The Editors: Roe v. Wade has made abortion politics impossible. It needs to be challenged.

Demonstrators gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington July 9. (CNS photo/Tyler Orsburn)

The recently passed abortion laws in Georgia and Alabama have raised the temperature of the national debate nearly to the boiling point. The law in Georgia, keyed to the detection of fetal cardiac activity, would restrict abortion after about the sixth week of pregnancy; it also defines human beings in the womb, at any stage of development, as “natural persons.” Alabama’s law bans abortion at any stage of pregnancy. While these laws allow exceptions for cases where a woman’s life would be endangered by carrying the pregnancy to delivery, neither law has exceptions allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest.

Much discussion of these bills has described them as “extreme,” while almost universally neglecting the most significant cause of such “extremism.” Many commentators recognize that these new laws are designed to mount a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade—but they fail to notice that these laws’ blunt restrictions are a mirror image of Roe’s broad rejection of any practical or effective limits on abortion. When abortion rights advocates defend Roe in order to reject any proposed restriction of abortion, they are taking an extreme position. That leaves no ground open for any compromise on less extreme laws. Pro-life legislators are going to meet the same tooth-and-nail opposition whether they aim to ban all abortions or, as recently seen in the U.S. Senate, attempt to require that infants born alive during an abortion receive medical care.

Advertisement

Consistently over decades, polls show that a significant majority of Americans support stricter restrictions on abortion than allowed under Roe, yet not as stark as those established by these new laws. American public opinion on the legality of abortion is conflicted and contradictory. According to one poll conducted this month, half of voters believe that the six-week “heartbeat laws” are either “just right” or even “too lenient;” another poll found that two-thirds of U.S. adults oppose overturning Roe. But under Roe and its successor decision, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, the abortion limits many voters want, even while abortion remains legal, are rendered unconstitutional. About 60 percent of Americans support legal abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, but far fewer—less than one-third—support it up to six months. But Casey’s “undue burden” standard disallows abortion restrictions anytime before fetal viability (around six months), which is not what most Americans would choose.

There is a large gap between what Roe requires and what Americans believe about abortion. But addressing this gap remains politically unimaginable for pro-choice activists at the same time as they present the possibility of Roe being overturned as an acute political crisis. In reality, the reverse is the case. The ongoing political crisis is a consequence of the persistent failure of Roe and Casey to settle the abortion question and the failure of the Supreme Court to offer any sign that these cases ever will.

In her majority opinion upholding Roe in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote that “the Court’s interpretation of the Constitution calls the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution.” On the abortion question, this call has manifestly and expressly failed for more than 45 years, while distorting national politics and contributing to national division. The wreckage of these cases needs to be cleared for the country to move forward.

The Alabama and Georgia laws are far from perfect. They should have been accompanied by equally vigorous support for women struggling with pregnancy. They will almost certainly be suspended by injunction before they are implemented, and whenever they eventually reach the Supreme Court, they are unlikely to be upheld in all the details of their current form. If these laws are upheld and Roe is overturned or limited, they will need to be modified in order to be practically and justly enforced. But the legislative work of answering the challenging moral questions about abortion will at least be possible. While that will not end political divisions over abortion, it would allow us to engage them more honestly.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.]

This story has been updated.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
J Jones
3 weeks 5 days ago

A male-only institution editorializes on law that will dictate women's behavior and uses the word "woman" only twice. The word woman accounts for two out of 669 words, 59 lines and 6 paragraphs in a discussion about law that would force women to bear children.

From members of a male-only institution now known worldwide for the rape and cover-up of rape of girls and women, including Catholic nuns and sisters to THIS day as acknowledged by Pope Francis, no concern is expressed that these laws would result in legally enforced motherhood for the pregnant victims of priest-rapists. (Linking to Camosy leaves this area wholly unaddressed).

I am appalled by your ongoing and utter indifference to your own ongoing collective and individual participation in the devaluation of women's lives.

I think this might be it for me. A group of Catholic priests used the word "woman" twice in six paragraphs in which you opine on law dictating what little girls and women (including those raped by your clerical peers) must allow to occur inside their own bodies.

