I am well familiar with the arguments in favor of abortion rights; I (obviously) move in lefty circles, and have heard them over and over again - controlling her fertility is a basic right women must not be denied; women have a right to determine what happens with her body; it is about a woman's right to self-determination and autonomy - I understand the arguments.
But years ago, I was at the home of a friend whose daughter was a meth addict (I've lived an interesting life...) and the daughter had discovered that she was pregnant - and did nothing for 4 months. She eventually went to a clinic for an abortion - her mother and I learned of this when daughter screamed for her mother from the bathroom.
I won't go into any detail about what happened next, but I will say that what ended up on her bathroom floor rendered irrelevant any consideration of her daughter "controlling her body" - there on the bathroom floor -- tiny, vulnerable, and dead -- was the...aftermath of a 4-months-along abortion.
When I hear women say "I have a right to control my body," I agree with them - control of one's body is one of the most basic rights there is, and that is what is so heinous about crimes like torture and rape.
And it is true that women have been controlled by abusive husbands throughout history by being impregnated -- with the specific purpose of complicating her escape from the abuse. This is an appalling offense in my view, and abortion is used to destroy the effectiveness of that particular tactic. Any legal restrictions on abortion ought to be accompanied by some other legal means to make the price of that particular form of abuse something that would make Faust blanch.
But what was on that bathroom floor that day had no role in any of that history. It was not a "means of oppression," it was not a "part of her body," at least not in the same way her liver, or even uterus, is; it (she, actually) was undeniably a Being in her own right, and she was tiny, vulnerable, and dead. For me, that will always be the inescapable reality of what abortion is. For me, that trumps any claim that the abortion issue is all about the woman's body. There is another body to account for.
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abortion. Show all posts
Friday, April 24, 2009
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Open Letter to Barack Obama
A Letter put together by Henry Karlson at Vox Nova
President-elect Barack Obama,
As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.
Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today’s world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another
One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one’s opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one’s own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.
One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.
Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’”
As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.
There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.
One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens. On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, “And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice. One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.
It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.
If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.
Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush’s executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).
Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.
Sincerely,
Deal W. Hudson
Christopher Blosser
Marjorie Campbell
Mark J. Coughlan
Rev. James A. Nowack
Craig D. Baker
Susan DeBoisblanc
Megan Stout
Joshua D. Brumfield
Ashley M. Brumfield
Michael J. Iafrate
Natalie Navarro
Matthew Talbot
Paul Mitchell
Todd Flowerday
Henry C Karlson III
Darren Belajac
Adam P Verslype
Josiah Neeley
Michael J. Deem
Katerina M. Deem
Natalie Mixa
Henry Newman
Anthony M. Annett
Mickey Jackson
Veronica Greenwell
Thomas Greenwell PhD
Robert C. Koerpel
Nate Wildermuth
New, Online Signatures:
William Simon
Deacon Keith Fournier
Mary Ruebelmann-Benavides
Jesus Benavides
Steve Dillard
Toby Danna
William Eunice
Mark Shea
Fr. Phil Bloom
Christopher Gant
Robert King, OP.
Peter Halabu
Kelly Clark
Eric Giunta
Mark Gordon
Linda Schuldt
Michael Mlekoday
Bryan McLaughlin
Victoria Hoffman
Jonathan Jones
Jim Janknegt
Marcel LeJeune
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
Ken Hallenius III
Zach Gietl
Megan Bless
Kathy Myers
Timothy M. Mason
Kevin Koster
John Anthony D’Arpino
Brian Desmarais
Mary C. Borneman
Cross-posted at:
DealWHudson (Theocon)
Inside Catholic
Catholic Anarchy
American Catholic
Gift of Self
Adam V’s Blog
Thoughts of a Regular Guy
Against the Grain
Defending My Bean Field
Bound and Free
Suicide of the West
Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate
Southern Appeal
Full Circle
One Nation Under God
Dyspeptic Mutterings
The Cranky Conservative
Astonished, Yet at Home!
