In spite of Dobbs, or perhaps because of it, the abortion issue continues to be the kudzu of American politics, impervious to all attempts to eradicate it from the public square.
Back in late June, in the wake of Illinois' primary election, I exercised my oracular powers, such as they are, to foretell the following:
Based on what I observed yesterday, I don't think the House elections this fall are going to materialize into a "red wave". Inflation might be severe enough to put the Republicans in the majority, but I think it will be a thin one.
That prediction came out of my having sat for hours behind a precinct check-in table on Illinois' primary election day, observing suburban woman after suburban woman stepping up, with the glint of determination in her eye, to request a Democratic ballot.
With all due modesty: my intuition on that day seems to be panning out. Exit polling of this week's election indicates that abortion continues to drive voter behavior. From Politico:
While more voters said inflation was the most important issue to them, it only barely topped abortion, 31 percent to 27 percent. In Pennsylvania, where Democrat John Fetterman flipped a GOP-held Senate seat to fuel his party’s hopes of keeping the chamber, abortion (36 percent) actually outranked inflation (29 percent)...In both surveys [Edison Research's National Election Pool exit poll, and the Associated Press's AP Votecast], around 60 percent of voters said they were dissatisfied or angry about the Supreme Court overturning its Roe v. Wade precedent, and those voters broke heavily for Democrats. In the network exit poll, nearly four in 10 voters said they were “angry” about Roe being overturned, and Democrats won 85 percent of them. Those voters made up about a third of the total electorate.
These findings are markedly different from pre-election polling, which suggested that abortion was running far behind inflation and the economy as voter concerns.
I've been thinking about the pro-life movement a bit. I think the Dobbs decision sucked all the momentum out of the pro-life movement and ignited the pro-choice movement. For decades, the pro-life movement was overwhelmingly focused on working to overturn the Roe v Wade decision. Now that that has been achieved, in my opinion the pro-life movement doesn't have an energizing goal anymore. To some extent - and I think it's a large extent - the movement is adrift. Intellectually, its leaders understand that we've entered a new era now, with a focus on state legislation and court battles. But the unifying message and energy to overturn Roe has dissipated. There is no longer a single overriding goal or focus.
Conversely, I think we're seeing a pro-choice movement now for which Dobbs wasn't just a wake-up call; it was an urgent call to arms. What formerly was a Constitutional right has been taken away. Pro-choice activists are extremely motivated now to shore up state laws that preserve access to abortion.
Those exit poll numbers are striking: four in 10 voters expressed anger about Dobbs - and nearly all that anger is among Democrats. There is no comparable emotional energy around abortion emanating from pro-life Republicans.
On abortion, it's political advantage, Democrats at the moment.
One other brief observation: in state elections this week, Michigan and Kentucky joined Kansas in preserving state abortion rights. While Kansas and Kentucky are often perceived as red Bible Belt territory, it's arguable that all three states are actually purple. All three currently have Democratic governors, two of whom were re-elected this week, so Democrats can succeed in statewide elections in all three states. From what I can tell, all three of them have the same urban-suburban vs small-town-rural divide that, more and more, is separating Democrats from Republicans nationally. This is worth noting because pro-life strategies that work in deep-red states may not succeed in purple states.
If the country is inching toward a consensus on abortion, I haven't seen evidence of it so far. We should resign ourselves to the abortion wars continuing.
If I may. Nothing fails like success. Goes along with: be careful what you pray for.
ReplyDeleteAu contraire, I think we are inching toward a consensus on abortion. You said it yourself, the pro life movement is adrift: "But the unifying message and energy to overturn Roe has dissipated. There is no longer a single overriding goal or focus." The problem is that the pro life movement failed to consider the elephant ( political jokes aside) in the living room. That would be that they failed to convince the well-over-half of the population which doesn't buy the Christian position that the pre-born are persons from the moment of conception. Instead they tried to force a legislative solution. Since it is well nigh impossible to convince people who either aren't Christian in the first place or who don't accept that definition of personhood, they are stuck with trying to reduce abortion from the demand side, with things that support mothers and children. And, oh yes, the church has another baby elephant in the living room. That would be that no celibate guy has a clue what pregnancy and birth entail for women. So yes, I believe we are headed for a consensus, something like Roe with perhaps an earlier cut off date for non-emergencies. They won'tlike it but law in this country still depends on tge consent of the governed.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the idea that the pre-born are human beings is a religious belief. Any pregnant woman who has been kicked by a baby gets it.
