, Obama’s mention of a health exception is a canard – it’s a way of letting abortionists still authorize any abortion. And the most favorable spin that can be applied to Obama’s position about the born-alive infants act is that he felt upholding the constitutional principles of Roe (which he reaffirmed in the third debate) is more important than caring for a human life even after the child is no longer a “threat to the mother’s health.”
I don’t think anyone would question, Henry, that it is possible that Obama would somehow have a change of heart and support actions which would be truly in keeping with a pro-life society. I don’t think anyone is seriously arguing that it can literally not be hoped for that such a thing would happen.
However, given that we exist in a democratic republic and are called upon as citizens to exercise our judgement as to who should be our leader every four years — it does seem a little odd to argue that we should allow the hope that someone who has (as you outlight) a deeply incoherant and wrong view of the abortion issue will change to lead us into supporting someone who provides little evidence that he will do anything to help change the abortion culture in America.
Zak
I think people have taken that quote out of context. This is how I understood it: In our social situation, teenagers who have children out of wedlock, in high school, are punished in many ways — social stigma is still strong against them, and thus, will become a hell on earth for many of them (especially depending upon the social situation of the individual in question).
Nonetheless, that is not, imo, satisfactory. It shows, as you would say, that life is still not valued in an of itself, and not seen as a gift. But it would become a story of two rival tragedies the child would have to consider.
That is, nonetheless, a part of my point in this post: that the narrative of society in regards to children and abortion is contradictory. Obama represents this. Recognize it. He holds contradictory positions, and I don’t think it is all a “canard.” I feel it has to do with the fact we have warring claims and mores, and it becomes difficult for individuals to judge how to rule them out when they fight each other. The solution continues to be what I have said. Emphasize those elements which are true in what someone says, just like St Paul on Mars Hill. Obviously he understood elements of paganism were contradictory, but he still was able to start with a common basis. That is the way we can help draw people into greater truth. But if we dismiss someone and see them as completely in error, completely evil, then we will just strengthen the divide, instead of finding a way to overcome it.
Darwin: As I pointed out in footnote #1, people have different ways as to how they will judge who is the best candidate for pro-lifers. I am not arguing that point in this post. Instead, I am looking beyond the election. Unless something big happens, it looks like Obama will be our next president. What do we, as Catholics, do with that fact? That’s the issue; how will we address that reality? Thus my point — find the common ground and use that to lead Obama from his error to truth. I have said the same in regards to McCain in more than one occasion already.
Henry,
I do have hope, hope that Obama and the pro-abortionist will engage in not just dialogue but in action to end this evil. Why do we need to wait until after the election. Why will Obama not directly engage in these discussions now. What are the indications that Obama has had a change of heart? What are the statements and commitments that he will not enact FOCA, that he will not sign executive orders reversing policies to protect our unborn children, that he will actively reduce abortions in both a legal and social context?
The Gospel of Love does not direct us to enable the persecutor. Having a dialogue is is good, but enabling, giving our explicit approval for the persecution is not in step with the Gospel.
There seems to be a significant reluctance by the contributors here, and definitely in the mainstream media, to even acknowledge the intent of Obama with FOCA, the implication of FOCA, and the direct approval of FOCA with a vote for Obama. The Gospel calls on us to be honest with ourselves, as seeing ourselves as who we really are, and what the world is really about. The reality is voting for Obama is enabling FOCA. By the blind party support for Obama, are we now of this world rather than just in the world passing through to a better place?
I understand that Obama is not Clinton. Clinton hide his true intent. Obama is not even hiding his intent. So if your reference is to say maybe, just maybe Obama is not really pro-abortion and will not enable easier access to abortion, then I hope you are right. But Obama’s record does not give any indication there is a change in heart. Constantine’s track record on persecution of the Church was vastly different than Diocletian. We should look look at more applicable history for analogies, perhaps the history of Clinton’s first days is a better reference, more direct, more on point?
But perhaps the slow process needs this set back, where as Catholics we finally understand that 1993 was not anomaly, and the complete reversal of the small gains to stop abortion are a necessary step in this understanding. This might be the painful lesson we need to finally understand we cannot believe these lies about reducing abortion only through dialogue, that the actions of pro-abortionists do really count when they declare abortion a fundamental right. This may be the lesson we need that as Catholics we must stand up and be heard when protecting the most vulnerable, our children. those that we are to receive in His name. May be we will finally realize that to be witnesses to the Gospel means taking a position against the culture of death.