I am repulsed by this corrosiveness sexism that is so natural to your daily lives.

John Sharpe
3 weeks 5 days ago

You make it sound like woman don't have the right to vote. Woman voters outnumber male voters. This isn’t about anyone’s personal views on abortion or any judges views on abortion. It is about whether or not the constitution of the US has anything to say about it. Just because the US constitution can’t prohibit alcohol consumption doesn’t mean people in certain counties can’t vote to be dry. Maybe your school district thinks it ok to have ponographic literature in the school library but others do not. Does scotus have the right step in and side with one group or another and create a national law without basis in the US constitution? Maybe people have a right to their own communities and are free to live in communities they’re comfortable in without imposing their beliefs on others.

BTW, Joe Biden is a old white male catholic, all #metoo women who support him are hypocrites

Michael Bindner
3 weeks 5 days ago

Yes, the 14th Amendment specifically gives the federal government supremacy in these matters. The whole issue is not women and the unborn. It is the power of State government.

John Sharpe
3 weeks 5 days ago

No it doesn’t. Please quote the language you’re referring to... that’s where the debate will take place

John Sharpe
3 weeks 5 days ago

Repeat

J Jones
3 weeks 5 days ago

No, John, I "made it sound like" what it is: a bunch of Catholic priests/men got together and wrote an editorial on legislation dictating what must legally occur inside the bodies of little girls, adolescent girls and women ---- with or without the consent of the pregnant little girl or her parents, the pregnant adolescent or the pregnant woman ------ and they used the word "woman" exactly two times in six paragraphs.

They demonstrated that their daily lives are so full of a repugnant level of casual, corrosive sexism AND that they engage in it so reflexively that, even in an editorial they tag as "women's issues", they referenced women exactly two times in six paragraphs.

John Sharpe
3 weeks 5 days ago

New York recently passed a new abortion bill into law and Virginia has a similar (some say more extreme) bill being proposed. Do other states (like Alabama and Georgia) have the right to pass their own abortion bills that is more acceptable to their communities, even if it’s the opposite to New York and Virginia? Woman voters outnumber men in those states and they’re allowed to vote too! Alabama has a woman governor.

J Jones
3 weeks 5 days ago

John, do you know that the Alabama law was voted in by the Alabama legislature and not by Alabama's "voters"? In Alabama, 25 male legislators and one female governor voted for that law.

That's how laws get made. Not at the ballet box, John.

I'd wager that if these laws WERE voted up or down at the ballot box, none of these restrictive abortion laws would pass because women of every religion, every race, every political party, every income, every educational level have abortions and I would also wager that something close to every single one of them thought she would never need to consider an abortion and many if not most probably thought they never would choose an abortion. And yet they do.

John Sharpe
3 weeks 5 days ago

Did the legislators appoint themselves into office? I appreciate you explaining your beliefs you still didn’t answer my question

J Jones
3 weeks 5 days ago

John, I am not going to answer your question because it is an outgrowth of your non-sequitur in response to my original comment, which was about the fact that a bunch of men sat down and wrote an editorial about legislation that forces women to bear children against their will and, though those men wrote 669 words on the topic, only two of those words were the word "woman" and what that fact means about those men and how they view and value and approach women.

Your comment in response to mine was a non-sequitur. That's fine. I had nothing to say in response to your non-sequitur. You persisted, and it seemed to me that perhaps you didnt understand how these laws were passed. If you have something relevant to say about the content of my original comment, I am listening.

John Sharpe
3 weeks 5 days ago

You would rather rage against the authors of the article as being unworthy instead of addressing the points and merit of the article. I'm listening ...

J Jones
3 weeks 4 days ago

I am glad you are listening, John. "Abortion politics" are logically inseparable from politics about the citizens who are capable of bearing children. "Abortion legislation" factually dictates at what point in time and under what conditions female citizens can be legally forced into motherhood. These politics and laws, thus, do not address or impact the bodies of any male citizens.