DeleteI think Jean probably is on to something with her comment about crime and punishment. Jail time is not an easy political sale.
More generally, I think , in the wake of Dobbs, there has been an emotional reaction of, "Now it's our turn". I.e., "We've been in the wilderness for 50 years while you all have been slaying infants. Now the tables are turned, and let's see how you like it!" That's human, but not very Christian, and not very politically astute. And supporting that reaction is the bubble phenomenon: people only associate these days with others who think just like them, and it leads to the misperception that they are a Silent Majority ("everyone I know thinks just like me").
"I don't think the idea that the pre-born are human beings is a religious belief. Any pregnant woman who has been kicked by a baby gets it." You are right that it isn't a religious belief that the pre-born are human beings, it's a biological fact that they are human. And having been kicked by a couple of babies I am on board with the Christian belief that they have personhood right from the beginning. But that is the sticking point. There is no consensus about when they become persons. For instance I understand that Jewish belief is that we are persons (ensoulment? Though that is a fraught term) when we take our first breath. However FWIW there are Jews and others who are pro-life.
DeleteI could write reams on what happened in Michigan with Prop 3.
ReplyDeleteI will only say that the prolife movement, in the 50 years Roe was law, failed to demonstrate why a total ban on abortion would be a public good. And they are failing to do so now in many parts of the country.
As long as prolife arguments rely on sectarian moral teaching and crime and punishment, they will get nowhere in many regions.
"Glint in her eye"? Oh dear, this sounds a bit overwrought. To my knowledge abortion wasn't on the ballot in Illinois, so possibly there was another reason for the glint in the eyes of Dem women than the determination to destroy fetal life?
ReplyDeleteI think defense of democracy was a big motivator. I believe that Biden's two speeches shortly before the election with that theme made a difference.
Delete"""Glint in her eye"? Oh dear, this sounds a bit overwrought."
DeleteHey, in my defense: I've been watching "Lord of the Rings: the RIngs of Power" on Amazon Prime all week during my lunchtime. You should see young Galadriel: very glinty!
And I didn't say they are determined to destroy fetal life. They were determined to vote for Democrats.
... determined to vote for Democrats who will continue to allow them to kill their babies?
DeleteI apologize if I read too much into the glint.
Rings of Power is the most expensive of tripe I have ever seen on TV. It's all technical razzle dazzle, a confusing array of characters, and melodramatic hokum. It's a show for 14-year-old boys.
If you want to see Morfydd Clark in something for grown-ups, I suggest "St Maud." It's dumped in the horror genre, but it's more tragedy than horror.
I'm up to Episode 6 or so on the Rings of Power series, so I can't say yet with certainty whether it's tripe. I came into it with low expectations, because I didn't like the Peter Jackson treatment of Lord of the Rings. But here's the thing: slogging through those films, I was constantly yelling (inside by brain), "Wait a minute! That's not how it went in the book!" I guess there are writings, jottings and letters by Tolkien underlying this new series, but I think the writers are making up huge swathes of it as they go along. What I'm saying is, it's kind of pleasant to be able to watch it on its own terms, instead of judging its fidelity or lack thereof to a book.
DeleteI confess to liking some things that 14 year old boys like (cheeseburgers, The Who, Julie Newmar back in the day) although I'm not much for the Marvel Universe.
I share your enthusiasm for Julie Newmar! She made us too-tall girls feel like we could be glamorous! I went to my fifth-grade Halloween party in a homemade catsuit like Julie wore in Batman and got my brother to sneak a pair of my mom's black high heels out of the closet. There was hell to pay when I got home, but it was worth it.
DeleteRaber is high on the Rings of Power, so I knitted thru most episodes and checked in occasionally. They are drawing on bits of lore from the books and the Silmarillion to pull together the plotlines.
