Anti-Roe is not Pro-Life
With Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in the United States, a lot of right wing politicians have been able to get a lot of mileage out of the pro-life label by arguing for the overturn of that Supreme Court ruling.
What irks me is that there is no logical connection between being against Roe, and for the human rights of the unborn child.
John McCain, Ron Paul, and other GOP candidates have run on anti-Roe platforms, arguing that abortion law ought to be left to the states. At the same time they sometimes declare that ‘life begins at conception’. Just what does it mean to be ‘pro-life’ anyway?
To me, it has always meant to hold the position that the unborn human being is entiteld to the same right to life as all other human beings, that it deserves the same protection under the law.
What it does not mean is to hold the position that the state government, as opposed to the federal government, should be allowed to do what the Blackmum court did and place the definition of life in an untouchable zone of relativism and subjectivity.
I often hear as a rebuttal that sending abortion back to the states enables pro-life forces to have a greater effect, that not long after the overturn of Roe v. Wade, the political victories will fall from the sky like mana from heaven.
Is there any rational basis for this belief? Ballot propositions that would have restricted abortion in three states were rejected by solid majorities, including California, where just as many voted against gay marriage.
Moreover, victory in some states simply means that those seeking abortions will only have to cross state lines to obtain one. For many Americans that will mean that abortion will remain practically accessible. Not many women have multiple abortions to the point where the prospect of driving to another state is going to become a deterrent, for them, or their panicking boyfriends/husbands/parents.
Practical arguments aside, however, the notion that the definition of human life is subject either to judicial interpretation or majority votes is repugnant to Catholic morality. States have no more of a right to strip the unborn of their human rights than the federal government does. It will never be sufficient to simply be opposed to Roe.
Comments are closed.
I agree with you.
I had to read the whole article to know it, though. I don’t understand why you call a states’ rights argument anti-Roe, although I understand perfectly well why you reject the states’ rights argument. Life shouldn’t be subject to anyone’s vote at all.
I guess I wouldn’t discourage a bunch of states’ righters taking up the pro-life cause. There is a secessionist blogger who links to my pro-life website. But the thing is, the ‘strange bedfellows’ they say one sometimes ends up with in the political world–can give you herpes. Alliances not based on principles can turn around and bite.
Anyway, I think you’re right. Who were you directing this to? Are there any campaigns to make ‘life begins at conception’ some kind of amendment to the constitution? Or what are you recommending?
“I don’t understand why you call a states’ rights argument anti-Roe”
Well, I look at the basic effect of Roe:
“According to the Roe decision, most laws against abortion in the United States violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all state and federal laws outlawing or restricting abortion that were inconsistent with its holdings.”
Because Roe overturned state laws, it is contrary to the ‘states rights’ argument, the argument that states alone should have the right to decide what abortion laws are.
The idea of a right to life amendment has always been talked about, but I don’t see it happening. I just want an end to the conflation, especially when it comes to electoral politics.
People who support the states rights arguments, are, in my view, not on higher moral ground than people who say, support Obama because they think his economic policies will reduce abortions.
That is the nuance of conservative politics, and it’s why I ultimately voted for Mike Huckabee in the primary and not Ron Paul (plus, Huckabee supports welfare programs at the state level, and he’s very pro-homeschooling).
Ron Paul says “It should be up to the states,” but leaves it there.
A proper conservative argument would be “It should be up to the states” (because of subsidiarity and constitutionalism) but that the states *have* to make abortion illegal.
This accounts for both the principle of not handing too much power to the federal government and the principle of government following Natural Law.
It also gets to the fundamental danger of democracy. There are certain principles which should not be left up to a vote.
Well, I’m thinking hard about what you say.(This is to Joe.) The only people I have known who were indifferent to overturning Roe (ending abortion but thereby strengthening all states righters by returning the question to the states, which is what would have to happen due to the fact that Roe, as a matter of procedure or some other category like that took the decision away from the states, if I understand your point) were in the end people who had no other plan and actually, in practice, supported the idea that better economics would take care of the problem–Obama’s ‘pro-life’ agenda. I am thinking about a third party I know of who said they would not make Roe a cause for civil war. But they had no alternative plan. What is one to conclude?
It seems to me that, if you have no other plan, you simply have to support the overturn of Roe.
What did you mean, you just want to end the conflation?
Just so you know where I’m coming from, I volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center and take my turn sidewalk counseling. I did not buy the Obama argument because its vision of humanity is as robots or puppets, total slaves to economic manipulation. You can’t abort even if you know you’ll go hungry. There’s no economic ‘out’ and it’s dangerous to pretend there is. We are responsible. (you might enjoy my Two Miracles for Barack at my blog, that parallels Obama’s position on abortion with his economic agenda. Both are so about not taking responsibility!
JC, are you for welfare? What kind of economics are you for? You don’t meet too many Catholics who would say they are ‘for welfare.’ But I myself am, in a way, under some conditions. I read that it’s our job to help people get to heaven, not become wall street investors.
Ron Paul is on record as thinking that:
- Roe v. Wade was not properly decided on genuine constitutional grounds;
- states should decide the abortion issue;
- he then wants the states to ban abortion;
- or, alternatively, following the Constitution, he wants an amendment to ban abortion at the federal level.
This is because he regards the Constitution as something originating in a system which had declared that the right to life was an unalienable right, and he is accordingly optimistic that such a system should be supported.
It’s a rational and consistent approach to pro-life issues.
Pity you missed out all that.
I often hear as a rebuttal that sending abortion back to the states enables pro-life forces to have a greater effect … Is there any rational basis for this belief?