Abortion politics and laws do not dictate what must happen inside the bodies of ANY men. Not a single man. No boys. No adolescent males. Never men. Never boys. Never adolescent boys. Never intellectually or physically disabled male citizens. Never mentally ill male citizens. Never male citizens who have been raped inside or out the family (or Roman Catholic Church). Abortion politics and abortion laws never dictate what must happen inside the bodies of men who have taken vows as Catholic priests and brothers.

Abortion politics and abortion politics dictate what must happen inside the bodies of only WOMEN. Only GIRLS. Only ADOLESCENT GIRLS. Only intellectually and physically disabled FEMALES. Only mentally ill FEMALES. Only WOMEN who have taken vows as Catholic sisters and nuns.

And here we have the editors of the magazine owned and published by an ALL-MALE institution (Jesuits, RCC) who opined on abortion politics and laws for 6 paragraphs, 59 lines (in a Word document) and 669 words. And they used the word "woman" once and the word "women" once.

That reflects a worldview, John. A worldview in which women of all ages are largely beside-the-point when it comes to legislation that determines at what point and under what conditions all pregnant women, all pregnant girls and all pregnant female teen will be forced by the State to become mothers (thus, with or without their consent).

I don't know why that omission and the worldview and the privilege communicated by that omission don't trouble you. I don't know why it doesn't impact your ability to trust that that these men value and respect women. I don't know why that doesn't make you question whether these men are capable of ministering to women as equals. I don't know why it doesn't make you feel factually, relationally, spiritually, politically, religiously and humanly invisible to these men.

Only you can answer that, John. I hope you will do some soul-searching about why you persist in refusing to acknowledge the substance of my comment just as I hope the Jesuits at America will do some soul-searching about how and why it is that they could write 669 words about abortion politics and abortion laws and mention women only twice.

Finally, John, I hope you will do some soul-searching about why you persist in demanding I respond to the substance of YOUR comment even as you persist in refusing to respond to the substance of MY comment.

John Sharpe
3 weeks 4 days ago

Females are allowed to vote for men as well as women. Female voters outnumber male voters. The legislatures in Alabama and Georgia were elected by popular vote, presumably women were not excluded from running for office or voting, in fact Alabama has a female governor. Maybe the Russians rigged the election??? Is it possible some women don’t share your politics? Maybe they don’t share your rage against men either? There are plenty of women running for potus today, you should vote for one of them, but as of today it’s the old white Catholic male leading the democrat pack... there may be some female supporters in that group, wadda ya think?

E. Commerce
3 weeks 4 days ago

Well, I am female, and I think that once a woman is pregnant she has already become a mother. So no-one is forcing her to become a mother, unless she has been raped. What we are all discussing, men and women, is whether she has the right unilaterally to end the life that is growing within her body. The life that is already there. As a woman, I have a responsibility unique to my gender to protect life in its pre-born stage. Society (in my opinion) should recognize the life that is within me, and should help me if I am having trouble protecting the life. First, the father should be at least as accountable as I am, and not in a way that puts me in danger or humiliates me. After that, since a pro-life society relies on my role in protecting life and restricts my ending that life, society must step up. That will not be an easy change for society to make--it may well be expensive--but it is part of the same concept of justice that demands we women protect the vulnerable.

J Jones
3 weeks 4 days ago

E, again, my comment is directed to the editors who wrote 669 words about legislation that dictates at what point and under what conditions women of all ages are forced by the State to remain pregnant. My comment is further directed to the worldview revealed by the authors' collectively written and collectively endorsed decision to use the word "woman" and, thus, acknowledge women exactly and only 2 times.

E. Commerce
3 weeks 4 days ago

So you are upset about the article because it comes from a male perspective? But here's a question. Are males not allowed a perspective about the welfare of children until the children are born? What if a man is the father? I actually want your opinion. I have sons and a daughter, and they all deeply love their children. Do the fathers really have no say about whether their children are killed prior to birth? I get that the woman is more deeply impacted by the experience of pregnancy (believe me, I do!)--but do you think males and society at large don't have valid opinions on the subject?

J Jones
3 weeks 4 days ago

E, again, my comment is directed to the editors who published 669 collectively written and collectively endorsed words on legislation that dictates at what point in time and under what circumstances women of all ages will be forced by the State to remain pregnant and they used the word "woman" and, thus, referenced women exactly and only 2 times.

