Matthew Yglesias: The Elusive Middle

« Kennan Dead | Main | Do You Think... »

The Elusive Middle

Why are Republicans always intransigently blocking efforts to find a middle ground on abortion? Seriously -- why? For some, it's because they're more interested in dogmatic efforts to turn back the entire sexual revolution than they are in reducing the number of abortions. For others -- more, I suspect -- they would just rather keep the issue as hot and burning as possible to maintain the loyalty of their grassroots. Constructive solutions would only make electoral politics harder.

March 18, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/2089746

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Elusive Middle:

» Reducing Abortions = Anathema to GOP from Polemic Propaganda
That's not a completely accurate statement. In fact, given the 53-47 vote yesterday in the Senate to reject an amendment from Senators Clinton and Schumer that would have significantly reduced the number of unplanned pregnancies in the U.S., at least a... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 18, 2005 4:25:39 PM

» Abortion from Kalblog
Matthew Yglesias: Why are Republicans always intransigently blocking efforts to find a middle ground on abortion? Seriously -- why? For some, it's because they're more interested in dogmatic efforts to turn back the entire sexual revolution than they a... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 19, 2005 2:00:57 AM

» All Ross, all the Time from Asymmetrical Information
Mr Douthat also has an excellent post pointing out that the much vaunted Democratic "compromise" on abortion isn't actually a compromise, insofar as it doesn't actually involve, y'know, Democrats giving anything up. Myself, I'm pretty sceptical of the ... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 19, 2005 12:35:06 PM

Tracked on Feb 28, 2006 11:41:12 AM

Comments

MY,

What would you consider a middle ground?

Say, outlaw abortions in the 3rd trimester except to save the mother. No culling of twins/triplets down to one, except for above. Outlaw abortions except for rape/incest? Just outlaw the partial birth abortions? How about just eliminating Row and letting the state legislatures write the law (or for that matter Congress make a national law)? Get the courts out of it nd give it back to the people through their reps (state or federal)?

Just wondering...

Posted by: buffpilot | Mar 18, 2005 2:33:31 PM

buffpilot,

"The amendment would have increased funding for family planning and teen pregnancy prevention programs, expanded health insurance coverage for birth control, and increased education about emergency contraception."

-from the provided link

Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 2:37:20 PM

It has nothing to do with reducing abortions. It has everything to do with controlling women. That is why there are so many attempt to limit access to birth control.

You can't talk policy with extremists.

Posted by: Alice Marshall | Mar 18, 2005 2:41:10 PM

When I was working on the campaign in Ohio this fall, I met a gentleman who had left the presidency of the local RIght to Life after he realized that they wouldn't compromise at all, and that they were, as he put it "Just another wing of the Republican party."

He remained fervently pro-life, but decided that it wasn't something for the federal government to be involved in. We had a few very interesting discussions.

Posted by: Brew | Mar 18, 2005 2:44:28 PM

Mr. Yglesias,

Abortion is not the only issue here, as in this bill. Public morality is also an issue.

To extend the Catholic argument I have been having in an earlier thread, the promotion of contraception is also a problem, and forbidden.

Some other conservatives may have a different issue with this, but that is mine.

I really should get a Jesuit to work on this stuff, you have in me a poor specimen of a Catholic.

Posted by: luisalegria | Mar 18, 2005 2:44:59 PM

Alice: are efforts to limit access to condoms (opposition of condom giveaways, say) attempts to control men?

(I also have to say that I'm with buffpilot in failing to see the proposal in question as a "middle ground" in the Abortion debate. I mean, unless you buy into the far right's absurd caricature of the left as wanting to maximize the number of abortions that happen, exactly what compromises is the pro-choice side offering in this proposal?)

Posted by: Jeff R. | Mar 18, 2005 2:47:38 PM

coach,

Couldn't get the link to work. Had to guess. It works for me now. Thanks.

Doesn't change my question.

My answer is throw it to the state legislatures and have them fight it out, where there is accountability (ie next election) to the voters. Not perfect but would lower the noise level on the subject and put it in the right part of the government.

Posted by: buffpilot | Mar 18, 2005 2:48:43 PM

Conservatism today has only two unwavering tenets:

1. Transfer of money from poor to rich, for the elites.
2. Anti-abortion for the masses

There is NO other policy that is not transgressed.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 2:53:43 PM

buffpilot,
personally, I wouldn't mind it in the legislatures, but the Federal government should have the ability to legislate it, imho.
The proper policy, also imho, would be for abortion policy to be left to the discretion of the woman and her doctors -- i.e. a federal law imposing that policy.

Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 2:58:00 PM

I hate to sound like a contrarian, but pro-abortion advocates also engage in the same type of behavior, (whether or not they are reflexive opposite of the dogmatic anti-abortion side, that's how they act). And part of it stems with the way that abortion was originally marketed at middle class america, as a choice (who doesnt like choices?!), and now there's a backlash against that.

Cynthia Gorney has a good sum up of the current state of the abortion fight, in November's Harper's titled "Gambling with Abortion"

Posted by: azad | Mar 18, 2005 2:58:33 PM

The middle ground that just happens to be what you believe. If the current electoral politics doesn't show that you are not in the middle, then nothing will I guess.

Posted by: Chad | Mar 18, 2005 2:58:34 PM

Every abortion kills a future serf. It's unacceptable.

Posted by: abb1 | Mar 18, 2005 2:59:26 PM

Perhaps there is middle ground on botched partial birth abortions. If the child pops out alive (oops!) would banning the killing of the young one (baby or lump of cells as your politics dictates) be acceptable?

Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Mar 18, 2005 3:06:22 PM

Chad,
I think the post is pretty clearly declaring that MY believes that most of the people running on a anti-abortion stance are more interested in keeping abortions around as a political tool, rather than implementing policy that would reduce those abortions, thus undercutting its political saliency.
The assumption is that both sides, theoretically, want fewer abortions. There are empirical studies of policies that attempt to do that. One would think that if the political were not at odds with the theoretical, those policies that reduced abortion would be the middle ground.
Personally, I am not so sure the (R)s are as much hypocritical, as they are just wrongheaded in general in their approach to policy --> basically, principle trumps empiricism for them, where in my mind principle is more a mental short cut for thinking about emprical results.

Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 3:06:56 PM

"Every abortion kills a future serf. It's unacceptable."

A terse and beautiful condensation of the purposes of sexual mores between feudalistic aristocratic societies and capitalist democratic societies. The BOPNews people have discussed the economic rationale for the Republican social agenda.

abb1 my hero

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 18, 2005 3:07:05 PM

As Democratic as I may be, I think this certainly is not an example of "democrats offering compromise". And it is in general Republicans wanting half-measures and being unable to get them, not Democrats. Not that democrats are refusing to offer, but as long as prochoice advocates only use Roe v Wade for their legitimacy, compromise doesn't make any sense - and isn't even possible. I imagine the SCOTUS would have to strike down limitations even if they were endorsed by NARAL.

Now why do Republicans continue to push for ineffective faith based sex ed instead of actual preventitive measures, and then complain every life created and then killed is a tragedy before God? Well that's a more reasonable question.

Posted by: Tony Vila | Mar 18, 2005 3:09:40 PM

I'm pro-choice, but, in response to my's ?

If someone honestly believes that abortion is murder, then there can be no middle ground. To those who take this view, calling for compromise on abortion is similar to calling for the pre-civil rights era government to negotiate with hate groups to lower the number of lynchings rather than prosecuting the offenders.

