Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation

212 Pages·2015·0.93 MB·English

by  Charles C. Camosy

Beyond the Abortion Wars
A Way Forward for a New Generation
Charles C. Camosy
W B. E P C
ILLIAM ERDMANS UBLISHING OMPANY
G R , M / C , U.K.
RAND APIDS ICHIGAN AMBRIDGE
© 2015 Charles C. Camosy
All rights reserved
Published 2015 by
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
2140 Oak Industrial Drive N.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49505 /
P.O. Box 163, Cambridge CB3 9PU U.K.
Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Camosy, Charles Christopher.
Beyond the abortion wars: a way forward for a new generation /
Charles C. Camosy.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-8028-7128-2 (cloth: alk. paper)
eISBN 978-1-4674-4291-6 (ePub)
eISBN 978-1-4674-4251-0 (Kindle)
1. Abortion — Political aspects. 2. Women’s rights. I. Title.
HQ767.C253 2015
305.42 — dc23
2014041218
www.eerdmans.com
This book is dedicated to the thousands of graduate, undergraduate, and
high-school students I’ve had the privilege to teach.
Much of what follows comes from our
exchanges and arguments.
Contents
Foreword
Preface and Acknowledgments
Introduction: Is There Anything Left to Say?
1. Shifting Abortion Politics
2. Who or What Is the Fetus?
3. Aiming at Death or Ceasing to Aid?
4. The Challenge of Public Policy
5. Abortion and Women
6. A Way Forward
Conclusion: Beyond Polarization
Notes
Bibliography
Index
Foreword
After decades of acrimony, gridlock, and fundraising on the abortion
issue, there is now quite a lot of discussion about forging a working
compromise between those who describe themselves as “pro-life” and
those who describe themselves as “pro-choice.” So far, unfortunately,
that conversation is only happening on the pro-life side; at least, I’m
unaware of any pro-choice leader who has said publicly that abortion
should be limited in any way at any point in pregnancy.
The right-to-life lobby, however, along with many pro-life politicians,
does see the “pain-capable” legislation that would limit abortion after
twenty weeks — with exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the
mother — as both acceptable and politically possible, though
Republicans would, of course, have to take both the U.S. Senate and
White House for that to happen. Pro-choice advocates tend to see this
concession as merely strategic: a dangerous step on the slippery, sloped
road to a total ban. But the split that the “pain-capable” push has caused
within the pro-life ranks argues otherwise. As does strongly pro-life
South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, who recently told me in an
interview that only a minority of pro-lifers would ban all abortions.
Polling certainly bears that out.
In this book, Fordham theologian Charles Camosy leans pretty heavily
on polling that indicates that the public wants first-term but not even
second-term (let alone third-term) abortion to remain legal. He argues
that major restrictions are thus inevitable, especially with those in the
“Millennial” demographic expressing significantly more pro-life views
than do their parents. I would counter that, if lawmakers so neatly took
their cues from surveys, significant gun-control legislation would have
passed easily after twenty first-graders were shot and killed at Newtown,
Connecticut.
But the importance of Camosy’s book is in his meticulous
construction of the ethical and moral case for early abortion in instances
of rape. And his proposed compromise fully answers the leading rap on
the pro-life approach: that the true aim is to control women, and that the
proof of this motivation is the scant pro-life support for women when
they’re not weighing whether to end a pregnancy — or for children once
they’re born. Camosy’s proposed compromise would change that: his
plan offers so much real support to women and children that it could
significantly reduce the number of abortions performed for economic
reasons.
As Camosy knows, I can’t say that I agree with every aspect of his
proposal. On the contrary, his compromise suggestion that, after eight
weeks of gestation, rape victims would have to provide evidence in court
that they were assaulted to get access to a legal abortion is a deal-breaker
for me, even though he is right that women in that situation typically
know very early that they’re pregnant. He argues persuasively that the
law is a moral teacher, yet I tend to think that criminalizing the procedure
(even if physicians are punished rather than patients) would teach lessons
other than that unborn children deserve our protection.
Yet he makes so many important points that I hope this work will be
widely read and seriously debated. I particularly urge readers from across
the spectrum on this issue to consider Camosy’s arguments
concerning all that’s wrong with our binary, “you’re either for it
or against it” discussion;
laying out ethical pro-life arguments apart from the religious
ones that those who disagree so often assume must motivate any
objection;
challenging and tracking the history of accepted data;
explaining the implications of the shift from the “privacy”
concerns protected by the Roe decision to the “undue burden”
banned under Casey;
making the case that those who oppose rape exceptions are party
to a broader refusal to take violence against women seriously;
and
spelling out how what he calls pro-life “extremists” effectively
give the unborn rights that nobody out walking around in the
world has, specifically, to be protected from harm even while
threatening someone else’s life.
“Finally, what about the hardcore pro-lifers who want to ban all
abortions?” he asks. “First, let me say something directly to the Catholics
who fall into this group. You may not think that the Mother and Prenatal
Child Protection Act perfectly reflects your view of abortion, but you
really should support something like it nevertheless. You should support
it because the Church explicitly teaches that faithful Catholics may
support incremental legislative change if the political realities give you a
proportionately serious reason to do so. And if you don’t think our
current discourse on abortion in the United States gives you such a
reason, frankly, you need a dose of political reality.”
Though the tide is turning against abortion on demand, it is absolutely
not turning in the direction of banning all abortion. There is
overwhelming support for abortion choice in the cases of rape and the
life of the mother. Indeed, over 90 percent of “pro-choicers” support
these exceptions, as do almost 70 percent of “pro-lifers.” The position in
favor of banning all abortion is a political nonstarter. Those who have
pushed this position aggressively in the public sphere have done
tremendous damage to the pro-life cause. “Pro-lifers” achieve our goals
when we help focus the public debate on the overwhelming majority of
abortions, most of which the public does not support. But the “ban all
abortion” strategy has allowed “pro-choicers” to shift our debate away
from the reality of our abortion culture by focusing public attention on
the two percent of abortions taking place in the cases of rape and when
the mother’s life is in danger.
Finally, I have to commend the way Camosy consulted his female
colleagues in writing this book. One he quotes anonymously but quite
powerfully and provocatively buttresses his important argument about
what “choice” women really have in a society that in many regards offers
us such limited support:
Women need to ask themselves if access to abortion really has done
more to liberate them. If a woman does decide to parent, is she really
free to make that decision if she has no partner, limited 12 weeks
unpaid maternity leave, hopelessly expensive childcare, and on and on
and on? Abortion has made women free not to have children, but it
has arguably made it more difficult for women to choose to have
children. What else have women gained? A hook-up culture which
breeds sexual violence, increasing numbers of STDs, less-committed
and even childlike male partners who couldn’t identify responsibility
if it hit them in the face, and a culture that values [women] only when
they are young and skinny. Is that freedom?
If you’re starting to suspect that this is a book that will completely
satisfy no constituency, you’re right. Whatever your view, it will be
challenged here. And if you’re willing, you’re highly likely to learn
something as a result.
M H
ELINDA ENNEBERGER