(Cross-posted at Religious Rhetorics.)
For my inaugural Vox Nova piece, I’d like to reflect on recent developments in Italy, which offer both an important model for U.S. Catholics’ political involvement, as well as an opportunity for self-reflection within the American pro-life movement.
After a July 15 legislative victory in which pro-choice and pro-life members of the Italian parliament worked together to pass a UN resolution condemning forced abortion, prominent conservative Catholic politician Rocco Buttiglione gave an interview to Italian daily newspaper Corriere della Sera saying that he no longer thinks criminalization should be the primary goal of the pro-life movement. He argues that instead, pro-lifers should work to make sure women are empowered and do not feel forced into abortion. He is quoted as saying (all emphasis mine),
Let me explain it theologically. God gives the child to the mother in a very special way, such that to defend the child in opposition to the mother may be an act of justice, but it is impossible. We should instead support the mother, work to free her: the more free she is, the harder it will be for her to give up her child.
In a follow-up interview with the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute on July 28, Buttiglione clarifies his position more, saying,
…we relied too much in the past on the penal sanction. That is only one element in the strategy to defend life, but not the only one element. And I reiterate, if we do not remove the causes that lead so many women to abort, we will not win our battle against abortion. We will not win our battle against abortion relying only on penal sanction.
This sounds very similar to the arguments made by progressive, common ground Catholics in the U.S. that working collaboratively on abortion reduction strategies would be more effective at ending abortion than Republican criminalization strategies (for which position such Catholics are too often accused of violating their Catholic identity, and by extension, their pro-life credentials). One also can’t help but be reminded of current proposed legislation like the Casey-Davis “Pregnant Women Support Act,” and the Ryan-DeLauro “Preventing Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion, and Supporting Parents Act.”
While Buttiglione’s remarks may not have yet earned him the same level of acrimony from conservatives as common ground Catholics in the U.S. have experienced (perhaps due to his longstanding credibility within conservative Catholic circles), his interview has nonetheless renewed concern amongst the U.S. pro-life movement that common ground approaches undercut “unity” within the movement. In the follow-up interview, Buttiglione responds to these concerns, saying,
It is important to make things clear, because I know it is easy in the press to try to break the unity of the pro-life movement. Of course I want to be able to speak on friendly terms with the Obama administration – I know this is blasphemy to many pro-lifers in the United States! But on the other hand I want to be understood by American pro-lifers, and I do not want to break the unity of our front.
The reason I draw attention to this point is that I think it is symptomatic of something deeply troubling in the pro-life movement: namely, the notion that to challenge the tactics of certain factions of the movement is the same thing as challenging the cause itself, namely, the respect for human life and dignity. This problem is also manifested when a July 29 Zenit story on this subject opens by saying that in the aforementioned Corriere della Sera interview, Buttiglione,“one of Europe’s most respected and prominent pro-life politicians” had “allegedly compromised his views on abortion” by shifting his emphasis from criminalization to supporting women – again, the equation of strategy with values.
This stems in part from the underlying battle metaphor at work in the movement’s self-understanding, in which ending abortion is a straightforward clash between the forces of good and evil. Operating under this metaphor, the forces of good must therefore put forth a united “front” against the forces of evil, which means not acknowledging any flaws within the movement, nor merits within the opposition. Not only does this prevent the pro-life movement from engaging in fruitful self-reflection; it also strengthens the perceptions of those outside the movement that pro-lifers are just ideological zealots rather than thoughtful citizens. This decreases the credibility of all pro-life concerns.
Buttiglione to some extent acknowledges this issue of pro-life credibility through his emphasis on maintaining a good relationship with the Obama administration – and his wry acknowledgment that this is “blasphemy to many pro-lifers in the United States.” Buttiglione doesn’t expand on this point, but I would go further, and argue that the tendency of conservative Catholics to always think the worst of President Obama in regards to abortion may well serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If politically it seems to the Obama folks that there’s no point in appeasing pro-lifers because they will just skew it in the worst possible light regardless (and thus refuse to compromise or collaborate), then it won’t seem in the Obama administration’s political interest to do so. That doesn’t make them soulless – it just makes them pragmatic, when they’re trying to balance a lot of competing interest groups. As a result, pro-life concerns within larger legislation – like appropriations, health care reform, and so on – may be ignored.
Rather than smugly taking such occurrences as proof that the Obama administration is “anti-life,” Catholic pro-life groups would do well to note Rocco Buttiglione’s recent common ground success – and how he achieved it.
Exactly right; there is a confusion between tactic, thinking there is only one way to work for life, with the end, and if one works through a different means, it is assumed as if it lead to (and fighting for) a different end. But we know that things can not be so univocal; indeed, the fact that the Church has many theologians whose methods might contradict each other (Scotus vs Aquinas, for example) does not condemn them when they point to, and lead to the same end. We need to think within such pluralism when we engage politics. Balthasar pointed out how truth is symphonic, but we need to also understand how this leads to the good and the beautiful as being symphonic as well.
“I did not say it was wrong to seek to defend the rights of the child through the use of the penal code. I did not say that. The life of the child should be defended with all possible means. With penal law? Yes, of course, with penal law, where possible.”
-Italian politician Rocco Buttiglione from the follow-up interview with the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute on July 28, (emphasis mine)
The problem as I see it is that some organizations that see themselves as progressive pro-life groups have signaled (possibly without meaning to do so, or possibly it is that their real intent is being distorted by opportunists who have a different agenda) that now the strategy of ‘reducing need’ must be embraced and ‘legal prohibition’ is merely passe. If one takes that position, then one is no longer pro-life in that those who are pro-life have always maintained that there is a ‘right to life’.