Posted by: flip | Mar 18, 2005 3:10:50 PM

"The assumption is that both sides, theoretically, want fewer abortions."

Just why would the abortion industry want fewer abortions? Livelihoods depend on a steady flow of customers.

Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Mar 18, 2005 3:12:55 PM

"Just why would the abortion industry want fewer abortions? Livelihoods depend on a steady flow of customers."

Interesting how they are the ones with proposals that actually do reduce them.

Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 3:15:24 PM

"Interesting how they are the ones with proposals that actually do reduce them."

Talk is cheap. Proposals never reduce or increase anything.

Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Mar 18, 2005 3:22:07 PM

Re: To extend the Catholic argument I have been having in an earlier thread, the promotion of contraception is also a problem, and forbidden.

To Catholics, yes. It is not forbidden to any other major Christian church, nor to the Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Pagans, or secular people. And indeed, even a majority of Catholics seem to think the Vatican is out to lunch on this one, which (IMO) is a clear signal that there’s something wrong with the doctrine since the Faithful refuse to receive it in practice.
For sure though no church has any business trying to write its unique sectarian precepts into public law for all of us. Imagine what you would think if the Baptists tried to outlaw infant baptism, if the Jews and Muslims got together and tried to outlaw pork, or if the Mormons banned coffee?

Posted by: JonF | Mar 18, 2005 3:32:06 PM

I'm worried that in 20 years, when they are regularly genetically modifying human life in other countries, we're still going to be stuck in endless and myopic so-called right to life debate.

Talk about navel gazing before the decline!

Yes, morality has a place in public discourse, but everything in public discourse has limits. Otherwise there ceases to be discourse.

Posted by: hyh | Mar 18, 2005 3:42:25 PM

Seriously folks, this should be part of larger debate about what belongs in private life and what belongs in public life. We will destroy our society (as we know it, with respect for dissent and individual liberty) if we insist on bringing everything into public life.

Posted by: hyh | Mar 18, 2005 3:47:05 PM

What are these people bitching about anyway? The number of med schools that instruct obstetricians on how to perform abortions has shrank to a handful; while medical facilities and physicians that perform abortions have become so few and far between (partly from pressure tactics ranging from incessant petty harrassment to outright terrorist attack) that it typically takes several hours for a woman not living in a major metropolitan area to reach them. This is complicated by inane laws such as were passed recently in Texas that mandate a 72-hour 'cooling off' period before an abortion can proceed. (Will the women who scraped up the money to travel to what may be a strange city cool their heels at the Hilton, or will it be the Crown Plaza?) Even worse, they must be given materials (probably lifted from a fundementalist tract) that present the usual gruesome photos of a third-trimester abortion and falsely told that this is what the procedure they are undergoing will be like. Along with this fakery, goes quackery about the supposed "dangers" of abortion, including the mythical link between breast cancer and abortion (Not even then-Surgeon General C. Everett Koop could find one.), grotesquely exaggerated postoperative complications (Therapeutic abortion in the United States is statistically safer than giving birth.), and false warnings that abortion can cause sterility. (Another view with about as much backing in fact as the notion of a flat Earth.) Even if Roe v. Wade is never overturned (something I doubt), it is becoming a dead letter, like a free pass to the movies for anyone bringing a great-grandparent.

My idea of a middle ground is to turn the matter back to the states. (A number of states had already liberalized their abortion laws, with more on the way, when Roe V. Wade was handed down in January 1973.) That way, if California wants abortion providers to offer 'two-fer-the-price-of-one' specials, or if Alabama insists that pregnant women bring non-viable monsters resulting from incest to term; everybody can be accomodated. But for the reasons MY states, there will probably be some foolery like the old 'Human Life Amendment' mandating that a newly fertilized zygote is an American citizen. (Considering the number of zygotes that are cast out after conception instead of becoming implanted in the uterus, God would appear to be the biggest abortionist of them all.) These people don't just want to roll back the Great Society or the New Deal; they want to roll back the Enlightenment.

Posted by: Diogenes | Mar 18, 2005 3:49:33 PM

Abdul Abulbul Amir,
That is exactly the point of this post.

Posted by: theCoach | Mar 18, 2005 3:51:02 PM

I don't know about Republicans in general, but the conservative policy groups and Religious think-tanks have three key beliefs:

(A) Non-marital sex is the worst sin one can commit.

(B) Those who sin must suffer consequences for their actions.

In their mind, STDs and pregnancy must accompany "fooling around."

They do, in fact believe that abortion is murder, but they also more or less believe it's a sin to try to get out of the consequences of another sin.

I say this as a former fundamentalist turned atheist. I was, long ago, a youth pastor. It was my job to indoctrinate as such.

Posted by: roguerunner | Mar 18, 2005 3:55:08 PM

The abortion foes *do* frequently admit a middle ground -- exceptions for rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life.

This I have always found absolutely mystifying. If abortion is murdering a human, then why is it okay to murder that human just because it was unlucky enough to e.g. be born of rape? If someone could explain this to me as other than a crassly hypocritical stance to get more Americans on board, I'd appreciate it.

This was the unique thing I liked about Ashcroft, incidentally -- he didn't want any provisions like these three. Not a stance I agree with, but one I can understand and respect.

Posted by: Allen K. | Mar 18, 2005 3:59:47 PM

Interesting: Study: Abstinence May Lead to Risky Acts

The latest study, published in the April issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health, found that teens pledging virginity until marriage are more likely to have oral and anal sex than other teens who have not had intercourse. That behavior, however, ``puts you at risk,'' said Hannah Brueckner, assistant professor of sociology at Yale and one of the study's authors.
Among virgins, boys who have pledged abstinence were four times more likely to have had anal sex, according to the study. Overall, pledgers were six times more likely to have oral sex than teens who have remained abstinent but not as part of a pledge.

The pledging group was also less likely to use condoms during their first sexual experience or get tested for STDs, the researchers found.

Posted by: abb1 | Mar 18, 2005 4:02:30 PM

flip--

I disagree. Senator Clinton's speech in New York was a clear attempt to find a middle ground. She explicitly called for an immense reduction in abortions, suggesting that the ideal number would be zero. That's a shared goal with even the most zealous opponent of abortion. For an abortion opponent to oppose it on principle to acknowledge a difference of opinion on _other issues_ -- especially regarding the method used to reduce abortions. In other words, they're not standing up for a goal (reduce abortions) but a goal married to a means (reduce abortions through legal restriction only).

Posted by: Tom Strong | Mar 18, 2005 4:08:31 PM

Outside of the link provided, my guess is some of them consider an issue of morality too important to compromise. However right or wrong they may be (I side with the Dem party platform on this one), issues of moral importance know no compromise.

(Now if we could only get them to see war, poverty, healtcare, etc. as moral issues, we'd be getting somewhere.)

Posted by: Adrock | Mar 18, 2005 4:11:39 PM

And indeed, even a majority of Catholics seem to think the Vatican is out to lunch on this one, which (IMO) is a clear signal that there’s something wrong with the doctrine since the Faithful refuse to receive it in practice.

A better sign is the fact that the doctrine, as applied to assert that contraception is an additional sin in non-marital sex, is completely inconsistent with its supposed justification that contraception separates the proper functions (unitive and procreative) of sex from each other, since non-marital sex is by definition deficient in the unitive function, and quite often (particularly in the form of "casual" sex) completely lacks that function.