If you had looked at what is going on in states like (e.g.) Mississippi and North Dakota, you would have found an eminently rational basis for such a belief. Overturning Roe v. Wade will go from a system in which there are no restrictions on abortion, to one where there are some.
That would be an improvement in the abortion situation. And you poured scorn on it.
Pity you missed out all that.
JC,
Honestly, I don’t see the point in appeasing states’ rights sentiment. Some things are in fact not to be left to regional governments, some things are in fact the proper domain of national governments. Not everything is a usurpation of local government or a violation of subsidiarity (as I am sure you know), and I would say this is one of those things. We don’t need to mince words – the right to life ought to be protected at the highest levels of government.
Whitelily,
What I meant was, I’m just sick of people who are merely anti-Roe portraying themselves as pro-life.
One can be anti-Roe AND pro-life – I don’t say that is a logical contradiction. But to be anti-Roe is not SUFFICIENT to claim the pro-life position. The pro-life position can never leave the definition of life up to a majority vote, a legislative vote, a judicial decree, an executive order, etc.
Here we are accused of wanting to impose a theocracy, but I think any civilized society must err on the side of life. I think we always have to assume that every living being wants to live, or at the least, has a right to decide whether or not its own life is worth living.
I would extend my considerations to most animals as well. I oppose factory farming. I don’t mind humane farming, and I don’t care if it drives the price of meat beyond the reach of the average consumer on a daily basis. We don’t have a right to everything we can consume.
Life is precious. Human life is the most valuable, animal life is also to be respected, even if we are going to exploit it. The natural environment must also be respected, and the Church has been outspoken against pollution for profit and wanton disregard for environmental concerns.
Unfortunately I don’t see a right-to-life amendment happening any time soon. I favor bottom up approaches to addressing abortion in our communities, exactly what you are doing in fact. For the most part I think the ‘culture wars’ are a joke, but I do believe in the battle between the culture of life and the culture of death.
I offer an argument that overturning Roe would significantly reduce abortion here.
Paul,
I’m sorry my post offended you. I wasn’t trying to be offensive, and I hope you aren’t one of those types who believes that to disagree is to offend.
Now, I’m sorry, but Ron Paul’s position is not pro-life. It’s just a different kind of pro-choice. You say he
“wants the states to ban abortion”
That’s pretty weak. He “wants” it? What if it doesn’t happen? Then what?
“he wants an amendment to ban abortion at the federal level”
He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. He says two things on this “Sanctity of Life Act” he proposes:
“it would establish the principle that life begins at conception”
Good! Then he says:
“My bill removes the jurisdiction of the federal courts from the issue of abortion. If a state law says “no abortion,” it doesn’t go to the Supreme Court to be ruled out of order.”
What happens when the state law says “abortions for everyone”? I’m unclear on that.
And I ask in all sincerity, with absolutely no desire to offend, slander, belittle, without the tiniest bit of sarcasm or invective, and in a total spirit of Christian brotherhood.
As for what is happening in other states, tell us about it. Convince me, if you care to. I’ll listen. I’m not an ideologue, ok? I’m sick of the flame wars. Just tell me what’s going on, and how you explain the terrible performance of pro-life ballot measures during the November elections.
BA,
Your link takes me to an interesting but unrelated post on inflation :)
Joe Speaking for my sake of Louisiana if ROE was overturend tommorrow then Abortion by LAW and legislation would be immediattly forbidden
LEt me challenge you on this. 20 years ago who woul dhave thought State execution would be curtailed back. But it is happening state by state. New Mexico just weeks ago. Colorodo had a State execution baaning bill that at least passed the house.
We that fight abortion envy rigght now the fact that those that fight Execution that that option
Joe
YOu say
“Honestly, I don’t see the point in appeasing states’ rights sentiment. Some things are in fact not to be left to regional governments, some things are in fact the proper domain of national governments. Not everything is a usurpation of local government or a violation of subsidiarity (as I am sure you know), and I would say this is one of those things. We don’t need to mince words – the right to life ought to be protected at the highest levels of government.”
Where does the Fedeal Govt have the power to ban this absent COnst amendment
“Because Roe overturned state laws, it is contrary to the ’states rights’ argument, the argument that states alone should have the right to decide what abortion laws are.
“The idea of a right to life amendment has always been talked about, but I don’t see it happening. I just want an end to the conflation, especially when it comes to electoral politics.
People who support the states rights arguments, are, in my view, not on higher moral ground than people who say, support Obama because they think his economic policies will reduce abortions.”
There will be no Right to Life Amendment unless we get it back to the States and get the discussion started and the debate
This is not just a “State Rights Argument” but true priniples of Federalism
“People who support the states rights arguments, are, in my view, not on higher moral ground than people who say, support Obama because they think his economic policies will reduce abortions.”
I so wish we would be more careful with the term “States Rights’ As the poster abover already did already loinked that to ectreme seccession folks.
TO say that people that want to get this back to the States are the same as Obama is absurd. Kmiec tried to do that arguemnt and it was seriouly deflated here at America magazine I belive
Also see here
http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/07/fr-neuhaus-responds-to-doug-kmiec.html
Again what is your proposal. That we get judges that have Natutual Law right view toward the unborn. A natural law jurisprudence we can’t even get Catholic Judges to think they can do. Bork is very anti abortion but thinks the COnst does not allow that. We saw with Thomas at this confirmation how any hint of looking at the Natural Law was met with immediate overwhelming opposition
Again to say that Pro-lifers that want to get this back to the States are on the same ground policy wise as Obama is silly
“Where does the Fedeal Govt have the power to ban this absent COnst amendment”
It didn’t have the power to legalize it in the first place – nor did any state. The right to life is inalienable.
