Anti-Abortion ≠ Pro-Life
A controversy arose this Fall, in Winnipeg, surrounding the relationship between Catholic schools and anti-abortion activities such as the 40 Days for Life vigils. In the midst of this controversy, one letter to the Winnipeg Free Press caught my attention by its objection to the designation anti-abortion. Pro-life, the author of the letter reasoned, was preferred.
I can imagine this would be the preferred designation, but what needs to be said, and apparently re-said, is that being against abortion does not exhaust the obligations of a pro-life ethic. Being against abortion, I repeat, does not make a person pro-life. A person participating in an anti-abortion vigil like the 40 Days for Life, or in a march like a March for Life, has no grounds for the expectation that onlookers will read beyond this anti-abortion positioning and see the attempted fostering of a consistent and comprehensive ethic of life.
In the 2006 film Bella, the context for Nina is such that she has several possibilities to choose from in discerning the length of her pregnancy. Nina, like it or not, has the ability to choose. What confuses me is that although Bella was hailed by foes of abortion (more accurately: foes of legal-abortion), Nina’s liberty is precisely that which foes of legal abortion would hope to over-rule with government intervention. Someone like Nina, who has a choice, can hardly be rendered an ally of the anti-legal-abortion movement because of her right choice. Deep down those opposed to legal abortion must know this: Consider the opposition to someone like Justin Trudeau, or persons who identify their personal opposition to the choice of abortion, but still support an environment wherein a person may choose to have one.
Returning to the question of terminology, while “pro-life” cannot be assumed based on some anti-abortion positioning, “anti-abortion” itself is insufficient since persons exist who claim opposition but are not considered part of the fold. Are “anti-legal-abortion” or “anti-choice” the only terms which remain?
Persons could, after all, become pro-life. Being against abortion does not exhaust the obligations of a pro-life ethic, and in articulating the pro-life position of the Church in terms of a “comprehensive and consistent ethic of life,” recall how Cardinal Joseph Bernardin suggested the examination of the relationship between the right to life and the quality of life. A person inadequately understands what it means to be pro-life if he or she contends, on one hand, that the unborn have the right to life, but, on the other hand, believes that responsibility ceases at the moment of birth.
Encouraging those who defend the right to life to also find themselves alongside the weaker members of society, and be equally visible in supporting the quality of life of those powerless (the old, young, hungry, homeless, the undocumented immigrants, the unemployed…), Bernardin understands that persons will gravitate towards particular causes. Nonetheless, no person should lose sight of the fact that there are multiple threats to the sacredness of life, and that the Catholic moral tradition has something valuable to say in the face of such threats.
K.
Kelly Wilson is a Seminarian for the Archdiocese of Winnipeg. Besides Vox-Nova he writes at his blog Musings.
Comments are closed.
Quite right. But I think it’s a misreading of Bella to say that it supports legal abortion. It challenges pro-life people to love struggling mothers and their children in practical ways, perhaps even to the point of essentially giving their lives. As such, I admire and recommend the film. If I thought it was in any way “pro-choice,” I could do neither.
Thank you for the comment Pachyderminator. I am glad you agree with the general point being made, but when it comes to specifics, I didn’t say “Bella” supports legal abortion. If you like, I can re-phrase what I was trying to convey with that reference. Before I do, read it again, and see if that’s necessary…
I actually find that almost all people who are anti-abortion are pro-life. They might disagree with what constitutes quality of life however, as well as how to achieve it.
Phillip, thank you for your contribution. Maybe it’s the case that almost all people who are anti-abortion are pro-life, but maybe it’s not. The point is that those two designations are not identical. Also, even if your experience reflects reality, I am not sure how reasonable it is for persons involved in anti-abortion posturing to assume that others will see beyond such posturing and recognize a fostering of a consistent and comprehensive ethic of life.
US Presidential candidate Rick Santorum is touted as “pro-life,” by foes of legal abortion, but he raised his hand in a leadership debate when asked whether he could identify circumstances wherein water-boarding would be permissible. If Sen. Santorum’s “pro-life” status has emerged out of the context of his professed opposition to legal abortion (and it has), but he think a method of torture such as water-boarding is acceptable, then he might be all good when it comes to being against abortion, but he is by no means a representative of a consistent pro-life ethic.
Now, you’re second point on how to achieve quality of life, I think, is reasonable enough, especially when we consider whose *responsibility* it is to enhance the quality of life of others. I believe a pro-life person, touting libertarian philosophy, could say that the responsibility lies with something other than an entity such as a federal or provincial government.
I agree that Santorum’s position is at least potentially at odds with a pro-life ethic though he might argue that waterboarding is not torture. (Something I am not going to do though there are many Catholics who argue that not all waterboarding is torture.)
Though if the Church clearly were to talk to Santorum and teach him that all waterboarding is torture (at least waterboarding detainees) then if he persisted one could claim he was not pro-life.