And while we are off topic: Tolkien's vision of Mordor was drawn from his experiences in the trenches in World War I. Veterans Day seems to be a good time to remember that war is hell and that those who wage it are evil.
Fun fact: Ingahild Grathmer did some wonderful illustrations for the Danish translation of LOTR. In real life, Grathmer is Queen Margrethe of Denmark!
What Stanley, Katherine and Jean said. Especially Katherine. Trying to impose a religious understanding of personhood on a country whose majority doesn’t accept that understanding is an exercise in long- term frustration, and probably futility. As the fight drags on, state by state, one can perhaps hope that there will finally be some compromises on both sides. Perhaps a 12 week limit except in cases where the mother’s health and life are at risk. Given that about 85% of abortions were performed by 8 weeks, and 92% by 12 weeks BEFORE Dobbs, it seems that a 12 week limit would be acceptable to all but the most rabid pro- choice AND the most rabid anti- choice extremists.
ReplyDelete"Personhood" is pro-choice BS, the kind of abstracting, pseudo-philosophizing palaver used to try to distract people from the fact that infants in the womb are being killed by the truckload. "Golly, as badly as I feel about having this abortion, I've walked through the checklist, and realized this child inside me doesn't meet all the criteria for having attained personhood. So I guess it's alright". Nobody thinks or operates that way.
DeleteI'll do devil's advocate a bit here. I accept the church's teaching about the sanctity of life from the beginning. But I can understand, at least somewhat, the point of view that fetal development is a process, and that the mother's life and health would take precedence if it was in danger. I also don't think anyone operates from a checklist point of view.
DeleteJim,
DeleteI think you dismiss too easily the fact that many people do not see personhood as beginning at conception, attributing to them ill will. After all, Aquinas did not think so.
A good argument can be made for personhood beginning at conception, mainly because there are not better locations, e.g., fetal heartbeat. The nearest competing one is viability which is still rather nebulous. With modern medical science who is to say?
Personhood is an important theological concept, essential for our understand of the Trinity and Christ. Hardly to be dismissed as abstracting, pseudo-philosophizing palaver.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAccidently submitted. Jews don’t believe this. In Genesis it says that personhood begins with the first breath. That’s why some Jewish groups have filed lawsuits - because their freedom of religion is being denied in many states.
DeleteAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7 (KJV)
Abortion rights have just been liberalized in India, an authoritarian, Hindu nationalist country. It was already legal, but some constraints were lifted. So apparently Hindus also don’t believe that an embryo or even a fetus is a human being. There is a difference in accepting the potentiality of a zygote or embryo or fetus becoming a human being - a person- and believing that the zygote is already a person.
Let us all hope that the wall between. Church and state stands. Christians do not have the right to impose their religious beliefs on Jews, Hindus, or any other American. The 12th week marks the end of the building of the basic organ infrastructure of a human being. All systems, including the brain and nervous system, are established at 12 weeks. But not earlier. The formation of the heart isn’t complete until the 8th week - not the 6th, when it’s formation is just beginning. The 12 th week marks the end of the embryo stage and the beginning of the fetal stage. Twelve weeks would be a reasonable compromise.
Corrected deleted comment.
DeleteJim, your belief that a two celled zygote is a person - a fully developed human being - is a religious concept not shared by the majority of americans. Even though you believe it, and Katherine believes it, and millions of conservative American Christians believe it, and the bishops believe it, most Americans don’t.
Jim, it seems that you are so disappointed and angry that the state level abortion votes didn’t go the way you had hoped for that you are losing all perspective. Your bitterness will not help your movement. BTW, from what I read on Catholic sites, theologians also consider the question of when personhood exists, and most agree that it cannot be defined. They say that human life begins at conception, but many back off the question of when personhood exists because there is no agreed upon definition in either philosophy or theology.
DeleteSome interesting visuals on what is removed during an early abortion.
Deletehttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue
Anne,
DeleteI think the argument could be made that our DNA which is formed at concept constitutes our basic personhood.
Development, first physically then social psychologically, is an unfolding of these potentialities.
This is a reasonable argument not based on religious beliefs. The Catholic argument as I understand it, is that personhood at conception is a self- evident truth and does not depend upon papal authority.