Laughter and Humility
Catholic and Enjoying It
The Catholic Liberal
Ad Saeculum
The Lady in the Pew
Pansy and Peony
Confessions of a Liberal Traditionalist
James B. Janknegt’s Weblog
Aggie Catholics
What Does the Prayer Really Say
100% of Your RDA of Ken
Yellow Blog Journalism
President-elect Barack Obama,
As American Catholics, we, the undersigned, would like to reiterate the congratulations given to you by Pope Benedict XVI. We will be praying for you as you undertake the office of President of the United States.
Wishing you much good will, we hope we will be able to work with you, your administration, and our fellow citizens to move beyond the gridlock which has often harmed our great nation in recent years. Too often, partisan politics has hampered our response to disaster and misfortune. As a result of this, many Americans have become resentful, blaming others for what happens instead of realizing our own responsibilities. We face serious problems as a people, and if we hope to overcome the crises we face in today’s world, we should make a serious effort to set aside the bitterness in our hearts, to listen to one another, and to work with one another
One of the praiseworthy elements of your campaign has been the call to end such partisanship. You have stated a desire to engage others in dialogue. With you, we believe that real achievement comes not through the defamation of one’s opponents, nor by amassing power and using it merely as a tool for one’s own individual will. We also believe dialogue is essential. We too wish to appeal to the better nature of the nation. We want to encourage people to work together for the common good. Such action can and will engender trust. It may change the hearts of many, and it might alter the path of our nation, shifting to a road leading to a better America. We hope this theme of your campaign is realized in the years ahead.
One of the critical issues which currently divides our nation is abortion. As you have said, no one is for abortion, and you would agree to limit late-term abortions as long as any bill which comes your way allows for exceptions to those limits, such as when the health of the mother is in jeopardy. You have also said you would like to work on those social issues which cause women to feel as if they have a need for an abortion, so as to reduce the actual number of abortions being performed in the United States.
Indeed, you said in your third presidential debate, “But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, ‘We should try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.’”
As men and women who oppose abortion and embrace a pro-life ethic, we want to commend your willingness to engage us in dialogue, and we ask that you live up to your promise, and engage us on this issue.
There is much we can do together. There is much that we can do to help women who find themselves in difficult situations so they will not see abortion as their only option. There is much which we can do to help eliminate those unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion.
One of your campaign promises is of grave concern to many pro-life citizens. On January 22, 2008, the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, when speaking of the current right of women in America to have abortions, you said, “And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president.”
The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) might well undermine your engagement of pro-life Americans on the question of abortion. It might hamper any effort on your part to work with us to limit late-term abortions. We believe FOCA does more than allow for choice. It may force the choice of a woman upon others, and make them morally complicit in such choice. One concern is that it would force doctors and hospitals which would otherwise choose not to perform abortions to do so, even if it went against their sacred beliefs. Such a law would undermine choice, and might begin the process by which abortion is enforced as a preferred option, instead of being one possible choice for a doctor to practice.
It is because of such concern we write. We urge you to engage us, and to dialogue with us, and to do so before you consider signing this legislation. Let us reason together and search out the implications of FOCA. Let us carefully review it and search for contradictions of those positions which we hold in common.
If FOCA can be postponed for the present, and serious dialogue begun with us, as well as with those who disagree with us, you will demonstrate that your administration will indeed be one that rises above partisanship, and will be one of change. This might well be the first step toward resolving an issue which tears at the fabric of our churches, our political process, our families, our very society, and that causes so much hardship and heartache in pregnant women.
Likewise, you have also recently stated you might over-ride some of President G.W. Bush’s executive orders. This is also a concern to us. We believe doing so without having a dialogue with the American people would undermine the political environment you would like to establish. Among those issues which concern us are those which would use taxpayer money to support actions we find to be morally questionable, such as embryonic stem cell research, or to fund international organizations that would counsel women to have an abortion (this would make abortion to be more than a mere choice, but an encouraged activity).
Consider, sir, your general promise to the American people and set aside particular promises to a part of your constituency. This would indicate that you plan to reject politics as usual. This would indeed be a change we need.