This is as opposed to some who deny clear Church teaching on abortion and escort women into abortion clinics.
This is also evidenced by a number of Catholics who oppose the depth and breadth of a pro-life ethic by denying that marriage is between one man and one woman.
I might also add that the responsibility for others in fact does lie beyond governments though they have their role in ordering society. This is not necessarily libertarian.
The question, Philip, is the grounds upon which Sen. Santorum is considered pro-life, and the grounds upon which others, although touted as pro-life, really are. The basis, in the Senator’s case, is his anti-abortion posturing. That doesn’t make someone pro-life. If that we’re all you knew about the person, it wouldn’t be enough to designate a person pro-life.
Now, you cite persons who deny what the Church teaches about abortion, or persons who escort women into abortion clinics, or persons who deny an exclusively heterosexual understanding of marriage. I’m not sure what the point is of these references are, in light of the discussion here which surrounds whether anti-abortion = pro-life.
I agree with Phillip. Pro-Life = secular conservativsm. At least that is what the term has evolved to mean and that is what the organized movement has evolved to represent. It opposes gay people but is okay with torture. It is past time to fight the common usage of the term..
Kelly,
Perhaps a clarification wouldn’t hurt. As it stands, you seem to say that because the context for Nina’s decision was the legal liberty to choose otherwise, the film and perhaps you yourself would oppose making abortion illegal since that would deprive such choices of meaning. I have been known to make egregious misreadings, though, especially on a more “liberal” blog when I automatically feel somewhat defensive ☺, so don’t put too much weight on my interpretation.
Pachyderminator, I don’t mind clarifying my comments on ‘Bella.’ In failures of communication, I’m not so bold as to attribute the failure to my partner in conversation. Fault may, after all, lie with me.
My only point with ‘Bella’ surrounded my confusion as to why it is hailed by foes of legal abortion (and I am a foe of legal abortion, for your information). Nina, quite simply, made the right choice, but she still had a choice. This is a framework that persons who advocate choice are comfortable with. On what grounds would foes of legal abortion see ‘Bella’ a legitimating their own movement, precisely when it is the existence of Nina’s ability to choose that foes of legal abortion would seek to over-rule with government intervention.
I can’t see the grounds upon which ‘Bella’ could be seen as legitimating the opposition to legal abortion. It presumes, and does not question, the existence of choice. If foes of legal abortion consider ‘Bella’ as legitimating their point of view, then we need something more than a person who chooses to give life, because, as I have noted, all sorts of persons would personally choose life, even if they believe, at the same time, that a person has the right to choose.
Bella is hailed by foes of legal abortion because it’s a story that humanizes the “product of pregnancy”, it’s a story that shows the possibility of a woman in a tough position who might abort instead going through with her pregnancy. Foes of legal abortion recognize that these types of stories help in changing the heart and attitude of people originally in favor of abortion, to reconsider their position. Changing the hearts of people to recognize the humanity of the fetus and the immorality of abortion — that’s the ultimate goal. And stories like Bella tend to help this change of heart. And so do laws against abortion.
There’s nothing incompatible with wanting people to have an attitude for choosing life and also with having laws against abortion. The ideal world is one where there are no laws at all, because everyone chooses to act justly without the compulsion of law. But since people are imperfect, you need laws to protect against people acting unjustly and harming others, and you need laws to act as a moral teacher. So, for example, we pass laws prohibiting murder. Laws against murder tend to protect against people getting murdered, and they tend to educate people to understand that murder is immoral and human life is valuable. I think such is the case for abortion. Ideally, in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need laws against abortion because everyone would recognize the humanity of the fetus and choose life. But our world is imperfect. And our current laws allowing abortion (1) tend to allow more human beings to be killed more easily, and (2) tend to not teach the message that abortion is immoral and that unborn human life is valuable.
Kelly,
having not seen the movie I am not well positioned to comment, but it would seem to me that whether or not abortion is legal, women still have a choice. We all have the ability to choose, irrespective of the law or social mores. I can choose to go to school and shoot a colleague, or hit a student or flip the bird at the dean, despite laws, policies and social pressure to not do so. (Let me hasten to add the obvious: I am not contemplating any of these.) The point of laws, at least in the case of abortion, is to apply a strong normative force to shaping the choice women make. So the movie could be seen as validating the pro-life position in that the woman made the right choice, even though the cultural milieu presented (and even extols) the wrong choice as an option.
…that’s just the point I was about to raise.
David, “Bella” certainly could be validating the life-affirming choice of Nina. But that is not the same as advocating or validating the position of those opposed to legal abortion.
True, Kelly, you can be anti-abortion, without necessarily being pro-life. But I think the more interesting question is: can you be pro-life without necessarily being anti-abortion?
