Abortion Common Ground

[MarginOfError]

What pro-choicers can learn from the Princeton abortion conference.

What pro-lifers can learn from the Princeton abortion conference.

An interesting and thought provoking pair of articles about the recent Princeton Abortion Conference. These address potential areas for common ground to be had between the pro-choice and pro-life campaigns.

Note: Let's please keep it civil. While I recognize that the majority of the people here are adamantly pro-life, there are those among us who stand with a foot planted firmly in both camps.

[Guest]

Unfortunately, sanctioning artificial contraception as a moral option is against Catholic Doctrine. It would be the same as asking a Mormon to accept gay sex as moral. Not gonna happen.

[MarginOfError]

Unfortunately, sanctioning artificial contraception as a moral option is against Catholic Doctrine. It would be the same as asking a Mormon to accept gay sex as moral. Not gonna happen.

I had hoped to move this out of the realm of theology and into the realm of civic discourse. I guess I have to ask if a catholic is selling out his morals if he agrees that encouraging contraceptive use by those outside of his faith.

The other thing about that...is a catholic selling out his morals if he says that unmarried people engaging in sexual activity should use contraception? Is the sin of contraception overshadowed by the sin of fornication? (that's only a half serious question)

But, anyway, is it selling out our morals if we yield to a matter of public policy when it brings public behavior a little more in line with what we would consider a moral decision?

[Guest]

I had hoped to move this out of the realm of theology and into the realm of civic discourse. I guess I have to ask if a catholic is selling out his morals if he agrees that encouraging contraceptive use by those outside of his faith.

The other thing about that...is a catholic selling out his morals if he says that unmarried people engaging in sexual activity should use contraception? Is the sin of contraception overshadowed by the sin of fornication? (that's only a half serious question)

But, anyway, is it selling out our morals if we yield to a matter of public policy when it brings public behavior a little more in line with what we would consider a moral decision?

You can't really get this thing out of the realm of theology because the BASIS for the pro-life stance is rooted on Theology.

Yes, a Catholic will be selling out his morals if he agrees to encourage contraceptive use by those outside of his faith. Remember the analogy - I wouldn't expect a Mormon to ecourage gay sex outside of the Mormon faith.

And yes, it is selling out our morals if we yield to a non-moral solution to a moral problem to get the intended outcome.

I know it's difficult to see being outside of the Catholic faith, but if you look at it through the lens of their doctrine, it is really not that difficult to understand their position.

[MarginOfError]

You can't really get this thing out of the realm of theology because the BASIS for the pro-life stance is rooted on Theology.

Sure you can. I have a theological objection to abortion, but I am pro-choice because I recognize that not everyone accepts my theological position, and am thus willing to compromise on public policy in order to minimize the number of abortions that occur.

Yes, a Catholic will be selling out his morals if he agrees to encourage contraceptive use by those outside of his faith. Remember the analogy - I wouldn't expect a Mormon to ecourage gay sex outside of the Mormon faith.

Yet, as a mormon, I assert that if a person is to engage in homosexual sex, he should do so with a committed partner and not be rampantly promiscuous.

And yes, it is selling out our morals if we yield to a non-moral solution to a moral problem to get the intended outcome.

So if I object to contraception and to abortion, I should demand that contraception not be used, thereby increasing the number of potential abortions which I want to simply outlaw anyway.

I know it's difficult to see being outside of the Catholic faith, but if you look at it through the lens of their doctrine, it is really not that difficult to understand their position.

I'm not having any trouble at all. What I'm asking is why is it immoral to make public policy compromises as a step toward theological goals?

[Dravin]

Honestly the Catholics were the first one that popped into my mind about that one. I think there is a validity to it for those who don't hold that stance. Certainly premarital sex isn't a good thing but if someone is going to participate in it better they don't add abortion on top of it.

Question for those more hep with Catholics, is there any moral difference seen between contraception and abortion or is it seen as equally bad? I'm not sure if the Catholics are of the all sin is bad and rankings are a human artifice religion or not or that they are equal (meaning trading one for the other isn't of any benefit). Of course I'm operating under the assumption that the Catholic Church doesn't see contraception as worse than abortion.

