Could Democrats reduce abortions more?

In his argument claiming contraception prevents abortion, he cites an Alan Guttmacher statistic stating 46% of abortions occurred in women not using birth control. Conversely, this means that 54% of couples getting an abortion had used contraception within the past month- not a very stellar endorsement of birth control, in my opinion.

"You cannot be for fertility treatments and against abortion. Well, you can, but you cannot be morally consistent."

I understand this from a Catholic prospective, but from the Protestant perspective, as long as no successfully fertilized embryos are destroyed, I don't see an issue. My wife and I conceived this way, but we limited the number of eggs we attempted to have fertilized, and had all eggs that were successfully fertilized implanted.

-Tap

Errr ... I've got several things to ask about here.

(a) there is no form of sex education that a Catholic could endorse? If I break this down, private Catholic institutions miss a real opportunity if their teachers are not completely open and able to explain fully the Catholic thought on various sexual matters. Explain why masturbation is sinful and have the conviction to answer in detail kids who probe and question, not just shut them down (and up) with a blanket "it's wrong because the Church says so!". I'd think you'd be all for parents *demanding* teachers who can thoughtfully and rationally lay out church teachings as opposed to the usual "throw them over the brick wall" approach.

And for parents sending children to public schools, where these kids are being exposed to goodness knows what ideas from the other kids in school with them, you'd prefer absolutely nothing and leave it completely up to the parents? Because parents have been doing such a great job?

(b) "You cannot be for fertility treatments and against abortion". There are many different types of fertility treatments. Not all involve procedures that kill embryos. The Catholic Church may oppose artificial insemination sorts of techniques, but why couldn't a non-Catholic rationally and in good conscience see a clear difference between artificial insemination and something like in vitro where multiple embryos may be fertilized. I'm assuming you really mean specific fertility treatments that involve killing embryos, as opposed to the more general procedures that may involve creating pregnancy via something other than vaginal sex between husband and wife.

if you have a hard time believing that the pro-life community, like the pro-choice community, routinely compromises its principles for reasons of political tactics and coalition-building consider this: while they oppose stem cell research, they have not campaigned against fertility treatments which cause the creation and destruction of most human embryos.

I sometimes wonder whether this is a secondary, unspoken, reason for why prolifers generally oppose the prosecution of mothers who seek abortions. I mean, if the unborn truly are equally deserving of the protection of the laws, consistency would appear to demand that such mothers be charged for conspiracy to commit murder (as would be the case with, say, a mother who hired a hitman to kill her born child).

[Yes, I realize that there are both principled & prudential reasons for not prosecuting mothers who seek abortions. Still, since I doubt prolifers are entirely unaware of the potential political fallout associated with advocating such prosecutions, I cannot help but wonder....]

Why can't you be against abortion and still approve of fertility treatments? Isn't there a difference between an embryo and a fetus? I agree that you can't consistently be against stem cell research and for fertility treatments. But, let's face it, not everyone who is against abortion is against stem cells. Hell, not everyone who is against abortion (broadly) is against early abortions. I think it would be more accurate that no one can be against abortions for the reasons you are, and still approve of fertility treatments.

I don't know of any Catholic pro-lifers who are for fertility treatments. Mostly they just view it as a lost battle because it's so widely accepted and practiced. If ESCR were to become the norm, that too would ver quickly become a lost battle, which is why the fight is so crucial now.

The Catholic position is much more nuanced than you have described. There are several treatments (like Clomid) that assist a woman with ovulation. Most of those treatments are allowed. Many treatments that assist a man with gaining an erection are allowed. The issue is that a child should be conceived within the marital act. That means no invitro, no 'washing the sperm and injecting it back into the women, etc.

There are many Catholic laymen and even some in politics who do indeed hold positions against abortion, ESCR, and the fertility treatments opposed by the church.

There are also some Protestants who hold those same positions. The 'snowflake babies' is a very specific Protestant program however--where couples specifically adopt and implant frozen embroyos so the babies aren't destroyed.

