Finding Common Ground on Life Issues

FINALLY, a voice of reason.

Perhaps we can work together with Obama to stop the violent rhetoric that attempts to justify the murder of Dr. Tiller in Kansas. Terrorism by anti-abortion zealots is not new. This was the second attempt on Tiller. Dr. Tiller was cleared of all 19 charges brought against him recently by the former Kansas attorney general(another zealot booted out by the voters). Terrorism in the name of religion must be stopped and those that fuel the fire by incendiary comments need to be held accountable.

Although I would agree with most of Kmiec's comments, in particular not going back and rehashing old actions or arguments made by President Obama or anyone else as being totally non-productive, I would question reversing Roe v. Wade. My reasoning here is that Roe does not require any woman to have an abortion, but it does allow a woman who simply cannot face another pregnancy to have a medically safe abortion. Roe is about caring for women's lives. Somehow in much of the heated rhetoric surrounding the abortion issue, the lives of women are ignored.

And, yes, let us all work together to prevent abortions in the first place. Kudos to Douglas Kmiec for his thoughtful article. Thank you so much.

Although I would agree with most of Kmiec's comments, in particular not going back and rehashing old actions or arguments made by President Obama or anyone else as being totally non-productive, I would question reversing Roe v. Wade. My reasoning here is that Roe does not require any woman to have an abortion, but it does allow a woman who simply cannot face another pregnancy to have a medically safe abortion. Roe is about caring for women's lives. Somehow in much of the heated rhetoric surrounding the abortion issue, the lives of women are ignored.

And, yes, let us all work together to prevent abortions in the first place. Kudos to Douglas Kmiec for his thoughtful article. Thank you so much.

With all due respect, I believe Mr. Kmiec should revaluate some of his views. His call to overturn Roe v. Wade, yet also prevent the States from acting to protect the unborn is contrary to Catholic teaching. This is simply a different way of supporting the supposed "right" to abortion. Likewise, Mr. Kmiec's support for contraception is also opposed to church teaching.

I urge the National Catholic Reporter to not print editorials that advocate the violation of Church teaching.

Dear Shirley

Every abortion is taking an innocent person's life. So please tell us, what do you mean by a "safe abortion"?

John. P., there are members of the church who do espouse contraception by the rhythm method (using time rather than other barriers) and there are bishops who support this, I believe.

I'm sure to be attacked for this, I know. But I believe one can be pro-life and still believe there needs to be safe, legal access to abortion. That one can have strong beliefs in this area, but feel that there are ways to witness to those beliefs that respect the puralistic nature of our society, our democracy.

Also studies show that most who call themselves pro-life do believe that there are times when abortion should be allowed.

One can say that these people are technically pro-choice, which they are. And there has been much success with the pro-life campaign to always equating pro-choice with pro-abortion, which it isn't. As a result, for a more accurate discussion, there needs to be a way those who don't fall into what has become narrow definations of these two catagories to express themselves.

Correlation does not imply causality. The abortion rate has been declining steadily since 1980, regardless of who was President or what the unemployment rate was. The abortion rate in 1990 was actually lower than in 1979. Professor Kmiec is entitled to his own opinions. He is not entitled to his own facts.

Still glaringly missing from these "common ground" initiatives are two things that studies show DO prevent unintended pregnancies and abortions - comprehensive sexuality education and access to contraceptives.

Overturning Roe, while blocking states from criminalizing the procedure, would still leave many women in the lurch who live in states with pre-Roe criminal abortion statutes on the books, such as Wisconsin.

I would add to the list economic support for families with children and removing the responsibility for funding college from parents. People don't abort because they can't afford the pregnancy - they abort because they can't afford the child, especially when they see adds about how expensive college is. Providing for living wages and non-parental funding of college removes these fears, both of having childfdn and allowing teens to have their children.

The Commerce Clause is not the way to overcome Roe, which should not be overturned on jurisdictional grounds - since doing so would overturn much in the way of equal protection law (including those laws protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination by state governments under the cover of law). While some conservatives may be in favor of this - I can find nothing in Catholic doctrine that requires tyranny by the moral majority.

The way to provide the unborn with rights is to use the Section 5 enforcement powers of the 14th Amendment to enact protection in the second and third trimesters - either at independent viability or at viability with mechanical assistance. Any time after the point where most miscarriages naturally occur is acceptable - but not before, lest the state - and more troubling the legal establishment - seek fortunes and reputations by suing for the case files of doctors who perform too many miscarriages, filing malpractice claims for every miscarriage after recognition - if only to settle, and actually questioning parents in their time of grief - which may go on for years.