It therefore is absolutely unsustainable in some classes of marital sex, and dubious in others, to maintain that contraception separates the unitive and procreative aspects of sex. Since the Church already holds that contraception is not a sin when practiced by, e.g., victims of rape, the one case where the Church has not failed to recognize and reason from the absence of the unitive function, it seems to make sense that, while the Church may condemn non-marital and particularly casual and/or adulterous sex as immoral in itself, it has no basis for objecting to measures which mitigate the material harms of such sin through education and availability of protective devices, especially where there is no evidence that such measures encourage the sin of non-marital sex, and considerable evidence that, particularly in the case of comprehensive sex education, they do more to discourage it effectively than abstinence-only programs do.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 4:12:53 PM

"It therefore is absolutely unsustainable in some classes of marital sex, [...]"

should be:
"It therefore is absolutely unsustainable in some classes of non-marital sex,[...]"

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 4:14:00 PM

my guess is some of them consider an issue of morality too important to compromise.

But they're being quite silent about that. Oh, they're "loud and proud" about how they want to stop abortion, but they never up front and say in public that they're against the use of birth control and family planning to prevent unwanted pregnancies from happening in the first place. If this is such "an issue of morality," they're pretty embarassed to talk about it publicly.

Posted by: Constantine | Mar 18, 2005 4:17:41 PM

Now if we could only get them to see war, poverty, healtcare, etc. as moral issues, we'd be getting somewhere.

Unfortunately, much of the Christian Right does see those as moral issues -- they see imperial wars, maintaining poverty by government favoring the rich by slashing programs that help the poor in order to fund tax cuts for the rich, and protecting America from the scourge of efficient public healthcare as moral duties.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 4:20:44 PM

Tom Strong, who would think they would support any measure that would bring the "shared goal," wouldn't you?

However, Hillary's position is finding middle ground from the left's position. I don't think that Hillary herself thinks that abortion is murder. Hence, what she proposes is middle ground from the left's perspective. Someone who thinks it is murder, I would think would feel obligated to stop it immediately (practicality aside.)

Posted by: Adrock | Mar 18, 2005 4:21:53 PM

A wonderful idea. Overturning Roe and getting the feds OUT of the abortion business would be great for politics in general. Let the extremists on both sides fight it out on the state level. The WORST case outcome is someone wanting an abortion will need to travel a few hours more.

Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Mar 18, 2005 4:23:59 PM

What's all this talk of "compromise"? Compromise implies that you're being asked to give something up. That's not what Matt is talking about. He's referring to proposals like providing contraception or sex education that the majority of Americans, when polled, think are perfectly non-controversial and which studies show could help reduce the number of abortions being performed.

Yet agreeing to this is somehow seen as a capitulation by pro-lifers. In fact, any proposal that doesn't make it harder to get an abortion is viewed as a sort of surrender. Clearly, this is insane.

What do you people want, anyway? I don't usually pay much attention to batshit feminist conspiracy theories about Rick Santorum wanting legislative control of American uteruses because he's got vagina envy. But it's pretty clear that you're not actually very interested in reducing the number of abortions being performed. So what is it?

Posted by: anonymous coward | Mar 18, 2005 4:25:41 PM

cmdicely, indeed. I'd recommend Jim Wallis' book for a look at how they've dropped the ball on that one.

Also, Constantine, I agree. Reactionary thinking. I haven't gotten to the chapter on Abortion yet in Wallis' book. I wonder if he will mention such things that could be construed as compromise.

Posted by: Adrock | Mar 18, 2005 4:26:13 PM

cmdicely:

A better sign is the fact that the doctrine, as applied to assert that contraception is an additional sin in non-marital sex, is completely inconsistent with its supposed justification that contraception separates the proper functions (unitive and procreative) of sex from each other, since non-marital sex is by definition deficient in the unitive function, and quite often (particularly in the form of "casual" sex) completely lacks that function.

But your church, the Catholic Church, ignores that supposed justification in the case of "Natural Family Planning" anyway. Its teachings on sex and reproduction are just a hopelessly contradictory mess.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 4:29:19 PM

Keep in mind that, to one who believes a fetus is a human being with a full right to life, abortion in American society seems roughly on par with chattel slavery as a great & horrific moral wrong. Looking back on the movement for abolition of slavery, it would be hard to criticize someone who took a hard line -- no slavery anytime, anywhere -- instead of trying to find "compromises" wherein you could, maybe, reduce the number of slaves imported into America by five or ten percent.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 18, 2005 4:36:10 PM

Abdul Amir:

No, it's a bad idea. Abortion is a constitutional right. Constitutional rights should not be turned over to state legislatures simply because it may be politically expedient to do so.

buffpilot:

I am mystified by the claim that "returning abortion to the states" would "lower the noise level on the subject." Why would you expect the noise level to be lowered if abortion law in each of the 50 states were subject to constant and dramatic changes through the actions of their legislatures?

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 4:40:07 PM

Don P,

But your church, the Catholic Church, ignores that supposed justification in the case of "Natural Family Planning" anyway.

Given your past admission over on WM of lack of interest in meaningful in your religious-oriented posts, and that your purpose in them was merely to ridicule religion, as much as you -- as your first posts on a topic often do -- make something of a reasonable point here (and one you've made many times before in our discussions at WM since I raised the point that the position of NFP had superficially apparent inconsistency with the justification of the prohibition on contraception -- that could be fruitful for productive discussion, I'm somewhat resistant to get into this kind of thing with you, especially given the kind of nightmare the threads on WM turn into.

But its simply not the case that the Church ignores those principles with regards to NFP. Now, it does apply it in a way many people disagree with (and even more people just fail to understand). And certainly reasonable people can question how the principle is applied there, whether it is appropriate, etc. But it is simply false to say that it is ignored.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 4:44:51 PM

Adrock --

Tom Strong, who would think they would support any measure that would bring the "shared goal," wouldn't you?

I wouldn't expect anti-abortion activists to, no -- because most anti-abortion activists are united not by a desire to end abortion, but a desire to make abortion illegal again. The true goal of their moral outrage is to convince everyone else that abortion is evil, and the best way to accomplish that is to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

But activists remain a small portion of the electorate, albeit one with an outsize influence in the Republican Party. Most people don't think abortion is evil -- but they are uncomfortable with it and want it to be less of an issue. You're right that Hillary's position is a "compromise" from the perspective of the left, but it also happens to capture the center. It speaks to the desires of a majority of voters. You don't have to look any further than the most recent NYT-CBS poll to see evidence for this.

While I find the right's resistance to compromise annoying, I think that this is potentially a big win for the Democrats. In the past few days they've made the Republicans look completely owned by a small number of right-wing activists.

Posted by: Tom Strong | Mar 18, 2005 5:04:07 PM

Abortion is a constitutional right. Constitutional rights should not be turned over to state legislatures simply because it may be politically expedient to do so.

With all due respect, is a court ruling a constitutional rights? A quick google search reveals this:

1972 - Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438.

a. The decision extended the "right of privacy" established in Griswold to all individuals, regardless of marital status. It granted individuals the right "to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." Id. at 451.

I'm no expert on constutional law, so this is why I'm asking.

Posted by: Adrock | Mar 18, 2005 5:08:19 PM

Tom, add the SS fight to that as well. We've come out swinging after this election to rebuke their hubris! We've got them on their heels now baby!