SC
What indication do we have? As Obama pointed out, the DNC put in their agenda the desire to REDUCE abortions. That’s right. REDUCE. That is a start, is it not? And his own indication he wants to dialogue and find where we can work together to help reduce abortions — is that not another indication that there is room for dialogue, and not just dialogue, but action? This is not saying he is pro-life, but it is indicative that he is willing to work with us on it.
As Obama pointed out, the DNC put in their agenda the desire to REDUCE abortions.
Not quite . . . the Democratic platform speaks of reducing the “NEED” for abortion. As I recall, Democrats firmly resisted the proposal to speak of reducing “abortion” per se, because 1) they think abortions are borne from legitimate “need,” and 2) reducing abortion per se would be a bad thing, because there might be someone out there who “needs” an abortion but doesn’t get one.
If you are going to try to reduce the need, you will reduce abortions. Plain and simple. The reason why one tries to reduce the need is because one sees a problem with the need. It isn’t a neutral statement. So, while it is not directly stated it is the logical conclusion.
Again, that’s too optimistic. Given that Democrats resisted any language suggesting that abortion itself is wrong, it’s fair to say that they weren’t intending to imply that same moral conclusion. Instead, they speak of reducing the “need” only because they’ve defined the “need” as poverty, and that therefore fits with their pre-existing desire to reduce poverty as well as their desire to fool people like Kmiec into thinking that they are doing a little handwringing over abortion.
Again, the avoidance of addressing FOCA. Ten people sitting around a table trying to determine why there is such a stench in the room. Is it lack of personal hygiene, the trash was not emptied, perhaps food left in the room for a long period. Yet in their efforts to see all but what was obvious and in front of them – the dead moose on the table. FOCA is that moose.
How does FOCA square with the desire to reduce abortions? The top agenda item is FOCA – a bill to make abortion a fundamental right that then invalidates ALL abortion restrictions; a bill that uses federal tax dollars (yours and mine) to pay for abortions. The math does not add up. Reversing the restrictions that reduced the number of abortions, making abortion easier to obtain in both procedural and financial means will not by any logic reduce abortion.
Has Obama recanted on his support for FOCA? Has the Democratic Party stated it is against FOCA?
SC
What you are saying would be like someone telling Justin Martyr, “Ah, but you ignore the way the emperor has helped encourage persecution of Christians, why are you trying to write to him now?” Or to St Paul, “Why are you telling the pagans they worship the same God as us, while they are going out and persecuting us”?
The point — once again — is simple. 1) Obama’s position on abortion is inconsistent. It is not pro-life. There is a lot which is wrong. Obviously. 2) However, in the contradictory aspects of his position, there is something positive, something which we can use to begin our work. That’s the Christian way of bringing people to truth — truth leads to greater truth, because truth only has its value in Truth. You are ignoring the whole point of the discussion. It is not to say “Obama is not pro-choice” or his positions are in accord with ours. It is “we can see something in his statements which can be starting points for something more, something greater.” That is the Christian spirit.
The top agenda item is FOCA
Yes, Obama did say to Planned Parenthood that “the first thing he would do as president” would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. Of course, it still has to make it through committee and be passed in both the House and Senate, with any differences reconciled in conference. So clearly, it’s not the first thing he is going to do.
In the women’s issues section on the Obama web site, FOCA is not mentioned. While I wouldn’t dismiss his statement to Planned Parenthood as meaningless, there has been very little mention of abortion in the Obama campaign, and no mention that I know of that FOCA would be a top priority.
FOCA may never make it onto the legislative agenda. It may be altered beyond recognition in committee. It may be amended heavily. And if any or all of those things happen, it may not pass. There are ample grounds on which to oppose it even if you are pro-choice. How many people want to see the legislative branch of the federal government set a precedent if sweeping away hundreds of laws and judicial decisions in one fell swoop? As I have said before, I think attempted passage of FOCA would cause a firestorm, and I don’t think Obama’s presidency will be the kind that rams through extreme legislation even if there is a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate. Also, FOCA, if it did pass, would certainly be challenged in court, up to the Supreme Court, and might be found unconstitutional.
So while I don’t think it is foolish to be concerned about FOCA, I do think that assuming the bill exactly as it was submitted will soon be the law of the land is making an unwarranted assumption.
