Before Roe vs Wade, the Pro-Life movement had largely consisted of liberals who in keeping with Catholic Social Teaching viewed the right to life not merely as an individual right to be protected from harm but as a comprehensive social obligation to support life at every stage of human existence. After Roe vs Wade the Pro-Life lobby shifted its focus to the Human Life Amendment (HLA) which they hoped would be the only avenue to repair the damage caused by the ‘disastrous’ supreme court decision. This became a single minded campaign which denied support to any politician who did not subscribe to the Pro-Life cause regardless of any of their other policies. Ultimately, Pro-Life became a conservative agenda and lost its liberal roots1. The goals of this campaign are still echoing today and resulted in the recent epic showdown between Cardinal Cupich of Chicago, Senator Durbin and the Pro-Life (anti-abortion) faithful2.
As part of its campaign to form consciences, and thanks to advances in imaging, the Pro-Life lobby released documentaries that revealed in graphic detail the horror of the abortion process such as in the 1984 “Silent Scream”. Graphics powerful enough to make the heart cringe. A campaign to build support for the goal of achieving the HLA.
This campaign has not been in vain. For some, the issue of abortion is so important that everything else has ceased to matter. All other issues are considered secondary and all other sins inconsequential3. Some Pro-Lifers would heroically choose deportation rather than vote for a person who supports abortion. And some might find it impossible to even sit next to or dialogue with a person who supports abortion except if they were ‘converting them’. Others would literally vote the devil who promises to make abortions illegal. It is even possible to make the argument that Pro-Life movement is best described as a Pro-Birth movement, since many of those who publicly support Pro-Life do little to advance the life and well being of those born.
For example, the suffering and mistreatment of immigrants is something to which many Pro-Lifers are blind given the moral urgency of abortion. America is losing its sensitivity to the suffering of those living. And her heart is growing cold and her Pro-Life citizens are not able to realize this. Her laws and policies are becoming ever more pure and ever more heartless. We see this in the courts, in the government, and also now in the streets. And all these are invisible to those whose conscience speaks and understands only anti-abortion.
This argument, whose rejection of abortion is single minded, is an argument which starts from its conclusion; “abortion is evil”. It undermines the foundations of dialogue which compel us to acknowledge that those on the other side could be right and we could be wrong by the mere fact of our shared humanity. It also ignores the differences in context which can bring disagreements. Differences which dictate that we immerse ourselves into the context of the others in order to understand and communicate to them in their unique and personal language the eternal love of God for them and his unfathomable desire to heal the wounds that abortion wreaks on their lives. Wounds which make it difficult for them to live truly fulfilling lives.
Consequently for those to whom the rational conclusion is that the fetus is a blob of cells, our conversations have been reduced to a shouting contest. One in which we try to forcefully indoctrinate them and then reduce them to being incapable of any good like is the case with Senator Durbin and they in turn logically reduce us to being irrational heartless bigots. People who do not care for those they see but claim to fight for those they are yet to see.
While some people might approach abortion eagerly, it is not something that anyone naturally desires. Everyone who arrives at the abortion table reaches that place with pre-existing wounds and leaves with deeper wounds. Abortion is not just a problem, it is also a symptom of other problems. Its existence also reveals to us pre-existing wounds within our communities; wounds which need adequate care and attention to prevent escalation into that which people would rather not people do. Wounds which we might be responsible for escalating through our reckless and heartless actions.
Policy interventions in moral problems such as abortion are relevant primarily because bad policies can mislead the young who are still developing their philosophies on life. Good policies are needed to help them draw moral boundaries that are faithful to what is good. For policies to be truly helpful, they must be holistic, with the capacity to address the problem along with its root causes. In the case of abortion, effective policy interventions must also address structural problems within the community that drive people to the abortion table in the first place.
But policy interventions have limitations. As a community, we are yet to understand how to make policies that communicate the gravity of moral problems and at the same time provide remedies that can restore justice. We see this with the death penalty which violates the sanctity of life and is in itself an expression of despair on the capacity of those condemned to achieve the justice to which we are all called. A justice which should be the primary goal of policy. Furthermore policy interventions often disproportionately affect the vulnerable; a natural consequence of our fallen nature. They are thus rarely effective on their own in bringing the justice and good we desire. This is the lesson and purpose of the cross of Christ who makes a sacrifice for us while we are still sinners and invites us to make sacrifices for our brothers and sisters while they are still living in sin.
When Jesus asked us to remove the log in our eyes before removing the splinter in the eyes of our neighbor.He did not do that because he did not want us to correct others but because in focusing on other people’s failure we can lose track of our own failings which are not few or far between. In doing this, we can become cold hearted like is happening in America.
Our fight for the conscience of our people needs to reiterate that golden principle we encounter in the third temptation of Jesus in the desert4; “the end does not justify the means“. It also needs to acknowledge that even in a homogeneous community, people will not face the same moral afflictions. Those whose afflictions might be different also need attention. Attention which can be overshadowed by an over-emphasis on a particular moral problem. Our fight for the conscience also needs to proceed from the recognition that sins are not only interconnected but that they never occur in isolation.
The time is ripe to adopt a more holistic approach as hinted to by Pope Leo in his response to a question regarding the Cupich-Durbin controversy5; and proposed by Cardinal Bernardin in 19836. An approach which gives adequate attention to the conscience of all the faithful, not just those who might be vulnerable to aborting. An approach that pays attention to the kinds of wounds that drive people to the abortion table. An approach that reflects Catholic Social Teaching in its fullness and richness. This is especially necessary for the America of today where the empathetic heart is becoming an endangered species.
Foot Notes
- The Pro-life Movement before Roe v. Wade by Daniel K. Williams ↩︎
- Cupich was reportedly publicly reprimand by as many as 10 Bishops and many ‘conservative voices’ see. ↩︎
- America Magazines discusses this disconnect in its article about how Pro-life is given an urgency above all other moral issues in its review of an at article by John Hirschauer in the national review. ↩︎
- Matt 4:8-10, Lk 4:6-8 ↩︎
- Pope Leo asserted in a rebuke to the anti-abortion lobby that it’s important to look at many issues that are related to the teachings of the Church.”
“Someone who says I’m against abortion but is in favor of the death penalty is not really pro-life,” the pope explained. “Someone who says I’m against abortion but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States, I don’t know if that’s pro life.” – Catholic News Agency ↩︎ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic ↩︎