Posted by: Adrock | Mar 18, 2005 5:11:03 PM

cmdicely:

Given your past admission over on WM of lack of interest in meaningful in your religious-oriented posts, and that your purpose in them was merely to ridicule religion,

I assume you meant to say "debate" or "discussion" or somesuch after "meaningful." I have made no such "admission."

as much as you -- as your first posts on a topic often do -- make something of a reasonable point here (and one you've made many times before in our discussions at WM since I raised the point that the position of NFP had superficially apparent inconsistency with the justification of the prohibition on contraception

There's nothing "superficial" about the inconsistency. It's a clear contradiction. You have--apparently unknowingly--stated the contradiction yourself.

But its simply not the case that the Church ignores those principles with regards to NFP.

Yes it is. NFP is an attempt to "separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex" just like using a condom is. In fact, Catholics sometimes even brag about the alleged greater contraceptive effectiveness of "Natural Family Planning" as compared to "artificial" methods such as condoms and the pill.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 5:24:56 PM

Adrock:

With all due respect, is a court ruling a constitutional rights?

Court rulings announce constitutional rights. The Roe v. Wade ruling announced the constitutional right to abortion.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 5:28:04 PM

NFP is an attempt to "separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex" just like using a condom is.

This is entirely untrue as the doctrine defines those aspects of the sex act; particularly in how it defines the latter as a negative obligation.

In fact, Catholics sometimes even brag about the alleged greater contraceptive effectiveness of "Natural Family Planning" as compared to "artificial" methods such as condoms and the pill.

Catholics doing so are factually ill-informed as well as being theologically unsophisticated, since NFP, while in some studies showing roughly similar effectiveness in preventing pregnancy to those when used to that end, does not, in fact, have greater effectiveness.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 5:43:38 PM

NFP is an attempt to "separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex" just like using a condom is.

This is entirely untrue as the doctrine defines those aspects of the sex act; particularly in how it defines the latter as a negative obligation.

In fact, Catholics sometimes even brag about the alleged greater contraceptive effectiveness of "Natural Family Planning" as compared to "artificial" methods such as condoms and the pill.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 5:43:38 PM

Huh?

Birth control is a middle ground relative to the abortion debate ONLY if you believe the primary motivation of abortion's opponents is not a belief that abortion is murder but a desire to suppress women's sexuality and or reproductive or career freedom. From the comments above, it's clear that a lot of people on this discussion believe that to be the case. I'm not sure I do. Yes, a significant share of the anti-abortion crowd thinks premarital sex is wrong. That may cause them to take certain positions on birth control or to lack sympathy for women seeking abortion, but it's a leap of poor logic to assume that's why they feel so strongly about abortion. There is a non-negligible population in this country that believes abortion is equivalent to murder and that essentially a government-sanctioned holocaust is going on every day it remains legal.

Now, I don't hold to this position, I'm pro choice, but i do think liberals would be in a much better position to have a more productive discussion with people who oppose abortion about issues where we may have common goals--for example child welfare, adoption, and birth control--if we would brecognize that they really believe abortion is murder rather than assuming that their opposition realy stems from a hatred of women.

Posted by: flip | Mar 18, 2005 6:05:50 PM

cmdicely:

This is entirely untrue as the doctrine defines those aspects of the sex act;

No, it is entirely true. NFP is an attempt to allow a couple to have sex without procreating, just as using a condom is an attempt to allow a couple to have sex without procreating. The difference is the method, not the purpose. Even the claimed "natural" vs. "artificial" distinction is essentially meaningless, since NFP typically involves the use of an accurate thermometer, a piece of technology that wasn't even invented until a hundred years ago or so. And the NFP teaching is also entirely inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception prior to its approval, which was that the sin lay in the contraceptive intent, not in the method. It's no wonder virtually no Catholics in the developed world take the teaching seriously any more. Even by the lunatic standards of Catholic "reason," it's just utterly nonsensical, not to mention profoundly inhumane.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 6:07:55 PM

There is a non-negligible population in this country that believes abortion is equivalent to murder and that essentially a government-sanctioned holocaust is going on every day it remains legal.

No there isn't. There is a non-negligible population in this country that claims, on occasion, to believe that abortion is murder, but there are virtually no people who actually behave in a way that is consistent with that claimed belief.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 6:14:28 PM

Balkinization

Jack Balkin, lawyer, discusses how today's Terry Schiavo shenanigans demonstrate that "returning abortion to the states" is disgenuous bullshit.

Roe gets overturned, I guarantee a bill pops up in the US House the next day.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Mar 18, 2005 6:16:11 PM

flip --

Maybe we're disagreeing about what "middle ground" means then, because that seems exactly wrong to me. If you believe that people oppose abortion because they want to suppress women's rights, then offering birth control as a compromise would not work. If, however, they want to prevent abortions from happening in the first place, then increasing access to and knowledge of birth control (possibly including abstinence!) is a valid compromise.

I think that most of the people who are uncomfortable with abortion fall into the latter camp; hence, the Dem's offering is a middle ground. However, the most dedicated activists do not, because they really do want to reintroduce an era of harsh sexual morality. And as Matt suggests, the Republicans like keeping the issue alive because, just like tax cuts, it keeps the money and support rolling in.

Posted by: Tom Strong | Mar 18, 2005 6:33:33 PM

If Roe v Wade were turned over to the states (how about marijuana, right to die, etc, too?) there would be carnage for Republicans all over the country. Who thinks that Ohio and Florida would remain red states if the next issue on the agenda were the banning of abortion? The Republicans don't push the issue.

The only significant matter regarding abortion to be addressed by Bush (partial birth abortion bill was a sideshow, and failed to achieve its purpose: the courts blocked it) was the fetal stem cell research decision. Bush decided to ALLOW federal funding for stem cell research. Just as Reagan signed abortion into law in California BEFORE Roe v Wade. Leaving aside whether 8/01 could have been better spent going after al Qaeda as his security chief suggested, Bush let the camel's nose under the tent. Does anyone think any future president will stop federal funding for fetal stem cell research? Hypocrite.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 6:40:00 PM

Don P. --

How is one bound to act if one believes that abortion is murder?

Posted by: Chris | Mar 18, 2005 6:40:56 PM

NFP is an attempt to allow a couple to have sex without procreating, just as using a condom is an attempt to allow a couple to have sex without procreating.

The Catholic Church does not hold that it is improper to have sex without procreating, or to have sex at a time or place or with a partner where procreation is particularly unlikely (provided, of course, that the time, place, or partner are not morally illicit for sex for some other reason, such as, in the last case, the partner not being a spouse).

It is not illicit to choose to have sex in such conditions, nor is it generally a positive obligation to have sex in other conditions.

The difference is the method, not the purpose. Even the claimed "natural" vs. "artificial" distinction is essentially meaningless, since NFP typically involves the use of an accurate thermometer, a piece of technology that wasn't even invented until a hundred years ago or so.

"Natural" vs. "Artificial" -- inasmuch as that is the meaningful distinction -- does not refer to the paraphernalia associated with it, but to the distinction between modification of the act (artificial) and the circumstances in which the act occurs (natural).

Further, IIRC, the Billing Ovulation Method -- which is also included within the broad rubric "NFP" along with the more recent (and effective) Sympto-Thermal Method -- does not, in fact, require a thermometer.

And the NFP teaching is also entirely inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church on contraception prior to its approval, which was that the sin lay in the contraceptive intent, not in the method.

This is inaccurate. Even before NFP was developed, periodic or total abstinence within marriage to constrain procreation for a certain set of proportionate reasons -- the same that are the only reasons acceptable for practicing NFP, which is also periodic abstinence -- was accepted as legitimate.