Point 4 of the pro-lifer article I'm unsure about as far as logic goes. If the position is it is a child how is it better in a moral sense that it dies earlier rather than later? It'd be like saying it's better to kill someone at age 5 rather than age 15. I can see how it is better for the mother, but honestly pro-life is not about maximizing things for the mother, (though there are exceptions people will conceed such as rape, incest or danger to life) it's about protecting what she carries. Particularly if a pro-lifer is under the impression that the further along a women is the less likely she is to have an abortion, either due to emotional attatchment, the time giving chances for second thoughts, or concern over medical risks.

Now emotionally I can see it being a compromise, the less baby like the fetus the less emotional pull a picture of it has but if all it does is shift abortion earlier and doesn't effect total numbers it isn't much of a compromise if you goal is lowing those numbers (if your goal is making abortion safer than it's a good compromise so I could see why pro-choice would go for it). The calculus changes if it is part of a larger compromise of course.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Dravin

[Guest]

I'm not having any trouble at all. What I'm asking is why is it immoral to make public policy compromises as a step toward theological goals?

Because, as a Catholic, there are A MYRIAD WAYS to solve the problem without having to sacrifice morals.

Taken as a holistic approach, the solution is in the change of culture - that sex is not entertainment.

Giving some kid a contraceptive gives the moral equivalence of handing him a license to have sex. Completely against what we are trying to accomplish here.

Putting a teen celebrity on the podium wearing a bracelet to signify his support for abstinence is heading in the right direction.

Of course, abortion is not limited to teens... but you see what I'm saying.

[MarginOfError]

Point 4 of the pro-lifer article I'm unsure about as far as logic goes. If the position is it is a child how is it better in a moral sense that it dies earlier rather than later? It'd be like saying it's better to kill someone at age 5 rather than age 15. I can see how it is better from the mother, but honestly pro-life is not about maximizing things for the mother (though there are exceptions people will conceed such as rape, incest or danger to life) it's about protecting what she carries. Particularly if a pro-lifer is under the impression that the further along a women is the less likely she is to have an abortion, either due to emotional attatchment, the time giving chances for second thoughts, or concern over medical risks.

Now emotionally I can see it being a compromise, the less baby like the fetus the less emotional pull a picture of it has but if all it does is shift abortion earlier and doesn't effect total numbers it isn't much of a compromise if you goal is lowing those numbers (if your goal is making abortion safer than it's a good compromise so I could see why pro-choice would go for it). The calculus changes if it is part of a larger compromise of course.

This one goes right along with the pro-choice point about opening the legality of 2nd trimester abortions. It's a weird compromise to me, but one that would actually benefit the pro-life camp. Many women don't even confirm a pregnancy until the first 12 weeks are almost over, and so if they could win a compromise that second trimester abortions are to be illegal, that would cut a huge dent in the number of abortions.

But it's still shaky ground for both of them. The basis on which the pro-choice camp yielded on late term abortions was that the fetus is viable. The same cannot be said for a fetus at 20 weeks, let alone 12*. So these points are a strange place for me to see compromise.

However, I think I can see a point in compromising on number of weeks determined by statistics. That is, 70% of all abortions occur before week 17, so it seems clear that 17 weeks is enough time to get your act together if you want an abortion. This would also alleviate the concern I would have of pro-life doctors exaggerating gestational age to prevent the option of an abortion (say if it were made illegal after 12 weeks).

* Yes, I'm aware that there have been cases recorded where a child has survived at 20 weeks. One case doesn't make it likely, and certainly doesn't make it something we should expect.

[MarginOfError]

Because, as a Catholic, there are A MYRIAD WAYS to solve the problem without having to sacrifice morals.

Taken as a holistic approach, the solution is in the change of culture - that sex is not entertainment.

Giving some kid a contraceptive gives the moral equivalence of handing him a license to have sex. Completely against what we are trying to accomplish here.

Putting a teen celebrity on the podium wearing a bracelet to signify his support for abstinence is heading in the right direction.

Of course, abortion is not limited to teens... but you see what I'm saying.