Excellent post Henry! Thanks for helping us think through the implications of some of the contradictions and reminding us of the situation of the early Christians. They certainly succeeded, long term, in changing and evangelizing their culture. Their tactics are not exactly being mirrored by the pro-life movement. As Christians we should turn to the saints for examples of how to live, respond, and succeed in faith and hope in these complex situations.
Planned Parenthood would agree with both statements. I don’t see how this makes Obama anything but solidly pro-choice.
RR, Henry is not trying to argue that Obama is not pro-choice. Obama will most likely be the next president. Obama is pro-choice, but is logic and understanding of the issue appear to contradictory/conflicted. We want to encourage a culture of life. How can we dialogue with Obama in order to further that cause? Yelling “baby killer” at him does not seem to be working. Henry is suggesting we take out cues from the early Christians in their dealings with paganism.
JB
Right. One of the things people seem to forget is the civic responsibility after an election, and the way one is to engage one’s leaders instead of just ignoring them and trying to change things during the next election. The better way has always been one where you encourage the positive, and help bring people forward through what they already believe, showing where it logically should lead. But if you just stay antagonistic, you will not be heard, and you will reinforce the negative because of it. That is exactly what has happened in American politics for decades now.
And while Obama is clearly in the wrong on the issue of abortion, he is also clearly right on the idea that we need to work together on this issue. Often it is through such work, people also have a change of hearts! But if we keep saying, “No, stay away from me,” how will they ever experience the reality which brings about such change?
Henry,
I think you are right that post-election for pro-lifers will require serious engagement with an Obama administration so that we can attempt to protect unborn life through some measures, even as he opposes us on others. But I don’t see much likelihood that it will work to well. Otherwise, why wouldn’t Obama have come out in support of the Democrats For Life’s 95-10 initiative? And from a prudential perspective, what kind of compromises do we make. If a (hypothetical) bill includes $20M for crisis pregnancy centers, but also overturns the partial birth abortion ban, or modifies it to protect the “health” of the mother, is that something to support? I would say no, and for that, Obama and his partisans would say that I’m not willing to find common ground. It seems to me any “reduce the need for abortion” that the Obama Administration would support will require things most Catholics are not amenable to, like eliminating any funding for abstinence-only sex ed in favor of “comprehensive” programs and expanded contraception offerings, including possibly requiring pharmacists/hospitals/doctors to offer emergency contraception.
Zak
I think there can be many reasons why actions in the past could be changed in the future. One of the things is how people treat Obama; if one actively engages what he says and the issues which point to something beyond what he has already supported, that will I think be able to lead to change. If, on the other hand, one tries to continue the old politics as usual, it will reinforce his position and he will not be able to see any reason why he should change.
Notice, Obama has already said he is willing to regulate against late term abortions, not just partial birth abortions, as long as his concern that the health of the mother is allowed to be an exception. While many people will point out that is a huge exception, on the other hand, even having on the books a law which, in spirit, is against abortion, and having Obama support it — that would be a big change even in the political discussion on the issue of abortion. And have not recent Popes pointed out that we could work for a progressive elimination of abortion in such a fashion?
I am not saying it will be easy work ahead, nor that it will be an automatic conversion, or even a full conversion. But a change in the tenor of the discussion will go a long way in changing the culture — which is needed to get any real change in positive law.
Our hope is in prayer and fasting for woman facing this decide, for their friends, family and doctors and or our legislators. Many women are pressured toward abortion, and they need our help. The pressures are partly, but only partly, economic in nature. Women are influenced by husbands, boyfriends, parents and friends, and by a culture and legal system that tells them the child they carry has no rights and is of no consequence. Law cannot solve all problems, but it can tell us which solutions are unacceptable – and today Roe still teaches that killing the unborn child is an acceptable solution, even a “right.” Without ever forgetting the need to support pregnant women and their families, that tragic and unjust error must be corrected if we are to build a society that respects all human life.
Our hope is in rallying all Christians work to ensure FOCA is never passed and not sit idly by hoping it doesn’t happen that it will never make it out of committee.
Our hope is in rallying all Christians work to supporting truly pro-life (in all meanings) politicians to high office where they can make a different policy to policies.
We cannot rest. We must not give never up.
Regarding DNC platform consider:
The word “rare” has been eliminated from the 2008 platform, and its place, these chilling words added: “The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe V. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right.” These words taken together are about as inclusive an assertion of an absolute right to abortion as the English language is capable of mustering. “But wait!” people will reply, “… what about the subsequent language claiming that health care and education will help reduce the need for abortions?”