Sincerely,
Deal W. Hudson
Christopher Blosser
Marjorie Campbell
Mark J. Coughlan
Rev. James A. Nowack
Craig D. Baker
Susan DeBoisblanc
Megan Stout
Joshua D. Brumfield
Ashley M. Brumfield
Michael J. Iafrate
Natalie Navarro
Matthew Talbot
Paul Mitchell
Todd Flowerday
Henry C Karlson III
Darren Belajac
Adam P Verslype
Josiah Neeley
Michael J. Deem
Katerina M. Deem
Natalie Mixa
Henry Newman
Anthony M. Annett
Mickey Jackson
Veronica Greenwell
Thomas Greenwell PhD
Robert C. Koerpel
Nate Wildermuth
New, Online Signatures:
William Simon
Deacon Keith Fournier
Mary Ruebelmann-Benavides
Jesus Benavides
Steve Dillard
Toby Danna
William Eunice
Mark Shea
Fr. Phil Bloom
Christopher Gant
Robert King, OP.
Peter Halabu
Kelly Clark
Eric Giunta
Mark Gordon
Linda Schuldt
Michael Mlekoday
Bryan McLaughlin
Victoria Hoffman
Jonathan Jones
Jim Janknegt
Marcel LeJeune
Fr. John Zuhlsdorf
Ken Hallenius III
Zach Gietl
Megan Bless
Kathy Myers
Timothy M. Mason
Kevin Koster
John Anthony D’Arpino
Brian Desmarais
Mary C. Borneman
Cross-posted at:
DealWHudson (Theocon)
Inside Catholic
Catholic Anarchy
American Catholic
Gift of Self
Adam V’s Blog
Thoughts of a Regular Guy
Against the Grain
Defending My Bean Field
Bound and Free
Suicide of the West
Pro Ecclesia * Pro Familia * Pro Civitate
Southern Appeal
Full Circle
One Nation Under God
Dyspeptic Mutterings
The Cranky Conservative
Astonished, Yet at Home!
Laughter and Humility
Catholic and Enjoying It
The Catholic Liberal
Ad Saeculum
The Lady in the Pew
Pansy and Peony
Confessions of a Liberal Traditionalist
James B. Janknegt’s Weblog
Aggie Catholics
What Does the Prayer Really Say
100% of Your RDA of Ken
Yellow Blog Journalism
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Morning's Minion's response...
To Dr. Stockpole's reaction to my abortion post, can be found here, and is worth reading. An excerpt:
The fundamental problem with Stackpole's analysis is the following statement: "[to support Obama] you would have to show that McCain supports equivalent intrinsic evils, at least the moral equivalent of Obama's support for abortion."
This would only be the case if voting for a person who supported intrinsically evil acts. To vote for a person who supports an intrinsically evil act while supporting that position oneself is always formal cooperation in evil. But if you do not intend that evil, then you can apply the principle of double effect and vote for that person for proportionate reasons. This is spelled out quiote clearly in the Faithful Citizenship document.
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Abortion, the Election, and the Republicans
Via Angela in the comments, Dr. Robert Stackpole posted a series of essays...
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3248& PLID=75
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3265& PLID=75
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3258& PLID=75
...which contain his thoughts on how Catholics ought to vote, given Obama's unreserved support for abortion rights and McCain's problematic positions on other issues.
I come to a different conclusion than Dr.Stackpole, but I respect his decision and don't question the sincerity of his arguments.
As one of the commenters to part 3 said - there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of Republican's true commitment to opposition to abortion, leaving aside the notion that opposing abortion does not, in and of itself, make one "pro-life." They've had 8 years: remember the big push to pass a constitutional amendment protecting all life from conception until natural death? Neither do I.
For that matter, after Roberts and Alito took their seats on the Supreme Court, why didn't the Republican-controlled Congress itself pass a law outlawing abortion, so that the "Pro-Life" Bush administration could then send the Solicitor General to argue for it in front of the Supreme Court? Republican Congress, Republican Administration: why no real action?
