Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion (pro-birth)? A 3-part series.

Part III: How do we take back the pro-life movement?

Those who were/are passionate about being anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-stem cell and anti-euthanasia (assisted suicide) and those who held to other pro-life issues just as passionately, began to look at each other as political and ideological enemies. Each side began to resent and attack the other for their narrow view. Since the Church declared that the fight to end abortion is the preeminent right to life issue, church funding for most other right to life issues was diverted to that one cause and began to include political campaigning for a single party over a single issue cause. Some church leaders went so far as to endorse a political party or politician outright, risking their preferred tax status. Those of us who could not endorse the other goals of that political party found ourselves outside of the system. Some of us "put our souls at risk" and actually voted for candidates in the "opposition party". Others caved to the pressure to vote based on a single issue and voted for the approved political candidate in the approved political party. Those who hoped to break the unbreakable unity of the pro-life message had succeeded. Is the damage permanent?

Re-unifying the pro-life movement will begin with respect. Respect for life and for each others' opinions. As I have discussed the problem of a fragmented pro-life movement, I pray daily for unity to prevail. With our voices fragmented through suspicion and talking past each other, our causes falter. We find odd bed-fellows in our struggles.

If we begin by respecting each other, much can be accomplished. To have a meaningful discussion we must listen to each other respectfully. It is not hard to demonstrate to those who have put most of their voice and strength and political will into championing pro-life causes other than abortion, to take another look. Much more difficult is the entrenched anti-abortion pro-life constituency. I have conversations regularly with those who are opposed to unjust war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and are for more and better education, support for the poor and the disenfranchised. Many of these folks are anti-abortion as well as they can extrapolate from the most fundamental right to life of the unborn to the preservation of and dignity of life until natural death. However, many who are strictly against unjust war, capital punishment, have not been willing to look back at the issue of abortion because they feel left out of that movement. With respectful dialog many have been persuaded to join the fight against abortion by seeing it an extension of their own pro-life ideology that began formation while working on other pro-life issues. The fundamental right to be born and not be assaulted in the womb becomes obvious. As has been stated by many church leaders, all other human rights and in particular pro-life rights stem from the right to be born.

On the other hand, you have those who came into the pro-life movement who became entrenched in the single issue of abortion. I understand it is the fundamental right, but not the only right. Many in that camp will not even give respect to a person fighting for the life of the already born, unless they first demonstrate their total allegiance to the plight of the unborn. Many go so far as to fight against these other rights to life in their effort to keep abortion on the front burner. In addition, some within the struggle against abortion have coupled their struggle with other issues which were not traditionally part of the pro-life agenda such as gay marriage and other gay rights. It makes those in the other camp wonder if they are consistent in their pro-life campaign or just single issue. When those who oppose abortion also openly endorse unjust and unending wars and capital punishment, not to mention holding disdain for those fighting systemic poverty, malnutrition, AIDS and other health crisis, their arguments for the preeminence of the right to be born fall on deaf ears. They are seen as at best inconsistent and at worst at war against other pro-life issues.

Both groups have been played for their votes. Both groups have been co-opted by others with other agendas. Both groups must get back to the original consistent message of being unconditionally pro-life and support each other in the struggle. Having divided the spoils of the pro-life movement, the two primary political parties have now helped both sides further alienate. We can re-unite and begin to exert political and social pressure that represents a consistent pro-life stance. Here’s how: We need to listen, understand and support each other. We must stop shouting over each other to make our points. We must adopt a consistent and unconditionally pro-life stance to have credibility with each other. That means those who have not understood the fundamental right to be born, literally gives birth to all other rights. It also means that those who have understood and championed the right to be born must recognize it is inconsistent to abandon the fight for those persons’ right-to-life once they are out of the womb. We must be willing to jettison the add-on agendas of others. We must carefully discuss every issue in light of our position as being unconditionally pro-life.

I am willing. Are you? Share with me your thoughts.

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion (pro-birth)? A 3-part series.

Part Two....

What were the strategies? How did right-winged fundamentalists hijack the Pro-life movement? How did they redefine it? Can the movement be reunified under the banner of Unconditionally Pro-Life?

Strategies shifted in the abortion debate and the pro-life movement in general. While some of us began to attack the justifications for the culture of death: expediency, national interests, and personal stigma, desperation etc. Others decided to broaden the appeal for new soldiers in the fight against abortion.