Thales, can I answer your question, in a round-about-way, by returning to the example of Sen. Santorum? I am not saying he is *not* pro-life. What I am saying is he is touted as pro-life on account of his anti-abortion posturing.
Suppose tomorrow he said, “I don’t care if water-boarding is torture or not. It is an acceptable practice in certain circumstances.” That wouldn’t make him, in my opinion, not pro-life, but it would make him wrong and it would be inconsistent with the comprehensive ethic of life that a pro-life person should be fostering. I’d say the same about abortion. I don’t know enthusiasts for abortion (the same way I do not know enthusiasts for torture), but if I met a pro-life person claiming the acceptability of abortion in certain circumstances, I wouldn’t say that person is not pro-life, but I would say that he or she was manifesting an inconsistency with the comprehensive ethic of life that he or she should be attempting to foster.
A similar principle I attempt to apply when it comes to evaluations of catholicity. You may have read posts I have written about this. There are all sorts of views Catholic persons hold, but such persons don’t cease to be Catholic because of such positions (even if they are wrong).
Good answer, Kelly.
This is an excellent post and I especially love how you framed the need for ‘a comprehensive and consistent ethic of life’ a la Cardinal Joseph Bernadin. Oh how I wish we could move there more quickly. I lament that we have to plod through issue by issue against the headwinds of a sacred view of life. However, its important to recognize that like it or not, that’s how the situation shakes out.
I have to admit that my own journey was full of inconsistencies (hopefully overcome). I will contend that the faithful have taken the view that pro-life does have some heirarchy of values because the choice of life is so binary (life or no life). That life must a priori exist before we can raise a concern about its quality. In this I grudgingly agree.
But that commitment doesn’t go far enough. The ‘quality of life issues’ are not only inseperable for a consistent ethic of life, they’re essential and integral to authentic human development; physically, emotionally, and spiritually. And to not support them wholeheartedly is to unwittingly detract from whatever energy one gives to the anti-abortion pro-life movement.
“Now, you cite persons who deny what the Church teaches about abortion, or persons who escort women into abortion clinics, or persons who deny an exclusively heterosexual understanding of marriage. I’m not sure what the point is of these references are, in light of the discussion here which surrounds whether anti-abortion = pro-life.”
“I wouldn’t say that person is not pro-life, but I would say that he or she was manifesting an inconsistency with the comprehensive ethic of life that he or she should be attempting to foster.”
There’s the answer to your question. A comprehensive ethic of life if more than anti-abortion as you note. Its just that very few are living it. Because it includes things that ultimately challange us all.
That’s why I speak of an attempt to foster a consistent and comprehensive ethic of life. It’s far easier to be opposed to abortion than it is to move towards a consistent and comprehensive ethic.
Its easier because the only really good choice for abortion is to make it illegal. Same with torture which I believe has been done in legislation in 2007 effectively banning waterboarding.
Many other issues, being subject to prudential judgment, are a lot more subjective.
Hi Kelly,
My apologies if I missed this while reading through this conversation. From a policy perspective, would you think it best that abortion is legal, or illegal, and if legal, in what circumstances?
Thanks,
No worries, Michael. I mentioned it in passing in a response to Phillip. Responding to you, I would say that while I can appreciate or understand (to a certain extent) the way in which certain circumstances might lead a person to view abortion as a the preferred option (as something they regret but as something which they feel is necessary), because of what I believe about human dignity, I could not agree. Specifically related to your question, I do not believe abortion should be legal under any circumstances.
Kelly,
So that means you would send a poor woman to prison for having an abortion?? Man up now fella, what’s your answer?
“Man up now fella”? I assume that’s in jest. I haven’t avoided conversation with you before, and I am not sure why I would now.
You’re question misses the complexity of the issue, and in a sense, anticipates either, on one hand, a response which will allow you to accuse me of being insensitive to the situations of women, or, on the other hand, a response which will allow you to accuse me of being hypocritical if I don’t identify tough punishments for women.
Circumstances matter.
accuse me of being insensitive to the situations of women, or, on the other hand, a response which will allow you to accuse me of being hypocritical if I don’t identify tough punishments for women.
So which are you? Insensitive or hypocritical? :-)
As someone who leans to the “pro-choice” side (or perhaps the “personally opposed, but . . . ” side), I can’t help but feel that the “pro-life” movement in general is too easy on women who choose abortion. Arizona legislators could not even muster enough support—in writing a law banning abortion for sex selection—to hold a woman who chooses to abort for that reason at all legally responsible. In fact, the law explicitly exempts the woman from any charges whatsoever. The law in itself is unenforceable and probably unconstitutional. One might say that it at least sends a “pro-life” message. But the message I get from it is that a woman who freely chooses to abort a child for even the most trivial or reprehensible of reasons is considered, even by pro-lifers, as untouchable. When, in any given year, half of women procuring abortions have had at least one previous abortion (and possibly four or five in extreme cases), it becomes difficult, in my opinion, to assume they are coerced. It is, of course, a pro-choice argument that no woman wants an abortion and those who procure them are doing so for the most serious of reasons, but it seems that the pro-lifers are more than willing to buy that argument.