Even by the lunatic standards of Catholic "reason," [...]

Ah, right. I think this exchanged has reached the end of any utility it may have had.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 6:50:34 PM

How is one bound to act if one believes that abortion is murder?

If anti-abortionists believed that abortion is murder--not just pretended to believe it, but really believed it in their hearts--and therefore believed that American women are systematically murdering over a million people a year, and that America has committed the equivalent of the Nazi Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide many times over during the past 30 years alone--it is inconceivable that they would not be doing more to try and stop it. Instead, the extent of their efforts to stop this "Holocaust" consists at most of contributing money or votes to anti-abortion candidates, and--more rarely--occasional participation in a peaceful demonstration against abortion. And a bit of yelling and screaming, although even most of that is polite and restrained. The few who do behave more as one would expect them to if they really did believe that America is committing the moral equivalent of herding a million Jews a year into gas chambers to be exterminated are invariably roundly condemned by their peers.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 7:01:34 PM

If anti-abortionists believed that abortion is murder--not just pretended to believe it, but really believed it in their hearts--and therefore believed that American women are systematically murdering over a million people a year, and that America has committed the equivalent of the Nazi Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide many times over during the past 30 years alone--it is inconceivable that they would not be doing more to try and stop it.

It is not inconceivable, especially considering how much they did to stop the Rwandan genocide when it was happening. In fact, doing absolutely nothing about it but occasionally exploiting it as a partisan political issue would be about the same as those Americans, generally -- and most others that are politically active -- have done in every case of genocide that has occurred in the past, and therefore is perfectly, if shamefully, consistent.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 7:12:08 PM

cmdicely:

The Catholic Church does not hold that it is improper to have sex without procreating, or to have sex at a time or place or with a partner where procreation is particularly unlikely

I didn't say it did, so this observation is utterly irrelevant. What I said is that using NFP is an attempt to allow a couple to have sex without procreating, just as using a condom is an attempt to allow a couple to have sex without procreating. So why are condoms forbidden but not NFP?

Natural" vs. "Artificial" -- inasmuch as that is the meaningful distinction -- does not refer to the paraphernalia associated with it, but to the distinction between modification of the act (artificial) and the circumstances in which the act occurs (natural).

But determining the "circumstances" in the latter case involves the use of means just as "artificial" as the "modification" in the former case. So if the objection is to "artificiality" why doesn't it apply to NFP as well as condoms? NFP is also artificial, it's just artificial in a different way than condoms are artificial. Why is that difference morally relevant? And why is "artificiality" immoral at all?

This is inaccurate.

No, it's accurate.

Even before NFP was developed, periodic or total abstinence within marriage to constrain procreation for a certain set of proportionate reasons -- the same that are the only reasons acceptable for practicing NFP, which is also periodic abstinence -- was accepted as legitimate.

But having sex with the intent not to produce children was not. Having sex using NFP is having sex with the intent not to produce children. So how is it consistent with the teaching that having sex with that intent is a sin?

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 7:16:24 PM

Don P --

First, it's true that lots of people just don't have well-formed views on the subject at all. But that's true on both sides. Plenty of people are pro-choice without having sat down and thought about the relevant moral questions: is a fetus a moral person? does the mother's right to bodily integrity outweigh whatever right to life the fetus does or does not have? etc.

But as for the people who actually have thought about it and are convinced that abortion is morally equivalent to killing a post-natal adult human being -- nothing prevents them from remaining committed to the notion of a civil society in which one doesn't go around killing people, trying to start revolutions, etc.

Posted by: Chris | Mar 18, 2005 7:30:30 PM

The whole abortion fight is going to eventually be one of the issues that ignites a civil war in this country some day. When the right finally reverses Griswold in a few yrs. and Contraception and Abortion become state issues again and the south and parts of the mid-west ban both then the slide towards civil war will begin. If were not all free then none of us are free it was once said. If we say women have no right to their own bodies then men don't either. In any case the right will be more then willing to KILL anyone that tries to change this in those states. If we don't fight to stop this the Constitution will be a worthless piece of paper by the time these fascist are finished with.

Posted by: glennk | Mar 18, 2005 7:37:55 PM

cmdicely:

It is not inconceivable, especially considering how much they did to stop the Rwandan genocide when it was happening. In fact, doing absolutely nothing about it but occasionally exploiting it as a partisan political issue would be about the same as those Americans, generally -- and most others that are politically active -- have done in every case of genocide that has occurred in the past, and therefore is perfectly, if shamefully, consistent.

So if the tepid efforts by anti-abortionists to stop abortion are "shameful," what do you think they should be doing? You're one of them, right? You claim to assent to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is a form of murder, right? So why aren't you doing more to stop it? If you really believe that abortion in America is morally equivalent to shooting a million children in the back of the head every year (and countless millions more in other countries), why isn't doing what you can to stop it your absolute number one priority? I have yet to see you denounce women who have abortions in even the mildest terms, let alone as the equivalent of Nazi or Rwandan murderers.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 7:43:07 PM

I have to say that as long as there are people who sincerely believe that there's any chance whatsoever of Griswold ever getting reversed in a million years; it's absolutely rich to accuse the right of having a persecution complex...

Posted by: Jeff R. | Mar 18, 2005 7:43:10 PM

Abdul Abdulbul Amir:

If a woman with MS, who may die if she carries a pregnancy to term, is raped and the fetus (pre-born, and pre-dead of course, as we all seem to be) is tested positive for Tay Sachs ensuring a short painful existence, should the woman be forced to carry the pregnancy, die, and have the baby die shortly thereafter? Or is abortion moral here?

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 7:44:44 PM

Abdul Abdulbul Amir:

Talk is cheap. Proposals never reduce or increase anything.

But birth control and sex education does achieve a decrease in abortion. But you support those who oppose this. Why?

I wonder why the anti-abortion industry (US chapter=Republican party) oppose measures to mitigate this problem?

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 7:48:24 PM

chris:

I don't agree. I think the vast majority of pro-choice people have considered the relevant moral questions. I think the typical pro-choice position--that abortion should be legal but is morally complex and ambiguous--reflects a serious reflection on the moral issues. I see virtually no such moral seriousness from the anti-abortion movement, just endless disingenuous bullshit, to borrow Bob McManus' phrase.

Huh? They claim it's the equivalent of the Nazi Holocaust every five years or so. And it's happening right on their doorsteps, right in their own communities. That's a far greater injustice even than slavery, and the country went to war over that. And yet you're seriously suggesting that the proper response to this "holocaust" is the occasional check to a pro-life organization, the occasional vote for a pro-life politician and, if they're especially committed, occasional participation in a (peaceful, restrained) pro-life public event? Is that really all the "babies" are worth?

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 8:00:03 PM

Chris:

But as for the people who actually have thought about it and are convinced that abortion is morally equivalent to killing a post-natal adult human being -- nothing prevents them from remaining committed to the notion of a civil society in which one doesn't go around killing people, trying to start revolutions, etc.

That's disingenuous to say the least. If, as hardcore anti-abortionists claim, the US has slaughtered about 40,000,000 innocents since Roe v Wade, then the claim to a civil society has long been forfeit. You just don't have the courage of your avowed moral convictions.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 8:02:58 PM

So if the tepid efforts by anti-abortionists to stop abortion are "shameful," what do you think they should be doing?

No, I said it was shameful that it would be consistent with their past treatment of genocide if they were doing absolutely nothing about but using it as political club, and they believed that.