For by education the DNC means concretely their vision of “sex education”, which often is reduced to instruction in “safe sex” practices which promote attitudes conducive to more, not less, unwanted pregnancies, and simultaneously the distribution of condoms and other contraceptives, which are inherently offensive to Catholic sensibilities and against Catholic teaching.
Furthermore, these “education” initiatives frequently resist letting women receive the type of education that includes, for instance, ultrasounds of their growing infants. My question, then: how exactly has “lack of education” been a constitutive cause of abortions in America? And how possibly could their proposed “educational initiatives” significantly reduce them?
Thus, by removing even the concession of desiring to make abortions “rare”, the DNC has once-again presumed upon the support of moderates and actively sought to court the vote of radicals who will never allow the practice of abortion (and related horrors) to be exterminated
It seems to me that they want to move the public consensus. Obama on abortion is like George Bush on the Iraq war in ’03 (referring to your Slavo Zizek post). Just as Bush wanted to make an extreme position (invade Iraq) the common ground (and he succeeded), so Obama wants to make an extreme position (always allow health exception for mother, limits only in 3rd term, when barely any abortions happen) the common ground. If pro-life legislators sign up for such a compromise, aren’t they in an equivalent role to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry. I can understand why it might seem a good idea to at least get the president to embrace some limits, but by legitimizing a position that is pretty extreme, you’ve still given in an enabled worse problems.
I’m unclear on what the pro-life position is supposed to mean in a legal sense.
Is the issue here the ‘Catholic position on abortion’ or the ‘Catholic position on what the law of the land must mandate regarding abortion’? ie, Must the law reflect Catholic doctrine in full? In this matter, are issues of law and morality cotermimus or do they diverge at some point?
Antonio
There are many possible positions one can take in relation to what being pro-life in a legal sense means. This is because there are many issues one has to address in one, and people will come to different conclusions in how to find a resolution to them.
For example, one thing people forget, but of central importance, is the question of what a specific social structure actually will allow in a legal sense. Without understanding this, many efforts are futile and worthless. There are, of course, debates even on this level; the sad fact is that many people confuse the interpretation of the social structure as indicative of one’s personal desire or belief — while it might be the case, it is often not so. I think Biden is an example here — he interprets the social structure to be one thing, and so he thinks he can only present abortion within that sphere when working as a politician (the problem with this position is that I think he should also be working for a change in the social structure, but most people do not — look, for example, at how many Catholic judges are not trying to reconstruct the social structure in regards to the death penalty).
Next, once one determines what is possible, one then needs to determine, of all the possibilities, which actions would be best within that sphere of possibility. Again, this is not always an easy question. And a problem I see here is people assume only one means to an end so that if you disagree, you are seen as not desiring the same end.
It’s messy, as you can see, and without any easy answers. Obviously the goal would be a social structure which allows positive laws that removes the possibility of abortion. But to get there requires a change in the social structure and the positive law, and the social structure needs to be changed first, not second, while many people want to try this in reverse.
Hi Henry:
I guess I still don’t know what the ‘pro life’ label means in terms of specific long range goals and concrete legal measures. (I guess you’d call them strategic and tactical issues.) What do you think it means?
As you say, it is messy. What I don’t understand is if it’s so messy, how come people act as though the candidate has passed some sort of magic litmus test. Could it be that the very intent is vagueness? That way a voter can say “Well, since candidate X claims to be pro life, they must agree with me.”
I may be overly cynical, but it seems to me what the politicians want is a set of slogans they can drag out at every election. then shove shove back in the closet or attic or whatever, like Christmas decorations that have served their purpose.
Antonio
Well, long term goals for one who is pro-life would be to change society so it will understand and appreciate the goodness (and sacredness) of all life, so it is not only preserved, but also experienced in a dignified matter (to be pro-life should be more than about preservation of life, but about the quality of that life as well).
I agree with you about litmus tests. Many factors need to be put into play. For example, what if you know someone always says the right things but always does the wrong things while in office (and very corrupt and abusive with their corruption), while their opponent is pro-choice but will free up the corruption? I think one can make a case for the pro-choice candidate because the so-called pro-life candidate I would say really isn’t such, and they mask their anti-life status through the “right words.” The tactical issue is one which is worthy of debate, and should be; but I also think most people don’t realize that concern or issue. And sometimes I don’t think there is only one answer (while some act as if there were) — and if someone chooses a different option than what the majority want to try, they should not be treated as a “traitor” to the cause; rather, they should be seen as someone trying something else which may or may not work better.