I can’t help but feel that the “pro-life” movement in general is too easy on women who choose abortion.
It’s curious you say that since the single largest criticism of the pro-life movement is along the lines of “you are opposed to women and you hate women, because you are trying to take away women’s rights.” There’s a reason why the pro-life movement focuses on the abortion industry instead of women when talking about legal restrictions, and why it tries to show love and concern to the women who abort: it is the best counter-attack to the above criticism. (And then there are the additional reasons of the fact that most women feel pressured in some way to have an abortion and rather would not; and that all women are hurt and victimized in some way when having an abortion.)
Thales,
I don’t think that what I have said about pro-lifers being too easy on women who choose abortion is difficult to reconcile with other pro-choice criticisms of the pro-life movement. One could argue plausibly that the pro-life movement patronizes women. It wants both to control them and to treat them as creatures who are not fully capable of making their own moral decisions.
Here’s a little “void-where-prohibited” fine print: Charles Camosy over on Catholic Moral Theology has cautioned me against making sweeping generalizations about “the pro-life movement,” and I think that’s a fair point. So my criticisms are aimed at some in the pro-life movement.
Kelly,
You are a sharp thinker, I have noticed that. You are right that my question was a kind of trap. But I did it for the same reason that I said “man- up”. (And it was not because you aren’t dialogical, which you certainly are). Rather, it comes from my cultural observation after having lived on the planet for nearly half a century. Men assume that the deductions of their moral investigations should apply to women. I think they often don’t. A man has an intrinsically hard time understanding what it is like to have carry a child. Therefore, the ONLY reasonable assumption with issues like
abortion is that there must be some humane zone of ambiguity on the matter. I say this as someone who find the whole notion of abortion quite terrible. Especially since I used to work in the alternative health field and have a sense over that long period of the great harm such a procedure would do to the homeostasis of most human beings. But then again, so would a lot of invasive surgeries. But sometimes things are necessary. To not recognize that is I think truly unkind to women, and a presumption on the ability of men to understand what is involved.
I am sorry if you were offended by by little comment, but can I say, that it came from an affectionate place. I know what it is like to be in major seminary, we have that in common.
It wants both to control them and to treat them as creatures who are not fully capable of making their own moral decisions.
Ugh… I find this to be such an ugly, inaccurate, and skewed way of looking at the pro-life movement. I see that Kelly has responded more below.
I just find it strange when I hear people who say (1) “pro-lifers are too tough on women” and who then argue (2) “pro-lifers are hypocrites because they should be tougher on women.” Point (2) isn’t a sincere argument because those making it actually think the opposite and because it is usually based on a faulty premise — namely, a premise flawed because of the pro-choise person’s completely misunderstanding of the pro-life perspective.
Thales,
The premise of many pro-lifers is that a pregnant woman has a second person inside her, and that second (unborn) person has rights that must be balanced against the rights of the mother and in some cases override the rights of the mother. To many pro-choicers, there is no second person—or any entity with human or civil rights—inside the pregnant woman, and therefore any constraints put on the pregnant woman to guarantee the rights of the second, unborn “person” are illegitimate.
Of course those who are anti-abortion want to control pregnant women, whether by preventing them from procuring abortions or even going further (as in Kelly’s example of the alcoholic mother) to interfere with the pregnant woman’s freedom in the name of rights of a person pro-choicers do not recognize the existence of. So both sides see matters from a different perspective. But it is still true that the pro-lifers want to control women by preventing them from having abortions. The pro-lifers just feel they have good reasons to prevent women from having abortions. The pro-choicers don’t feel the pro-lifers have good enough reasons.
I see no contradiction, if I assume the pro-life position for the sake of argument, that pro-lifers both want to control women and that they also go too easy on them when it comes to regarding them as moral agents.
There is an interesting piece over on Catholic Moral Theology about how 61% of women who have abortions already have children. Here is an excerpt”
While I suppose one ought not to demonize anyone, if one is pro-life (as the author of this piece surely is), why limit one’s comment about women who have abortions because they want to be “good mothers” to saying there is something “deeply disturbing” about it? Why not just come out and say in the eyes of the pro-life movement, these women are killing one child because they have decided they already have enough kids? If the life of the unborn child is morally equivalent to the life or lives of the existing children, why not say the woman should have an option of killing one of her existing children to make way for the new baby?
