USCCB on Common Ground: No Need for Abortion, No Need to Reduce the Need For It
by Jodi Jacobson, Editor in Chief, RH Reality Check
July 1, 2009 - 6:00pm (Print)
USCCB on common ground: No need to "reduce need" for abortions because there is "no need for abortions."
In his column, God and Country, at US News and World Report, Dan Gilgoff underscores the Obama Administration's focus on "reducing the need for abortion," an objective supported by many in the pro-choice community because it focuses on the real issue: unintended pregnancies, and the need to dramatically expand access to basic prevention services. Fewer unintended pregnancies means fewer abortions in the long-run, but, if implemented effectively, is a strategy compatible with ensuring that women who want to terminate a pregnancy have access to timely and affordable safe abortion services.
This, not surprisingly, is not good enough for the USCCB. Gilgoff quotes U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Deirdre McQuade, assistant director of policy and communications as saying:
The phrase "reducing the need for abortion" is not a common-ground phrase. We would say that there is no need for abortion, that abortions are signs that we have not met the needs of women. There is no authentic need for abortion.
This of course from a group that is not only opposed to any form of modern contraception or HIV prevention method (e.g. male and female condoms) but whose position is not even shared by its own adherents in the United States. They don't share the same analysis of the problem as the majority of people working on this issue, disregard evidence in favor of religious ideology, and can't agree on any solution to whatever problem that makes sense from either a public health or human rights standpoint. Instead, their position is to replace government policy with theology and ideology.
So I am still confused: Why do they have a seat at the table?
Follow Jodi Jacobson on Twitter, @jljacobson
Well, I can see they have yet to move into the new millennium - the 1000's!!!!
"There is no authentic need for abortion."
I find this statement just absolutely BOGGLING! Without abortion, ectopic pregnancies alone would kill 70,000 women in the United States every year. Isn't saving their lives an 'authentic need'?
Because when you peel all the layers, it comes down to this: Abortion, even when done at the earliest stages of a pregnancy destroys/kills/terminates(insert word of choice here) a living entity with its own human DNA, separate and completely unique from the mother. If we make the easy leap that the entity which determines a woman is pregnant is a pre-born human then it is easy to understand that any action that destroys that entity would be considered killing to those who are pro-life, regardless of religious or non-religious affiliation.
Common ground would be eliminating the need for abortion by both 'sides' working together to prevent them.
"its own human DNA, separate and completely unique from the mother."
I will give you the human DNA, I will even give you the 'completely unique', but the problem, of course, is that it is NOT separate. It isn't 'separate' until it has completely developed and been born, hopefully alive.
I will agree with you that reaching common ground and preventing unwanted pregnancy will REDUCE the need for abortion, but there are those pesky problems like ectopic pregnancy which are just part of the reproductive process, which won't disappear, and which will require legal abortions in the future.
If someone is filled with anguish over destroying that 'entity' and considers that killing, I can assure you their feelings are not a patch on those of the woman who has had her pregnancy end disastrously and who does NOT need to hear about how the most important thing is the situation is the moral values of total strangers.
Because when you peel away all the layers, what it comes down to is judgmentalism - self-righteous busybodies, peaking through the windows of strangers, judging their worthiness, second guessing their medical decisions, and sneering as they insist that the people who were actually involved must have some moral or character failing at the root of their bad luck, since we all know bad things NEVER happen to good people.
More explanation:
You are not understanding the Catholic vision--Catholic belief holds up the value of every human being--even those growing in their mothers' wombs. With this as the starting point, any intentional abortion is the killing of a unique human being. That's how we get to "abortion is not needed."
With regard to stopping unintended pregnancy---more contraception will not do that. Indeed, there is no evidence that more contraception reduces the abortion rate. In most studies, it just stays the same and in many studies, sexually transmitted diseases rise along with the rise in contraceptive use.
Real solutions need to get at helping people to make better decisions about sexual activity--including the possibility of living chastely. Too many people are having multiple sexual partners. This makes for epidemic levels of STDs and, consequently, consistent failures of contraceptives with unintended pregnancy often following. In addition, current contraceptive research does not unearth possible emotional ramifications to all this contraceptive sex—what is ultimately best for people? Certainly not more contraception!
There is a crazy assumption (no doubt due to a culture that unconditionally accepts contraception), that human fertility can be "absolutely" taken out of human sexual intercourse. It can not. Maybe men and women need to be taught more about their fertility (i.e., sex is the natural way to getting pregnant) and also helped to understand what they want in life so that they can make wiser decisions for their lives.
Sorry, I'm not invested in the Catholic Vision. I'm not invested in ANY vision. I'm talking about actual on-the-ground reality, where "no abortion" equals "dead women". Mother is not a synonym for Martyr.
Regardless of your 'vision', criminalizing abortion is not the way to get there. Firstly, because not everyone agrees with it. Secondly, the way to eliminate (or at least reduce--there will always be the medical reasons, and I can't figure out how allowing the mother to die will help anyone, least of all the being that directly relies on her for its own life) the use of any service is to reduce the demand for it. Because say what you will, as long as someone wants it, there will be someone else providing it.
Go ahead with trying to educate people--no, seriously, I do agree with some of your points, and as long as you're providing factual information I can't find any problems with it regardless. But as long as women seek abortions (in other words, as long as women get pregnant), the humane thing to do isn't to restrict their options, but to provide them safe access, the same way that there are needle exchange programs for drug addicts. Because we can't dictate the choices of others, but we can lessen the negative effects of them.
You wrote:
I do agree with some of your points, and as long as you're providing factual information I can't find any problems with it regardless./
While I respect this person's right to believe what they are saying, as
a clinician and researcher (and raised a Catholic), none of the claims
they have made about contraception and reduction in unintended
pregnancy are "factual." In fact they are quite wrong. Strong evidence
exists showing a correlation between effective contraceptive use and
reductions in unintended pregnancy. If this were not true, the size of
families in the United States would be much larger or abortions much
more frequent.
But I appreciate the ability to weigh in.
MaryTess
No evidence that more contraception reduces the abortion rate? Really?
Catholics can have any vision they want - but that does NOT give them the right to use the law to enforce that vision on everyone. Catholic vision is a religious belief - and everyone else has the right to their own beliefs as well. Unfortunately, when people are convinced of the 'rightness' of their belief, they think it entitles them to enslave others. That's no different than the Taliban...or any other religious fundamentalist. And when they use violence, such as killing doctors - that's terrorism - pure and simple.
Well it is an interesting approach i don't thing many will agree with you casininio onlinecasinopig.com
Heyyaa.... jus saw a very same blog somewhere else too !!! guess somebody's been copyin ur stuff...