As I said, whether or not such a position represents the ‘neo-pro-lifers’ or not, I am not in a position to say. It may merely be that the problem is one of perception.
Of course, Buttiglione has already backtracked and apologized for the “big mess” his remarks caused:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=16713
Perhaps he reviewed section 2273 of the Catechism, which should be required reading for all the new pro-abort Catholics who post on Vox Nova.
Ron
“Pro-abort” is a false presentation of what is being said, and you will not be allowed to continue with such posts. That is your only warning. Straw men like that will not be allowed.
What is interesting is it is clear your knee jerk reaction is just that — because if you read the post and understood it (which is clearly not the case) his further remarks were discussed. Perhaps you should consider if you can change and actually engage people instead of your straw men?
I would be totally sympathetic to the “common ground” idea of focusing on reducing the need for abortion if I did not suspect that the progressives who avail themselves of such arguments are doing it only because that “tactic” allows them to fit their distaste for abortion snugly with other political problems that are really more important for them. In other words the preference for the “common ground” tactic is made for ideological reasons. The conservatives do this too with the concept of subsidiarity.
In spite of all criticism pro-life has had (and continues to have) constant success with lowering the abortion rate. Nevertheless, even if the abortion rate was 0%, de jure injustice is no more acceptable than de facto injustice and the Church quite plainly teaches that we MUST work to make our laws just for the poorest of the poor (the unborn).
*”In spite of all criticism the pro-life MOVEMENT has had (and continues to have) constant success”
Henry,
Are both groups leading to the same end? That is essentially what I asked in my first comment. It is not as if the ‘old guard’ is for prohibition and against anything that is not prohibition. That is itself a straw man. Despite what some seem to believe, the idea of working “to make sure women are empowered and do not feel forced into abortion” is not a new addition to the pro-life movement which coincided with the last election campaign.
However, if you focus only on “reducing the need” for abortion (putting aside semantic concerns about the word, ‘need’), and you do not pursue restriction and prohibition, then you no longer are pursuing the same goal. One can embrace those tactics in addition (if you did not already), but one cannot embrace those tactics in substitution without ceasing to be pro-life.
This stems in part from the underlying battle metaphor at work in the movement’s self-understanding, in which ending abortion is a straightforward clash between the forces of good and evil. Operating under this metaphor, the forces of good must therefore put forth a united “front” against the forces of evil, which means not acknowledging any flaws within the movement, nor merits within the opposition. Not only does this prevent the pro-life movement from engaging in fruitful self-reflection; it also strengthens the perceptions of those outside the movement that pro-lifers are just ideological zealots rather than thoughtful citizens. This decreases the credibility of all pro-life concerns.
I agree, Kari. The battle metaphor disposes one to imagine the other as an evil, even demonic enemy to be defeated rather than a thoughtful and moral person to be persuaded. We shouldn’t expect pro-life legislative victories to maintain permanency when a large group of the population thinks abortion should be legal. What we can expect from the “culture wars” is endless war.
One can embrace those tactics in addition (if you did not already), but one cannot embrace those tactics in substitution without ceasing to be pro-life.
A fair point. But why are those who embrace both called vile things when they collaborate with any willing partner on the root cause issues? (And called vile things by those who collaborate with any willing partner on the restriction issues — i.e. those who believe from a stand point of strict constructionism or states rights that Roe should be overturned.
Kurt, Kyle, Karie, etc.-
Frankly, I get the feeling that a lot of this is just self-congratulatory condemnation of those who disagree. Don’t understand me either, I see it on the side that you guys disapprove of, but on your side too.
I think that it may be a result of what is sometimes called ‘cyberbalkanization’. People who are strongly pro-life and strongly pro-choice reinforce their own ideology by generally avoiding non-confrontational engagement, but sociologists have also shown that they become more extreme and strident when they do so.
On the internet, this process can occur within much less diverse groups because of the fact that small demographics are linked together that wouldn’t otherwise have been able to, and because of the impersonal nature of anonymous internet exchanges.
Lets start out with the assumption that the pro-lifers who are for common ground and those who aren’t may have legitimate reasons for disagreement. I think that’s fair (or not unreasonably charitable). Let’s also assume that the common ground efforts can both be seen as beneficial to the pro-life cause and as efforts which benefit the pro-choicers.
Some of the pro-lifers who disagree with you (like Ron) aren’t treating you respectfully. I wouldn’t attempt to argue otherwise. Do you think that you are treating those who disagree with you fairly? I tend to think that you aren’t.
I don’t know if you’ll think that my perspective of this is worthwhile or not. You may assume that I have a bias which invalidates my view. If you want, I’ll explain where I am on the spectrum if you think that context is important, but I’m not sure if that is necessary.
Ockraz,
Do I think that I’m treating those with whom I disagree fairly? Sure. I’m not questioning or assuming ill motives of others, for example. My point is that the battle metaphor has consequences for how one imagines the other: like all metaphors, it establishes an interpretive framework and inclines one to imagine the other within the confines of that framework. Of course, not everyone who speaks in terms of the metaphor will see the other only as an enemy or as evil, especially if other metaphors strongly shape their thinking, but those depictions are where the battle metaphor leads, and we can see among those who think in terms of the metaphor plenty of examples of their demonizing the other. Google “Obama Moloch.”
Metaphors matter; the pro-life movement would do well to take its metaphors seriously. While the battle metaphor is not without some truth, it conceals more than it reveals, and, furthermore, it works against the pro-life cause—even its legislative cause. I think pro-lifers should abandon the battle metaphor. There are more accurate and clearer ways to conceive of ourselves and others.