How does the pro-life movement hope to persuade women who have abortion because they think it is for the good of their family not to do so except by making it crystal clear to such women that they are killing their own children? For those who believe an unborn child is not a person, and has no right to life, it is perfectly rational to abort if they believe another child is going to unsettle their lives financially and otherwise. What does the pro-life movement want to say to such women who really aren’t forced by outside pressures, boyfriends, husband, parents, and so on to have an abortion, but who are making a reasonable, considered choice about their lifestyle? From what I can tell, the strategy of the pro-life movement is to make it as difficult as possible for them to get abortions, but it wants to be very careful not to come right out and say such women are making an immoral choice to kill their children for the sake of material comfort and convenience.
David,
I’m no longer sure what we’re arguing about. I see no problem with your entire comment. I could be wrong, but I think that you think that you are describing in your comment some hypocrisy or weakness in the pro-life side, but I see none. You say “From what I can tell, the strategy of the pro-life movement is to make it as difficult as possible for them to get abortions, but it wants to be very careful not to come right out and say such women are making an immoral choice to kill their children for the sake of material comfort and convenience.”
Yes, that is exactly the case. From the pro-life perspective, pro-lifers want to make it more difficult to kill a human being; but since it is legal to do and since many women choose to do so, pro-lifers also want to be as persuasive and as understanding as possible to those women who are inclined to abortion. What’s the problem with that? That seems like a logical strategy.
Thales,
It is scarcely worth discussing, since it is apparent your perspective and my perspective are very different. What I will say—and this just occurred to me—is that I think many in the pro-life movement seem to think of women who have abortions somewhat the way we think of, say, the Founding Fathers who were slave owners. We look back and say, “Well that was a different era. It is not entirely fair to judge the Founding Fathers by the standards of today. They were men of their time.” In somewhat the same way, it seems to me that even though women who have abortions are contemporaries, they are viewed by the pro-life movement as living in some other era during which they can’t be held responsible for their actions because of the culture they live in.
I doubt that there are many women in the United States who don’t know how controversial and divisive abortion is. I doubt that there are many Catholic women who do not know that the Church considers abortion murder (or its equivalent). Yet Catholic women are just as likely to procure abortions any other group of women in the United States. I am unaware of any statistics regarding what women who procure abortions believe about abortion. But surely most of them must be aware of what the Church and the pro-life movement say about abortion.
Objectively, according to the pro-life movement (or the Catholic Church), women who have abortions are murdering their own children. I can’t think of any other group of “objective” murderers who are treated so gently and forgivingly in advance as women who procure abortions.
….they are viewed by the pro-life movement as living in some other era during which they can’t be held responsible for their actions because of the culture they live in.
Instead of saying “not responsible”, I would describe it as living in an era during which their moral flaws are understandable, even though they are still entirely responsible for it. I don’t find our racist and slave-owning ancestors not responsible for their actions — I still find them very guilty — but I recognize that their moral flaws to be somewhat understandable due to the culture they lived in.
But surely most of them must be aware of what the Church and the pro-life movement say about abortion.
So? Wouldn’t you say that many slaveowners back in the day knew that it was wrong, but still did it anyway? I think so myself. We are all sinners. For most of us, we know that lying is wrong, or stealing is wrong, or even speeding is wrong, but we do it anyway — we tell ourselves little untruths to justify ourselves and our circumstances, or we ignore our consciences, or whatever.
Your slavery example is a good one. Let’s think further on it. Consider people at that time who considered slavery immoral and sought to abolish it. We’re they clamoring for long jail sentences for anyone who held a slave? No. They were first seeking restrictions on slave-owning (like preventing it from spreading to the territories), and then they were seeking to merely make it illegal without punitive jail sentences to those who were slave owners. Did this make the abolitionists insincere or hypocritical about their moral beliefs because they were treating slave owners “gently and forgivingly”? I say no.
I can’t think of any other group of “objective” murderers who are treated so gently and forgivingly in advance as women who procure abortions.
Again, so what? Abortion is sui generis — our society doesn’t really have another good example of murder that is legally sanctioned, practiced widespread, and morally approved by society. I’ve talked above about abolitionists acting “gently and forgivingly” to slave owners. But also consider a thought-experiment: consider a different society where some other form of murder is legally sanctioned, practiced on a widespread basis, and morally approved by the culture — like a world where infants up to 1 year of age can be lawfully killed. (Or maybe a better example is a society with honor killings.) For those people who consider these practices as immoral and want them curtailed, what is their strategy? It’s not to demonize their opponents and seek punitive jail sentences; it’s to seek to change the culture by incremental legal steps while showing compassion to those who commit these moral failings.
Hi Kelly,
Thank you for your response. Peter: just as a clarifying question, do you think abortion is the killing of a human being? Also, just because something is illegal does not mean someone will be put in prison for doing it. I think even if abortion were totally illegal, the legal system would not try to give tough sentences to women in desperate situations. Also, if a law were put in place against abortion, the state, I think, would have an obligation to provide alternatives to woman in such desperate circumstances. There is a great deal of money given by the government for abortion as health care, and it could easily be redirected into pre-natal care and adoption services, which would be far more humane.