As for your home state, ok, maybe it is one of those states that would ban it. That’s fine – do you think Texas will? How far is it from New Orleans to Houston again?
“It didn’t have the power to legalize it in the first place – nor did any state. The right to life is inalienable.
As for your home state, ok, maybe it is one of those states that would ban it. That’s fine – do you think Texas will? How far is it from New Orleans to Houston again?”
My State to be clear has already passed legisltion that states that abotion will be banned or restricted as much as the COurt wil aloow it
WIll Texas it very well might. Again we got the arguments to the States and the States legislators so we can make the case to our neighbors and fight out there
I have no illusion that abortion victories will come down like manna from heaven but in all practical terms that is where it has to start.
Again I use the example of State execution. People thought that in many states the elimination would be impossible but we are seeing an opposite trend.
It will be tough and it will not allow Catholics and other pro-lifers just blame poltical party x. It gets to the local level where we can fight it
Joe,
“the right to life ought to be protected at the highest levels of government. ”
But think about what that means: that means that murder would have to be a federal crime.
The very reason we have local governments is to handle those kinds of crimes.
Our constitutional system is inherently subsidiarist. We have local governments to punish murder, because it *can* be punished at the local level. Abortion should be treated the same way. There is no reason for a higher level of government to be involved in that.
The constitutional purposes of the federal government are to manage interstate affairs and to manage internatinoal affairs. Subsidiarity says that things should be done at the level of society closest to the family as possible, so that too much power is not concentrated in the hands of a few people.
There is no reason why abortion has to be a federal crime. Now, there may be some aspects of the abortion industry that should be federally criminal (insofar as Planned Parenthood is an international institution).
I bumped my laptop’s touchpad, and the mouse was over “submit.”
Here’s the difference. The federal government currently ensures the right to life.
But murder is state-level crime.
The job of the *federal* government is to make sure that the *states* enforce Natural Law. The federal government says “These rights are inalienable.”
So, if _Roe v. Wade_ is overturned, all other things being equal, the proper approach would be that the federal government says, “unborn children are entitled to the same constitutional rights as born children” (actually, a federal declaratino of some sort to that effect would by itself negate _Roe_).
The states would be obligated to apply the 14th amendment to the unborn. But if a doctor set up an abortion practice, it would be the state or local government, not the federal government, that would prosecute.
I’m sorry, but Ron Paul’s position is not pro-life. It’s just a different kind of pro-choice.
On the issue of abortion, Paul strikes me as being pretty pro-life. He wrote a book on the subject, defending outlawing abortion as being consistent with libertarian principles. Certainly his answers on the question during the campaign were better than you typically get from candidates.
Your link takes me to an interesting but unrelated post on inflation
Oops. Here’s the right link (I hope).
JC,
What you say is reasonable.
Enforcement, of course, should always be at the local level. I hope I never implied otherwise. But there can’t be any room for an individual state to legalize abortion. Otherwise we’re back in 1860. And I’m with Lincoln on that one.
BA,
I’ve heard the ‘Ron Paul is pro-life’ argument many times. What I still haven’t heard is a clear answer on what we do when a state wants to legalize abortion, and is successful in doing so.
Do the unborn children have an inalienable right to life or not? If they do, no state can be allowed to take it away through the political process at any level of government.
While disagreeing with Ron Paul on a good many issues, I have always respected his honest and straightforwardness on the campaign trail. But on this issue Mike Huckabee was far more clear and consistent than any other candidate.
Regarding your argument about the effect of overturning RvW on abortion rates:
1) “For example, while some women in Ireland (which bans abortion) do obtain abortions in England (where abortion is less restricted), the abortion rate for Irish women is less than half of what it is for English women. ”
Isn’t it relevant here, though, that Ireland is a different country than the UK altogether? And that it has always had a strong Catholic culture?
Here is another case of what I think could be a spurious relationship. That abortion is even illegal in Ireland while it is legal in so many other European countries says to me that the Irish abortion rate is low not because it is banned, but rather that it may have been banned because the Irish people are less interested, for cultural reasons, in getting abortions.
I haven’t done the empirical research so I can’t say that this is indeed the case. But I think it is possible.
As for the rest, I’ll grant that they too are possibilities, but I don’t see the rates changing that much. Not to the point where, as it does for some, all other activity must be subordinated to overturning Roe. You look at a state by state map of abortion rates, and CA and NY are far ahead of everyone else. And as for the travel expenses for women, road trips aren’t ‘that expensive’. It might deter some but most women are getting abortions because they feel they aren’t ready to be mothers, and I can’t imagine a day or two on the road is going to weigh more in their minds than a lifetime of responsibility that they don’t want.
And it isn’t as if I am opposed to overturning Roe anyway – I think it should be overturned. I just don’t like the posturing. One can oppose Roe on Constitutional grounds and still be pro-choice. It isn’t sufficient to oppose Roe to wear the pro-life label.
Joe Hargrave: You say he ‘wants the states to ban abortion’. That’s pretty weak. He ‘wants’ it?
Ron Paul wants the states to ban abortion.
I want the states to ban abortion.
The Popes authoritatively teach that law allowing abortion is intrinsically unjust,
so they want the states to ban abortion.
And thus, Heaven wants the states to ban abortion.
If that’s pretty weak ….
Joe Hargrave: What if it doesn’t happen? Then what?
Then he’ll fight it at the state level. Do you suppose someone who says: “I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society” would do anything else?
Joe Hargrave: [You say] ‘he wants an amendment to ban abortion at the federal level’. He’s talking out of both sides of his mouth.
