Tis more important to pee like Jesus,
than it is to be like Jesus
And after all the theological mumbo jumbo has been written, discussed, scoffed at, denounced and propped up, after all the cards have been played and the men with pointy hats have stomped their feet, it really and truly just boils down to the above statement.
I have written about this topic before and I can bat down the arguments as fast as they can throw them up, and while I tend to avoid bumper-stick slogans I will have to concede that on this point the slogan really sums it up for me.
Let me go as far as to say that I think the Catholic Church will go a long ways to ending abortion when women have the equality in society they were intended for by their Creator. The desire for abortion rights, from my perspective, often comes out of a deep pain that women have for not feeling like they are in control over their own lives. In my view, abortion rights are an improper response to this pain. But I think that when women have the standing in society they were meant for, the discussion about abortion will enter a much better phase than it is right now--it won't be driven as much by the pain of inequality.
Amen!! Wow, I didnt know you were such a feminist.
ReplyDelete"The desire for abortion rights, from my perspective, often comes out of a deep pain that women have for not feeling like they are in control over their own lives."
ReplyDeleteSo choosing abortion amounts to an adolescent-style power grab? Too far.
Frank,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure it is logical that the choice of abortion is related to a sense or reality of equality.
Can you respond more to that point so I can understand the logic?
Why don't you two tell me how to interpret it?
ReplyDeleteI see that often the pro-choice argument is made out of a desire for women to "control their own bodies." I don't think enough time or attention is paid to the rights of the babies or the responsibilities of people to each other.
When there is a gap in rights, there is sometimes a desire to overcompensate to make up for it (see Affirmative Action, for example). In other words, if the inequality didn't exist, the desire to overcompensate woudldn't exist, either. If we lived in a society where there was true equality between the genders, perhaps the discussion can move from rights to responsibilities a little better.
If you want to call it an "adolescent-style power grab," those are your words, not mine.
Right now, I do see people who so strongly support the rights of mothers that they seem blind to the rights of the babies, and I'm sorry but I'm not sympathetic to that.
A pregnancy is a pure example of when the rights of two people intersect. It shows the joy of pure intimacy that human beings can have when they are so inter-connected, but there is an obvious downside because they are so interconnected. It is not the only time that human beings are inter-connected, but it is possibily the purest example of it.
Basing a decision on one person's individual's rights doesn't do justice to the situation. Another approach is called for. It makes more sense for people to get together to determine the best possible course of action for all parties involved, and talking exclusively about the rights of only one party doesn't cut it.
You seemed to be implying that women who seek abortions are incapable of thinking maturely about that decision... incapable of thinking "gee, maybe it's wrong to try to control my own life by destroying the life of a potential person." I'm sure there are women who have abortions who are just 100% purely relieved, "my rights" etc. etc., but for the vast majority (I think.. not speaking from personal experience here) it is an absolutely gut-wrenching decision, one she all too often has to make alone, and not always one that results in carrying a pregnancy to term.
ReplyDeleteNah... I'm not commenting about the ability of women to make mature decisions. Seems like a silly thing to debate, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteYes :)
ReplyDeleteWell, Frank, it's not like women want to kill babies to assert some control over there life. I think when you chose abortion, you're in a desperate situation. I know there were times in my life where if I got accidentally pregnant, I would have had an abortion and it really had nothing to do with control or seeking control; it was because I would have been too embarrassed to have been caught pregnant and I wouldnt have been able to take care of it or myself... and adoption would not be an option. However, I'm happy to report that I've recently come to the conclusion that if I did accidentally become pregnant at this point in my life (heaven forbid), I'd probably go through with the pregnancy and even keep the baby... I figure that I would have to pay for my negligence and anyway I can support and take are of a child right now with my salary so it would be wrong of me to do anything else. It would be hard, but maybe it would turn out to be something good brought about from a mistake.