Michael Mc,
Does it at all bother you that vis-a-vis the abortion question such an ideal arrangement like the one offer here has never existed in history?? What has existed is the shameful spectre of poor women choosing wretched means to end their pregnancies out of fear of the law. I guess if the entire history on the matter is moot one can maintain the pie-in-the-sky view you do. In the real world the government must make hard choices often distasteful. My own qualms about abortion revolve around the invasive nature of the procedure and the harm it can do to a woman’s overall health.
Of course you phrase the “killing of a human being” issue in the lock-step loaded way it always is in today’s reactionary Catholic climate. Let me answer this loaded question with a simple observation. If Catholics really believed that then there would be a moral imperative to use whatever means necessary to fight it. If it is murder, then no holds would be barred, period. But in actual fact Catholics are not out stopping abortions by shooting everyone who gets in their way. Think of a similar case: if you saw a five year old child being murdered in the street, and you killed the assailant to stop it, you would not be at fault. But this is not how 99.9% catholics act in practice (Thank God!!) This shows that the view is per se more vexed than the loaded question implies. My own view is that it is very fraught in both directions. But that only necessitates some sort of Solomonic judgment. No a Missisisppi one.
No there wouldn’t. An imperative to use “whatever means necessary” never occurs in Catholic moral theology. A good end does not justify an evil means. Furthermore, killing a single person on the street who is in the act of murdering a child, supposing that to be justified (and I certainly think it would be), is a very different thing than the massive abortionist-killing campaign that you propose – not to mention “shooting everyone who gets in the way,” which would presumably mean massacring the innocent people, including law enforcement, who try to stop you. That scenario is as absurd practically as it is morally.
Pachy,
I think you badly misunderstand the historical and specifically intellectually historical context by which virtually all wars in Catholic history have been justified. This point is a slam dunk. Just start with the crusades and work forward, and when you are done you won’t have much left.
The more specific issue with abortion is that moral theology has now been tailored to fit the political contradiction attendant with the strict Catholic view. it has taken a few decades, but now after getting rid of the sharpest minds like Curran, they have have won a Pyrrhic victory over reasonable discourse itself. The main reason there are thank God no shootings is that for most Catholics this just a matter to fulminate over. If they just wanted to vastly diminish abortions they would have stressed the issue that is the one I highlight. If you strongly pointed out and developed the notion that it is per se very invasive and harmful to well-being, in our New Age type culture this would have vastly reduced it, easy peasy. People like to get worked up over things, and feel the hauteur of vast judgment. That is what this is mostly about. And poor women are caught in the middle.
Whatever justifications, right or wrong, may have been offered for wars in Catholic history, that does not change the absolutely solid Catholic principle that a good end does not justify an evil means.
Certainly, abortion is harmful to women, and this should be pointed out. This is also why pro-lifers tend to feel that the blame for an abortion should usually be placed more on the society that made the woman think abortion was necessary than on the woman herself.
If the pro-life movement focused primarily on this issue, would that be more effective at reducing the number of abortions? Maybe. On the other hand, the more we emphasize this, the more pro-choice feminists will try to sell abortion as a means of women’s empowerment. Abortion is becoming today’s Peculiar Institution.
I don’t have any prescription for the pro-life movement on what will most reduce the number of abortions, but I do know that the way forward is to recognize and stand up for the human dignity of both the mother and the child.
Pachy,
I don’t mean to be flippant or gross, but when you find hundreds of fetuses strapped to the bottoms of ships as cargo for weeks on end, you can with more justification compare it to the the horrible history of the “Peculiar Institution.” Otherwise, I think out of respect for that mammoth evil, one should defer such facile comparisons. Really.
Peter,
I appreciate your concern and I have no wish to offend. However, in both cases, we’re talking about a huge class of people, millions of people over many years, being systematically, institutionally denied their humanity. It’s not clear to me which evil is greater than the other and I think the comparison is appropriate.
I think most level headed Americans agree with the principle of: Life for the innocent and Death for the guilty. Being Pro-Life means you are against abortion. Pro-Life isn’t defending a rapist or murderer from the death Penalty.
Nate, you write: “Pro-Life isn’t defending a rapist or murderer from the death Penalty.”
Oh, yes it is. I don’t care what most level-headed Americans think (or, rather, what you think most level-headed Americans think), but if you are right, and if they think “death for the guilty” then, quite simply, they’re wrong.
What motivates opposition to abortion, is not that the life developing is innocent. All persons are owed dignity, whether innocent or guilty, and disinterest in the dignity of those who have done bad things is not pro-life in the slightest. Disinterest represents an inconsistency.