I’m not going to google anything with ‘moloch’ as a keyword for pity’s sake.
The battle metaphor is one which is used throughout politics. It isn’t just this issue. It is not a bad metaphor if it is accurate. Is there not a political battle over the issue (and a battle of ideas over who will win over the next generation).
The good versus evil idea (if one is speaking of policies rather than people) has a legitimate case for it too.
The ‘America’ headline was “Buttiglione no longer supports criminalising abortion”, and you guys criticized people for saying that he had compromised his principles. If that headline had been true, then the characterization would have been as well.
The typical member of the old guard of the pro-life movement is rhetorically used to ‘preaching to the choir’ and confronting the pro-choicers (who are no more civil taken as a whole then their opponents). I feel like you guys are cherry picking bad actors for their conduct and intellectually caricaturing a (diverse) group by using as your example the views of those who aren’t the intellectual champions of the movement. Criticizing these stereotypes only benefits the opponents you both have.
Do you think that the old guard are just foolish or unsophisticated for opposing you? Do you think you’re winning any of them over? You don’t want to merely dissociate yourself from them do you? In terms of sheer numbers, there wouldn’t be a movement left without them.
I’m interested in expanding the movement, but that can’t be done if you just accept that there will be a divide between you and the traditionalists.
I’m not going to google anything with ‘moloch’ as a keyword for pity’s sake.
Well, perhaps you can trust me when I say that I’ve seen the president called “Moloch Obama” by not a few pro-lifers.
The battle metaphor is one which is used throughout politics. It isn’t just this issue.
True. The “culture wars” span a number of “fronts” regarding a number of issues.
It is not a bad metaphor if it is accurate.
It can be a bad metaphor despite being accurate if it produces bad effects. Accuracy isn’t the only standard by which a metaphor may be judged good or ill.
Is there not a political battle over the issue (and a battle of ideas over who will win over the next generation).
That’s one way of thinking about the political and philosophical conflicts. I don’t think it’s the best way. If we want to “win over” the next generation, then it’s better for us to persuade rather than “battle” the opposition. Pro-lifers must seek, among other goals, to build a consensus that abortion ought to be outlawed. We build that consensus by persuading, not by alienating others through endless cultural warfare.
The good versus evil idea (if one is speaking of policies rather than people) has a legitimate case for it too.
Not denying that.
I feel like you guys are cherry picking bad actors for their conduct and intellectually caricaturing a (diverse) group by using as your example the views of those who aren’t the intellectual champions of the movement.
We’re addressing a real and very evident metaphor found within the pro-life movement, even among the “intellectual champions” of the movement.
Do you think that the old guard are just foolish or unsophisticated for opposing you?
I’m not sure who you mean by the “old guard” or the “traditionalists.” I think the pro-life movement would have a better chance of success if it abandoned the belligerent “culture war” way of thinking about and responding to others.
Okraz,
Let me be clear. “My side” is working for both root cause and legislative restrictions as the opportunities present themselves and with any willing partner. “My side” is also that we have a variety of other social and policy concerns that I intend to pursue with the same principle (as opportunities present themselves and with any willing partner).
Now, while condoning working with any willing partner on legal restrictions(i.e strict constructionists or states righters or supporters of some restrictions but not an absolute ban) is an action the Pro-Life Establishment is as willing as I am to utilize, when it comes to following the same principles on what I find to be root cause issues, the name calling starts.
Now, it would seem to me that there is room for disagreements within a single movement in the various strategies, judgments and tactics that could be used.
My complaint is that what I would consider different judgments on these matters are termed hersey by some others.
I would tell them I disagree with them. They tell me I am not pro-life (I take no offensive, I cede them the trademark), not a member of my denomination (I resent that), and seek to obstruct my reception of the sacraments of my church (something I take with great offense).
In all fairness, this is not some misunderstanding between two sides that can be resolved by having a beer together in someone’s backyard.
Kurt,
Let me pose you a question: Why is it necessary for the Pro-Life Movement to seek laws to protect the Unborn when the Laws already Exist, IF the Unborn were judged to be a Human Person from the time of conception?
Isn’t the basic question really about the status of the Unborn at the time of conception and beyond? Laws already exist that would prohibit the killing of a human person, except in cases of self-defense and/or war (roughly).
Isn’t the better strategy to develop a consensus that the Unborn is indeed a Human Person from the time of conception onward? To work towards that end would obviate the need to get a separate set of laws passed for a subset of Human Persons. This task seems impossible to me precisely because there is no consensus that the Unborn is a Human Person at the moment of conception.
Unless there is such a consensus about the status of the Unborn, the Law cannot possibly have any foundation in the culture. It would for that reason become a tyrannical force and lead directly to the creation of a moral police state.
This is the substance of the issue, is it not?
Ockraz,
I certainly agree with you that pro-lifers do not have a monopoly on incivility and demonization. This is part of the problem of the abortion debate overall – extreme polarization benefiting no one but the fundraisers on either side, whether pro-choice or pro-life.
You raise an important definitional issue more than once throughout your comments, which deserves its own response. Your point is, I believe, that if someone does not support criminalizing abortion, one is de facto not “pro-life.” I see this as a problematic and yet pervasive view within pro-life discourse, as reflected in, for example, the framing of the Zenit article I cited in the essay. This is, as I have already noted, the equation of values with strategy. Is someone pro-life based primarily on her approach to the law? I would argue no – that the legal route should be seen as one strategy amongst many, and not the defining strategy. The goal is the upholding of human life and dignity.