Those in the leadership of the anti-abortion flank of the once unified pro-life movement began recruiting our Protestant Evangelical brothers and sisters. These newcomers to the cause did not necessarily hold to the historic teachings of the Church regarding the dignity of all human life. They were, however, already waging their own battle in the area of morality specifically against gay rights and especially against gay marriage. Despite the fact that many of these same Protestant Christians do not hold to the guidelines of the Catholic Church on things like “artificial” contraception and “artificial” conception , opposition to the death penalty or unjust war, not to mention their often voiced disdain for the Catholic Church in general, they needed the help of the Catholic Church to bring back a more Puritan national morality. At the same time, the Catholic, anti-abortion, pro-lifers needed the Evangelical’s support in the fight against legalized abortion. Compromises were made on both sides: The Catholics had to tone down the “artificial” contraception and artificial conception (like in-vitro) issues and ratchet up anti-gay rights issues. In order to court the help they needed they became strange bedfellows with those who in some cases, outright condemn the Catholic Church on many levels and who do not hold to John Paul II’s call to be: unconditionally pro-life, from natural conception to natural death. Including the fight against gay rights as a pro-life issue, alienated many of us who were veterans in the pro-life movement—it just didn’t add up. In addition, the angry rhetoric used by anti-abortionists to insist that only “innocent” life is worth defending, ran against what we had always been taught.

The anti-abortion movement found political clout by joining with their Protestant friends who had already established the “Moral Majority” and had effectively co-opted the Republican Party. They thought they had everything they needed. Although both sides compromised to make this happen, in my opinion, those with a traditional, more comprehensive Catholic world view lost the most: a consistent and coherent basis for their fight, that being that all life is sacred. When the (anti-gay, subjugated women) Moral Majority, the (nationalistic, war mongering, Calvinist) Republican Party and the “new” Prolife movement joined forces, some of us were forced for the first time to rethink our original edict as pro-lifers: from conception to natural death and to form new strategies and in some cases choose new bedfellows as well.

Part Three:How do we (the unconditionally pro-life) take back the pro-life movement?

The following blog posts were originally written as my input to a series of articles once published in a now defunct national magazine. Later, I posted them to my private blog for review. They are posted in 3 parts. To make the most sense, read them in chronological order.


The Problem with the Pro-Life Movement in America, Part One

What was the pro-life movement in the US?
Once upon a time, the pro-life movement was primarily made up of Catholics who, following the teachings of the Church, determined that euthanasia, the death penalty and unjust war violated the right-to-life and dignity and the sacredness of human life. It was not far-fetched for those of us working for pro-life movement to consider some of the systemic causes for these injustices against the dignity of human life. Some of those causes were seen to be poverty, labor problems, racism, educational disparity and international tensions due to nationalistic goals. After Roe v. Wade, abortion was added to the list. Thinking Catholics, notably our Popes and other theologians had determined that systemic causes were leading society to embrace a culture of utilitarianism and death. The United States was squarely in the sights of the Church as a battleground for these issues.

In the case of euthanasia, society was pushing for cost containment of health care (much like today). To many, allowing someone to languish in a persistent vegetative state, while receiving continuous and sometimes costly health care, seemed to be a waste of resources. The financial and emotional hardship on families, primary caregivers and society, seemed to justify the premature ending of a person’s life. Debates erupted about quality of life—when to prolong it and when to cut it short. In the pro-life movement, there were those on both sides of the issue as well. The Catholic Church finally gave some guidelines for us to work within. We were encouraged to sign up for health care directives, pen medical power of attorneys, and make our own end-of-life decisions, so that family and the system did not have to. Assisted suicide was obviously out; while specifics about under what circumstances/diagnosis, one did not want to prolong their own life was in. Now, assisted suicide is back and enshrined in the laws of some States.

The death penalty has long been the choice of even advanced societies to deal with habitual criminals. Unfortunately, it too violates the dignity of human life. It has not been proven to be a deterrent nor a very satisfying revenge. Many of us in the pro-life movement, with the Catholic Church’s endorsement, protested against its use. The Church told us it was not justifiable in a society where dangerous criminals can be successfully kept from society via prison terms. For a while, many States had moratoriums due to the inhumane methods used, or the potential for innocent victims of this form of State sponsored murder. However, once again, utility: the expense of lifetime prison terms and the cost of appeals soon outweighed compassion and knowledge. The utilitarian, culture of death marches on.

Pacifists of all generations had already determined that war is not the answer to any of our political problems. It was, however, a knee jerk reaction to any perceived international injustice. Again, the Catholic Church helped those of us in the pro-life movement to discuss, debate and form guidelines for Just War. Any war that did not comply with Just War Theory, was easy to identify as unjust and worthy of our protest. Our political leaders rarely listened to us right away, but eventually, public opinion would sway these leaders to abandon unjust wars. Unfortunately, many times they did not heed our calls until much damage had been done and more hatred engendered—leading to a less stable and more dangerous world.

Then, when I was in high school, along came legalized abortion. This “choice” was another utilitarian method of dealing with an unwanted or unintended pregnancy. Why the pregnancy was unwanted or unexpected is part of the justification for the “choice” of procuring an abortion. Economic desperation, stigma, financial and relational justifications abound. Legalized abortion on demand has engendered one of the greatest debates of my lifetime. Interestingly, the debate not only rages between anti-abortion and pro-choice camps, it also rages within the broader pro-life camp itself and threatens to derail the entire premise of the pro-life movement: the declaration that all human life is sacred. Not just the innocent (babies) but also the lives of those convicted of crimes, or caught up in wars, or considered too old or lacking in quality of life.

