Putting the onus of responsibility upon the pro-lifer

[p.falk]

I was listening to Relevant Radio (Catholic radio station) recently and the topic of abortion came up in which a guest speaker was addressing the topic of support for women so that they don't want to have abortions.

She made a comment essentially saying, "Pro-lifers you really need to step up. This isn't just making sure that the baby is born and now you're off the hook. You need to be there for that mother and her child for as long as they need the help."

Sure, we should be there for anyone struggling wherever they are in life. But there was something off-putting in her comment. If I had a chance to interject, I would have liked to say "Okay, but remember... it's still wrong to kill an unborn child... whether you get some 3rd party to commit to tending to the needs of the mother and child (at the mother's beck and call) or not."

It sparked multiple memories of similar themes amongst Catholics over the years. The idea that the woman really doesn't want to do this, but society (and especially the pro-lifers) have let her down; by having her face a grim and uncertain future which would have apparently been much less grim and uncertain if she would have been able to take out the unborn variable.


I have no problem with the label "anti-abortion". I feel abortion to be such a disgusting thing that I have no problem saying "yeah, I'm anti that". No compulsion to try to lighten the mood by saying "pro-life fella over here!".

At times "pro-life" almost feels like a euphemism. If a friend of mine was getting jumped and beaten up really bad if I started yelling "I'm pro-health!". He'd be right to say "how about you be anti me getting my @33 kicked and help!"

At worst, "pro-life" gets turned into a cudgel to beat pro-lifers over the head with. "Pro-life, you say? Then why are you for the death penalty, vile vermin!!".

Or take the initial reason for this post. "Pro-life means taking care of the baby (and mother) from cradle to grave... or (speaking of euphemisms: Celebration of Life Service).

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

She is still right. A common gibe thrown at pro-lifers is: "You only care about babies until they're born."

[anawim]

But what makes her think we're not? I've volunteered with both the Sisters of Life, as well as Good Counsel Homes. I've also donated baby things at my parish. So it's a hollow argument. Might sound solid, but it's not.

[p.falk]

She is still right. A common gibe thrown at pro-lifers is: "You only care about babies until they're born."

"Care" is a loaded word.

I'm sure someone on the receiving end of "care" could very well have difference expectations from what the remitter of "care" has.

I agree it's a common gibe thrown, but it's the truth of the gibe that can be called into question. Not all "pro-lifers" are alike. And to judge all by the failure of one (or some), isn't charitable. Then to bring in "care" again... the difference between what is expected and what is offered.

To labor a bit more on the point - common or not, I have never met a pro-lifer whoever said, "I only care about that baby up until they're born".
I've heard the criticism a bunch of times... I just never seen it play out. It's certainly lobbed in the general sense.


It's still important to know, for the pregnant woman... that whether or not someone is there to help you along the way - you still can't murder your unborn child.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I'm just not seeing the force of your objection here. Nothing in saying, "We should help mothers after their children are born" sounds like, "It's okay to kill it if we don't help enough."

[p.falk]

I'm just not seeing the force of your objection here. Nothing in saying, "We should help mothers after their children are born" sounds like, "It's okay to kill it if we don't help enough."

I can't think of any time when that topic has come up in Catholic circles (radio, discussions, speaker events, Church) where it's ever said "pregnant women, it's a sin to murder your unborn child." The consistent theme is that the woman is the victim, and if there is any devilish character in her life it's her boyfriend who is just assumed to be the marionette master behind her attempt seek the abortion.

I'm all for Christians doing more for the family. But I don't agree that they haven't extended their efforts beyond the birth of the child. Every Catholic Church I have been to in recent memory has their collections of 'new baby needs' for the mother to use.

[Highlander]

..."Care" is a loaded word. ...

...someone on the receiving end of "care" could very well have difference expectations from what the remitter of "care" has. ...

... Then to bring in "care" again... the difference between what is expected and what is offered. ...

Two points. Let's put the first quickly aside. I believe that the pro-abortionists position that pro-lifers' do not care about child or mother after birth is tu quoque. It boils down to "you don't care about the baby after birth, therefore you are hypocritical, therefore you position is meritless."

The other is more loaded. And nuanced. And deep. In our Western modernity ... a progressive, socialist, corrupt, ignorant world ... expectations have been inflated beyond economic reality and have morphed into universal endless entitlements. A world in which consequence and action have been decoupled. We see this in endless illegal immigration, criminals being repeatedly released to commit the same crimes over and over, and the right to have a free abortion clinic around every corner.

I think the underlying pro-abortion argument is that "care" should be infinite. Because the recipient of care is completely blameless and infinitely needy, that non-state institutions and persons, such as churches, are incapable of providing boundless care to endlessly deserving mothers and babies, so only the State can meet that basic human right.

In that world, abortion is a woman's right for whatever reason a woman decides. If a woman decides to have a child, then only the State can be the guarantor for the care of both mother and child. If a woman decides not to have a child, then only the State can be the guarantor of the means and availability to prevent or abort the child.