Regarding India and abortion, there was a previous practice of sex selected abortions because of a preference for male children to carry on the family name, and also the expense of marrying off daughters with the expectation of dowries. Officially both sex selected abortions and the practice of dowries are supposed to be illegal, but they happen under the table. I would hope that feminists there keep that in mind before they celebrate liberal abortion policies, which were already pretty liberal.
DeleteAnne, I looked at the images on The Guardian page of early development (I think it was up to 9 weeks?). They looked like pieces of cotton. I'm pretty sure there is a blood supply after implantation, which would be one week or less. I'm also pretty sure the tissue isn't white as snow unless it was very thoroughly washed. There are microscope images which show a lot more detail. Which is neither here nor there, but if they are trying to show more accurate images, those aren't.
DeleteKatherine, I suspect the tissue was cleaned up. They specifically mention that the embryo can’t be seen with the naked eye. I suspect that this effort is meant to counter the misleading graphics used by the anti- choice folk that make it appear that a baby sucking its thumb is being removed, rather than an invisible to the human eye embryo which doesn’t even yet have a thumb to suck. At eight weeks fingers are only beginning to develop.
DeleteBasing the ban on.natural law is basing it on a philosophical idea, rooted in ancient pagan philosophy, that is not commonly accepted by many outside of the RCC these days. Some of our laws were derived on a natural law basis in earlier eras, but it’s unlikely that the natural law argument Carrie’s much weight these days outside of Catholic circles. Maybe in Orthodox circles, but I don’t know for sure.
I don’t like abortion. But I don’t believe that it should be banned on religious grounds in a religiously pluralistic country.
Jack, if I pull a single hair out of my head a scientist could link it to me because the bit of skin that would be attached has my DNA. So does a tiny flake of skin, or any other tiny part of my body. My DNA would be there, just as it as in the zygote that was created at my conception. That zygote was not me. It was a sort of seed that eventually developed into me. But the hair root, or that flake of skin, is not a human being and never could be unless there is some kind of human cloning using the cells. I don’t know much about the science of cloning. But I do wonder when ensoulment might occur if a human clone is ever done.
Katherine, just as Indians ignore the ban on sex selection abortion, women here will either ignore it and have a DIY abortion with pills, or they will leave their state and go to another state. Some, those who are the least educated about their options, or too poor to afford to travel, might seek out a back alley abortion, risking her life. The battle has moved to the states now, but abortion continues. Many women in Poland now travel to neighboring countries to get abortions. Before the Irish people voted to legalize abortion, women went to England to get them. When women are desperate they find a way,
Delete"Jim, your belief that a two celled zygote is a person - a fully developed human being - is a religious concept not shared by the majority of americans."
DeleteI've never said this, and don't believe this. As I stated elsewhere in this discussion, I don't use the term "person" when speaking about abortion. A two celled zygote is a human being at a very, very early stage of development. As such, it deserves our reverence and our protection. How absolute that protection should be is for the American people to determine through their political and policymaking processes.
"Jim, it seems that you are so disappointed and angry that the state level abortion votes didn’t go the way you had hoped for that you are losing all perspective. Your bitterness will not help your movement."
DeleteI am somewhat disappointed. I'm not angry. I think people in Michigan were given two pretty bad options to choose - and they chose one. I blame the pro-life activists for not coming up with a better, more humane (and politically palatable) alternative.
Greenleaf said it well years ago in the era of John XXIII. Catholicism has much to offer America, except that Catholics are much better at saying what we are against than what we are for. The pro-life movement became an anti-abortion movement, which became an overturn Roe movement, which became an elect Republicans who will stack the Supreme Court to accomplish that end movement, which became elect Donald Trump to do that movement.
ReplyDeleteOnce you get that far out on the limb you have truly lost your original positive pro-life message.
I suspect the pro-life movement will not go positive but will remain an anti-abortion movement at the state level. In red states, it will ally itself with those seeking total bans through laws and constitutional amendments. In blue states, it will ally itself with those opposing abortion rights laws and amendments.