Eh what? As I pointed out, he would be happy with either the states deciding it or a federal constitutional amendment, because he views either of those as proper ways of working for pro-life causes within the American system of government.
Your conclusion that “Ron Paul’s position is not pro-life. It’s just a different kind of pro-choice” is completely ridiculous. Go here and see.
Joe Hargrave: As for what is happening in other states, tell us about it.
So, you have no idea what is happening anti-abortion at the level of the state governments, but are nevertheless content to wonder sarcastically whether post-Roe victories will “fall from the sky like mana from heaven”, while pointing out pro-abortion victories in other states?
Vox Nova has a reputation for being umm.. weird around the issue of abortion. It’s thoroughly earned.
Paul,
Are you always this selective with other people’s arguments, or am I getting special treatment this evening?
I asked for simple clarification, and you respond with this. Why?
The key point here is this:
“He believes that, for the most part, states should retain jurisdiction”
Meaning, they can make abortion legal if they want, they might even be able to do so permanently, and if they do, there’s little Ron Paul can do about it except complain.
I didn’t say I had ‘no idea’ about what is happening in other states – you did. I was asking you to make an argument for all of us to follow.
Also, you claim:
“he would be happy with either the states deciding it or a federal constitutional amendment”
He never said “or”. If his constitutional amendment were passed, then no state would be able to legalize abortion because it would be tantamount to legalizing murder. So why doesn’t he just say that? Huckabee said it pretty clearly.
I’m not out to get Ron Paul. But I don’t think he’s been clear on it. I think he’s advocated for two things that can’t exist at the same time – state jurisdiction over abortion, and a constitutional amendment that would prevent any state from legalizing abortion.
So please, stop getting all defensive and combative with me. There’s no need for it. We want the same things. Turn down the anger level and just address the issue calmly. Why is that so hard? I’ll listen to any argument you want to make, my mind is open to being changed, I’m willing to admit I’m wrong.
So just relax.
As to Ron Paul, and your claim that “he never said ‘or’”, here are his own words:
“Legislatively, we should focus our efforts on building support to overturn Roe v. Wade. Ideally this would be done in a fashion that allows states to again ban or regulate abortion … The alternative is an outright federal ban on abortion, done properly via a constitutional amendment that does no violence to our way of government.”
A quick search on the web will show that Ron Paul believes that the decision in Roe v. Wade was not properly constitutional. So he wants correct constitutional law resumed — which would be that states decide these issues, or a federal constitutional amendment passed, or various other legal means that he has also suggested. This is a coherent political position in support of pro-life issues. To describe it, as you did, as “talking out of both sides of his mouth” is umm… weird. (And to suppose that, because someone is in favor of deciding things at the state level, that therefore they must be in favor of accepting whatever decision is made, is simply a logical error.)
As to the legal situation in the states, here is an extract from the Wikipedia article on Roe v Wade (i.e something that you could have easily found before your post), describing the anti-abortion trigger laws that would go immediately into effect once Roe is overturned:
“Several states have enacted so-called “trigger laws” which “would take effect if Roe v. Wade is overturned. Those states include Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota and South Dakota. Additionally, many states did not repeal pre-1973 statutes that criminalized abortion, and some of those statutes could automatically spring back to life in the event of a reversal of Roe.”
Instead of asking “is this a rational belief” which, coupled with the comparison of “mana from heaven”, rather strongly suggests that pro-life people are acting irrationally, you might instead have taken a minute or two to look up the facts.
Alright Paul,
I can see that nothing is going to change that you feel slighted. I’ll deal with it.
“And to suppose that, because someone is in favor of deciding things at the state level, that therefore they must be in favor of accepting whatever decision is made, is simply a logical error”
Ultimately they are saying that it is a valid decision. To be in favor of deciding the issue of abortion at the state level is, logically, to be in favor of a majority vote deciding the ontological status of the unborn.
That is what it comes down to. There is no way to squirm out of it. Not being pleased with the way people voted is not the same as opposing the idea that this issue should even be up for a vote in the first place.
This is why I drew the original distinction between anti-Roe, and pro-life. There is no logically necessary connection between these two positions. A strict constitutionalist can oppose Roe on constitutional grounds alone, and still be morally and philosophically pro-choice. To be anti-Roe is not sufficient for being pro-life.
To be pro-life, in my view, is to take the position that the unborn human being has an inalienable right to life. Inalienable has to mean, at the least, that no political procedure can infringe upon that right, and all laws that attempt to do so are invalid, whether they are drafted by states or by the federal government.
For the third or is it fourth time now, I never said I was unfamiliar with the state situation. I simply asked you to make your case. You don’t want to believe me, that’s fine. But I hold the position I do because I’ve actually looked more deeply into the matter than you have.
I am aware of the trigger laws, but it isn’t that impressive, and do you know why? Because when you look at abortion rates state by state, those states you listed added together don’t even add up to 6% of the abortions in America. They’re low population states, except for Illinois. 6%! A tax cut for working class mothers and free day care would probably have a bigger impact than what would follow the trigger effect.
I would never throw that away as small change, but the point is that even if this grand plan comes into fruition, we still have the vast majority of abortions taking place in states that probably aren’t going to ban it. There may be greater restrictions that will reduce the rates, and that would be good, but it won’t solve the problem, not by a long shot.
So, instead of going off on me, I don’t know, you might have actually looked at what the actual effect will be. I’m 100% behind overturning Roe, but I think it has been a big mistake to focus on it as the end-all be-all of politics. Ideally I’d be for a top-down executive order banning abortion in all 50 states forever, but that is never going to happen.