Lisa M
3 weeks 3 days ago

I'm with you E. Ironically, more women are against abortion than men. I wonder why that is? Hmmm....

J Jones
3 weeks 5 days ago

Duplicate

J Jones
3 weeks 4 days ago

John, again, I do not know why you persist in demanding I engage with the substance of your comment which represents a refusal to engage with the substance of my comment. My comment has nothing, either in substance or motivation, to do with "hatred of men" or the voting rights of women and has everything to with the written conduct of THESE men and the worldview revealed by the written conduct of THESE men.

John Sharpe
3 weeks 4 days ago

Please don’t force me to defend Fr James Martin...

J Jones
3 weeks 4 days ago

John, I deeply admire Fr Martin and I own most of his books. Until this editorial, which is "from the Editors" of which he is one, I would have moved Heaven and Earth to participate in Mass and the Eucharist with him and many other Jesuit priests I have known. Years ago, during a decade I spent most of in discernment of religious life while living in Catholic Worker communities and volunteering in various ways in Cursillo, I gave up almost all my belongings. The only books I kept were my poetry books, my books about the American War in Vietnam (I grew up on war-mobilized bases as the child of a Catholic bomber pilot), my books about African Americans (I started school the year my district gave in to integration, one of the last American school districts to do so) and books by Catholic spiritual leaders, among them many books by Jesuits. (Catholic books are the bulk of those I kept and I no longer buy books. I use libraries.) I may never return to an RCC Mass after encountering the Jesuit worldview so starkly revealed in these collectively written and collectively endorsed 669 Jesuit words about law that dictates when women of all ages can be legally forced into motherhood while only 2 of those 669 words are "woman/women".

John Sharpe
3 weeks 4 days ago

In many ways this article is just click bait to get emotional responses. Regardless of who or why they wrote it the article correctly states “Many commentators recognize that these new laws are designed to mount a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade” The question you have to ask yourself is why? Is it just about abortion? Nobody is taking away the woman’s right to vote and different states are passing far different laws. This is more about the rights of different communities to govern themselves without the tyranny of the federal government overstepping it’s bounds by eliminating and passing laws by misinterpreting and stretching language in the constitution that is not there. Conservatives see constant attacks from the left on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, the electoral college and the overall abuse of power by politicians. The abortion debate is a sideshow...thanks for playing

J Jones
3 weeks 4 days ago

John, again, my comment is directed to the editors/institutional leaders/priests/spiritual leaders who collectively wrote and collectively endorsed 669 words on legislation that will dictate when and under what conditions women of all ages will be forced by the State to remain pregnant and they mentioned women exactly and only twice.

Finally, thanks for helping me understand that, for you, this exchange has been "playing". I don't hate men but some of you sure make that morally objectionable impulse a challenge at least in the moment, John.

John Sharpe
3 weeks 4 days ago

In many ways this article is just click bait to get emotional responses. Regardless of who or why they wrote it the article correctly states “Many commentators recognize that these new laws are designed to mount a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade” The question you have to ask yourself is why? Is it just about abortion? Nobody is taking away the woman’s right to vote and different states are passing far different laws. This is more about the rights of different communities to govern themselves without the tyranny of the federal government overstepping it’s bounds by eliminating and passing laws by misinterpreting and stretching language in the constitution that is not there. Conservatives see constant attacks from the left on the 1st and 2nd Amendments, the electoral college and the overall abuse of power by politicians. The abortion debate is a sideshow...thanks for playing

Oz Jewel
3 weeks 3 days ago

Not all persons of the female sex are women, you do remember eh?
At risk, and under discussion, are the people of female sex who are not yet biologically grown to the totally dependent state of being born alive. These people are in need of advocates as a vile fraction of their human sisters, gone before them and nurtured and protected and fed and clothed and housed and cherished sufficiently adequately to become fertile adults to grant or deny or extinguish life in another seek their premature unnatural merciless destruction.
The topic is the God ordained dimorphic and complementary nature of the human species and the differing roles attendant upon that deep existential difference.