Back on topic, certainly assistance to women who are having an unplanned or 'crisis' pregancy is a very importnant part of reducing abortion, and one that Christian churches take a lead on. However, the goal shouldn't really be to just reduce abortions--what is the acceptable level of killing that the Democrats want to take us to? And considering that they took the 'safe, legal, and rare' language out of the platform, I'm not sure that I would agree that they are at all interested in reducing abortions. I think the real goal is to make them 'safe, legal, convienent, and cheap'.

Does anyone know what the legal status of abortion was in the middle ages? (I don't mean the moral status, I mean what actual secular laws were in place). How about in the early church period during the byzantine empire? It would be interesting to see if the early Church or the medieval Church insisted on abortion being illegal. No doubt, abortion has always been an excommunicable offense and it should be. But even Christian governments in the middle ages legally permitted things that were immoral (for example, prostitution).

Sigaliris,

Indeed, Aquinas did think masturbation worse than rape. You can also find some juicy patristic quotes equating masturbation with murder and there is even one where St. John Chrysostom says that contraception is worse than abortion because at least with abortion you allow some life to begin.

Personally, and I have found this to be true when I was working in a Women's Center, educating WOMEN about the various and sundry "side effects" to abortion (ie, making it a women's health issue), can go a long way in deterring women from opting for an abortion. The argument about making abortion "rare" needs to be centered around what it is about abortion that directly affects the woman getting one; it's real, and it's personal.

"Women's Health After Abortion, The Medical and Psychological Evidence" by Elisabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles covers this issue quite well; and since the book is out of Canada, it suffers less from the politicising such subjects get from most things written from within the United States.

Most of Northern and Western Europe has lower abortion rates than the rest of the world, including us'ns (11 per 1000 vs 21 per 1000). I suspect it is because the issue isn't as politicised there as it is here and because of a socialised health and welfare infrastructure that helps women to really keep their babies...not just give lip-service to the concept.

I am all for educating-educating-educating, not only on sexual issues but on all manner of social and health issues. Wisdom tells me you can never educate too much. But it has to be consistent, age-appropriate, and done WITHOUT POLITICAL AGENDAS; be they from the Catholic Church or Planned Parenthood (and Margaret Sanger-ites).

As long as we play politics with the lives of women and children (how despicable is that...really?!? I mean, there are still women who actually DIE from abortions...), we will have these issues. And folk like Barak Obama, voting against bills designed to save the lives of those very strong and hearty souls who actually survive abortion attempts.

I'm skeptical about the effectiveness of sex-ed. People get unplanned pregnancies mostly because they can't control their impulses and do not have future-oriented mentality. Rational, educational offerings will probably do little to change this behavior. They need self control and morality more than education.

Europe has lower abortion rates and also has substantially more restrictive abortion laws than the US has. The US is prevented from adopting many of the measures present in Europe because the Supreme Court has said the constitution forbids such measures.

Let's say Stephen Douglas said the same thing as the Dem's are saying today? Let's not try to ban owning slaves, and the Court has forbidden us from doing so anyway. Instead let's adopt social policies that will relieve slaveowners of the incentives that create their demand for slaves in first place. Then we'll all be happy because there will be fewer slaves, which we all agree would be good.

Everyone will be happy with that solution except: 1) the slaves who remain in bondage under this plan; and 2) those who believe it is a terrible injustice and denial of human dignity to have anyone enslaved.

To be clear, I'm not saying the analogy is exact, nor that women who have abortions are like slaveowners -- clearly there are many more factors that lead people to have abortions, and many women may be faced with circumstances that restrict their culpability for aborting in ways that aren't likely present in the case of slavery. But the analogy is similar with regard to the principles at stake. When human beings are denied their human dignity and being killed (enslaved), the law should protect the victims, and not just try to address the motives of those who are tempted to end their lives (or enslave them).