What needs to happen is that the ‘pro-life’ label be more clearly understood so that no one is fooled into thinking one party is pro-life, while the other isn’t. The states rights approach is as pragmatic, and ultimately, pro-choice, as the ‘reduce abortions through economic policies’ approach. Neither one seeks to establish the human rights of the unborn as an inalienable right, and neither is properly pro-life. But they are both equally valid and necessary strategies that people who ARE pro-life can and must pursue, in addition to grassroots work.
Pro-life unity is the most important thing. Pointing at Obama voters who truly believe that his policies will reduce abortions and calling them liars or idiots isn’t going to help. We all want the same things.
JoeH: I can see that nothing is going to change that you feel slighted. I’ll deal with it.
(Personally, I’m not even slightly slighted. You’ve offered several different personal suppositions about me, all wide of the mark. Can I just get you to focus on the two issues I’ve raised?)
(1a)
You’ve suggested that Ron Paul’s position is “just a different kind of pro-choice”. I still find that ridiculous. In the course of the discussion you responded (to my claim that Ron Paul wished either to have the issue returned to the states, or to have a federal constitutional amendment) that he had never said or. I provided the probative quote, and you replied by … retracting nothing. Can you understand that I might consider that you are not dealing with the issues?
(1b) You’ve said: “To be in favor of deciding the issue of abortion at the state level is, logically, to be in favor of a majority vote deciding the ontological status of the unborn.” Either you are using the word ‘logical’ in some imprecise way — in which case I don’t know what you mean — or your claim seems to be that no one can ever vote in favor of an inalienable right. Whaaaat?
(2)
You questioned the rationality of supposing that reversing Roe would enable pro-life forces to have victories (describing the unlikeliness of this as believing in “mana from heaven”). I (and others) pointed out that some victories were in fact already in place, ready to go into place the instant Roe was reversed, so that it was eminently rational to expect victories. You responded by … changing the subject. Instead of retracting your attack on the rationality of it, you switched to how impressive it was or wasn’t. Totally different argument.
Paul,
If you’re not slighted, how about you lose the attitude?
There was nothing more to say about issue 1a. Paul wants a ‘proper’ Constitutional amendment that still leaves it up to the states to decide. They’re just deciding on what happens at the national level instead of the state level. It’s still everyone making a ‘choice’. Or are people not ‘choosing’ when they vote and have more than one option?
The only truly pro-life option is an improper amendment bypassing the states that says, ‘the unborn human being has an inalienable right to life’. No choice. No vote. A restoration of a natural right that no state had a right to take away to begin with, or ever will. As I have said, that is not going to happen, so, we need all available approaches. We just need to stop pretending that one is ‘more’ pro-life than the other. We are all forced into being politically pro-choice by this system of government.
Regarding 1b, what I mean is what I said. Inalienable means cannot be granted or taken away by a government, it means it is natural, always exists. People ‘can’ go through the motions of voting on a measure to completely ignore a group of human beings inalienable rights, but those rights still exist. This according not only to classical liberalism but more importantly to the Catholic Church, which I presume you are a member of if you are posting here but maybe not.
The majority cannot decide what truth is, let alone redefine what it means to be human, in any valid way recognized by the Church!
What if there was a referendum on whether or not you were a human being, because some powerful interest group wanted you dead?
As for 2,
Forgive me, I usually think of rationality in an instrumental sense – if you are pursuing a policy that a) probably won’t happen, and b) isn’t going to end up accomplishing very much even if it does, at great expense, I would say that is irrational.
Also, why are you criticizing me for ignoring parts of your argument when you barely even addressed mine?
I will most likely light some fires with this comment, and I pray it is read in full before judged.
I am not sure how, in a liberal democracy such as the US, Roe or Casey can ever be over turned (either by a court ruling or a constitutional amendment). What is more, I am just as unclear how the Freedom of Choice Act, and its implications for Doctors whose conscience prevents them from performing any type of abortion, would ever stand the scrutiny of the Supreme Court let alone pass through Congress.
The Liberal project on which the US is based rejects both religious and natural law as a basis for moral arguments. It is simply the rule of codified law and public opinion. There seems little ground then for the Church to change policy when the goal of the Constitution is to protect individual freedom, the same freedom which gives the Church its ability to function with little to no interference from the government.
This being the reality of American politicos, would it not be more beneficial for the Church to direct its energies and funds to the reduction of abortions through local support for women than in changing legislation. Is not that where life is most impacted? Is not this where the “culture of life” actually exists rather than in some abstract political term called “Life” which is actually divorced from the women and children devastated by a so-called choice?
Josh,
I have to disagree.
“The Liberal project on which the US is based rejects both religious and natural law as a basis for moral arguments.”
As a basis for moral arguments? That is way too strong. What is the Declaration of Independence, if not a moral argument? What was Locke’s Second Treatise if not a moral argument?
Without a belief in God, rights make no sense. Could Jefferson really have written, “we are endowed with these inalienable rights because I say so?”
No individual has the freedom to either commit murder, or to redefine the act of murder in such a way that it becomes legally or morally acceptable. If we can’t enforce that, then we may as well forget about having a civilization.
The right to life is the first inalienable right, inalienable meaning no political process can ever take it away, and any that attempts to do so is invalid. There may be debates as to ‘when life begins’ but there can be no debate that Planned Parenthood doesn’t abort zygotes or embryos, but human beings with a recognizably human form.
I support the “Life at Conception Act”, though I don’t think it will ever become law. I support the reasoning behind it – the sanctity of life cannot be subject to a popular vote. I don’t even like that it is subject to a legislative vote, but it’s better than a popular vote.