Those are two very different arguments. I suspect it will hamper the anti-abortion movement. Pro-abortion proponents in blue states will argue what anti-abortion proponents really want a total or near total ban.
What we will likely get is a variety of laws and amendments across the states, and a variety of politicians running against abortion or for choice or downplaying the issue depending upon the political winds and other issues.
Bottom line is that it is going to be far more difficult for the anti-abortion movement to organize as they face a variety of legal and political situations.
I think there is another option for the anti-abortion people; become a true pro-life movement. It would base itself on legal rights at the moment of conception. Those would include health care, housing, financial support etc. It would make having a child much more attractive. Not a particularly Republican appealing idea, but one that might attract many Democrats. It would advocate making abortion into a medical decision depending upon medical facts of the situation not upon the desirability of a pregnancy. That is, a doctor should not terminate a pregnancy merely because a mother does not want a child.
I have my doubts as to whether such a general legal principle will ever be enshrined in law or constitutions. However, I think many provisions based upon that principle such as health care, etc. could be made law, and thereby reduce abortions.
Jack, I think your first paragraph is a really good summary of how the pro life movement lost its way.
DeleteYes, excellent observations imo, Jack.
DeleteThe pro-life movement was (and is) an anti-abortion movement because abortion is what created it.
DeleteOur more expansive ideas of what constitutes pro-life came afterward. Much credit should go to Cardinal Bernardin with his speeches and writings on the consistent ethic of life.
Pope Francis's Laudato Si has "connected the dots" even more profoundly - but it's far from clear whether his views showing the integration between life, the environment, the economy and so on are making headway in the public consciousness.
Check out Michael Sean Winters in NCR today on the three things Catholics need to watch for post election: https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/ncr-voices/3-issues-catholics-should-follow-after-midterm-elections
ReplyDeleteThe three things he talks about are abortion and the throw away culture, the Latino shift to GOP, and the preservation and participation in democracy. It's a good discussion.
If you want a Christian response to abortion, I don't think you can do better than St Dorothy Day. She had an abortion. She converted. She chose a different path for her second pregnancy. She inculcated her experiences into upholding the dignity of all life, especially the throw-away lives of drunks, addicts, the homeless, and mentally ill. I would not discount the ripple effects that a hot cup of coffee and a listening ear will achieve. Laws don't change attitudes or behavior, they just drive behavior underground and harden resentment. Only charitable action and love of neighbor changes hearts and actions.
ReplyDelete"Laws don't change attitudes or behavior, they just drive behavior underground and harden resentment."
DeleteI partially agree. There is an old saying that the law is a teacher. There is some interplay between the law and morality, and it runs in both directions: each influences the other. But I also agree with another old saying: you can't legislate morality. Unless people's hearts and minds are brought into something close to a consensus, it will be difficult to reach a legal and policy consensus on abortion.
The law is a punisher. It lays out expectations and infractions for breaking them. I guess you can teach through punishment. But don't expect to win any converts with it.
DeleteIn the wake of Roe V Wade, the number of abortions rose year over year for a dozen or so years. Why? It could have been demographic: those years (the 1970s and early 80s) to some extent track with the fertility and sexual activity of the Boomer cohort. But it seems reasonable to me that its legality played some role in overriding the pre-existing taboo associated with abortion - that it was both wrong and shameful.
DeleteEvery woman I know who ever had an abortion (and that's a lot) felt it was wrong and shameful on some level. You aren't, as a Catholic deacon, going to hear the breadth of uncurated info that I did living in a women's dorm in 1972.
DeleteA woman's body for much of human history has been regarded as a problem: It is unpredictable, messy, embarassing, creates urges and moods that must be controlled, is prone to attracting unwanted or even dangerous attention, it gets pregnant at inconvenient times, it miscarries without warning.
Most men are more interested in what's under the hood of their car than in how women's bodies work, other than that they be available to "go for a spin" at on demand.
Abortion on demand and the sexual revolution was one of many experiments in trying to manage and control the unpredictability of being female.
The newest experiment in the Female Body Problem is to destigmatize single parent families and illegitimacy. That has likely reduced abortion rates from original levels. But that comes with myriad social problems as well. I worry that we are turning men into drones, of which very little in the way if responsibility or empathy is expected. Fathers, in many families, are incidental figures who show up for birthdays and holidays, and maybe a sleepover with Mom sonetimes.