You're one of them, right?

Am I?

You claim to assent to the moral teaching of the Catholic Church that abortion is a form of murder, right?

If I claimed that, why are you asking?

If I didn't, why are you asking in that way?

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 8:10:18 PM

cmdicely:

No, I said it was shameful that it would be consistent with their past treatment of genocide if they were doing absolutely nothing about but using it as political club, and they believed that.

If they really believe that abortion in America is the moral equivalent of a Rwandan genocide every year or so, right in their own country, their own communities, why isn't it shameful that they are not doing more to stop it?

Am I?

I just asked you. Do you assent to your church's teaching on the moral nature of abortion, or don't you?

If I claimed that, why are you asking?

For clarity. You have admitted elsewhere that you dissent from your Church's teaching about the legality of abortion--which, of course, places you outside the ranks of faithful members of the Church on a matter to which the Church itself attaches enormous importance--but implied that you still assent to the Church's moral teaching that abortion is morally equivalent to murdering an infant. Leaving aside for now the question of whether this "It's murder, but it should be legal" position is coherent at all, is that in fact what you believe? If not, what exactly is it that you do believe about the morality of abortion?

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 8:32:06 PM

Yes it is. NFP is an attempt to "separate the unitive and procreative aspects of sex" just like using a condom is.

Don P: You're misrepresenting the RC Church's position here. By your reasoning, the Church ought to tell its adherents they must use biological knowledge in order to insure that they're engaging in sexual activity only when fertilization is certain. That, of course, is impossible, and would be against God's natural order. The sexual desire a husband and wife feel for each other is a natural aspect of Creation, and, as such, the joy and pleasure derived thereof is a divine good, or gift.

Of course, the Church doesn't employ your reasoning, and Catholic couples may, without commiting any sin, have sex whether or not conception is certain, or even likely, as long as they're open to cooperating with God in creating human life.

Thus a couple that uses natural family planning in an overly scrupulous manner -- in such a way as to permanently preclude the possibility of conception -- would indeed be sinning in the eyes of the Church just as if they were using contraception.

NFP, when used according to accepted Catholic practice, is about spacing the births of children. Couples who use NFP are practicing self-denial, and sexual continence. They are not, in other words, accepting a gift from God (the joy and pleasure of the marital act) while defying the divine purpose for this gift. Therein lies the sinful nature of using artificial conception.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Mar 18, 2005 8:34:50 PM

PB Almeida:

A post-menopausal woman is clearly not open to having children. Is sex after menopause a sin according to your understanding of Catholic teaching?

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 8:56:59 PM

If they really believe that abortion in America is the moral equivalent of a Rwandan genocide every year or so, right in their own country, their own communities, why isn't it shameful that they are not doing more to stop it?

Why are you asking me to justify a position I've never taken?

Do you assent to your church's teaching on the moral nature of abortion, or don't you?

When I feel that my position on abortion has something to add to a discussion, I will present it as is appropriate to the conversation. I'm not interested in playing another one of your little games where you ask if I assent to a teaching and then grossly misrepresent it to make a ridiculous argument. I'm kind of tired of that, thanks.

You have admitted elsewhere that you dissent from your Church's teaching about the legality of abortion

This is not, in fact, true. The Church's teaching on the legality of abortion is that the civil law must treat it as homicide, and not distinguish between homicide committed against fetus and those against the born, but treat them the same inasmuch as they acts are otherwise similar. I have never claimed to dissent from this teaching, though I personally believe that it is practically null in effect because even granting that abortion is homicide it can have no effect since there are substantial differences with moral effect between almost all abortions in practice and almost all other homicides that render that maxim useless.

I disagree, clearly, with those, including much of the heirarchy, who argue that, based on that maxim, abortion must be criminalized, which seems to be based on a profound ignorance in fact of the civil law.

but implied that you still assent to the Church's moral teaching that abortion is morally equivalent to murdering an infant.

Not only did I not imply that, I don't agree that that is an accurate presentation of any moral teaching of the Church that I could assent to or dissent from.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 9:05:30 PM

A post-menopausal woman is clearly not open to having children.

"Open to having children" is a mental state. "Post-menopausal" is a physical state. I don't see where you are reasoning from the one to the other. You can be physically incapable of having children and still be "open to" having children.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 9:07:36 PM

cmdicely:

What an evasion. So two gay men engaging in anal sex could qualify as being open to having children?

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 9:14:51 PM

So two gay men engaging in anal sex could qualify as being open to having children?

Arguably not, because they are engaging in a different act than the productive kind of sexual act (i.e., vaginal intercourse), though usually the argument against gay sex isn't framed in contraceptive terms, anyhow.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 9:22:26 PM

Re: When the right finally reverses Griswold in a few yrs. and Contraception and Abortion become state issues again and the south and parts of the mid-west ban both then the slide towards civil war will begin.

I cannot imagine any place that would ban birth control. Only the Catholic church (of major churches) has any issues with it, and even most Catholics do not go along with that. I've never heard so much as a peep of protest from the Protestant Religious Right about birth control, probably because most of them rely on it too.

Posted by: JonF | Mar 18, 2005 9:23:16 PM

There is no middle ground on murder...Abortion is the children's holocaust.

Posted by: peter wilson | Mar 18, 2005 9:25:19 PM

Re: "Open to having children" is a mental state. "Post-menopausal" is a physical state.

The effect of contraception is a physical state too. A couple can be open to having children, but later on down the road so they use contraception to delay that event (which in procatical resultswoudl be different at all from ifthey avoided having sex altogether).

Posted by: JonF | Mar 18, 2005 9:29:07 PM

peter wilson:

So you believe that the United States, with its 40 million murdered unborn since Roe v Wade, is at least as horrbile as Nazi Germany?

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 9:30:01 PM

JonF:

And Catholics rely on abortion; at least as much as Protestants do.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 9:31:39 PM

The effect of contraception is a physical state too.

The decision to use contraception voluntarily stems from a mental state. Unless menopause is an active voluntary choice, the two are not similar.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 9:34:43 PM

cmdicely:

Vaginal intercourse after menopause is not, and is known to be not, a method of conceiving children. You are being evasive. Post menopausal sex is for fun, not procreation. Try having the courage to confront the consequences of your convictions. Or rethink them.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 9:35:55 PM

A post-menopausal woman is clearly not open to having children. Is sex after menopause a sin according to your understanding of Catholic teaching?

IIRC, Sarah was ninety when she gave birth to Isaac. With God, all things are possible. So, no, post-menopausal sex is not sinful according to Catholic teaching.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Mar 18, 2005 9:36:36 PM

cmdicely:

The moral choice we are talking about is sex. The decision to have sex after menopause when no chance of conception is possible: moral or not?

This argument stems from the uses of sex. Is it for (at least possibly) procreation? Or is can we do it just for fun? The Catholic church apparently thinks the latter idea is immoral. I don't. How about you?

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 9:38:30 PM

P.B.Almeida:

My "reasoning" does not require that at all.

Of course, the Church doesn't employ your reasoning, and Catholic couples may, without commiting any sin, have sex whether or not conception is certain, ...

I have no idea why you think my "reasoning" requires the Church to teach that sex is licit only when conception is certain. Since you don't explain why you think that, it's hard to respond to the claim. The issue is why NFP is morally permissible but not "artificial" contraception.

... or even likely, as long as they're open to cooperating with God in creating human life.