ReplyDeleteHowever, no matter what my personal choices are, I don't think it should be illegal. There are many reasons for abortions... in some cases, the life of the mother is threatened... And, also, there are teenage girls whose lives might be ruined... Lots of reasons. The state should not mandate morality and I think it's up to the woman to decide what she wants to do. In either case, she's the one who has to live with the consequences. And, sorry to say, seldom do the men who helped create the baby face up to this responsibility... Even in this day and age, men duck and run in these situations. It's the sad fact of being the one who is stuck bearing the baby... the woman always ends up with most of the blame. I cant wait until this idea changes in society... and I cant wait until more men step up and own the mistakes they make as well.
I read somewhere that both sides of this debate--the pro-life and pro-choice--see this issue as a matter of "life or death" in one way or another. That may be why the stalemate is out there on the issue.
ReplyDeleteMany people see an unwanted pregnancy as a real form of "death" in their lives when they consider the changes that may take place--death of their lifestyle, death of their elastic youthful body, death of their public image or reputation, death of their career goals, etc.
All I know is that many folks talk about the issue in terms of "controlling one's own body." I am not suggesting that is the only reason people advocate for abortions, I'd need to write a book in order to address every reason. It is just some of the language used to talk about it.
I'm basically not impressed with much of the reasoning or rhetoric around the issue. It has nothing to do with "choices." The only thing that matters is whether the baby is truly a baby or not--when life begins. From a legal standpoint, using all of the tools of the western intellectual tradition, this is really the ONLY hinge on which the issue turns.
If we as a society determine the unborn baby to be "alive" then there is a very natural and normal consequence to that decision which puts their lives as a priority to someone else's freedoms, and we make the necessary adjustments in order to accomodate. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happines--in that order.
The very reason we have a legal system is to address what happens when the actions of some interfere with others and we have to hash out some sort of compromise. Your right to walk down the street shooting your pistols interferes with my right not to get shot, so we have to work out some sort of deal where we can all be happy, which will limit all of us somehow. Maybe you will have to shoot your pistols only in limited places or times and I will know ahead of time where that is and avoid it--both of us have a loss of freedom, if you want to look at it that way.
The fact that the discussion is often contrued as a matter of "freedom" or "choice" to me is nothing but a diversion tactic. No one that I know would even care what you do with your own body--look at how horribly people disfigure themselves with plastic surgery, tatoos or other means. I may think those things hurt yourself physically and spiritually, but I wouldn't try to take away your right to do that. If you want the argument to be convincing, I'd need to hear why someone's freedoms are worth the exchange of someone else's life, or else it's a total non-issue for me.
I'm reading a good book now detailing how all this talk about "rights" is really imbedded in western notions of property and dominance, and that language just is not suitable for a discussion about abortion.
From Jean (who still does not know how to use the other IDs).
ReplyDeleteSuch great discussions. As I said in response to Frank’s post about inconsistency, I do believe that US discussions about abortion are most often loaded with any number of additional and profoundly important issues. It is very difficult to discover the patience required for parsing these various issues so that, when the topic is “apples”, the argument is in fact applicable to apples and not persimmons.
I often wonder if contemporary participants in the debate acknowledge that, in the 21st century, the legal right to obtain an abortion has been a Constitutional reality for the entire lifetime of a near totality of US women currently of child-bearing age. I wonder this because it seems very hard, I think, for most of us to stay clear in these discussions that abortion is at once a moral issue and, in the US, a Constitutional issue, which translates in the minds of most as a civil rights issue. It is too late, I think, to expect that the two frameworks - moral (“life”) and Constitutional (“rights”) – will not be constantly and subtly and powerfully intertwined to the point of being inseparable in most contemporary discussions, whether or not we are aware or are able to acknowledge that.
Any U.S. woman who reached sexual maturity after 1973 - which means most women under age 50 or so in this country –came of age knowing that she had the Constitutional right to decide whether she would carry a pregnancy to term. The facts are that U.S. women do have an existing Constitutional and, thus, civil right to terminate early pregnancies. We do have an existing Constitutional right to independently and privately determine the resolution of an early pregnancy. We do have the right to determine what will and will not occur within the internal cavities of our bodies. And we have that right regardless of our morality, regardless of how we respond to that right if we find ourselves pregnant when we do not want to be pregnant. We retain that right even if we find that right and/or its exercise morally repugnant.