I agree that the culture needs to be changed. But I reject the notion that doing something to alleviate the immediate social problems associated with sexuality, contraception, and abortion compromises the long term goal. Why can't we initiate action to reduce the number of abortions in the near future while simultaneously taking action to change people's hearts so that they don't fornicate? Why do so many of us assume we can only do it one way?

[Guest]

Question for those more hep with Catholics, is there any moral difference seen between contraception and abortion or is it seen as equally bad? I'm not sure if the Catholics are of the all sin is bad and rankings are a human artifice religion or not or that they are equal (meaning trading one for the other isn't of any benefit). Of course I'm operating under the assumption that the Catholic Church doesn't see contraception as worse than abortion.

There's no such thing as bad versus badder. There's just bad. Abortion and contraception are both sinful because it stems from the same Catholic Doctrine of the power of procreation.

Note that there is a difference between Catholic and Mormon doctrine on the sanctity of the pro-creative act. In Catholic Doctrine, sex and pro-creation are not separate. Whereas, in Mormon Doctirne, sex is separate from pro-creation.

Point 4 of the pro-lifer article I'm unsure about as far as logic goes. If the position is it is a child how is it better in a moral sense that it dies earlier rather than later? It'd be like saying it's better to kill someone at age 5 rather than age 15. I can see how it is better for the mother, but honestly pro-life is not about maximizing things for the mother, (though there are exceptions people will conceed such as rape, incest or danger to life) it's about protecting what she carries. Particularly if a pro-lifer is under the impression that the further along a women is the less likely she is to have an abortion, either due to emotional attatchment, the time giving chances for second thoughts, or concern over medical risks.

Now emotionally I can see it being a compromise, the less baby like the fetus the less emotional pull a picture of it has but if all it does is shift abortion earlier and doesn't effect total numbers it isn't much of a compromise if you goal is lowing those numbers (if your goal is making abortion safer than it's a good compromise so I could see why pro-choice would go for it). The calculus changes if it is part of a larger compromise of course.

In both Catholic and Mormon Doctrine, life is both physical and spiritual.

When the spirit enters the body is not known both in Catholic and Mormon doctrine. It is generally accepted that during the first tri-mester, the baby has a great chance of getting miscarried, therefore, it might be that the spirit doesn't enter the body during that time. That is why Mormons are okay with abortion due to incest and rape during the first trimester. Catholics are not. But, actually conceding the first trimester is not against Doctrine per se... well, that is, if a Catholic or Mormon would even concede that any kind of abortion can be moral...

[MarginOfError]

When the spirit enters the body is not known both in Catholic and Mormon doctrine. It is generally accepted that during the first tri-mester, the baby has a great chance of getting miscarried, therefore, it might be that the spirit doesn't enter the body during that time. That is why Mormons are okay with abortion due to incest and rape during the first trimester. Catholics are not. But, actually conceding the first trimester is not against Doctrine per se. There's wiggle room there.

I reject this notion. In fact, I reject the notion that the LDS objection to abortion has anything to do with 'life.'

If you look at the exceptions we make for abortion--incest, rape, severe physical deformity--they all include the common element of the mother having not chosen what she's been given. If it were revealed tomorrow that the spirit enters the body at 13 weeks, the LDS would still oppose abortion at two weeks because it isn't about life. It's about the appropriate use of procreative powers.

[Guest]

I agree that the culture needs to be changed. But I reject the notion that doing something to alleviate the immediate social problems associated with sexuality, contraception, and abortion compromises the long term goal. Why can't we initiate action to reduce the number of abortions in the near future while simultaneously taking action to change people's hearts so that they don't fornicate? Why do so many of us assume we can only do it one way?

Because, as a Mormon, I cannot support any social action that goes against my doctrine. I wouldn't expect a Catholic to do so either.

And no, there's not only one way... for a Catholic, contraception is just one way... there are LOTS of other ways - better ways.

[MarginOfError]

Because, as a Mormon, I cannot support any social action that goes against my doctrine. I wouldn't expect a Catholic to do so either.

And no, there's not only one way... for a Catholic, contraception is just one way... there are LOTS of other ways - better ways.

But how many of those can logically and successfully be extended into pluralistic society?

[Guest]

But how many of those can logically and successfully be extended into pluralistic society?