Admittedly, the pervasive view is the one you express. But I would argue that this approach (and its mirror on the pro-choice side) helps no one but the fundraisers, and it drives away thoughtful people who might otherwise be engaged in pursuing common goals to uphold human life and dignity. When there is no room for reflection because the accepted conclusion has already been pre-determined, then we are in the realm of ideology.
I’m sorry, but if your ultimate goal is not to end the lawful taking of innocent (but inconvienent ) life, then celebrating the measures which may or may not ‘reduce the need’ is merely so much ego stroking. If the goal is to protect human life, then it must be criminalized. It is called homicide in some states and it does not mean that there may not be cases of negligent homicide, or deliberate homicide, or everything in between. But for all our sakes, we need to admit up front and in our laws that it is no more ok to kill an unborn child than to kill someone born of any age.
jessie,
What if one believes attempts to criminalize abortion are futile? What if one believes that as a matter of justice, abortion must be criminalized, but that it is simply not achievable? To think along those lines would not be a moral judgment, but a political one. The Church may have some authority to say, as a matter of justice, that abortion must be criminalized. But it would be a strange argument to say the Church can require its members to believe criminalization in any given political system is achievable. If one makes a “prudential decision” that working toward criminalization is futile, does the Catholic Church still require one to devote one’s energies to it?
Jessie –What if making all abortions illegal IS your goal. And what if while holding that as one’s ultimate goal, one pursues less comprehensive means because one discerns there is an immediate opportunity to advance on that matter. And what if for doing so in collaboration with others who share the immediate goal but not the ultimate goal, one is called all sorts of vile and uncharitable things?
Kari:
It seems to me that you eschew ‘we/they’ framing of issues and are attentive to process concerns. If I am reading you correctly, your voice is much needed and very welcome.
Full disclosure: As a seamless garment Catholic and Obama supporter, your interpretation of Buttiglione’s discourse about abortion is most congenial. Certainly prolife movement insistence on privileging legal prohibition of abortion over other more achievable goals has borne little fruit and created a furious backlash. But its mirror image, the ‘I’m personally opposed but’ dodge, often gets a rhetrical pass in progressive Catholic circles and among my fellow Catholic Democrats. I wonder if you would agree.
The categorical rejection of the consistent ethic of life by (some? most?) engaged anti-abortion Catholics has been tragic. But the underwhelming enthusiasm for and cynical appropriation of consistent ethic rhetoric by (some? most?)anti-anti-abortion Catholics has been equally tragic. Rather than embracing the consistent ethic as an apt frame for championing a seamless garment approach to life issues, all too often it has been used to flog anti-abortionists for their inconsistency (glass houses, anyone?) and contextualize abortion out of critical importance.
For anti-abortion Catholics, abortion is #1 on the top ten list of justice concerns. For anti-anti-abortion Catholics, abortion is #11 on this same top ten list…headed for #111, about the priority given by mainstream protestantism. The strategy seems to be to take every opportunity to discredit prolifers and create distance between ‘us’ and ‘them.’ It is as if anti-anti-abortion Catholics find prolifers more disturbing than abortion.
A casual reading of Buttiglione’s words may suggest that he is in the anti-anti-abortion camp, aligning himself with the marginalization of legal remedies for abortion and siding with the ‘personally opposed’ crowd. A closer reading suggests that he is equally uncomfortable in both camps and supportive of an alternate frame.
It is one thing to say, as Buttiglione seems to say, that fetal life is deserving of legal protection but that *sadly* we aren’t even remotely in a position to secure such protection and focusing too exclusively on this goal could well impede efforts to achieve protection by other means.
It is quite another to actively deconstruct any role for fetal protection via the law (e.g., labeling restrictions as ‘criminalization’), to display scorn and contempt for those who believe that there is a role for legal restrictions, to demonize prolifers as uniquely hypocritical, and to give every appearance of being remarkably sanguine about abortion.
Such was not the position of Joseph Bernardin or Dorothy Day. Such is not the position of Daniel Berrigan and Rocco Buttiglione. But such discourse is widespread and easily as deserving of critique as the anti-abortion meme regularly deplored in progressive Catholic quarters.
Indeed, Dorthy Day was adamantly against any kind of legalization (legitimization) of abortion.
However, it seems many here are tottering on the precipice of insanity. It is not necessary to be sane in order to believe our constant goal should be the outlawing of any form of deliberate homicide (including executions), but it is apparent that one must be in complete mental disarray to argue against criminalization as the desired end state. It is simply a mental failing to say we must stop trying to reach our end goal of granting all humans the right not to be murdered in cold blood.
Forget complicated Catholic teaching, it is just plain decency not to rip people (even tiny, unborn ones) apart and flush them down the drain or heave them into the dump.
I have never met ANY pro-lifer who doesn’t ALSO work to support pregnant women in all situations. But I have only to read this blog to find MANY who make themselves feel better by tearing down the pro-life movement. Come on, don’t you want SOMEONE to be out there putting their reputations on the line by pursuing that ‘unrealistic’ goal of legal protection for all humans?!
Jessie,
I have met a great deal of Pro-Lifers who do not work to support pregnant women in all situations. I would say the majority of the leadership fits in that catagory.
.. what if while holding that as one’s ultimate goal, one pursues less comprehensive means because one discerns there is an immediate opportunity to advance on that matter. And what if for doing so in collaboration with others who share the immediate goal but not the ultimate goal, one is called all sorts of vile and uncharitable things?
… I would say the majority of the leadership fits in that catagory.
Called you names??? Oh, grow a pair! I don’t feel your pain.
Mike McG,
I do agree that pro-life rhetoric is not uniquely in need of critique, and I find pro-choice rhetoric equally problematic. (I wrote an essay on this topic over at Religious Rhetorics back in June, in fact, if you’re interested.)