And of course, I am in favor of taking all steps that would support women and help prevent them being tempted to abort. But there's no reason those same policies can't be pursued in concert with efforts to legally protect the unborn. Therefore, the Democratic plan is not really an "alternative" plan. It should be part of any plan that includes establishing legal protections for the unborn.

Catholics (and other orthodox Christians) would object to determining male infertility (low count, low motility, whatever) by having a man masturbate.

I'm picking this because it's just so...astounding.

If Catholics had their way, would they impose this way of living on the rest of us who are not Catholic?

Scott R. I believe the answer is yes. I cite as evidence the incredible political pressure the Vatican has placed on Ireland and Poland to compel them not to legalize divorce. If the Vatican had its way, civil divorce would be illegal in every country. Also, I believe that if the Vatican had its way, all contraception would be outlawed.

It has only been since Vatican II that the Roman Catholic Church has even accepted the notion of religious liberty for non-Catholics. Many popes in the past, even as recently as Popes Pius IX and X called religious freedom "insanity" and a heresy. No doubt about it, even though the Vatican today presents a much more gentler face to the world (John Paul II' "civilization of love," and so forth), the official doctrine is still the same as it was in the Bull "Unam Sanctam" published by Pope Boniface XIII. This Bull declared that the Church has two swords, "The Spiritual and the Temporal" and that the Spiritual sword being superior to the temporal means that the temporal power should be subject to the Roman Pontiff. This is why throughout history Popes have claimed the right to be able to depose monarchs and free Catholic subjects from loyalty to such monarchs.

Here's the text of the Bull http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

The concluding sentence, "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."

Judge for yourselves what to make of it. In my opinion, I believe that Rome only reluctantly began to change its views on democracy and religious liberty because it was forced to in order to survive and be relevant in the world. I believe that the Church's change of attitude (or at least apparently change) is a result of the loss of the Papal states and the very real marginalization of the Church in society. This is why I think that in many ways secularism is a good thing. Historically, strongly religious and confessional states have been much more brutal and intolerant than relatively secular states. And I do not count Soviet Russia as a secular state since it did follow a religion, Marxism, very devoutly.

Actually, I meant Pope Boniface VIII, not XIII.

"But it's all a matter of increments. Opposing abortion is the most urgent matter because of the greater numbers of children being killed daily."

I don't think you can be sure about that. So far as I know, no one has any idea how many embryos are discarded at fertility clinics around the country each day, but you can bet that it's a very large, and growing, number. IVF is a common procedure, and as its success rates increase, so does its prevalence. In addition, there are literally hundreds of thousands of embryos in a deep freeze limbo right now in the United States, and many more in other countries. Infertility clinics are the primary source of embryos used in research of all kinds. In practice, it's not easy to separate the two issues.

quote: "Historically, strongly religious and confessional states have been much more brutal and intolerant than relatively secular states. And I do not count Soviet Russia as a secular state since it did follow a religion, Marxism, very devoutly."

I'll leave aside the fact that Communist regimes such as the Soviet Union were officially atheistic. But how do you "count" Jacobin ruled France, Nazi Germany, or Fascist Italy? Or what about the imperialism in Africa and Asia of France's aggressively secular Third Republic (1871-1940)?

rr

And all of this is being directed by the Vatican...a foreign country?

So it would not be incorrect to say that when Catholic politicians are threatened with expulsion from communion, it would be at the behest of the Vatican?

I'm asking this - seriously - because I want to know when the Vatican stops being a church and becomes a foreign power influencing our laws. And does this bother anyone?

to the anonymous poster of 11:06 pm, I don't think it's any secret that Catholics are opposed to contraception for themselves--and abortifacient contraception, generally. Was it news to anyone here? I don't think so. There are other types of abortifacient contraception besides the pill, btw. I base my belief on others' research--I'm not a scientist--but at some point you have to choose who to believe.