All of them.

But, of course, it will never happen. Just like there will always be drug addiction and pornography...

P.S. Contraceptives are not magic pills.

[Just_A_Guy]

Many women don't even confirm a pregnancy until the first 12 weeks are almost over, . . .

Just a passing observation here: In the vast majority of cases--they could if they wanted to; but our current legal/cultural regiment doesn't require that they do so. So they don't.

If you look at the exceptions we make for abortion--incest, rape, severe physical deformity--they all include the common element of the mother having not chosen what she's been given. If it were revealed tomorrow that the spirit enters the body at 13 weeks, the LDS would still oppose abortion at two weeks because it isn't about life. It's about the appropriate use of procreative powers.

That is the natural reading of a member of a religion steeped in talk of "agency", but it's not the only reading. In fact, if we got too caught up in it we'd still have to allow abortions of pregnancies that threaten Mom's life so long as the pregnancy was created through consensual intercourse.

But the Church's exceptions are compatible with a view of physical/emotional self-defense. Especially because the Church still acknowledges the possibility that a rape victim may still find it desirable to carry the child to term--the defining test would seem to be the effect on the mother, not the circumstances of procreation. And the Church's preface to its policy as expressed in the most recent handbook (citing scriptural references to killing, rather than fornication) would seem to strongly imply that it is, to some degree, about life. (Though I also note the statement about not being any revelation as to when the spirit enters the body.)

Stepping back a bit: I think one would have a hard time convincing most pro-choicers (at least the secular ones) to accept any kind of "value" to a fetus. Once you assign it a "value", it becomes property whose fate may be determined by state action. Pro-choicers would (rightly) see this as opening the door for more stringent regulation of abortion over the long term; and I don't think they trust us right-wing nutjobs enough to do that.

Strategically, pro-choicers have the high ground right now. Why on earth would they give up that advantage?

Edited November 18, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

All of them.

But, of course, it will never happen. Just like there will always be drug addiction and pornography...

P.S. Contraceptives are not magic pills.

This makes me chuckle. The entire point of the Princeton Abortion Conference was to try to find common ground for compromise. It was supposed to be a way to get past "My way is the only right way."

And that's the problem with the current dialog on abortion, is it's all so all-or-nothing. Neither side wants to compromise. And then we get statements like, "well if we do it your way, you're still not going to stop it all." It's almost like if we can't anticipate 100% success we shouldn't even try.

Of course contraceptives aren't magic pills. No one ever claimed they were. They don't need to be magic pills in order to succeed in reducing abortions.

[Guest]

This makes me chuckle. The entire point of the Princeton Abortion Conference was to try to find common ground for compromise. It was supposed to be a way to get past "My way is the only right way."

And that's the problem with the current dialog on abortion, is it's all so all-or-nothing. Neither side wants to compromise. And then we get statements like, "well if we do it your way, you're still not going to stop it all." It's almost like if we can't anticipate 100% success we shouldn't even try.

Of course contraceptives aren't magic pills. No one ever claimed they were. They don't need to be magic pills in order to succeed in reducing abortions.

You misunderstand my point.

Who says Catholics are not open to dialogue? I'm only speaking about the Contraception part of it. It is against their doctrine. That's not open for compromise.

I've never in any part of my post addressed anything outside of the Contraception part of the article. And that includes my statement of "never gonna happen". Contraception will always be on the table as prevention for abortion. Regardless of how many other ways Catholics can come up with without having to resort to contraception.

Edited November 18, 2010 by anatess

[MarginOfError]

Just a passing observation here: In the vast majority of cases--they could if they wanted to; but our current legal/cultural regiment doesn't require that they do so. So they don't.

This isn't necessarily true, depending on lead time between calling for an appointment and scheduling an appointment, and then scheduling the abortion procedure.

That is the natural reading of a member of a religion steeped in talk of "agency", but it's not the only reading. In fact, if we got too caught up in it we'd still have to allow abortions of pregnancies that threaten Mom's life so long as the pregnancy was created through consensual intercourse.