I tend to think that if, as you say, abortion is #11 on the top 10 list of issues for progressive Catholic groups, it is due in large part to the way the issue has been framed by the mainstream pro-life movement. Because the discussion gets so ideological and ad hominem – strategy equated with values, people self-identifying primarily with the strategy – many people of good will don’t want to be associated with the pro-life movement OR cause. As I mention in my post, pro-life concerns thereby lose credibility and seem to be the purview of ideological zealots rather than thoughtful citizens.
This is not to lay all the blame at any group’s feet, or to give any group a free pass; I think everyone is called to self-reflection and serious wrangling with all these issues. But I do think it is important for everyone who cares about these issues to do all we can to make space conducive to that kind of honest reflection, in part through sensitivity to the discourse used.
It might be of help in the conversation to reread paragraph 73 from Pope John Paul II;s encyclical The Gospel of Life which I’ll paste below. It seems to me that Rocco’s position is based on the principle outlined in the last few lines of the text:
A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.
Kari:
Thanks for your enlightening comments. Clearly prolife rhetorical excess has given plenty prochoice sympathizers plenty of fodder as well as plenty of cover. But it is remarkable how ‘useful’ seizing on the antics of prolife zealots is for distancing oneself from their principles and reducing cognitive dissonance with our progressive brethern.
Speaking of the undergraduate Jesus seminars he offers at Harvard last week at Chautauqua, Harvey Cox spoke of how the fundamentalists ‘drive’ many into relativism, while the relativists ‘drive’ others into fundamentalism. So it is with abortion discourse. You may be correct that prolife rhetorical discourse ‘started’ the spiral downward but at this point prochoice rhetorical discourse and its demonization of prolifers further marginalizes them.
PS to fellow correspondents: Strong plug for Kari’s earlier and related essay as foundational to this one: http://religiousrhetorics.com/2009/06/08/nefarious-narratives/
Jessie,
Thank you for re-confirming there is really no interest in building a broader pro-life movement. I accept yoru invitation to “buzz off”.
This is nonsense. Buttiglione didn’t just challenge the tactics; he challenged the goal. He essentially said that the pro-life movement ought not to challenge the legality of abortion but only the causes. This is far different from someone who says “I want to criminalize abortion, but the current political landscape means I need to focus my efforts at the causes.”
Michael: Are you disputing the veracity of ockraz’s quote at 1:18 pm on 8.1, or are you saying that Buttiglione is contractinging himself?
Buttiglione does want to criminalize coerced abortion, and this is an area where he thinks both sides can agree. The prolife side will agree because they hold that in the womb is somebody and also because of principle in The Gospel of Life 73 that I quoted above. The prochoice side will agree because of their emphasis on choice and the idea that no one should be coerced into anything. I think Buttiglione’s approach to Obama is like Kari’s idea that Obama is not soulless and therefore will see and support a UN resolution against coerced abortion because it is coercion and this will also give him a chance to make good on his idea that he wants to limit the number of abortions.
Peter:
I should hope both sides can agree on proscribing coerced abortion. I’ve never met anyone who endorses it, which isn’t to say that there is a small following.
Kari and All:
This has been an interesting conversation but I’m still very foggy on how to interpret Buttiglione’s words. It seems to me that he is *between* re: the familiar rhetorical positions on abortion. On the one hand, he challenges the primacy of legal prohibition and rejects the straight line traditional prolifers claim between prolife conviction and categorical emphasis on prohibition. On the other hand his clarifying remarks categorically refute the interpretation that he rejects efforts designed to restrict legal asset to abortion.
I wonder if both *sides* are seeing what they want to see in his words. I’m reminded of Jon Haidt’s work on intuitionist models of moral reasoning: “One of the most frustrating aspects of moral argument is that the other side is not swayed by one’s arguments, no matter how good they are. The failure to respond to reason makes the other side seem unreasonable, and invites charges that their ‘real’ motivations are hidden and sinister. But this inference is based on the naïve idea that moral reasoning drives moral judgment, so that one can change people’s minds by refuting their reasons. The present findings are more compatible with an intuitionist model of moral judgment in which moral judgments are based on gut feelings and emotional intuitions. People then create moral arguments by drawing on a priori moral theories, which they put forth as social products, required by the discourse of an argument (i.e., one must provide reasons for one’s judgments.) The refutation of such arguments does not cause people to change their minds; it only forces them to work harder to find replacement arguments.”
Jonathan Haidt and Matthew Hersh, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2001, 31, 191-221.
Isn’t what Buttiglione is saying rather simple? The Catholic Church says abortion should be criminalized, and he agrees, but he feels it’s impossible. So he’s saying instead of trying to do the impossible, try to do what’s possible and actually accomplish something.
It seems that some in the “pro-life” movement are offended by giving up on the impossible.
Isn’t the message in Evangelium Vitae was (at least in parts), “Do the best you can”? Voting for a bill that allows some abortions is a good thing if the only alternative is a bill that allows more abortions.
If people conclude (in Italy or the United States) that it is futile to try to criminalize abortion, it is perfectly legitimate for pro-lifers to argue it is not futile. However, they seem to want to argue instead that if, in your best judgment, criminalization is impossible, then you are really just pro-choice and in favor of “killing babies.”
As I have pointed out a number of times, there is no major pro-life campaign against in vitro fertilization, but there is a campaign against stem-cell research using leftover embryos from in vitro fertilization. When I argue that it is inconsistent — that the embryos used to derive stem cells come from in vitro fertilization — the usual response is that we must be realistic and acknowledge that a campaign against in vitro fertilization would be futile. So pro-lifers seem to understand the concept of futility. They are just not willing to believe in the sincerity of people who conclude that trying to criminalize abortion is futile.