Actually, it would be very big news if anyone could prove that 100% of the time that the pill never caused abortions. Then it might fall under the category (mentioned by Sally above) of things that are immoral but tolerated. This, still imagining that somehow magically orthodox Catholic teaching ruled America. Hah. Unlikely to say the least.

Scott R., no, the Vatican does not give Catholic politicians their marching orders. Wasn't this debate covered when Kennedy ran for president? Individual Catholics are under the spiritual authority of their local bishop.

Of all the foreign powers in the world, you're worried about Vatican City having too much influence on American politicians? Gee, I can see why, since orthodox Catholics already have such a strangehold on the outcome of the impending presidential election. Bwah ha ha ha.

I think elements of the 95-10 plan are interesting and the Republicans should consider adopting them. However I think it'd be best to try something like this on a state-level first because, for now anyway, it's effectiveness is largely theoretical.

The Church's views on religious freedom pre-Vatican II can seem pretty harsh, but many of these were open to interpretation. Aquinas believed that a state that had always been non-Christian could remain non-Christian even if a non-Christian state was not ideal. He also opposed compelling people who'd never been Catholic to be Catholic and the Church was always pretty clear it opposed forced baptism or baptism of children without parental consent. (However a case under Pius IX indicated that when it happened the child did have to be raised by Christians) Lastly he was okay with communication with non-Christians provided they were never Christians. However he was intensely harsh on apostasy, which he believed could be a death penalty offense if the person was a repeat offender. Many of the nineteenth century Popes equated religious freedom to the French Revolution and indifferentism. If the idea was embraced by "common man" than it would mean the Catholic Church could not oppose apostasy in any sense. In the US the right of a group to shun apostates is more or less accepted, see the Amish, but at the time this didn't seem clear. Still the Popes then may have been a bit overreactive.

The 20th c. books I have from before Vatican II indicate that the main thing is the state not compel things that go against natural law and that Catholics not believe all religions are equally true. I think both these positions are still accepted. For that matter the idea that a majority Catholic nation shouldn't have established Catholicism is still rejected so far as I know. It may or may not have it depending on which is best for the people and the faith. However they've "toughened up" the stance that people must not be compelled to be Catholic and that religious coercion be prohibited. They did modify or clarify some of the more uncharitable views of other faiths. And for this, as a Catholic, I'm quite glad. Although the idea that all religions are equally valid is one I'm glad the Church has not embraced because it's clearly not true. Wahabbism is not equal to Lutheranism or Catholicism. Scientology is not equal to the Methodists, etc.

This is not necessarily so. Sweden, Denmark, and Norway's abortion rate is higher than Italy's or possibly Spain's.

ht
tp://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_abo_percap-health-abortions-per-capita

ht
tp://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html

(I loathe using Guttmacher, but it's hard to find alternate sources)

Although it is true Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands have fairly low rates.

On a different note the maternal mortality rate in Ireland or Poland is lower than tha in the US or UK.

ht
tp://hdrstats.undp.org/indicators/98.html

I think it would be inaccurate to state that the Catholic Church would want all civil divorce to be illegal. To even apply for an annullment within the Church, the Church makes you get a civil divorce first. The Church would certainly support measures to limit legal measures that undermine an understanding of marriage based on a life-long committment, such as no-fault divorce laws, but the Church certainly allows, and even calls for, civil divorce in some cases. The Church makes a distinction between civil marriage and sacramental marriage.

In my opinion, I believe that Rome only reluctantly began to change its views on democracy and religious liberty because it was forced to in order to survive and be relevant in the world. I believe that the Church's change of attitude (or at least apparently change) is a result of the loss of the Papal states and the very real marginalization of the Church in society.

I think that's right, and I also think that the instant these people, the RC hierarchy, get the power to do so, they will once again attempt to impose Catholic ideas of morality, including sexual morality, on everyone, Catholics or not.