I knew I was forgetting one. In fact, the Church does allow exemption for the life of the mother (Handbook 2, 21.4.1)

But the Church's exceptions are compatible with a view of physical/emotional self-defense. Especially because the Church still acknowledges the possibility that a rape victim may still find it desirable to carry the child to term--the defining test would seem to be the effect on the mother, not the circumstances of procreation.

Another interpretation that ignores the issue of life.

Stepping back a bit: I think one would have a hard time convincing most pro-choicers (at least the secular ones) to accept any kind of "value" to a fetus. Once you assign it a "value", it becomes property whose fate may be determined by state action. Pro-choicers would (rightly) see this as opening the door for more stringent regulation of abortion over the long term; and I don't think they trust us right-wing nutjobs enough to do that.

Strategically, pro-choicers have the high ground right now. Why on earth would they give up that advantage?

I think you could actually get pro-choicers to accept an assignment of value to the fetus if pro-lifers would accept a competing interest for the mother. One of the major fault lines between pro-choice and pro-life is the mother's rights vs. the child's rights. If we could acknowledge that both parties have competing interests in the matter, we'd make a lot more progress.

[Just_A_Guy]

Of course, if you believe contraception is sinful, then you're into "two wrongs don't make a right" territory.

(Oh, and MOE, I made some edits to my post before you posted your response above; apologies for that.)

[MarginOfError]

You misunderstand my point.

Who says Catholics are not open to dialogue? I'm only speaking about the Contraception part of it. It is against their doctrine. That's not open for compromise.

Well, what about this then...I wouldn't expect a catholic priest to announce in his congregation that contraception can be used morally, but would a fair compromise be for catholics to stay quiet about contraception education programs in schools (as part of a comprehensive sex education program).

[hordak]

Sure you can. I have a theological objection to abortion, but I am pro-choice because I recognize that not everyone accepts my theological position, and am thus willing to compromise on public policy in order to minimize the number of abortions that occur.

I get the impression, and perhaps anatess can weigh in on this, that as LDS we have more "wiggle room" for lack of a better term, when it comes to separating our doctrine vs secular law.

As i understand it the Pope, per Catholic doctrine, is infallible. That everything he says is for the world, regardless of beliefs. As Mormons we know the Prophet is fallible, and that doctrine/policy can change, we also seem to put more emphasis on personal covenants.

We have covenants/doctrine/policy for members. E.G. Word of wisdom

We have doctrine for the world. E.G. Family Proclamation

When hearing from Catholics, and i only know a few, I get the impression they don't make this distinction.

Prophet speaks sometimes to the church, sometimes to the world

Pope speaks to the world.

That is the impression i get.

[Guest]

I get the impression, and perhaps anatess can weigh in on this, that as LDS we have more "wiggle room" for lack of a better term, when it comes to separating our doctrine vs secular law.

As i understand it the Pope, per Catholic doctrine, is infallible. That everything he says is for the world, regardless of beliefs. As Mormons we know the Prophet is fallible, and that doctrine/policy can change, we also seem to put more emphasis on personal covenants.

We have covenants/doctrine/policy for members. E.G. Word of wisdom

We have doctrine for the world. E.G. Family Proclamation

When hearing from Catholics, and i only know a few, I get the impression they don't make this distinction.

Prophet speaks sometimes to the church, sometimes to the world

Pope speaks to the world.

That is the impression i get.

Correct.

Catholics don't have "personal revelation".

Therefore, everything the Pope declares is for the world.

[MarginOfError]

And the Church's preface to its policy as expressed in the most recent handbook (citing scriptural references to killing, rather than fornication) would seem to strongly imply that it is, to some degree, about life. (Though I also note the statement about not being any revelation as to when the spirit enters the body.)

Just to address your edit:

The very fact that the scripture says "thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it" implies that in some way, it is different than killing.

I also reference 1972 priesthood bulletin. To my knowledge, no statement has been made since this was published to contradict.

As the matter stands today, no definite statement has been made by the Lord one way or another regarding the crime of abortion. So far as is known, he has not listed it alongside the crime of the unpardonable sin and shedding of innocent human blood. That he has not done so would suggest that it is not in that class of crime and therefore that it will be amenable to the laws of repentance and forgiveness.