I’m also tired of arguing about what would be ‘more’ beneficial. We have to try everything. Local support for women will only reduce abortions by some, not all, or even a lot. A lot of abortions are sought by women who are not in poverty, who just don’t want to have the kid. The vast majority of them are unmarried, and state assistance cannot take the place of marriage. We also need legislation that provides more incentives, and greater penalties, on men who abandon their parental duties.
Now this is a discussion I can have Joe! Thank you for such an articulate (and by that I mean not ad hominem) argument.
There is no doubt that the founding philosophers were Deists. Yet, I think your statement that mores and values (rights) make no sense without a belief in God equally overstates the case.
Note that I did not state that Christians should not petition their legislators nor that we should not speak up for the human life in all forms as legislation arises in the political sphere. I do want to say however, that an effort to repeal Roe will not reduce the number of abortions. For those mothers which you say “don’t want to have the kid” there will be ways, including travel outside of the United States or worse to back alley clinics where mother and child are put at risk, and killed.
I also want to call into question the economics of the debate. How much money is given to Pro-Life movements which simply pay for lobbyists or for propaganda (including the ridiculous ad campaigns which resort to fear-mongering during elections). While this may sound like the Judas’ query about the money spent on Mary’s expensive ointment (could this have not been spent on the poor), I do not think that many arguments can justify opulence of these expenditures as liturgical or salvific.
As to your last paragraph, I initially want to say that the women (and the men that force them) making this “choice” are more complex than you let stand in your argument. That said, you do hint at the massive social and economic factors which are at play here. Developing a “Culture of Life” I think means attending to all of life, from womb to grave. This means that speaking out against poverty ought to be just as important as signing a petition against the FOCA. In other words, actual lives are complex and reduction of a definition of life to issues surrounding abortion ignores that God created all that lives.
I think this highlights that the Church is to be Public and Political, just not in the myopic ways we think of politics today. Governments come and go, and are ultimately concerned with walking the fine middle line in order to keep the status quo. The Church on the other hand is an end-oriented community, always striving for the Kingdom of God. That is to say we are pushing beyond votes, beyond middle ground in order to bring all into the House of God. Forcing legislation, I fear, does not do this and simply makes us think we have a made a Christian society. The truth is we have not convinced anyone about the value of life, nor spoken about the God who created all.
Joe Hargreave,
1a)
If you don’t want to rebut, I can’t make you. (So, unfortunately, we leave off at the point where Ron Paul’s own words contradict what you claim of him.)
1b)
When you said: “Ron Paul’s position is not pro-life. It’s just a different kind of pro-choice”, you intended to use ‘pro-choice’ in a pejorative sense (it was being contrasted with ‘pro-life’). It turned out later that you accused him of being ‘pro-choice’ in the sense that he was in favor of going through the democratic process in order to restore an inalienable right.
But you didn’t identify exactly what was wrong with that. While it is entirely true, as you say, that no government has the ability to take away an inalienable right (it being God-given), governments most certainly can take away the various material supports (the courts, law enforcement, programs etc.) that follow from the recognition of that right. In which case it is most certainly correct to choose to go through the democratic process to restore the recognition of that right, both so that truth can be spoken, and so that the material supports can be restored.
In which case, Ron Paul’s approach has nothing wrong with it, and hasn’t been shown to be anything except pro-life.
2)
As I said, you’ve switched the basis of your argument. Originally you objected along the lines that overturning Roe was irrational because it would achieve nothing. When that was shown to be false, you’ve now instead pointed out that what you really meant by irrational is that it’s unlikely to happen and (somehow) far too expensive to be worth doing. The goalposts moved.
Paul,
I switched nothing. First of all, I never used the word ‘nothing’. I only suggested that political victories would be highly unlikely. Secondly, that remains true even when factoring in the states that have trigger laws, because it will barely make a dent in the number of abortions performed nation wide.
In other words, political victories that will have any real impact on abortion in the United States are unlikely in the event of Roe being overturned. I stand by that on the basis of the facts.
As for the rest, I’m done debating the meaning of words with you. Caio.
Josh,
“Yet, I think your statement that mores and values (rights) make no sense without a belief in God equally overstates the case.”
It simply is the case, though. No material process, no physical process, can create a right. Mere consensus or majority opinion can create a right either, since that changes with every new generation. The founding fathers were Deists, but the natural rights they referred to were still written into nature by God. Was Thomas Jefferson overstating the case, for instance, when he asked rhetorically,
“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XVIII, 1782. ME 2:227
Next, you say,
“For those mothers which you say “don’t want to have the kid” there will be ways, including travel outside of the United States or worse to back alley clinics where mother and child are put at risk, and killed.”
Two points. First, travel outside the country will take place, but not the tune of 1.5 million abortions a year. That number will decrease dramatically, and it isn’t the obligation of the state to ensure that it is impossible to commit a crime (in fact any attempt to do so would be tyrannical), only to safeguard rights to the best of its ability.
Secondly, as tragic as the ‘back alley abortion’ scenario is, that cannot be our concern. I know it may sound heartless, but, we can not even consider for a moment that abortion ought to be legal to avoid this problem.
People can get themselves hurt or killed doing any number of intrinsically evil things, like dealing meth, prostitution, etc. We must never give in to a kind of morality we sometimes see on the far left – that these intrinsically evil things ought to be made ‘safe’ through regulations since it is ‘impractical’ to ban them. Wrong.
I am not opposed to state assistance for struggling mothers who need it, but I am opposed to the idea of providing for ‘safe abortions’. Abortion should be dangerous. How many people are alive today because their mothers chose not to abort for fear of their own lives? I would estimate millions born before 1973 or another year depending on the state. How many are dead now that abortion is ‘safe’? Millions.