Well said Kelly. JP II made exactly this point in Evangelium Vitae: “Not even a murderer loses his personal dignity, and God himself pledges to guarantee this.”
A disinterest in the human dignity of the guilty would not be pro-life (in the broad sense to which you are appealing here). No one may ever treat another person without the human dignity to which they are entitled through being made in the image and likeness of God.
That said, it would be incorrect to say that the innocence of the unborn child has nothing to do with the important of protecting that innocent life, because the Church does in certain instances approve the killing of the guilty to protect innocent life (as in self defense, etc.)
Intentionally killing the innocent is always an offense against human dignity. The killing of the guilty is under certain conditions (self defense, those conditions under which capital punishment is necessary to protect the common good, defense in the context of just war, etc.) not an offense against human dignity. Indeed, it may even be necessary in order to protect human dignity.
This may seem like an excessively fine point, but given the tendency in the modern mind to claim that violence/force/killing are always and in every case evil and an offense against human dignity, it’s important that those of us who speak in unity with the Church’s more comprehensive understanding be clear on these points.
Yes, Darwin, as I understand the teaching, there are circumstances wherein the inflicting of capital punishment could be interpreted as permissible (I haven’t really investigated the issue in much degree — my source for the claim I make is the Catechism). Having said that, and this is an important qualification to what I have said, I do not think that the executions that occur in a country such as the United States would meet this criteria.
Back to Nate’s statement, however, he actually says that “pro-Life isn’t defending a rapist or murderer from the death Penalty.” Can we agree that even if theoretically there are circumstances wherein the inflicting of capital punishment is permissible, being pro-life actually does have something to do with defending a rapist or murderer from a punishment, like a capital one, that is unnecessarily given.
It seems to me that Nate’s statement is, frankly, to vague to be conclusively true or false.
It seems to me that if one assumes, as you do in your last sentence, that any given punishment (anything from a muderer’s execution to a three year old’s time out) is “unnecessarily given”, then being pro-life (under your meaning of “pro human dignity”) would involve defending that person from that unjust punishment.
What I think gets missed when people play the simplistic “pro-life means being against abortion and capital punishment and war and unjust economic conditions and hunger and lack of health care” game is that each of these issues comes with a different level of obvious application and acceptable range of debate — all the more so when people conflate the Catholic position with being one which is against capital punishment and war in an absolutist fashion.
Darwin, from a practical point of view, if executions in this country do not meet the criteria that the Church has laid out, then, like abortions, there shouldn’t be any. Sure, capital punishment isn’t intrinsically evil, like torture is, but on a practical level if every instance of its implementation is unnecessary then the end result is the same.
The difference would be that someone could have reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the protection of the common good requires the use of capital punishment in some cases.
Given Church teaching, there is no room for disagreement as to whether abortion is always and everywhere a moral evil.
As such, some people might (rightly or wrongly) hold that capital punishment is in fact justified at times in the United States while remaining faithful to the Church. No one could hold that abortion is justified anywhere or at any time while remaining fully faithful to the Church.
But one could have various views on the best policy proposals in response to abortion.
The concept of “innocence” when it comes to taking innocent life is somewhat technical, it seems to me. At least, it doesn’t differentiate between innocent (good) and guilty (evil). One sometimes hears (even from at least one pope) the innocence of the unborn as some kind of especially virtuous or saintly state of existence. But the unborn are innocent not by reason of any great virtue, but by reason of never having done anything at all or being capable of doing anything at all. Someone executed after serving twenty years in prison for a crime he or she actually committed may be, at the time of execution, more personally virtuous and meritorious than an unborn child could possibly be. The extremely long gap usually seen between commission of a crime and execution for that crime leave ample room for the criminal to become a dramatically changed person. So an executed criminal may be innocent in many very real respects even though he or she committed a crime in the past.
The innocence of the unborn is irrelevant to me. My opposition to abortion stems from my beliefs about human dignity.
How can you feel good about defending rapists and murderers? That’s not being “Pro-life,” that’s being an accomplice to said behavior. The Bible teaches that even though we may be sorry for our actions and ultimately forgiven, that doesn’t mean there aren’t penalties for our actions, which can include death. We are also instructed to follow the law of the land and Govt. that is set up.
1 Peter 2:13
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.”
Romans 13:4
“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”
Saving innocent babies from abortion is being Pro-Life and Capital Punishment is scriptural and justified for heinous acts.
Because, Nate, a person is worth more than the sum total of what they have done up to the present.
Now, you have taken my statement that any capital punishment administered today in the United States is probably unnecessarily administered, and from that interpreted a defense or rapists and murderers, and from that interpreted my being an accomplice to said behavior.
Your doing that, if I have understood you correctly, indicates the quality of conversation I can expect from you, and signals the end of your contribution to this conversation.