These observations must not be interpreted to mean that acts of abortion, except under circumstances explained in a preceding paragraph, are not of a serious nature. To tamper or interfere with any of the processes in the procreation of offspring is to violate one of the most sacred of God’s commandments—to multiply and replenish the earth. Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.

[jennvan]

I get the impression, and perhaps anatess can weigh in on this, that as LDS we have more "wiggle room" for lack of a better term, when it comes to separating our doctrine vs secular law.

As i understand it the Pope, per Catholic doctrine, is infallible. That everything he says is for the world, regardless of beliefs. As Mormons we know the Prophet is fallible, and that doctrine/policy can change, we also seem to put more emphasis on personal covenants.

We have covenants/doctrine/policy for members. E.G. Word of wisdom

We have doctrine for the world. E.G. Family Proclamation

When hearing from Catholics, and i only know a few, I get the impression they don't make this distinction.

Prophet speaks sometimes to the church, sometimes to the world

Pope speaks to the world.

That is the impression i get.

I totally disagree that the prophet speaks only to us as a church sometimes and other times to the world. The whole principle of the prophet is that he is a voice of warning to the world and prophet, seer and revelator for the world in this dispensation. Just because some people choose not to heed his words and his message doesn't mean that they aren't under the same rules and obligations and will be judged according to those after this life is over. The word of wisdom applies to everyone in mortality. You don't get to chose consequences from not obeying the word of wisdom whether you are inside the church or outside the church. Along the same lines, those who obey the word of wisdom are given the blessings of such even if they aren't members of the church. Eternal principles are eternal principles regardless of membership in the church. We would just like people to become baptized members of the church in order for them to have ordinances done and to fellowship with each other.

And we know from revelation that the Prophet in his role is infallible, he is a man who is imperfect but the role of Prophet will never be led astray in this dispensation, therefore making him infallible.

[Just_A_Guy]

This isn't necessarily true, depending on lead time between calling for an appointment and scheduling an appointment, and then scheduling the abortion procedure.

Sure; I was responding to your narrow point about the amount of time it takes to "confirm" a pregnancy.

As for actually scheduling the procedure: that's obviously going to vary by region, according to market forces. I'd be surprised to see a wait time of longer than two weeks in any given location, though; and given that a woman has reason to suspect pregnancy in as little as five weeks I think twelve weeks ought to be plenty of time for the reasonably prudent woman to identify and end a pregnancy.

Another interpretation that ignores the issue of life. . .

[Later post] The very fact that the scripture says "thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it" implies that in some way, it is different than killing.

I'll readily grant the latter statement; but I don't think that means the Church has written "life" out of the equation entirely.

If abortion is not about life per se, then the only other explanation I can come up with for the Church's stance is that it opposes abortion because abortion eliminates the natural consequences of the behavior of those who have already toyed with life. Thus the Church's position becomes one designed to inflict additional punishment upon the sinner.

I find it difficult to believe the Church would impose a policy for that purpose. It seems far more likely that the Church counsels against abortion because abortion itself--murder or not--toys with life in a way the Church finds abhorrent. It seems to me that the issue isn't merely the woman's consent (or lack thereof) to the circumstances under which the fetus was made; it's about what the fetus is and (since we don't really know for sure) what limited circumstances might trump whatever interests the fetus has.

I think you could actually get pro-choicers to accept an assignment of value to the fetus if pro-lifers would accept a competing interest for the mother. One of the major fault lines between pro-choice and pro-life is the mother's rights vs. the child's rights. If we could acknowledge that both parties have competing interests in the matter, we'd make a lot more progress.

But from my standpoint, it seems like pro-choicers have no reason to make any additional contribution. If a pro-choicer believes abortion is bad, then naturally he's already doing everything he can to limit the practice without resorting to legislation (right?). What does it benefit a pro-lifer to make concessions to such a person?

If a pro-choicer has no moral problem with abortion, the only rational reason to put his resources into limiting the practice by voluntary means is a well-founded fear that the government may intervene and limit the practice by involuntary means. So, such a person will only strike a deal if he senses he's losing the legislative battle. If the pro-lifers get that sense as well--amen to their making any territorial concessions if they're already winning the war.

Edited November 18, 2010 by Just_A_Guy