An easy summation of the Constitutional reality in which American women have come to maturity in the decades since 1973 is the Roe v Wade street language: “we have the right to control our bodies”. We do. We just plain do.
That shortcut, when viewed in the “Life” framework, is admittedly pretty troubling but it is, I think, wholly unremarkable as a statement of fact in the only Constitutional framework most of us have experienced firsthand and, thus, the only one to which we are accountable.
Jean continued but finishing...
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about outlawing abortion in the US, we are talking about the complete retraction of an existing (specifically and clearly defined) Constitutional right. When I boil it all down, all I can say as an American citizen born in 1963 (and, thus, aware of this, my Constitutional right, by the time I started high school in 1977) is this: “you have got to be kidding me”.
We are talking rights here, Frank, and we are talking specifically about women’s rights under the current Constitution. In my mind, that means it is exceptionally difficult to talk about abortion in the US without acknowledging that a Constitutional right is our context whenever the morality of abortion is discussed.
And that brings me to this. You wrote: “Let me go as far as to say that I think the Catholic Church will go a long ways to ending abortion when women have the equality in society they were intended for by their Creator. The desire for abortion rights, from my perspective, often comes out of a deep pain that women have for not feeling like they are in control over their own lives. In my view, abortion rights are an improper response to this pain. But I think that when women have the standing in society they were meant for, the discussion about abortion will enter a much better phase than it is right now--it won't be driven as much by the pain of inequality”.
I have to say that my initial hit is that you are right.
I would ask you to consider changing a few of your words, but I think you are on to something very important.
I do not think you are speaking here of individual and specific decisions to terminate a pregnancy and, thus, that you did not suggest women are acting out or using faulty logic when they seek to abort a pregnancy. I think you are talking about why women are so vigilant and determined in their protection of this Constitutional right. And I agree.
Women have not attained full equality in this world. Women are not treated as equals in many of the religious communities that are most adamant and vociferous (and often just plain ugly and hateful) on this issue. And I do believe that contributes much of the messiness of discussions about abortion.
Jean continued...
ReplyDeleteWhen we talk about outlawing abortion in the US, we are talking about the complete retraction of an existing (specifically and clearly defined) Constitutional right. When I boil it all down, all I can say as an American citizen born in 1963 (and, thus, aware of this, my Constitutional right, by the time I started high school in 1977) is this: “you have got to be kidding me”.
We are talking rights here, Frank, and we are talking specifically about women’s rights under the current Constitution. In my mind, that means it is exceptionally difficult to talk about abortion in the US without acknowledging that a Constitutional right is our context whenever the morality of abortion is discussed.
And that brings me to this. You wrote: “Let me go as far as to say that I think the Catholic Church will go a long ways to ending abortion when women have the equality in society they were intended for by their Creator. The desire for abortion rights, from my perspective, often comes out of a deep pain that women have for not feeling like they are in control over their own lives. In my view, abortion rights are an improper response to this pain. But I think that when women have the standing in society they were meant for, the discussion about abortion will enter a much better phase than it is right now--it won't be driven as much by the pain of inequality”.
I have to say that my initial hit is that you are right.
I would ask you to consider changing a few of your words, but I think you are on to something very important.
I do not think you are speaking here of individual and specific decisions to terminate a pregnancy and, thus, that you did not suggest women are acting out or using faulty logic when they seek to abort a pregnancy. I think you are talking about why women are so vigilant and determined in their protection of this Constitutional right. And I agree.
Women have not attained full equality in this world. Women are not treated as equals in many of the religious communities that are most adamant and vociferous (and often just plain ugly and hateful) on this issue. And I do believe that contributes much of the messiness of discussions about abortion.
I am not questioning whether or not abortion is a legal right. I know that it is legal, that is not what I am debating.
ReplyDeleteBut something being legal does not prove anything to me. Slavery was once legal. Wars are often considered legal (which is a mind-blowing concept, but that's a story for another thread). In some countries, it is legal to persecute or discriminate against certain people.
Jean (who still....)
ReplyDeleteBelow is the third part of my post (I accidentally reposted the second part twice).