JP II was at his best when he presented the Gospel as ‘The Gospel of Life’. He felt it was necessary to draw attention to the gift and dignity of life as the foundation of our relation with God and one another. This is the way that ‘prolife’ must be experienced and we should note that the antithesis is ‘the culture of death’.
The main fallacy of the culture of death is to look simplisticly to death, pain, neglect, torture, war, executions, etc as proper solutions to the myriad of vexing problems experienced in the course of life. All of these are gospel contradictions and in our most lucid moments recognized as freekish shadows of solutions. They’re an attempt to combat darkness with deeper darkness and very little thought to turning on light.
David, you mean the “anti-legal-abortion” movement right? The whole point of this post is to draw a distinction between, on one hand, opposition to one threat against human life, and on the other, a fostering of a comprehensive and consistent pro-life ethic. Remember anti-abortion ≠ pro-life.
Now, I don’t want to control anyone. And I don’t feel other persons are incapable of making their own moral decisions, but if what you want to do is going to hurt someone else, then I have no problem interfering and no problem questioning the legitimacy of a particular choice made in favour of such hurt.
If I see someone abusing alcohol while pregnant, or in the presence of a pregnant person, I would have no problem interfering, and it wouldn’t be because the person causing the harm is a woman, or because I don’t feel they are capable of making a moral choice. The view that the pro-life community (pro-life, not anti-abortion) belittles women, is a view that confuses me.
No, Darwin, it wouldn’t be a reasonable difference of opinion. The Church offers very specific criteria, and that criteria wouldn’t be met in the executions being carried out in the United States in, say, 2010 or 2011. It wouldn’t be a reasonable difference of opinion, it would be a person refusing to allow him or herself to be informed by the treatment the Church gives to capital punishment.
No abortions should be occurring. No persons should be being executed. Yes, in the latter, circumstances might permit, but they certainly wouldn’t apply in a country such as the United States.
Hmmm. Perhaps we have different ideas of what constitute “very specific criteria”, but to my knowledge the criteria that have been put forward have been as follows:
If someone were to disagree with the assessment of many in the Church that currently available bloodless means are sufficient to protect the common good of society, that person would be disagreeing a matter of what we might call “facts on the ground” — something the Church does not claim for itself a special charism of determining without error.
Such a person would be clearly differing from the teaching of the Church if that person asserted that capital punishment should be used for certain crimes even if it was not necessary in order to protect society against aggressors.
(Personally, I would disagree with both and suggest that neither bloodless means nor violent means, as both are currently found in the US, appear to be sufficient to assure the safety of persons. But then, I’m a cynic, so I’m comfortable with that. It seems to me that means so comprehensive as to fully render society safe from aggressors would be so repressive as to be undesireable.)
Darwin, I am not so much extending to the Church the “special charism of determining without error” the facts on the ground of a specific death penalty case. But those facts on the ground will either lead to a decision that capital punishment is justly administered or unnecessarily given. In a country like the United States, or in Canada (if the punishment were administered), I don’t think there could be reasonable disagreement about whether “bloodless means” exist to defend “against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons.” That would mean that every administered capital punishment would have been wrongly given.
So, I do think that opposition to the administering of the death penalty is part of the pro-life ethic, but perhaps we can agree to disagree and I will return with a future post about what Card. Bernardin says on the subject (one of his lectures dealt with this issue). Not that you have to take his word for it, but, if I remember his lectures correctly, they don’t come across as a waste of time.
Darwin,
Something worth pondering is this statement from EV (Par55):
The ‘taking of life’ referred to here is not about the capital punishment of criminal behavior or deterrance of future criminal behavior. Certainly the State would not execute someone who lacks reason, would they? Rather it speaks to the need to thwart aggression directly. Can authorities render an aggressor incapable of causing harm? That’s the criteria. That’s the meaning of the use of ‘legitimate defence’.
The document makes a bold claim: Human life is inviolable. The entire encyclical is a defense of that claim. The irony here is that the ‘violent’ punishment plays into the hands of more violence. Read the document and weep; this is ‘the culture of death’.
Kelly, do you think one could reasonably argue under Evangelium Vitae that the death penalty is justified by its deterrent effect, or does “protecting the safety of persons” only refer to more proximate protection, i.e. protection from a specific person? (I’m asking here about the principle, not about whether the death penalty really does have a significant deterring effect on murder.)
Pachy, I haven’t read Evangelium Vitae in some time, so please take my response in that context. I believe that the concept of protection refers *not* to the deterrent effect, but to the protection of specific persons. That is based on something I remember reading in EV where John Paul says something to the effect of that given the increased quality of facilities housing prisoners, and of the organization surrounding such facilities, the need to kill so as to protect potential victims is not simply rare, but practically non-existent. He uses those words “rare” and “non-existent” so if you do a word search of them in the text of EV you’ll find what I’m remembering.
Peter, I didn’t take offense. I enjoy your participation on this blog.