One thing that the legal community can do is explain to the pro-lifers, using small words, the chaos that would occur should equal protection rights exist in the first trimester. Many believe it would be just like the days before Roe, however if Congress found that these individuals were entitled to equal protection under law, that would not be the case. Using the Commerce Clause to regulate abortion as an economic activity in order to void privacy rights is not an acceptable work around, since it would create the same kind of black market for abortion that existed before Roe. We regulate home grown pot this way and the result is not pretty for society.

Mr. Kmiec re-hashes his argument that a Catholic can support a pro-choice politician by arguing that the politician in question will help reduce abortions by creating a more sound economy. There are, however, serious debates about the economics of pro-choice politicians in general and President Obama in particular. There are plenty of economists and pundits who would be happy to explain why printing and spending money at a breakneck pace will result in much worse economic conditions. Simply put, faithful Catholics can disagree over economic theories without implicating questions of faith and the Church. How can any of those disagreements override the absolute teaching of the church that abortion takes a human life? How is such a taking justifiable because of any economic condition? Mr. Kmiec believes in social policies that are largely advanced by the Democratic party. He is certainly free to do so but don't try to tell me that he or President Obama are actively trying to reduce abortions. And by the way, the "science" of the life of the embryo is heavily weighted to the pro-life side.

evey abortion involves moral decision making. No one disputes this. What is demanded by some is that women may Never choose abortion...that it is Always murder. This is ludicrous and dangerous for women and obliterates our moral agency.
Let's find a way to have healthy conversations about human sexuality that are free from religious ideology and secualar marketing strategies. Let's talk about the how we can become more human in our relationships instead of more self centered and self righteous. And let's refrain from demonizing doctors who perform services for women who Choose to have abortions. The execution of Dr. Tiller was an act of domestic terrorism. What religious leader or theologian will say that without equivocation?

Why should abortion, even late-term abortion, NOT be available to women whose pregnancies threaten their lives when the fetus is non-viable? What is pro-life about withholding a medical procedure which can save at least one life rather than losing two?

It is understood that Human Life must be nurtured from the beginning at Conception until natural Death. Science has determined that Human Life begins at Conception when a Human Individual (definition of Person) exists. Science also tells us that nothing is added to a Human Individual's DNA once Conception takes place. The Human Individual at Conception is the same Human Individual that comes forth from the Womb.

Of course, expanding the safety net is important, but most people who have looked carefully at the statistics agree that Kmiec's take on them is not supported by the best information available.

There aren't complete statistics available but the best information is that the abortion rate has been declining for a number of years under Administrations of both parties. However, preliminary indications are that it has been increasing during the current recession.

The problem with Kmiec is that he gives everything a partisan spin (at one time, a conservative Republican one, now a liberal Democratic one). We need honest looks at problems, rather than trying to spin everything to make particular politicians look good.

Instead of publishing sycophants of politicians, you should publish people who are more concerned about ethics and integrity. The abortion issue needs honest, ethical people working on it, and get the political spinmasters out of it.

As a faith publication, NCR should be concerned about truth not sucking up to those in power.

The rise in abortions has less to do with economics and more to do with acceptability. Planned Parenthood was one of Mr. Obama largest supporters and now they are reaping the benefits of his promises.

"No surprise, an April 6, 2009 report similarly indicates that “abortion clinics across the U.S. are reporting increased traffic in the past several months. . . .Planned Parenthood clinics in some states report record-high numbers of abortions in the last half of 2008, following years of a national decline in the numbers.” (Muth, CNS)

Mr. Clinton may have been pro-abortion but it wasn't part of his top priority in the first 100 days.

Mr. Obama is making sure to line the pockets of those who help put him in office. If we can say one thing good about him thus far it is that he keeps his word.

John P. writes:

“His call to overturn Roe v. Wade, yet also prevent the States from acting to protect the unborn is contrary to Catholic teaching.”

Your write:

…to help me "revaluate" could you please cite your sources for Church Teaching, as I have been reading my greatest Roman Catholic Moral Theologian working in the USA in English, the Reverend Father Charles Curran, and the related Vatican works he cites,and Prof. Kmiec appears currently the most careful, civil, politic and reasonable within this thorny issue.

Here is the source from the catechism for John P.’s claim that preventing the states from protecting the unborn is contrary to church teaching..
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

Of course you knew that, but you use again use your phony and hypocritical “cite you source” challenge when you do cite sources every time you post.

When referencing your "greatest Catholic moral theologian" Curran for the purposes of supporting Church teaching, please be sure to mention the Church does not allow Curran to teach at Catholic Universities since he consistently opposes Church teachings.

Michelle Malkin cites Planned Parenthood's annual report in regards to profit:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/04/planned-parenthoods-obscene-profits/

As a "non-profit" profits are technically a "surplus" but it funds the annual salary and benefits of $935,000 for one past president of Planned Parenthood.