But Dave, you are functionally pro-choice. From our previous conversations, you have stated that you think abortion should be legal up to 20 weeks or so, and that a fetus does not have the necessary whatnot to be considered a person.
I (personaly) don’t believe that you or people whom share your beliefs on abortion sincerely think criminalization of abortion is impossible, I think that you sincerely believe that the criminalization of abortion is not justified.
David,
I think you are way too harsh on the Pro-Life Movement when you say they are unwilling to make realistic compromises and instead demand only impossible goals.
In fact, they certainly are willing to go half way on this path.
The Pro-Life Movement has shown time and time again that they are willing to work on realistic and practical partial measures when it fits with the agenda of secular conservativism and the Republican Party. They have maintained a generation of silence on the corporate financing of abortions in deference to their Big Business allies but attack government financing. They work in league with legal scholars of the strict constructionist and states rights schools. They attack labor unions for claimed indirect support for pro-abortion candidates but cannot be found to say a word about the Chamber of Commerce.
“I (personaly) don’t believe that you or people whom share your beliefs on abortion sincerely think criminalization of abortion is impossible, I think that you sincerely believe that the criminalization of abortion is not justified.”
There is another option: The criminalization of abortion is not desirable.
I (personaly) don’t believe that you or people whom share your beliefs on abortion sincerely think criminalization of abortion is impossible, I think that you sincerely believe that the criminalization of abortion is not justified.
Jeremy,
I don’t think you should put me in the same category as Buttiglione! I have never claimed to be “pro-life.” However, I do think criminalizing abortion is impossible in Italy (for the reasons Buttiglione points out) and in the United States. So I respect his position and would not call him “functionally pro-choice.” I am not offended by being called “functionally pro-choice,” but I think to call someone who fully accepts Church teaching on abortion “functionally pro-choice” would be uncharitable, at best.
By the way, I have said limiting abortion after the 12th week (not 20th, as I recall) would be a good compromise between pro-life and pro-choice. And I think there are good pro-life Catholics who would be happy to see that achieved. (And I think that is probably achievable.) So in that sense, I stand ready to help achieve the pro-life goals I think are actually achievable. I wouldn’t claim that makes me pro-life, but it makes me opposed to “abortion on demand.”
I also will point out that I have said that if there is a soul infused at conception, then life and personhood begin at conception. But I don’t know. I am an agnostic on that and many other beliefs. What I do think is that belief in a soul is a religious belief — one that I am unsure of — and that to make the claim that abortion should be criminalized because a person is present from the moment of conception is a religious claim that should not be used to base secular laws on.
As I have pointed out before, you do not need to “prove” a fetus is a human person with a right to life in order to criminalize abortion. It was criminalized before, but never on the basis that it deprived the fetus of a right to life. What the pro-life movement is trying to do today, it seems to me, is not turn back the clock to the days prior to Roe v Wade. Abortion law back then wasn’t about the “right to life” of the unborn. The idea of secular law recognizing a fetus as a person is a brand new idea and goes much further than abortion law ever did before. That is one reason, I think, why the pro-life movement is destined to fail. It’s not because a lot of people don’t think abortion is a bad thing. It’s that they can’t go along with the claim that a fertilized egg or even a 12-week fetus is a person rights. To the best of my knowledge, that has never been codified into law anywhere, ever.
By the way, I was just doing some reading on dogma, doctrine, and the “hierarchy of truths” in Catholicism. It seems to me that the Catholic teaching about procuring an abortion or assisting in one is very high up in the hierarchy of truths. It also seems to me that the very recent teaching that abortion must be criminalized is very low in the hierarchy of truths, and the teaching that Catholics must work to criminalize abortion (especially if they believe such work would be futile) is even lower. And yet the pro-life movement treats these things as dogma!
I am going to quote Fr. Komonchak from dotCommonweal — noting very clearly that his statement is about grounds for excluding people from receiving Holy Communion. But I think what he has to say about prudential judgments and degress of contingency is relevant to much of the debates we engage in:
Mike McG:
Coerced abortion is HUGE, especially in China, but also in other countries. It does not have merely a small following. Only if that were the case would the parlaiment of a country like Italy first consider and then actually vote for a measure to recommend a UN sanction against it. You could easily check on this with some google searches. What will be interesting to see is what happens with respect to the UN and other countries. I hope that what you say, namely, “I should hope that both sides can agree…” is true – but I suspect that there are many who will not sign on and even resist this resolution quite vigorously. I also hope that Kari is right that Obama is not soulless and I hope that he therefore signs on straight away.
David Nickol:
EV is not saying that to vote for a bill that “allows some abortions” is ok. It seem like semantics, but this is an important point: since in the view of JPII abortion is intrinsically immoral, then one may never vote for a law that introduces any abortion procedure – only for one which while introducing no new ones, restricts some that already occur. This is one reason why fights over language in laws and resolutions go on so long. Buttiglione’s resolution only restricts one form of abortion – it does not allow anything, it just does not speak on any other form.
but I think to call someone who fully accepts Church teaching on abortion “functionally pro-choice” would be uncharitable, at best.
But you yourself do not believe that abortion should be criminalized – and the reason is that you don’t believe that the fetus is not demonstrably a person. Your beliefs have nothing to do with political realities. I postulate that most of the anti-anti-abortion crowd don’t really have a problem with abortion, and do not believe that criminalization is justified.