Jesus is and was a genius and was free from all the blindnesses associated with fallen human nature.
At least one of the distinguishing characteristics of his personhood is that he was NOT a slave to culture and convention. The poor and the rich, slaves and nobles, lepers and healthy persons, Jews and not Jews were all dealt with in a regal and prophetic way - obviously counter-cultural.
He did not mistakenly or accidentally choose those people to whom he entrusted the introduction, nurture and spread of the Way he came to establish and for which he suffered and died.

Ellen B
3 weeks 2 days ago

I agree with you. If you are going to force women and children who may be victims of rape & incest to have babies, you had darned well better mention women. If you are going to force women to carry a dead fetus to term, as the Pope has proposed, you had darned well better mention women. If you are going to agree with outlawing abortion when a woman's life is in danger, you had better mention women.

J Jones
3 weeks 2 days ago

Ellen, this editorial is important not because of anything it says about abortion. This editorial is important because it lays bare the invisibility of women in the spiritual lives and institutional leadership of the Roman Catholic Church. No man who conscientiously and fully experiences women's humanity as his equal to his own could have written and endorsed this editorial.

Colin Jory
3 weeks 5 days ago

Here's a terminological quibble, but an important one. In the above editorial pro-abortionists are called "abortion rights advocates". In reality the only abortion rights activists are Pro-Lifers, because there is only one authentic abortion right, and that is the right not to be aborted.

Michael Bindner
3 weeks 5 days ago

The unborn have the same right to life against being killed by the government as you do. They have the same right to not be injured in an attack on their mother. No one has a constitutional right not to be murdered. Protection from murder is a matter of positive law, not natural rights (natural law as you believe in it is a Vatican thing, making it applicable to natural rights reasoning). To argue for a right to not be murdered you need to assert that there is a natural right, rather than a contractual right, to have government. I dare you to assert that last n it. If you do not, your conclusion falls apart.

Colin Jory
3 weeks 5 days ago

Michael, I shall heroically take up your dare. Your position seems to be the "legal positivist" one that there can be no such thing as a right binding on a government, because governments are the sources of rights. Even given this assumption, you contradict yourself in stating that people have a contractual right to establish governments, since a necessary implication of your basic supposition is that the only contractual rights are ones concocted by governments. Catholic social thought is indeed explicitly grounded in natural law philosophy, but that philosophy was not invented by the Vatican: its most famous early proponent was Aristotle. According to Catholic social thought there is indeed a natural right to government: it is a right and instinct innate in human nature, and is in the first instance a right to the most fundamental form of government, that of the natural family. If you want a concise account of the basis of Catholic social thought, Michael, a quick way would be to get hold of my book, "The Campion Society and Catholic Social Militancy in Australia, 1929-1939", and read its first few pages on "The Catholic Church and the Modern World". (The book has a Foreword by Australia's most famous historian, the late Professor C.M.H. Clark.)

Brien Doyle
3 weeks 5 days ago

No! They do NOT have the same rights - in fact, they have NO rights!!! (and the word 'murder' is subjective and has no place here)

rose-ellen caminer
3 weeks 5 days ago

They have rights if just enough people in positions of power;be it legislatures or judges, or executive,say they have right. Just like enslaved Africans, and gays.etc. Of course, once just enough people in positions of power say they have rights then, we all, then the narrative is; they had rights ALL ALONG [naturally] but we just failed to see , to recognize this.
Its a beautiful law , this Alabama law; the legalized killing peoples' angst coming true;how brazen of Alabama and these other states, to go up against our decades now acceptance of legalized killing.Now the politicians, the judges all have to once again talk about this , and take a stand,and say it loud and say it clear, that they support killing the unborn, for any reason, at any time even full term even once born ,even for the purposes of gender preference or disability prejudice, or not.Let them tie themselves in knots, let the pro legalized killing people have to take to marching in the street for the right to KILL ON demand, and use words that conceal the appalling truth of what they mean. Most are so brainwashed that it is something they can easily do "without batting and eye" but there will be some seepage; of truth, of conscience of morality that they will be wrestling with.