“In other words, actual lives are complex and reduction of a definition of life to issues surrounding abortion ignores that God created all that lives.”
There is no amount of ‘complexity’ that ever justifies the murder of innocents. Abortion is fundamentally murder, but most often it is also an abandonment of parental responsibility, another heinous crime. What is ‘complicated’ is that people want to have sex without consequences, they want to figure out the easiest way to do that. Abortion plays a major role in it.
Parents are responsible for their children. They are responsible for the consequences of their actions, including sex. To divorce sex from responsibility, as abortion and contraception do, is to promote an amoral and anti-social lifestyle that is slowly tearing apart human civilization.
The definition of life cannot be changed. That doesn’t mean we can’t do all that is in our power to reduce abortion. Aid to struggling mothers is intrinsically good, abortion or not. Aid to working families is intrinsically good. I support all of these things. But the state has an absolute duty to protect the right to life.
Again, thoughtful prose which is all the better.
First I should say, I whole heartedly agree that life is sacred. In fact, I see it as so sacred that I often speak of the Death Penalty and War as murder and a violation of the sacredness of life. I think what we are getting at here (if I can be a bit reductive) is two things 1) the foundations for moral debate in the public sphere and 2) the relationship of the Church to the wider society. So two responses in this line of thought (hopefully I am not leading us too far a field).
Re. 1). While I believe the whole creation is shot through with God, I think natural law as a common moral ground does not account for the cosmological implications of the Fall. In other words, how has human sin altered the very good order of creation. Hence, what one might consider a “natural law” can be socially constructed to be seen as Good. Thus, what we as Christians see as part of the natural order of things is already shaped by the Christian Tradition, and hence revelation from God. I think we do a grand disservice to the faith when we try to argue as secular humanists rather than speak from the faith that informs our very perspective.
Following and Re 2: The Church’s relationship to the world is not legislative in nature but sacramental, that is pointing to God. Just because Jefferson and others used the language of god, does not mean they meant the God we confess in the Creed. In fact, the whole Liberal Democratic project was based on removing God from the political equation. Hence, I think we would be hard pressed to find people outside of the Church who would say that “inalienable” means “God given”, as you have defined it above. In fact, I think it would be strikingly humanist and based in psychology. Hence the role of the Church is to stand in the public square Confessing the Creed in the same breath as speaking out against murder. “I stand against abortion because God is the creator of all life.”
I think you are right on target about sex and its consequences. In a recent conversation here about a different issue it became clear that what we were confronting was a hyper-sexualized society. Unfortunately, the debate circling all of this is the sexual freedom of the individual, a direct result of Freudian psychoanalysis. I think this is the new grounding for contemporary secular moral debate: To be a whole person is to be a sexually expressive being. While the Church can say yes, human persons are sexual we immediately return to revelation to say that we also believe the sexual act to be unitive AND procreative. But here again we end up speaking Confessionally.
Now, one last comment before I have to wrap up for the evening (please know, I am really “enjoying” this conversation. There are few times that I have experienced this level of debate and nuance. So thank you.) In your last paragraph you say: “Aid to struggling mothers is intrinsically good, abortion or not. Aid to working families is intrinsically good. I support all of these things. But the state has an absolute duty to protect the right to life.”
I am curious if you would also call a repeal of Roe and Casey intrinsically good. Is it possible to see it as good, but not intrinsically? My inclination is to say that aid to single mothers is intrinsically good because it is connected to real persons. It is a higher, more essential good in that the lives of people are made better. Thus, the infant born and tended to is a higher good than the child born into malnutrition and poverty. Ought we not to strive towards life and with that better life for all. What good is it if the child born because of legislation preventing abortion yet starves to death. You’ll see that I am pressing for a holistic approach here, which I have been arguing for from my first post. I am not continuing the murder or choice debate, but trying to recast the whole issue.
I’m glad you’re enjoying the discussion! It’s always fun to talk about things reasonably, without the flame wars and the ego contests.
Here is my problem with your first point: it is not we who are speaking like the secular humanists, but rather the secular humanists who have co-opted the language of Christianity.
Now of course Locke and Jefferson were hardly Catholics. Of course it took the Church another century or two to begin really expressing herself in the same language of rights on a consistent basis. But what the Church teaches now, is fairly clear, and it does adopt the standpoint of God-given, inalienable rights. More broadly it speaks of human rights, but the idea is the same. Allow me to quote the Catechism:
“1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy. If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church’s role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.”
Call me a little crazy, but that sounds downright Lockean-Jeffersonian to me. Rights ‘flow from our dignity as a creature’ and are ‘prior to society’; is that not a declaration of natural right?
It isn’t an exact match but rather it is the Church expressing herself in the language of rights that is common in the world today. I think it is an adequate framework for the discussion.
Leading us to point two. The intent of Jefferson really isn’t that important here. All he did was articulate a truth that the Church, as I think the above quote demonstrates, embraces today. And I think it is something society needs to continue to embrace lest it fall into complete moral chaos. While the undeniable truth is that the unborn human being has a right to life, more is at stake than individual lives. The right to life of every group that might be deemed ‘unfit’ or ‘undeveloped’ or what have you at some point in the future is also at stake.
So, to be clear, I don’t think that the pro-life position is an exclusively Catholic one, or even exclusively Christian. In Evangelium Vitae, JP II calls upon all people of ‘good will’ even non-believers, to take up the cause of life. This is an issue that can and should cut across all religious, ethnic, cultural, and national lines.
The fallacy that ‘Catholics for a Free Choice’ perpetuate is that the abortion issue is a Catholic or Christian issue, when really, it is an issue pertaining to the life and death of civilization, the diving line between a humane society and barbarism.