How is the use of NFP "open to cooperating with God in creating human life," but the use of a condom not open to it?

NFP, when used according to accepted Catholic practice, is about spacing the births of children.

Both NFP and "artificial" contraception may be used to space pregnancies as well as to reduce the total number of pregnancies.

Couples who use NFP are practicing self-denial, and sexual continence. They are not, in other words, accepting a gift from God (the joy and pleasure of the marital act) while defying the divine purpose for this gift. Therein lies the sinful nature of using artificial conception.

It's hard to know what this is supposed to mean. If "defying the divine purpose for this gift" is supposed to mean "trying to prevent pregnancy" then a couple who uses NFP to try and prevent pregnancy is obviously "defying the divine purpose" just as a couple who uses a condom is. So, again, why is one allowed but not the other?

Perhaps what you meant to say is that NFP may require a couple to be abstinent at a time when they would rather have sex (during the woman's fertile period), and may thus require a sacrifice that couples who use "artificial" contraception are not required to make. But the condom-using couple could also abstain, or make a sacrifice in some other way, so this "principle" wouldn't justify the ban on artificial contraception either. And why is such a sacrifice necessary for sex to be morally licit anyway?

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 9:39:53 PM

PB Almeida:

Funny. Indeed, with god all things are possible. It is possible that killing your son, as Abraham was willing to do, is also moral, if god says so. What say you?

And if post menopausal sex may result in pregnancy if god will it, then so might gay anal sex. So that COULD be procreative. We really don't know do we?

With god all is possible. So gay sex might be good, and so might killing your innocent son.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 9:41:58 PM

Vaginal intercourse after menopause is not, and is known to be not, a method of conceiving children.

Vaginal sex is the method; post-menopausal is circumstance.

You are being evasive.

No, I'm not. I am accurately describing the teaching at issue.

Post menopausal sex is for fun, not procreation.

Sex for fun, not procreation, between married partners is not prohibited by Catholic teaching.

Taking active measures to inhibit procreation other than abstaining from sex is.

Try having the courage to confront the consequences of your convictions.

When did we start discussing my convictions? I've been discussing the formal teachings of the Church. At any rate, neither match your apparent fantasies of them.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 9:43:23 PM

For the first eighteen centuries of the Catholic Church they allowed early term abortions, and even though at times throughout Church history abortion was considered a sin it was usually considered less of an offense than adultery (I can provide a link to the evidence when I return to my home computer).

It's easy to aruge that "they just didn't know what we know now with our advanced medical science" but that's a red herring. The argument from Catholic thought today is that "life begins at conception." That argument can be made independent of medical science -- and never was. Hominization or "quickening" was considered the vital moment when life began.

That begs the questions; were Catholics just a bunch of nazi liberals? Did they "hate life"? Have a pagan agenda?

It seems that the all or nothing life-at-conception argument is just a convenient way to argue what is a difficult issue. For those who try and equate abortion to murder, they are essentially accusing the Church of countenancing murder for eighteen of twenty centuries. Of course, they did countenance it through various forms of indefensible religious violence, but that's another issue.

Equating a zygote to a soul is truly a reductio ad absurdam. One may as well back it up one more and say that a soul is equal to a gleam in the eye of someone who is horny.

Posted by: glitter | Mar 18, 2005 9:48:38 PM

The moral choice we are talking about is sex. The decision to have sex after menopause when no chance of conception is possible: moral or not?

As stated, the question is unanswerable. The details necessary to decide the morality (whether under my own belief or Catholic teaching) are not present.

This argument stems from the uses of sex.

What argument? Are you making an argument? What is your thesis?

Is it for (at least possibly) procreation?

It is, at least possibly, for procreation.

Or is can we do it just for fun?

It is clear that we can do it just for fun.

The Catholic church apparently thinks the latter idea is immoral.

The Catholic Church does not hold that it is immoral to have sex when only the unitive purpose in marriage is served (which involves, but is not identical to, "having fun"), even where it is impossible because of circumstance to serve the procreative purpose. So you appear to be mistaken on the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 9:48:53 PM

JonF:

I'm too lazy to google for it, but having been brought up in a household that initially supported Operation Rescue's efforts, I recall Randall Terry's denunciations of non-procreative sex. And if the Protestant Religious Right hasn't made a peep of protest, why is "abstinence-only" sex ed being pushed so vigorously? Note that it's not abstinence plus: people aren't supposed to learn about contraception at all. This ignorance won't miraculously disappear after marraige. The hard core of the Religious Right is largely Protestant, and they're the ones holding politicians' feet to the fire on this.

Posted by: mds | Mar 18, 2005 9:49:37 PM

For the first eighteen centuries of the Catholic Church they allowed early term abortions

Actually, no. For the first 18 centuries of the Church, abortion at early stages (the exact opinion of where the line was drawn varied) was not considered homicide, but a sexual sin like (and indeed a class of) contraception. This changed largely with better understanding of medicine and science which made it harder to maintain that the fetus was inert for some time after conception,.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 9:51:40 PM

No new restricitons on abortion, and start handing out contraception.

how is that exactly a middle ground?

You can criticize the Republicans for their stance on handing out contraception, but to suggest that they are unwilling to compromise is ridiculous.

Posted by: Glaivester | Mar 18, 2005 9:51:48 PM

Funny. Indeed, with god all things are possible. It is possible that killing your son, as Abraham was willing to do, is also moral, if god says so. What say you?

What say I? I say: following a direct order of the Almighty can't be anything but moral.

And if post menopausal sex may result in pregnancy if god will it, then so might gay anal sex. So that COULD be procreative. We really don't know do we?

But we do know that vaginal sex is meant, or designed, to foster the creation of life. Likewise we know that sodomy has no relation to the creation of life whatsoever. You might just as well suggest that switching toothpaste brands might cause a pregnancy.

God want us to obey His laws -- He doesn't want us to refrain from using the reason with which we're equipped, and which is indeed the hallmark of our species.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Mar 18, 2005 9:56:44 PM

cmdicely:

Why are you asking me to justify a position I've never taken?

I'm not. What I asked was: If they really believe that abortion in America is the moral equivalent of a Rwandan genocide every year or so, right in their own country, their own communities, why isn't it shameful that they are not doing more to stop it? What's your answer?

When I feel that my position on abortion has something to add to a discussion, I will present it as is appropriate to the conversation.

More evasion. You call yourself a Catholic. Do you assent to the Catholic Church's teaching on the morality of abortion, or don't you? It's a simple question. The simple fact that you haven't attacked women who abort their fetuses in even the mildest way, let alone attacked them as murderers, and despite your clear willingness to attack others you consider guilty of serious moral wrongdoing, is rather strong evidence that you do not in fact assent to the church's moral teaching, not even a little. You just lack the honesty to admit it.

Yes you have. If abortion is to treated in law in the same way as the killing of a born person that is otherwise similar, then the vast majority of abortions must be treated as murder. But you have denied that you seek to treat abortion as murder. In fact, you don't seek to treat it as a serious crime, or any kind of crime at all, except in unusual circumstances.

... though I personally believe that it is practically null in effect because even granting that abortion is homicide it can have no effect since there are substantial differences with moral effect between almost all abortions in practice and almost all other homicides that render that maxim useless.

What differences? The Church doesn't recognize any such differences. It says that the killing of a fetus must be treated in law in the same way as it would be treated if the victim were a born person instead of a fetus. With respect to their right to life, and the morality of ending their life, the church attaches no moral or legal significance to the physical or mental differences between fetuses and born persons.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 10:02:12 PM

cmdicely:

Vaginal sex is the method; post-menopausal is circumstance.