.... I know I have lost patience at times - in discussion with conservative men who are as ardently anti-feminist as they are anti-abortion - and have wanted to say, “Oh, for Pete’s sake, before you harangue me about how women are denying the equal rights of unborn babies, why don’t we start with some talk about equality in your interactions with women?”
And I think that was your point about women’s ordination and abortion, Frank.
Again, women have not attained full equality in this world. Women are not treated as equals in many of the religious communities that are most adamant and vociferous (and often just plain ugly and hateful) on this issue.
If power were shared equally and conscientiously, the conditions which contribute (and have always contributed) to women’s decisions to end pregnancies would be significantly impacted and altered. Women would not choose, if they as a class truly had the structural power to do otherwise, the various insufficiencies that make many unplanned pregnancies so difficult to carry to term. Given a full and sufficient response to what is required to create political, moral and structural equality for women-as-mothers-of-and-for-the-human-race, abortion as a “safety net” would not be so much on our collective minds.
Women - and feminist men - might then find it less frightening to engage in brutally honest (and, thus, emotionally and morally and spiritually painful) discussions about what is really occurring when a pregnancy is terminated. And that honesty, born when women have the equality in society they were intended for by their Creator (as you said, Frank), could have the power to transform the discussion from a legitimate debate about rights to a life-giving discussion about how to protect and nurture all God’s creations.
Again, that is what I thought you were getting at, Frank, and I agree with you. Such tricky stuff.
Jean
****
ReplyDeleteThat said, I have long believed (before and during and very often in the 20 years since my experience as a clinic worker) that “pro-choice” activists often use semantics to obstruct the moral question you are driving at, Frank. In many discussions of abortion with activists, it is still anathema to say what any high school biology student would recognize if able to observe a first trimester fetus “in utero” and then observe (even) a first trimester abortion: abortion impacts biological life. Abortion terminates biological life. Abortion ends biological life. Abortion kills biological life. The genetics of that biological life are human. Thus, abortion kills human life. There is, in my mind, no intellectually honest way to deny those facts. Genetically human cells are living and dividing and specializing in the woman’s uterus, according to a natural pattern and process, a life process which is permanently and irrevocably stopped by an abortion procedure. Facts are facts, right?
But stating those facts most often has the effect of drawing a chalk line down the center of a room, after which people rush to either side, self-selecting according to ideological position on legal abortion. A statement of those facts tends to result in the speaker being both pulled AND pushed on to the “anti-abortion” side. Often even before the speaker has finished the statement or in any way disclosed a moral or political position.
I have been frustrated by that dynamic for a very long time. I understand the dynamic and even the logic (moral and otherwise) but I think it is unfortunate. That dynamic – that inability to hear a statement of fact without immediately structuring relationships and ensuing dialogue around assumed ideology – makes it difficult, I think, to have the discussion you seek, Frank.
And, when the less powerful have little reason to trust the most powerful and when so much is at stake ----- in this case, one of the few rock solid structural guarantees of equality (in terms of self-determination) women have in their daily lives in this country, even at this late date --- self-protection does tend to trump all else, some truths included, in the individual and collective human mind.
I find that “ideological lockstep” short-sighted and ultimately destructive of moral progress, which always depends on unwavering commitment to the truth, even when it raises questions that frighten or challenge us morally and politically. As an emotional response to deep and intolerable inequality, it is entirely expected and not likely to be eradicated soon.
And, though I am frustrated terribly by the intellectual dishonesty and the ideologically-filtered responses, I understand the impulse. And I think that loops back to your smart hypothesis that the Catholic Church (and society) will begin to make headway in its moral desire to end abortion when the Catholic Church (and society) makes headways in its moral response to women’s healthy, mature, moral desire “for the equality in society they were intended for by their Creator” (your beautiful words). It seems that you understand the impulse, too.
****A favorite book of mine is “Blaming the Victim” by Jack Ryan (1975). The essential message, for me, was captured in a single paragraph, which I used to be able to quote but will now need to paraphrase: “There is no culture of people on earth that willingly chooses death over life”.