This lack of consistent right-to-life ethic began the stress fracturing of the pro-life movement which I believe began with the inclusion of Protestant Evangelical Christians as partners in the fight against abortion. This initial hairline with the additional pressure from the “new pro-lifers’ from the Protestant, Evangelical churches to include such topics as gay rights as additional pro-life agenda items and to jettison other traditional pro-life issues such as opposition to the death penalty and unjust wars and the fracture is complete. The rationale for excluding these issues is: death penalty victims are not innocent (or are they in some cases?) and war is necessary to protect our national interests even when the Catholic Church is against it. The once unified pro-life coalition has been effectively silenced.

In the next installment I will discuss the strategies and compromises that led to the division and demise of the movement.

Pro-Life or Anti-Abortion (pro-birth)? A 3-part series.

Part III

How do we take back the pro-life movement?

Those who were/are passionate about being anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, anti-stem cell and anti-euthanasia (assisted suicide) and those who held to other pro-life issues just as passionately, began to look at each other as political and ideological enemies. Each side began to resent and attack the other for their narrow view. Since the Church declared that the fight to end abortion is the preeminent right to life issue, church funding for most other right to life issues was diverted to that one cause and began to include political campaigning for a single party over a single issue cause. Some church leaders went so far as to endorse a political party or politician outright, risking their preferred tax status. Those of us who could not endorse the other goals of that political party found ourselves outside of the system. Some of us "put our souls at risk" and actually voted for candidates in the "opposition party". Others caved to the pressure to vote based on a single issue and voted for the approved political candidate in the approved political party. Those who hoped to break the unbreakable unity of the pro-life message had succeeded. Is the damage permanent?

Re-unifying the pro-life movement will begin with respect. respect for life and for each others' opinions. As I have discussed the problem of a fragmented pro-life movement, I pray daily for unity to prevail. With our voices fragmented through suspicion and talking past each other, our causes falter. We find odd bed-fellows in our struggles.

If we begin by respecting each other, much can be accomplished. To have a meaningful discussion we must listen to each other respectfully. It is not hard to demonstrate to those who have put most of their voice and strength and political will into championing pro-life causes other than abortion, to take another look. Much more difficult is the entrenched anti-abortion pro-life constituency. I have conversations regularly with those who are opposed to unjust war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and are for more and better education, support for the poor and the disenfranchised. Many of these folks are anti-abortion as well as they can extrapolate from the most fundamental right to life of the unborn to the preservation of and dignity of life until natural death. However, many who are strictly against unjust war, capital punishment, have not been willing to look back at the issue of abortion because they feel left out of that movement. With respectful dialog many have been persuaded to join the fight against abortion by seeing it an extension of their own pro-life ideology. The fundamental right to be born and not be assaulted in the womb becomes obvious. As has been stated by many church leaders, all other human rights and in particular pro-life rights stem from the right to be born.

On the other hand, you have those who came into the pro-life movement who became entrenched in the single issue of abortion. I understand it is the fundamental right, but not the only right. Many in that camp, will not even give respect to a person fighting for the life of the already born, unless they first demonstrate their total allegiance to the plight of the unborn. Many go so far as to fight against these other rights to life in their effort to keep abortion on the front burner. In addition, some within the struggle against abortion have coupled their struggle with other issues which were not traditionally part of the pro-life agenda such as gay marriage and other gay rights. It makes those in the other camp wonder if they are consistent in their pro-life campaign or just single issue. When those who oppose abortion also openly endorse unjust and unending wars and capital punishment, not to mention holding disdain for those fighting systemic poverty, malnutrition, AIDS and other health crisis, their arguments for the preeminence of the right to be born fall on deaf ears. They are seen as at best inconsistent and at worst at war against other pro-life issues.

It is up to those of us who consider ourselves to be unconditionally pro-life to convince these two camps to dialog and work together. Too many rights have been eroded. Too many peoples lives have been exploited. Too many people have died. While we remain divided. In our dialogues we must find our common ground and educate each other about the fundamental right to life, not just to be born, but to live. I tell you, I find it pretty easy to convince those who have advocated against the death penalty to also see the light about abortion. Unjust war protesters often say to the anti-abortionists: "what about the babies of our enemies? Aren't you willing to defend their right to life?" Thus exposing the fact that they recognize the underlying and fundamental right to be born. If those who are devote most of their time and other resources to the fight against abortion were at least willing to give lip-service to the other traditional pro-life issues, they would quickly win friends for their struggle. Likewise, those who are devoted to other pro-life issues need to first find the fundamental right to life of the unborn and give support to that cause as they are able. We will once again have a unified voice and be able to affect changes within the body politic winning friends and influencing enemies. But, we must not stop there, lest these parties try to divide us again and play us for their gain.

We must begin together to think outside the box. I will explain that further in the next post. For instance I would say that those who oppose abortion might consider asking the government to end unjust wars and use the savings to support children in the womb who are at risk of abortion.