But I am rambling. There is, in short, a context in which abortion must be viewed.
For whatever else it's worth, the Church has been pushing the notion for 50 years that abortion is the most heinous sin bc it destroys defenseless life (not to say innocent, since all humans inherit original sin). That emphasis on abortion as separate from all other types of sins, al.ost beyond the pale of human behavior, has skewed any understanding of how humans have historically responded to unwanted pregnancy and perhaps discouraged believers from extending empathy and understanding to women who have availed themselves of abortions.
DeleteI get that deliberately taking a life is wrong. What I don't get is that we have always given a pass to the taking of life in war. Even things such as Stanley mentions below, the bombing of an entire village. Or think about the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII. If this seems like whataboutism it kinda is. But especially non combatants haven't given consent, and even combatants often have not been given a free choice. Surely many of the lives lost have been innocent.
DeleteYah, I'm not trying to justify abortion or to agitate against Church teaching about it, just suggesting that the outrage over it comes with some lack of knowledge or denial about women's lived experiences. The same holds true for Church teaching about birth control, but there isn't the outrage about that. Pretty much every Catholic woman I know has used the Pill or had tubal ligation, and rationalized it as therapeutic in some way to excuse it.
DeleteFWIW - I don't use the term "person" when discussing whether abortion is right or wrong. "Personhood" has had many definitions over the years, some of which would exclude, not only those who aren't born yet, but also many who are already born: those whose development doesn't give them a certain baseline of intelligence, autonomy, memory, moral agency and so on. Personhood also has been used to stigmatize entire groups of people, e.g. slaves in the antebellum South were considered chattel rather than persons.
ReplyDeleteThat’s fine, Jim. You are free to not use the term personhood. But most of the debate that I’ve read at sites like America and NCR do spend a whole lot of time on differentiating between human life DNA present in a zygote or an embryo (and this individual DNA is also in the bit of skin in the root of a hair that is separated from the head, as noted previously but that bit of skin is not a human being, nor is it a person) and personhood- which is generally linked to ensoulment in Catholic discussions. Ensoulment is a religious concept. Obviously nobody actually knows when ensoulment occurs. Nobody can ever even prove the existence of a soul. Aquinas put ensoulment between 40-80 days depending on the gender of the embryo. Of course he thought that females didn’t receive a soul until well after males did. He also didn’t believe that women were full persons equal to men, although apparently he did believe that the souls were equal. That’s part of what underlies the RCC’s distorted teachings on gender complementarity.
DeleteIt’s a zygote at first, then a blastocyst, and finally an embryo, until 10 weeks (8 weeks after fertilization), when the reference term changes to fetus. Organ formation begins around 5 weeks of pregnancy, (three weeks after fertilization).
The point is this - banning abortion based on the argument thar a human being exists from the moment of conception is a religious concept. Most Americans believe that the zygote is an early stage of human life with the potential to develop into a human being. They don’t believe that it IS a complete human being at that stage, one that would be called a person.
Most zygotes, estimated at 50-75% - never make it to implantation, so a woman never knows that conception occurred. Some theologians, including Catholic theologians, believe that a human being doesn’t begin to develop until cell differentiation begins, after successful implantation, around a week after fertilization. About 20-25% of implanted zygotes fail to develop correctly, and are spontaneously aborted. This generally occurs before week 12. There are many reasons that 12 weeks could be a reasonable compromise.
But I believe that religious beliefs should not be imposed on all Americans. I believe that Jews and Hindus and many other Americans have just as much right to their religious beliefs as do conservative christians. Nobody is forcing conservative christians to have abortions. They have a choice and women who aren’t conservative christians should also have a choice. You believe that the conservative christian beliefs about abortion should be imposed by law on all. You cite natural law as well. But most Americans don’t buy the natural law argument, rooted in pagan philosophy, but it is also used by the RCC to justify banning modern contraception.
We will never see eye to eye on this. I believe in separation of church and state and you don’t.
