The GOP Candidates
That Rick Santorum, the right-wing zealot, denies that women are entitled to abortions, even in the case of rape and incest, is bad enough, where his own wife underwent an abortion when, we are told, her life was at stake. This is not the only bizarre position he has advanced in the course of the GOP nomination campaign, since he and Mitt Romney have also advocated a "first strike" on Iran, a nation that has not attacked any other country for at least 300 years and which has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and allowed inspectors to visit its facilities.
Not only is there no evidence that Iran is attempting to build a bomb, but the United States is legally and morally obligated under long standing treaties and thus under international law to
negotiate differences with other countries diplomatically under the Hague Convention of 1899, the Kellogg-Briand Peace Treaty of 1928, and the United Nation's Charter, which precludes one country from attacking another unless it poses an "imminent threat". Since Iran poses no imminent threat, the United States--and Israel, which is also a UN member nation--are both obligated to take their differences with Iran to international arbitration. That is all to the good, since estimates have it that an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities would bring about 1,000,000 deaths outright and another 35,000,000 premature deaths as the contamination cloud swept across Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.
The irony of this is that Romney and Santorum, were they successful in securing their party's nomination and prevailed in the general election, would take an oath of office that committed them to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic". While it may have been "just a goddamned piece of paper" to George W. Bush, who displayed his contempt for the democratic process in many different ways, the Constitution grants treaties approved by the Senate the same status under the law as the Constitution itself. In their attempts to gain the highest office in the land, they are therefore already advocating the violation of the document they would have sworn to uphold.
Their apparent ignorance of history and international law notwithstanding, however, Santorum stands with the bishops in his opposition to birth control. Since he is also opposed to abortion, it may have not occurred to him that the most successful method to reduce abortions is to employ birth control and sex education. The fewer unwanted pregnancies, the fewer abortions, where we all know that abstinence education is the least successful method of all when it comes to reducing unwanted pregnancies. Even the aspirin method has proven to be more effective, where women are instructed to hold an aspirin between their legs when the urge for sex overcomes them.
The Matter of Abortion
As I have long since explained, the question at stake is not the beginning of life, since there is no good reason to doubt that human life begins at conception, but the stage at which the developing entity qualifies as a "person", which entails attaining a legal/moral status appropriate to have its rights respected. There is no doubt that infants and children, not to mention seniors and adults, qualify as "persons" in the appropriate sense. They are entitled to certain rights and others have the obligation to respect those rights and not interfere with their exercise. But the character of those rights tends to vary with the age, background and experience of different persons. Not all persons are entitled to the same rights.
Even though, in most states, persons are entitled to serve in the military, enter contracts for pay, drive automobiles on highways and become engaged and marry, for example, when they are of an appropriate age, background and experience, there are few who would seriously contend that children, for example, have the same rights as young adults. Even if those who attain the age of 18 acquire the right to drive automobiles on highways--with appropriate driver's training--there are few who would contend that children who are 5 or 6 years old ought to enjoy that privilege. Societies are pervasive with graduated rights, which apply to persons at different stages in their lives under suitable conditions. And this raises the question of the existence of a "right to life".
The idea that ova fertilized by sperm are entitled to some "right to life" has no basis in law or human experience. The most widely adopted standard is that newborn offspring have that right, which is reflected by virtually universal revulsion at infanticide. But a zygote, an embryo, or even a fetus (during the first two trimesters)--in the opinion of the Supreme Court--does not enjoy that right. And, viewed from the perspective of the theory of graduated rights, this makes a great deal of sense. When the entity cannot even survive apart from its intrauterine environment, there is no appropriate basis for differentiating the fetus from the mother as a separate "person". The fetus at this stage appears to be a special kind of property of a woman where her rights far transcend those of the developing entity, whose continuing existence is dependent upon hers.
Indeed, the theory that ensoulment should be used to justify the claim that a zygote qualifies as a "person" with the right to life, if adopted as a matter of public policy, would inject the government into the most intimate aspects of our lives. To protect the rights of "persons", we would need the services of a vast enforcement apparatus, which would subject women to monthly pregnancy tests, since otherwise we would be unable to even identify the complete class of persons whose rights need to be upheld. The occurrence of miscarriages would become important to make sure that murders were not being conducted and concealed under the guise of a natural process. It might even become important to monitor the disposition of sperm to uphold that legal standard. Cameras and wiretaps might be required to track the use made of ejaculate from masturbation. The situation would be absurd.
The Catholic Church
The Supreme Court wisely decreed that gestation should be divided by trimesters, where women have the uncontested right to abortion at any time during the first trimester; that the states can regulate how abortions are conducted during the second; but that during the third, the fetus can only be aborted to save the life or the health of the woman. This implies the existence of a primitive "right to life" for the developing fetus, which can only be overridden by threats to the life or the health of its mother. And that is completely reasonable, since the mother represents a far greater investment of societal resources and established potential than a fetus at that early stage of development, especially when the life of both cannot be preserved.
The reasons unwanted pregnancies occur, of course, are vast and varied, including that the parents are unmarried, that they already have too many children, that their financial resources are limited, that they have other objectives in life that they want to pursue other than to bring another child into the world. And we all know that the costs to society from unwanted children does not end with their birth and upbringing, but that they are far more likely to become social problems with respect to the use of drugs, the commission of crimes, and other forms of disrespect to other members of society. And why should that surprise us? The very act of bringing an unwanted child to birth is disrespectful to both the mother and the child. Life encompasses more than bearing children.
That the Church has lost its relevance in this respect was accented by The Times: "Studies have shown that 98 percent of Catholic women have used artificial contraception at some time in their lives. A poll released on Tuesday by the Public Religion Research Institute in Washington found that 52 percent of Catholic respondents agreed that even religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should have to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. (Among Catholic voters, however, 52 percent disagreed and only 45 percent agreed)."
Indeed, Laurie Goodstein adds that, "Catholics
may be persuaded by the argument that the mandate is a violation of
religious liberty. One indication is that several prominent Catholic
Democrats who supported Mr. Obama in 2008, supported the health care
overhaul and defended the president at many junctures, have broken with
him on the birth control mandate." According to this argument, the
Church is being compelled to do something it is dogmatically opposed to
doing, which is providing birth control options through its hospitals,
service agencies and colleges. But this position ignores the desire of
the institution to impose its will upon everyone within its reach and
the obvious desire of women who are Catholic to use birth control even
in spite of the Church's opposition to it.
The Question of Choice
The Question of Choice
1 | 2