To be fair, this follows logically from their position on theology. If you are possessed of the straight, true hotline to the deity, and therefore your opinions are infallibly correct, in line with what God wants, there's no room for legitimate discussion, much less legitimate disagreement. ("Error has no rights," as Catholic theologians and politicians used to say.) Furthermore, the State would be doing you a favor, really, in forcing you to do the right thing (or refrain from doing the wrong thing).

We would not expect to see masturbation criminalized, for the practical reasons already cited. But we could confidently predict the criminalization of IVF and almost all fertility treatments under such a regime. Artificial contraceptives would be illegal. Divorce would be allowed only under very restricted circumstances. And so forth.

Luckily, none of this is at all likely to happen.

I know I said I was done with this discussion, but rombald's comments have me interested again. R - do you really believe that St. Thomas Aquinas said that masturbation was a more serious crime than rape?

Do you know why or how he explained the immorality of masturbation, and that it was in part based on an incorrect understanding of biology? And that he never said that masturbation was a matter for public authorities to be concerned with?

Do you see any evidence that the Catholic church ever taught or ever held it to be true that masturbation was a crime worse than rape?

People love to dig up obscure and irrelevant comments of some saint from 1000 years ago and say this is why the Church is not credible. I always wonder if they actually truly believe that (and so would be interested in knowing the truth of the matter in order to have that false obstacle to faith removed) or whether they just enjoy finding statements that taken in isolation look absurd and then using them as reasons to justify their contempt for religion (eg - "How can anyone be a Christian when Jesus told them to pluck out their eye if they ever looked lustfully at a woman?? Christians are obviously fools!")

No - the quote was obscure and irrelevant to the discussion. I happen to agree with the way that Aquinas analyzes moral issues, but in order to understand that method you need to do more than pull an obscure quote out of context and make fun of it.

To explain his method would take quite a long time, but I have a feeling that there is no interest in actually understanding what he was driving at. Just making fun of something that one does not understand is a waste of time, and has nothing to do with the topic of this post.

The short answer to how Aquinas could say that masturbation is more immoral than rape is that ONE way of describing how an act is immoral is by looking at the proper end of any inclination (the proper end of the sexual drive is to create families by bringing men and women together in sexual union). Then by asking how a perverted use of that drive differs from the intended end. Rape perverts the sexual drive because it cannot bring the sexual act into conformity with the dignity of the other, does not create a true family, and is a violent perversion of the unity that sex is supposed to promote. But it does share *some* limited conformity with the end of sex in that it does involve some kind of connection with another person.

Masturbation is further removed from the proper end of the sexual drive than rape is- it doesn't unite anyone with another person, it drives people toward isolation rather than toward any interaction with another. So looked at purely from the perspective of "how far does this perversion of the sexual drive take a person from where it is supposed to take one" masturbation is further from the mark than rape.

Does this mean that rape is a less serious crime than masturbation? Of course not. Because another (and more important and weighty) way of assessing the immorality of an action is by looking at the HARM that is done by the act. The harm of rape is exponentially greater than the harm of masturbation on any measure. And harm to others is the criteria used to assess whether an act should be illegal or not. Which is why Catholic nations have always considered rape a crime to be punished and have not held that masturbation is such a crime.

This sketch is obviously inadequate to convey all of the important provisos and depth of the method of moral analysis that is present in Aqiunas, and my sense is that no one really cares about finding out this complexity and depth. They just like to pick out an obscure quote completely out of context and make fun of people. It's a waste of time trying to respond if that's all you are trying to do.

By the way - do you know what sin Thomas Aquinas considered to be the most serious, and why he described it as such?

Leo et alia

Aquinas also believed in legalized prostitution. (Prostitutes are already "fallen", it keeps the onrier men from deflowering virgins, and it's an alternative to masturbation I suppose) Do you think the nefarious Catholic Church is determined to legalize prostitution everywhere? Do you think many Catholics, when they "catch" their sons, immediately think "I've got to get him a hooker to stop him from doing that"?

Aquinas was not a Pope or an Ecumenical Council.