Regarding sexuality, there is a reason I characterize the pro-choice ‘morality’ as anti-social, precisely because it does revolve around individual sexual freedom. I don’t know what you really mean by ‘whole person’, or ‘sexually expressive’ – I think there is more value in a life of asceticism than a worldly life filled with sex, licit or illicit, but that’s a different story.
What I do know is that the normalization of promiscuity, contraception, abortion, pornography, and other sexual deviancy has a profoundly destabilizing effect on human civilization. It destroys families, it prevents new ones from forming properly or even forming at all, it causes deep and long lasting spiritual wounds that take a life time to recover from.
Not too far into the future the ratio of boys to girls will become dangerously unbalanced in China, and eventually in other countries as well, because women abort girls at much higher rates than boys, in a twist of irony that a lot of feminists have had to painfully admit. The unforeseen consequences of normalizing perversion are coming more into focus every day and the future looks grim unless the trends can be reversed.
Finally, I would say that a repeal of Roe and Casey are the least a moral, civilized society can do. It was shameful that they came into existence in the first place. That said, it would be most unfortunate if a repeal of these unjust laws were not accompanied by genuinely needed aid. I don’t think many children in America would ‘starve to death’ but their lives may be a little more difficult.
Here, however, we face a whole host of other related issues. It isn’t moral, for instance, for society to have massive inequalities like the US does. Economic liberalism is explicitly condemned by the Church. Part in parcel with building the culture of life, I think, is building communities of ownership and fighting for economic democracy, in securing the full rights of workers and families.
But all of that is for nothing if we don’t protect the right to life of every human being.
Egos definitely get in the way too often!
Regarding my statement about a sexual being, I was trying to find a clever way to describe the anthropology in modern secular terms. Namely that sexual activity is the prime characteristic of the human person rather than say reason in the Enlightenment age or the Imago Dei in Christian thought.
If I may, I want to summarize what I think our agreement is. First, that as you say in the title, Anti-Roe does not mean Pro-Life. From there we diverge in how we see the role of the Church in the public square (though we do have a common ground on the fact that the Church is to be in public debate.)
A bit of irony about rights language here. The last I recall (and maybe you have more recent evidence) the US has not signed the UN Declaration on Human Rights. I think here we see that despite the ground-breaking turn towards inalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence, the US has politically dismissed the UN Declaration. Here I think we see that the government operates on its own terms despite its legacy and tradition.
If I may, I want to play with the title of your post to highlight some of my thoughts.
1) Anti-Roe does not equate to Pro-Life
to which I would add
2) Anti-Abortion does not equate to Pro-life
This might be illustrated by a Venn Diagram which shows that all Pro-Life persons are against abortion yet not all anti-abortion individuals are fully Pro-Life
What is more
3) Pro-Life does not equate to Christian
Again, following the above example of the Venn Diagram, All Christians are Pro-Life but not all Pro-life-ers are Christian.
What I am most interested in is the Christian witness int he public square. As with Paul, we ought to build on the lowest commonality with others in the Life movements (Anti-Abortion, Anti-War, Anti-Death Penalty) with an eye toward welcoming all into the Christian side of the Venn Circles. This means using the language of Rights yet being explicit and undeniably Christian about the way we understand these terms.
So regarding your last statement: “But all of that is for nothing if we don’t protect the right to life of every human being.” YES. And this is also the baseline for all other issues of life. Which was stated so well in Humanae Vitae.
Josh,
In my last post I made clear that the pro-life position goes beyond Catholicism and Christianity – that it has to do with the choice between a humane society, and barbarism. So we are in agreement there. It’s why the ‘Catholics for a Free Choice’ are wrong.
The problem is that there very, very few pro-life secularists, liberals, socialists, etc. And then, even when they are, they usually keep their views to themselves. You won’t see them at anti-war rallies, that’s for sure. Most of the radical left prepares ‘defense guards’ for women who want to enter abortion clinics where there are pro-life protesters.
Most of the left is still too caught up in ‘sexual liberation’ to look rationally at the issues raised here. The lengths they will go to and the levels of hysteria they will reach in defending abortion are a little frightening.
One group however that I think might be reasoned with are animal rights activists. I am willing to extend pro-life considerations, if not hard principles, to most forms of animal life. Certainly I am opposed to the industrialized barbarism of factory farming and using nearly sentient animals such as monkeys for cruel scientific experiments.
In turn I think they can see the intrinsic value of the unborn child. I may be naive in thinking so, but, its worth a shot.
As for the UN Declaration – it does not acknowledge God as the originator of rights. But, in fact, the US has signed it, at least according to Wikipedia.
Ah, I see what I was remembering. The US affirmed the Universal Declaration but did not sign certain “optional” elements, most of which would have been binding in the International Criminal Court and the like. The last I was reading up on this was 1997, so my memory is a bit vague! Thanks to the Internet blind spots are now removed.
On the long drive home the question hit me.
If Roe is overturned in the next five years what next? What does the Church do with its legislative prayers answered? Are we prepared to care for the women having these children?
“Are we prepared to care for the women having these children?”
The short answer is that more often than not, they can take care of themselves, but with greater difficulty.
The long answer is that, once again, we have to strive to implement the Church’s entire social program.
Our society has gotten used to abortion. Families have gotten used to it. Some parents are relieved when their daughter gets an abortion because it means they won’t have to deal with a problem. A lot of men are relieved. There are many parents and partners that also have a stake in abortion, not just women.
But we cannot enable a great evil to prevent lesser evils, no matter what the consequences are. Our level of preparedness is a cause for concern but it can’t be what determines our position on the legality of abortion.