I also will point out that I have said that if there is a soul infused at conception,
I consider this silly – the presence of soul is not what makes us a person. Such beliefs mean that man or a consensus of man define what it means to be a person. Is your person-hood up to a popular vote?
EV is not saying that to vote for a bill that “allows some abortions” is ok.
Peter,
I have no problem with what you are saying. My point was that it is not wrong to do something when you can’t do everything.
But you yourself do not believe that abortion should be criminalized – and the reason is that you don’t believe that the fetus is not demonstrably a person.
Jeremy,
But this is not about me. It’s about Rocco Buttiglione. You seem to be saying that because I do not endorse the criminalization of abortion and I believe it would be impossible, that because Buttiglione says he does not believe criminalization is possible, he must hold my views on abortion. There’s no logic in that at all.
I postulate that most of the anti-anti-abortion crowd don’t really have a problem with abortion, and do not believe that criminalization is justified.
Maybe that’s true and maybe it isn’t. You have no proof, but even if you feel that way, does that mean Buttiglione is being dishonest?
I consider this silly – the presence of soul is not what makes us a person.
But according to Catholic belief, the absence of a soul is what makes us dead. There are no living human beings without souls. A human being without a soul can’t have a “right to life,” because such a person isn’t alive. How can a Catholic maintain that being a human being doesn’t depend on having a soul? It’s about as fundamental a belief as there is.
Such beliefs mean that man or a consensus of man define what it means to be a person. Is your person-hood up to a popular vote?
In making civil law, who else would define a person? We already have a definition of person in the common law — a human being who has been born and is alive. It’s been around for centuries.
Peter:
Mea culpa. My blinders were clearly on when I reflected only on American abortion discourse and neglected to think of China when you spoke of coerced abortion. What an amazing breakthrough it would be if prochoice and prolife activists collaborated in a joint denunciation of coerced abortion.
Mike,
Yea, that would be great; and I think that it was this insight that motivated Buttiglione’s move.
Jeremy,
I don’t know if the discussion here would like to go down the path of the personhood of embryos but here are 2 initial thoughts:
(1) When you yourself are in a completely unconscious state, but alive and well (for example in a state of dreamless sleep) are you still there fully such that for someone to kill you would be wrong? If so, I don’t see why that couldn’t also be true of other “slumbering” humans who are alive and well – it is at least certainly possible and that is at least a step in the direction of a demonstration.
(2) If a full demonstration of the personhood or non-personhood of the fetus has not yet been made, it seems to me that the conclusion from this fact would be to wait until it has been securely shown one way or the other before acting on not knowing in the form of aborting. Sort of like if a hunter were in the woods and saw something move that he knew was either a deer or another hunter but couldn’t quite tell which. That state of affairs yields a moral obligation not to shoot until certainty is achieved.
These are just 2 initial thoughts on the question, but I know we are focused more now on the sources of abortion in society, and so I am fine with sticking to that side of the question here.
To: Gerald L. Campbell
To: Kurt
To: Kari J. Lundgren
To: David Nickol
and
To: Peter J. Colosi
(in no particular order)
I’m sorry to put such a long comment on a ‘stale’ post, but I’ve been unable to get it for over a week and there were some comments that I wanted to respond to…
Gerald L. Campbell
“the Laws already Exist, IF the Unborn were judged to be a Human Person from the time of conception?”
That is the point of the new personhood measures (derided by pro-choicers as “egg-as-person” laws) which are being promoted in some state legislatures.
“Unless there is such a consensus about the status of the Unborn, the Law cannot possibly have any foundation in the culture. It would for that reason become a tyrannical force and lead directly to the creation of a moral police state.”
If your point is that without consensus laws against abortion are tyrannical, then what is the status of laws prohibiting state criminalization (where there may be more consensus) because there is no nation-wide consensus? Are they not tyrannical also?
Or what are we to make of the fact that the courts have ruled in the absence of a consensus that these lives cannot be legally defended if their mothers find them inconvenient? Are they not tyrannical (or given the number of deaths involved something worse than mere tyranny)? Is there a reason that the default should be a tyranny which one finds morally repugnant rather than a tyranny with which one agrees?
Kurt
“Now, while condoning working with any willing partner on legal restrictions (i.e strict constructionists or states righters or supporters of some restrictions but not an absolute ban) is an action the Pro-Life Establishment is as willing as I am to utilize, when it comes to following the same principles on what I find to be root cause issues, the name calling starts… My complaint is that what I would consider different judgments on these matters are termed heresy by some others.”
I cannot speak for others, but as for myself, I don’t condone name calling and I don’t consider such actions heresy. However, I do worry that making common cause with pro-choicers on the root cause front is more problematic than the cooperation on restrictions with people who are not pro-choice.
The reason is that the legal restrictions further the primary goal, whereas the root cause is a secondary one, AND there is the real possibility that your cooperation with the pro-choice element may actually help them politically and undermine progress on the primary goal. That isn’t heresy, and it isn’t intentionally undermining the movement, but there is a LOT of concern that it will undermine the movement whether by design or not.
I’m not ready to rule out the sort of efforts that what you call “your side” wants, but I am worried about them, and I understand why some of the old-school pro-lifers (those who want to maintain the traditional approach and are opposed to your strategy) are so agitated. There are efforts to affect the root causes that I unreservedly support, but they are ones which I think have little or no possibility of helping the pro-choice opposition politically.
Kari J. Lundgren
“Your point is, I believe, that if someone does not support criminalizing abortion, one is de facto not “pro-life.””
No ma’am, my point is that such is the case by definition. I didn’t take Latin, but (according to my handy reference guide) it seems like that would be ‘ex vi termini’ rather than ‘de facto.’ Someone here will have know, I’m sure.