I'm convinced it's because they don't want to actually settle the abortion question - firstly because there is (unfortunately) a clear majority of public opinion that abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, and thus actually outlawing it would present huge problems for them in terms of a backlash ( I have read some of the contingency planning the pro-choice movement has done for the event that Roe is overturned; the backlash would be absolutely massive, trust me); and secondly because that would deprive them of an issue they can use to get elected. "Just give us the chance to nominate one more justice, and then - then! - we'll finally be able to outlaw abortion. I know you Pro-Life liberals hate our other policies, but you're morally obligated to vote for us because of this one over-riding issue."
Disingenuous in the extreme, in my view.
Ponder this: It occurs to me that real and substantial progress might be made on the abortion issue if pro-lifers did more outreach to Liberals (beyond just telling them to vote for Republicans - an obvious non-starter.)
Pro-lifers don't have a lot of growth potential with Republicans and conservatives: the ones who can be convinced, have been. So, why doesn't the Pro-Life movement reach out to liberals? You know, have a fellow liberal explain opposition to abortion in a way that makes sense to the world-view of your typical Democrat, using progressive world-views and framing. I do this myself: there is lots of growth potential here, believe me. (Note the link to the right to Democrats For Life.) Support for abortion is pretty soft among lots of the rank and file Democrats I'm acquainted with.
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3248& PLID=75
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3265& PLID=75
http://www.thedivinemercy.org/news/story.php?NID=3258& PLID=75
...which contain his thoughts on how Catholics ought to vote, given Obama's unreserved support for abortion rights and McCain's problematic positions on other issues.
I come to a different conclusion than Dr.Stackpole, but I respect his decision and don't question the sincerity of his arguments.
As one of the commenters to part 3 said - there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of Republican's true commitment to opposition to abortion, leaving aside the notion that opposing abortion does not, in and of itself, make one "pro-life." They've had 8 years: remember the big push to pass a constitutional amendment protecting all life from conception until natural death? Neither do I.
For that matter, after Roberts and Alito took their seats on the Supreme Court, why didn't the Republican-controlled Congress itself pass a law outlawing abortion, so that the "Pro-Life" Bush administration could then send the Solicitor General to argue for it in front of the Supreme Court? Republican Congress, Republican Administration: why no real action?
I'm convinced it's because they don't want to actually settle the abortion question - firstly because there is (unfortunately) a clear majority of public opinion that abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances, and thus actually outlawing it would present huge problems for them in terms of a backlash ( I have read some of the contingency planning the pro-choice movement has done for the event that Roe is overturned; the backlash would be absolutely massive, trust me); and secondly because that would deprive them of an issue they can use to get elected. "Just give us the chance to nominate one more justice, and then - then! - we'll finally be able to outlaw abortion. I know you Pro-Life liberals hate our other policies, but you're morally obligated to vote for us because of this one over-riding issue."
Disingenuous in the extreme, in my view.
Ponder this: It occurs to me that real and substantial progress might be made on the abortion issue if pro-lifers did more outreach to Liberals (beyond just telling them to vote for Republicans - an obvious non-starter.)
Pro-lifers don't have a lot of growth potential with Republicans and conservatives: the ones who can be convinced, have been. So, why doesn't the Pro-Life movement reach out to liberals? You know, have a fellow liberal explain opposition to abortion in a way that makes sense to the world-view of your typical Democrat, using progressive world-views and framing. I do this myself: there is lots of growth potential here, believe me. (Note the link to the right to Democrats For Life.) Support for abortion is pretty soft among lots of the rank and file Democrats I'm acquainted with.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Well, Yes.
One of Andrew Sullivan's readers emails him:
I am opposed to abortion with every fiber of my being. But so too am I opposed to torture. And to the death penalty. And to unnecessary wars. And to children going to bed hungry at night and lacking basic healthcare in the wealthiest nation in the world. And to our elderly lacking the medicines they require. Accordingly, this pro-life voter will proudly join Professor Kmiec in voting for Obama this fall. He is, after all, the most pro-life of the candidates.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)