So, the argument that pro-lifers won't provide care for babies and mothers is, at its core, a red herring. The real argument is that only the State can decide the extent and amount of care to be provided for abortion or birth.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

This is not about the mothers nearly as much as it is about the children. Society in general does have an obligation to ensure that children are taken care of, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their conception and birth. And if we are pro-life, we have an obligation to do what the State will not do or can't do.

The State can only give for economic reasons, however conscientious and individually charitable statesmen may be; while the Church gives for the Love of God, and the Love of God never yet destroyed any man's self-respect.

[p.falk]

This is not about the mothers nearly as much as it is about the children. Society in general does have an obligation to ensure that children are taken care of, regardless of the circumstances surrounding their conception and birth. And if we are pro-life, we have an obligation to do what the State will not do or can't do.

The State can only give for economic reasons, however conscientious and individually charitable statesmen may be; while the Church gives for the Love of God, and the Love of God never yet destroyed any man's self-respect.

I agree with you entirely on that point. We should be there for them.

[Highlander]

Y'all are right. But, I hold, the State doesn't want us to care for either mother or child. That is its role. It panders to women to transform them into the right kind of women; progressive, secular, atheistic bricks in the wall.

[p.falk]

Y'all are right. But, I hold, the State doesn't want us to care for either mother or child. That is its role. It panders to women to transform them into the right kind of women; progressive, secular, atheistic bricks in the wall.

I've heard it said before that the State wants men weak given that women (more often than men) look for someone who's able to protect them. If men are unable to provide that for women, then they'll turn to the State for that protection.

[Obi-Wan Kenobi]

I want to push back a little harder. I agree that, sadly, there are many cases where the woman makes a free choice to abort. But ....

You probably know that canon law has a so-called "automatic excommunication" for a completed abortion. I say "so-called" because in fact there are conditions under which that penalty is not incurred. In particular, in this context, grave fear excuses from the penalty. What's grave fear?

ChatGPT summarizes it thus (and I believe it is correct or I wouldn't post it, and altered a bit by me for postability):

Key elements of grave fear

1. Seriousness of the threat

The feared evil must be truly serious, not a minor inconvenience or embarrassment. Classic examples include fear of:

Death or serious bodily harm; Severe injury; Grave harm to one’s reputation; Loss of livelihood or essential support; Serious harm to one’s family or dependents

Mere social awkwardness, discomfort, or mild pressure does not qualify.

2. External origin

For fear to be canonical fear, it must arise from an external cause:

A threat made by another person; Intense pressure from a spouse, parents, employer, or authorities; A situation deliberately engineered to coerce

Internal anxiety, scruples, or emotional distress by themselves do not constitute grave fear in law.

3. Effect on freedom

Grave fear does not destroy the will, but it does seriously restrict it.

The person still “chooses,” but the choice is made under such pressure that full moral and juridical imputability is diminished.

This is why grave fear can:

4. Measured by the prudent person

Canonists did not judge grave fear purely subjectively. The test was: Would this threat reasonably overwhelm a prudent person in similar circumstances? Personal temperament mattered, but only within reason.

Classic examples recognized by canonists

• A woman threatened with serious violence or expulsion by a husband or family
• Threats of being abandoned while pregnant without means of support
• Coercion by authorities or employers with credible consequences
• Severe family pressure combined with real dependence (e.g., minor living at home)

By contrast, these were usually not considered grave fear:

• Fear of social gossip alone
• Fear of embarrassment
• Desire to avoid inconvenience or shame
• General emotional distress without coercion

Confessors were explicitly told: In poenis latae sententiae, dubia semper sunt favorabilia reo (“In automatic penalties, doubts always favor the accused.”)

My point, then, is that a substantial proportion of women do procure an abortion out of grave fear, and that taking this into account is not post-Vatican II squishiness--it's in the 1917 code of canon law, and wasn't a revolutionary change in direction even then. It's part of the way the Church has dealt with this for ages and it's incumbent on pro-lifers to do what we can do remove that grave fear. That's what pro-life pregnancy centers do (which why the pro-choicers hate them).

[anawim]

we have an obligation to do what the State will not do or can't do.

The Church is far more efficient anyway. On average, the government spends only 25% of money to help people, and 75% goes to pay the people doing the helping.
The Church generally spends 75 - 90% on the people that they are helping. Far better use of resources.

[Highlander]

...and 75% goes to pay the people doing the helping. ...

Or, as in the case of California hospice care and Minnesota learning centers, 100%. If one allows deficit spending and Federal grants, 300-400%.

[Highlander]

....You probably know that canon law has a so-called "automatic excommunication" for a completed abortion. I say "so-called" because in fact there are conditions under which that penalty is not incurred. In particular, in this context, grave fear excuses from the penalty. What's grave fear?
...
My point, then, is that a substantial proportion of women do procure an abortion out of grave fear, and that taking this into account is not post-Vatican II squishiness--it's in the 1917 code of canon law, and wasn't a revolutionary change in direction even then. It's part of the way the Church has dealt with this for ages and it's incumbent on pro-lifers to do what we can do remove that grave fear. That's what pro-life pregnancy centers do (which why the pro-choicers hate them).

I was completely ignorant of this. Now, I must think.