Michael Bindner
3 weeks 5 days ago

State challenges to Roe are all about state power (or rather, the lack thereof) in legislating in violation of a protective class. This includes Catholics in the South and Catholic school children (the latter case has not been advanced, but could be), undocumented students, Latinos (Hernandez), women (Griswold, Roe, Doe) and gays (Lawrence, Roemer, Perry) with 4 cases on deck. The real agenda is to challenge all of these, not just abortion rights, and restoring the state power regime of Plessy v. Ferguson. Plessy held that states are the appropriate venue for addressing state violations of the 14th Amendment. The only place that abortion can be regulated is Congress. State governments cannot be trusted. Supporting Alabama is to support the tyranny of the reactionary mob (which includes more than a few Catholic bishops and clergy). Build national consensus instead. Slavery was preserved by local power. We made that mistake and it ended badly.

Of course, a national consensus hurts fundraising on both sides on an issue that is not an issue with any way forward, other than tinkering with late term rules.
Enforcing first trimester prohibitions are impossible because the targeted enforcement retired to do so without investigating miscarriage violates due process rights of women and their doctors.

It is time to increase both minimum wages, paid training and a child tax credit large enough for a middle class existence. Nothing less is acceptable in the richest nation on Earth. Such a solution is also in keeping with the Magisterium of Pius XI (Casti Connubii 119-122).

Crystal Watson
3 weeks 5 days ago

It's a lie to say there have been no restrictions on abortion - there's a whole Wikipedia page on the various and numerous restrictions ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_abortion_restrictions_in_the_United_States
All your articles on abortion are slanted and often disingenuous. The majority of Americans want Roe to remain in effect and your minority and extreme religious obsession won't change that.

rose-ellen caminer
3 weeks 4 days ago

Are you in favor of the restrictions on abortion, Crystal?If so then you actually disagree with the pro choice position that it's no one's business what a woman does with "her body"? You have broken with them on that? if so when and what caused the break with abortion on demand pro choice platform?Or do you oppose the restrictive laws?

James Schwarzwalder
3 weeks 5 days ago

I'm not sure anything in the short run is going to change the opinion(s) currently held by each individual. So let's instead talk about slavery and how the "We the People" have struggled for 243 years regarding slavery, its abolition and its aftermath. Today some would have you believe that racism is the premier issue in the upcoming 2020 election. Slavery and abortion have one common thread. Slaves were considered property by slave owners and today some consider the unborn to be "property". The slogan "My choice, my body", reflects the notion of "ownership" and control over "another", a unique and unrepeatable entity, an unborn baby. The slogan "Reproductive Rights" is a misnomer. What it really means is the right not to reproduce. I won't argue with anyone who seeks to avoid pregnancy. But after conception or implantation there is more than one human biological entity involved. I also think a person has the right to self defense if their life is threatened, medically or otherwise. The Ten Commandments were not based on an opinion poll. For some, God was and is considered a "law giver." The SCOTUS does not always get it right.

Neil Lupton
3 weeks 5 days ago

Roe v. Wade is right down the middle of the road. One pole is no abortion at all or as close to it as possible (the Alabama position). The other pole is government mandated abortion (The China one-child position). Roe v. Wade takes the government out of the equation. If the pregnant woman does not wish to have an abortion, she doesn't. But if she believes because of her religious beliefs or philosophy, that an abortion is appropriate for her situation, she can. Right down the middle of the road.
The only real way to end up any place else is to impose one's religious beliefs on other people who do not have those same religious beliefs.

Colin Jory
3 weeks 5 days ago

One extreme: all Jews should be gassed. The other extreme: no Jews should be gassed. The moderate, middle-of-the-road position: some Jews should be gassed but not others.