Jim, maybe just give up on ending abortions via legal coercion, via imposing religious beliefs on all, and begin supporting politicians who will work to enact policies that have been shown to be effective at reducing abortion rates.
I'm not a big fan of the Law. The reason I support legalization of pot is that it takes away an excuse for cops to harass minorities. There seems to be a paucity of law and its enforcement when it comes to corporate entities. But it comes down hard on individuals. Corporations: too big to prosecute. Ordinary individuals: easily squashed.
ReplyDeleteAbortion law comes down heavily on individuals and polices medical practitioners who already have that specie of vultures called lawyers perpetually circling.
As long as the state doesn't force abortions or force people to perform them, I can live with that.
Everybody in this country has rights but few have much reverence for anybody or anything. Having been awestruck by embryogenesis ever since I read about it as a child, I think zygotes and blastocysts and embryos and fetuses deserve reverence, even if they spontaneously perish. Codifying it into law and the enforcement of that law would not generate that reverence, in my opinion.
Stanley, good points about the lack of reverence for basically anything or anybody. I am also awestruck by embryogenesis, which is why I was unimpressed by those photos in The Guardian.
DeleteYes, the Guardian article makes much of the visual remoteness of the embryo TO THE NAKED EYE. I immediately thought of historian Howard Zinn speaking of his time operating a bombsight in WWII. He never could see the humans he was killing. After the war, he visited a French village he believed was devastated for no good reason except to try out a new ordnance called napalm.
DeleteI'm not saying a microscope would show a fully developed person but something amazing nonetheless.
Of course, as in war, desensitization helps in the doing of the unpleasant.
Prolifers basically have to decide whether they want to focus on passing laws that force women to bear children or to focus on ministering to women who are at their wits end with a problem pregnancy or grieving for having had an abortion.
ReplyDeleteI make no judgments about either response, both seem sincere.
But I don't think the people who say, "I don't give sh*t about your circumstances, you are having this kid or going to prison" have the creds or empathy to then turn around and say, "oh, you poor dear, I know that giving up this baby (bearing a handicapped child, having a baby with your abusive partner, struggling to keep the baby, having to drop out of college for a semester) is a hard decision to make, so let's walk through it together."
For sure, the law is a blunt instrument. I favor your second approach. And maybe recognizing that in the end we have no control over what is going on inside another person's body, and by having mercy we teach mercy.
DeleteSomething to consider; a blogger I read said this: " It's not abortion I care about, it's the status of women in society." Sometimes pro-choice isn't just about abortion.
ReplyDeleteI think that has always been the central tension in any discussion of abortion: the rights of viable fetal life to come to full fruition vs the extent to which women should be be required by law to ensure that it happens without regard to their own life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
ReplyDeleteA lot of extraneous stuff gets woven into the debate: when ensoulment occurs, whether the woman consented to the sex act, what developmental stage the fetus has reached, whether the mother has "felt life," whether a beating fetal heat is actually a heartbeat, at what stage a human fetus can be distinguished from a cat or a chicken, whether the fetus will be born with an abnormality, whether the mother has a condition or takes medication that complicate a pregnancy or threaten her health, even whether a "normal" woman is biologically hardwired and thus obligated to protect unborn life.
Theologians and ethicists love these questions, and some are interesting and worth exploring.
But we have no universal authority that everyone can rally around to guide us. So we concoct a hash of laws that tries to find some middle ground between protecting unborn life under some circumstances and women's bodily autonomy under others. No one likes it. It is patently imperfect. It's hedging our bets. And having laws that allows one thing or another doesn't make any of it right in the eyes of God.
Good summary.
DeleteNo human being can KNOW what Is right in the eyes of zGod.
DeleteGov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, a Democrat who won re-election, says in an interview on CNN that she does not think the election was a competition between economic issues and abortion. “The ability to decide when and whether to have a child is the biggest economic decision a women will make over the course of her lifetime.”
ReplyDeleteInteresting insight.
From what I am reading of the analysis of the election is that it was fundamentally a rejection by centrists of Republican extremists whether on abortion or election fraud or storming of the Capital.