“Is someone pro-life based primarily on her approach to the law? I would argue no – that the legal route should be seen as one strategy amongst many, and not the defining strategy. The goal is the upholding of human life and dignity.”
I think that you are wrong, and that the topic is not really open to debate. What you suggest seems to be inspired by Catholic teaching, but this isn’t an exclusively Catholic movement. (For example, I am not in the least interested in ‘dignity’ or ‘sanctity’ as a goal.) The pro-life movement is united by the principle that there is a right to life. That right is fundamentally incompatible with a legal right to abortion— just as the abolitionist movement’s aims were incompatible with the legal institution of slavery.
There is at least one group today which goes to countries where slavery is still legal, and buys slaves so that they can be freed. That may be a humanitarian thing to do, but it does nothing to abolish slavery. Improving the lot of individuals is fine, but the goal is a guarantee of the rights of the entire class.
David Nickol
If you believed both that abortion is a form of murder (which I take it is not the case) and you also believed that criminalizing it is impossible, then you’d have a depressingly pessimistic view of human nature. If you believed that it was murder, then it would be perfectly reasonable to think that convincing new generations of the righteousness of your cause will take much time and effort, but to be sure that it would never happen would be to have no faith in humanity.
“The idea of secular law recognizing a fetus as a person is a brand new idea and goes much further than abortion law ever did before. That is one reason, I think, why the pro-life movement is destined to fail.”
You have at least implied that the issue is about souls on the one hand, and what should be recognized as a person on the other. I would agree that if the pro-life movement were going to try to convince everyone that the law needed to be changed based on a theory of ensoulment, then it would be doomed to failure. (If someone tried to sell me on new laws that were justified theologically, then I’d tell them to go soak their head.) That’s why I’m part of two groups that are hoping to curb that practice (or even stop it when one is not in a religious setting) of using religious language on the subject. In a church it is fine, but the public argument should be secular and about ethics and biology. (If one’s ethics are based on religious dogma, then that’s your business.)
The personhood issue, I think, is more enlightening. It is not an objective category, but a philosophical one. The pro-choice camp (which includes, in my opinion, those who want to preserve legal abortion even if they prohibit it after the 12th week) needs to argue that the objective claim of the pro-life side that there is a human life being taken should be trumped by a claim about the nature of personhood.
The personhood concept has a long tradition in philosophical discussions of rights, moral agency, and autonomy, but it excludes not merely fetuses. It excludes infants as well. We’ve extended a right to life to infants by giving them legal status as persons at birth even though they do not meet the philosophical definition of a person. I believe that fetuses are just the next (hopefully inevitable) step in that direction.
Peter J. Colosi
Peter, this was my favorite comment!
“If a full demonstration of the personhood or non-personhood of the fetus has not yet been made, it seems to me that the conclusion from this fact would be to wait until it has been securely shown one way or the other…”
The typical response to this is that given the burden that is imposed if one is compelled to carry a child to term (which some say is analogous to imprisonment- although I find that a bit harsh), the burden of proof shifts from the individual who denies that the fetus is a person, to the individual who would impose the burden.
“When you yourself are in a completely unconscious state, but alive and well (for example in a state of dreamless sleep) are you still there fully such that for someone to kill you would be wrong?”
This is an excellent point :)
The most common responses to this objection are one or a combination of the following: a) that there is both a ‘continuity of experience’ which joins the mental states before sleep to those after sleep, b) that there is still higher level mental activity even if there is a lack of ‘reflective consciousness’, and c) it is still the case that one has abilities to behave as a person such that if one were to interrupt your sleep you would once again show evidence of your personhood— and that it is the possession of these abilities rather than the use of them that has moral significance.
There are reasons not to accept a) b) or c), but it is an interesting area of inquiry :)
Ockraz,
American culture is pluralistic. Attempts to change it by superimposing laws on behavior constitutes a submission to an authoritarian and/or tyrannical urge. It simply cannot work and still preserve freedom of choice.
Laws already exist that protect the integrity of the person. I’m not familiar with the new personhood measures you mentioned. But if they involve passing laws that would “define” the unborn as “persons” I would oppose it as an unsuitable to the task at hand. Formally, it is the same approach that has failed.
What is needed is a deeper understanding of what the person means. This entails an evolution of human consciousness. Existing laws would acquire new meaning once that deeper understand has been realizedk.
The pro-life approach has put the cart before the horse. To force a view on a population that is deeply engrained otherwise is a fools errand.
Gerald L. Campbell,
Here is a link…
http://www.personhoodusa.com/
I understand your concerns about retaining the pluralistic nature of our country. If I were advocating that religious beliefs be incorporated into law, then you’d be right. For example, if someone wanted to appeal Griswold v. Connecticut, then I’d be on your side.
My point, however, is that the pro-choice side cannot just appeal to pluralism as a justification for the status quo because the law as it stands is not merely enabling one to freely choose how to act- but it is also enabling the harming (and killing) of other human lives based upon a value assertion which is disagreeable to half of the population.
When two groups disagree over whether or not an action is moral or sinful, but it doesn’t physically (or economically) harm anyone, then to legally prohibit the action would not be in keeping with the spirit of a culture which values diversity in philosophical, religious, and political thought- but that is not the case we are talking about.
Now we have laws which allow one set of humans to treat another set of humans as mere property. The laws which protect such a practice cannot be defended along the same lines as laws allow people to go to work on Sunday.
I wonder if you believe that the way to grant rights to African Americans was to wait for “an evolution of human consciousness”? I don’t think that those efforts “to force a view on a population that is deeply engrained otherwise” were fool’s errands, and I don’t think you do either.