Vincent Couling
3 weeks 5 days ago

Is that really a valid analogy, Colin? The American moral philosopher Judith Thomson, in her 1971 paper "A defense of abortion," argues that "abortion does not violate the foetus's legitimate right to life, but merely deprives the foetus of something—the non-consensual use of the pregnant woman's body and life-support functions—to which it has no right. Thus, by choosing to terminate her pregnancy, Thomson concludes that a pregnant woman does not normally violate the foetus's right to life, but merely withdraws its use of her own body, which usually causes the foetus to die." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Defense_of_Abortion ]

Her paper raises rather profound questions around this troubling moral conundrum ... here is a link to it: https://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

E. Commerce
3 weeks 5 days ago

How would Judith treat (in moral terms) a parent starving (or treating in a way that would cause death) her already born child?

Warren Patton
3 weeks 4 days ago

Colin's point could be made in a less inflammatory way. For example: "One side: Build a dam. Other side: Don't build a dam. Compromise: Build half a dam"

The point is the same. Just because a position lies in the middle does not make it sane or more reasonable.

And the debate isn't about "wanting an abortion" vs "not wanting one." It's about what abortion is. The Roe vs. Wade position assumes a certain stance on what an abortion is that flies against Catholic teaching and, in my opinion, reason and facts. That can't be papered over just by saying "If you don't want an abortion, don't get one."

Crystal Watson
3 weeks 5 days ago

No, the abortion debate isn't akin to the issue of slavery, and no, the "unborn" don't have the same legal rights as actual persons. If you want to convince anyone, it would help to stick to facts.

Jim Lein
3 weeks 5 days ago

If we really want to reduce or eliminate abortions, males (men and teens) have to start behaving responsibly. As Sarah Silverman recently pointed out, males cause all unwanted pregnancies. If us guys behaved responsibly, there would be virtually no need for abortions. So until we change our behavior, we should shut up about outlawing abortion. Or agree that our irresponsible behavior should also be outlawed.
Perhaps members of the Knights of Columbus should set a good example by taking a pledge to never, or never again, cause an unwanted pregnancy. How many males can say with 100% certainty that they have never caused an unwanted pregnancy?

J Jones
3 weeks 5 days ago

Jim, thank you. I think the RCC should lead the initiative with this pledge:
"No Catholic Priest, Brother, Deacon, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal or Pope will cause an unwanted pregnancy."

Vincent Couling
3 weeks 5 days ago

Spot on!

Stanley Kopacz
3 weeks 3 days ago

Whoa. Are you saying women don't like sexual intercourse? That the male is the only one responsible? Or that all unwanted pregnancies are the result of rape? I'm sure the K of C boys know what they're SUPPOSED to not do and all the ones I know don't do it. Haven't met any aged Lotharios among them. Oh wait! This is an SNL skit. A bunch of old K of C guys taking a pledge not to ravish young fertile women. I get it now. Hilarious.

Jim Lein
3 weeks 3 days ago

The male is the only one responsible for impregnating a female and leaving her without his support. And then, in many cases, not only leaving her alone with her pregnancy but voting to take away her support options, including WIC, SNAP, TANF and Medicaid. And now in some states taking away the option of a safe abortion, leaving her in a very desperate situation which is no laughing matter. Again the question, how many guys can say they never caused an unwanted pregnancy and left a woman alone to deal with it?

Stanley Kopacz
3 weeks 2 days ago

Good last question. Sounds like you think it's 99% a-holes. I have no idea what the real numbers are. I'm not sure you really do either. By the way, I'm 100% sure and a democratic socialist.

Stanley Kopacz
3 weeks 3 days ago

Copy deleted

Advertisement

The latest from america

In the four years since Pope Francis released his encyclical “On Care of Our Common Home,” both global and local reporting on the effects of climate change has only gotten more dire.
Jim McDermottJune 18, 2019
Protesters gather on a main road near the Legislative Council on June 16 as they continuing protest against the unpopular extradition bill in Hong Kong. (AP Photo/Kin Cheung)
Hong Kong has been rocked by mass protests against a proposal would allow suspects to be sent for trial in China’s Communist Party-controlled judiciary.
Verna YuJune 18, 2019
Four years later, various Catholic groups are answering the call from “Laudato Si’” as they try to help people close a gap between the spiritual life and ecological awareness.
Basilian Father Thomas Rosica speaks at a Vatican press briefing in 2015. (CNS/Paul Haring)
Rosica has faced allegations of plagiarizing the written work of several authors.