I believe that. And I am reminded of that now. (My Catholicism helps me so much: Jesus, the God-man, teaches us how to acknowledge and be compassionate with our human need even as we deepen our spiritual courage and divine wisdom. We each are always “both/and”. Talk about having a fellow-traveller!) Jean
I understand, Frank, that you are not debating whether abortion - within the clearly defined parameters of Roe - is legal. Perhaps the final paragraphs of my 3-part post will clarify my thinking.
ReplyDeleteWhat I was saying was that I agree with you. I believe many women reflexively support abortion because, as a legal right, it is one of the few structural “safety nets” women can count on in this class- and gender-biased country. Many other structural resources, protections and safety nets are subject to the willingness - the benevolence - of specific players and authorities to facilitate and ensure effective utilization of those resources and protections which are designed to ensure women retain full agency and equal opportunity in their lives. A scared pregnant woman considering the “safety net” that is Roe v Wade requires no such benevolence from the system or individual powers.
I do believe that some of the reasons women give for aborting pregnancies – many of the ones you listed - are simply statements of the much larger reality you and I are articulating, Frank. Our personal stories are told in the language and terms of our known narratives, right? And I think many of us manage pain and confusion through language shortcuts, and I think a lot of those reasons you listed are shortcuts through highly complex and landscapes and elusive existential awarenesses. “I can’t take time out of college to have this baby” is a much more manageable bite than “I feel like I had to fight so many fears and people and barriers to get to the place where I could go to school. I feel like school is saving my life. I am terrified at the thought of leaving school even for a short time. What if I can’t return? I am terrified I cannot do it a second time. I am terrified no one will let me or help me do it a second time. And where does that leave me? Back there, in that place, in that life I worked my way out of, that place I had to get out of. And this time I will be there with a baby who is totally dependent on me? When I can barely make it by myself?”
So, when a woman says to me, “I have to have an abortion because I am student”, I wonder if she is telling me all those other things about her life and her fears. It is all too likely, in this society, that she **is** telling me those things. And it is all too likely that many women who support Roe v. Wade have been, are, will be or know a woman who opts for abortion “because she is a student” but, much more completely, because her life is some version of the one described above.
Jean,
ReplyDeleteI apologize for not responding in more depth, I will do so shortly. Things are crazy at the house lately and I will be emailing you to update you on all that shortly!
Just for starters, I will say that I think our opinions do converge in the sense that I think there are many cultural barriers that prevent a truly open and honest discussion about abortion--and I wouldn't be surprised if that were true of people on all sides of the issue. It quickly becomes an emotional issue, people divide into black and white categories, and then sit in their trenches lobbing grenades at each other.
Like you, I consider myself one of the few who seeks out discussion about this issue with people who I may (or may not) disagree with. A lot of folks are not willing to see the nuance or understand the struggle that folks are having with this issue. I try to be sympathetic to that struggle, but I probably often come across as unsympathetic (in fact, I think I even used that word).
I am sympathetic to the struggle, but not sympathetic to the logic used to argue the points, and I guess that is what I was trying to say. Thanks for the taking the time to look into my words and flesh out where I was going. I probably should have been clearer at the onset, as well.
Frank - It is, I think, one of the great opportunities in building intentional community that we can agree - even when it is difficult and requires an investment of time and energy - that PEOPLE CAN FIND THE WAY TO CLARITY TOGETHER. I think few of us can do it in isolation and I personally think God must love it when we acknowledge that and get on with the business of togetherness even in our thinking. You are a peach, Frank, for caring this much. Jean
ReplyDeletelast thought:
ReplyDeleteI said that "I have lost patience at times - in discussion with conservative men who are as ardently anti-feminist as they are anti-abortion - and have wanted to say, “Oh, for Pete’s sake, before you harangue me about how women are denying the equal rights of unborn babies, why don’t we start with some talk about equality in your interactions with women?”
***
Just wanted to clarify that I don’t say it. I have. It is generally not productive. I have a mental list of men in my southern conservative Catholic community with whom I simply will not discuss abortion YET because I know that the unacknowledged subtext is feminism and the fact that they dislike that I conduct myself as their equal in every way. THAT is why they bring up the topic to me. When we can acknowledge that and talk about it, then I will believe we are on our way to being able to actually talk about abortion when we talk about abortion.
I am hopeful we will get there as time passes...