ReplyDeleteDespite the Republicans losing the last three elections because of such extremism fostered by Trump, the Republicans show few signs of their willingness to reject Trump and extremism. He might even be their nominee for President next year!
Looks like the Democrats are beginning to settle into the notion that Republicans are stuck in self-defeating mode. In this past election, some Democrats even helped get some extremist Republicans to win their primaries in order to defeat them in the general election.
Unfortunately for Democrats, the centrists who are defeating the Republican extremists are soon going to recognize that Republican extremists are losing and so they will go back to expecting Democrats to try to solve some real problems.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteEdited for typos:
DeleteThe Wash Post seemed to indicate that the Trumpers/election deniers still make up a majority in the House GOP. (I confess that I am glutted on stories about the election, and things run together, so I hope I have that right.)
My read is that Trumpistas are looking for a new leader, someone equally hardline on immigration/race, America First, tax cuts, guns, crime, and with the personality of a total pr*ck. Desantis seems to fit that bill nicely.
If you want to think of the GOP as being split between a MAGA wing and an Establishment wing, the Establishment types by and large did pretty well in last week's elections, whereas the MAGA types got their clocks cleaned.
DeleteThe problem for the GOP (and the country) is much of its base is heavily influenced by right-wing media which is pretty much all-in for MAGA.
There are enough MAGA voters that MAGA candidates have a good shot at winning primaries (as noted, occasionally abetted by Democratic ad spending). The great lesson of last Tuesday, should Republicans wish to heed it (and I don't know of a particular reason why they would) is that MAGA is a loser in general elections.
The animating fear among Establishment candidates is that Trump and his political organization will punish them by primarying them (or by blessing a primary opponent) if they are insufficiently loyal to the Great Man. Trump's blessing seems to be responsible for the success in the primaries for JD Vance in Ohio, Dr. Oz in Pennsylvania, Don Bolduc in NH, Blake Masters and Kari Lake in AZ. Herschel Walker in GA also is a Friend of Trump, but I am told his college football exploits made him so revered across that state that he would have won his primary with or without Trump's blessing. Vance turned out to be a good bet for Republicans (whether it was a good bet for the country is still TBD). Walker and Lake may still eke out wins, although I wouldn't bet on either one. The rest were obviously bad bets for the GOP (for which the country probably should breathe a sigh of relief).
Vance is an odd duck. Jack, what's your take? Is he a political chameleon or true Trump convert? That race with Ryan seemed to be solidly about blue collar voters. Ryan is about the only Dem who still puts them front and center, so I was a bit surprised that broke the way it did.
DeleteJean you're right that Vance is an odd duck. I sort of liked his book Hillbilly Elegy. But that was before he went all Maga. In the book he busted his behind (with some government help!) to get a law degree from Yale. But I haven't seen any evidence that he has actually been interested in practicing law. He became a hedge fund manager I think in California) That to me didn't speak well for him. Hedge funds and vulture capitalists have wreaked a certain amount of havoc in our state. I think JD is pretty much interested in JD.
DeleteIt is likely the odd duck appeal. Trump's appeal started out as that. I think Bernie's appeal has a lot of that too. Right now, people in both parties are distrustful of establishment types. Both Trump and Bernie were able to create very loyal bases out of the odd duck appeal.
DeleteIt remains to be seen whether Vance can create something out of his odd duck appeal. He has six years to figure that out. Remember that the Senate has a tradition of creating 'odd duck" Senators whom people trust even they do not fit some party loyalty tests. My suspicion is that Vance is not a real odd duck.
I hope Vance became MAGA as a simple expedient, and will shed it once he gets to Washington. But he may have decided that MAGA people are his people.
DeleteI hope he was only fooling about MAGA affiliation, but doesn't say much for his integrity to pretend just to get elected.
DeleteBoebert is up about 1,000 votes today in CO. But looks like Kari Lake is out in AZ.
Two articles at NCR online worth a read. One is by Thomas Reese. The other is by Stephen Millies, Director of the Bernadin Center at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago.
ReplyDeleteThomas Reese details the collateral damage which happened as a result of the focus on abortion as the "pre-emiment issue". The phrase that comes to mind is "Pyrrhic victory".
Delete