You can't really argue with religion. All things are possible with god, so what's the use? The word circumstance can change its meaning from one moment to the next. Why bother arguing? Fall on your knees and chant.

Vaginal sex is the method; wearing a condom is a circumstance, as certainly as menopause is a circumstance. If, as the Catholic god originally allowed (it's tough to keep up with god's evolving morality--he used to be for slavery, too) a man has two wives, one fertile, and the other post-menopausal, then having sex with the post-menopausal one is a choice that avoids further children, which no amount of verbal sleight-of-hand can excuse. He chose the menopausal one to have sex with. Why? Not procreation.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 10:10:29 PM

You can criticize the Republicans for their stance on handing out contraception, but to suggest that they are unwilling to compromise is ridiculous.

If one side stakes out an absolute position, a compromise would require moving toward the other side's position. That's basically the definition of the word.

One can indeed argue that the other side isn't actually giving up anything. That's true, because the other side is already perfectly willing to reduce the number of abortions by, you know, methods that would really reduce the number of abortions. Yet come election time, the radical Right runs on a platform of how the liberals want more abortions, think abortion is the best birth control, make obscene profits off of abortions, etc, etc. So you could consider it a middle ground between the absolutist position of the radical Right and its caricature of the Left.

Posted by: mds | Mar 18, 2005 10:11:25 PM

PB Almeida:

God want us to obey His laws -- He doesn't want us to refrain from using the reason with which we're equipped, and which is indeed the hallmark of our species.

Indeed. And if the use of reason leads to the understanding that god does not exist? Or that we shouldn't keep slaves, as the Bible condones? Or that women are the moral equal of men, which the Catholic church denies?

The weak endorsement for reason in your doctrinaire regime is unconvincing. And when reason and religion collide, which should we trust?

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 10:17:11 PM

PB Almeida:

I say: following a direct order of the Almighty can't be anything but moral.

And how do you know if it is god and not the devil whispering "murder" in your ear?

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 10:19:46 PM

cmdicely:

"Open to having children" is a mental state. "Post-menopausal" is a physical state.

The state of having a condom on your penis is also a physical state rather than a mental one. Therefore, a condom user can also be "open to having children." So what is the relevance of this characteristic with respect to the teaching that NFP is permissible but not condoms?

But you just said that being "open to having children" is a mental state. You cannot infer the mental state of gay men on that matter from their choice to have sex with another man any more than you can infer it from the choice to have sex by an infertile married heterosexual couple. If an infertile woman who chooses to have sex with a man may be "open to having children" despite knowing that it is biologically impossible for her to become pregnant through that act, then so can a gay man who chooses to have sex with his male lover.

The decision to use contraception voluntarily stems from a mental state. Unless menopause is an active voluntary choice, the two are not similar.

But the decision to have sex is a choice (or, to use your characteristically long-winded verbiage "voluntarily stems from a mental state"). So since chosen sex between fertiles using contraception (NFP or artificial) involves choice, and chosen sex between infertiles also involves choice, and both choices involve sex in which the procreative aspect is either impossible or unlikely, why aren't they both morally illicit?

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 10:19:48 PM

PB Almeida:

Having sex with a post menopausal woman was not meant, in the natural order of things, to result in children, any more than gay sex does.

It's funny that you think that sex with a fertile unmarried woman should not be thought of as having anything to do with procreation, but post-menopausal sex should.

I thought god wanted you to use your reason.

Posted by: epistemology | Mar 18, 2005 10:23:42 PM

P.B.Almeida:

IIRC, Sarah was ninety when she gave birth to Isaac. With God, all things are possible.
So, no, post-menopausal sex is not sinful according to Catholic teaching.

Brilliant. If with God all things are possible, then it is possible for a lesbian to become pregnant through sex with her girlfriend. Miracles, by definition, can happen to anyone. So if the miraculous possibility of pregnancy is what makes sex between infertile straights morally licit, why does the church explicitly teach that gay sex is an "intrinsic moral evil" in part because it cannot "transmit life?" Your argument simply contradicts one of the "principles" your church uses to condemn gay sex as immoral.

I have to think that, on some level, you know it's all bullshit, but you tenaciously try to defend it anyway.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 10:28:39 PM

"Anti-abortion activists"? You've got to be kidding me. Call them "pro-criminalization activists" if anything. If they were anti-abortion, they'd protest at coathanger retailers as well as clinics. They'd be trying to make abortions unnecessary rather than impossible to get safely. If wanting to avoid bloody coathangers and firebombed clinics requires being a flaming liberal, something is wrong with the discussion. I'm with our illustrious host here.

Posted by: Jade | Mar 18, 2005 10:38:03 PM

cmdicely:

Sex for fun, not procreation, between married partners is not prohibited by Catholic teaching.

But Catholic teaching does hold that gay sex is wrong in part because it cannot "transmit life." The teaching that sex between married infertile straights, which cannot "transmit life" either, is obviously inconsistent with the gay sex teaching.

Taking active measures to inhibit procreation other than abstaining from sex is [prohibited by Catholic teaching].

Yes, we know that artificial contraception (and sterilization) is prohibited. The issue is why it is prohibited, and how that prohibition is consistent with the rest of the Church's sexual and reproductive teachings.

When did we start discussing my convictions?

As soon as you started talking about what you believe, including your belief that you are a Catholic.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 10:43:02 PM

How is the use of NFP "open to cooperating with God in creating human life," but the use of a condom not open to it?

Don P: Natural family planning (AKA abstinence) could constitute (as I believe I implied previously) an illicit barrier to life were it practiced in an overly strict manner. Catholic couples indeed possess the moral duty to try and have children. It's just that they're not required (stereotype to the contrary) to produce a dozen of them.

The use of a condom is an affront to God because it distorts and corrupts an act that is central to what the Church teaches is a sacrament, by rendering said act hostile to the possibility of life. In the same way, an overly strict or scrupulous adeherence to natural family planning might well, too, have the same effect. Absistence, though -- even informed by our modern understanding of human biology -- isn't morally illicit in the same mannner as condom use by definition. It only becomes morally illicit when abused.

One cannot separate the Church's teachings about sex from her teachings about marriage. Marriage, like baptism or holy orders, is viewed by the Church as something the Spirit uses to make us holy.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Mar 18, 2005 10:46:47 PM

P.B.Almeida:

What say I? I say: following a direct order of the Almighty can't be anything but moral.

So, in your theology, morality is a matter of God's whims.

But we do know that vaginal sex is meant, or designed, to foster the creation of life. Likewise we know that sodomy has no relation to the creation of life whatsoever.

So what? Vaginal sex by an infertile woman has no relation to the creation of life. Oral sex between even a fertile, married couple has no relation to the creation of life. Yet your Church doesn't forbid those sexual acts.

God want us to obey His laws -- He doesn't want us to refrain from using the reason with which we're equipped, and which is indeed the hallmark of our species.

Well then you'd better start using it, because your arguments so far are just an inconsistent mess that contradict both themselves and the teachings of your Church.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 10:54:03 PM

Brilliant. If with God all things are possible, then it is possible for a lesbian to become pregnant through sex with her girlfriend. Miracles, by definition, can happen to anyone.

Right. And maybe bowling left-handed can also result in pregnancy. Or perhaps reading the Denver Post. Or playing checkers.

Posted by: P.B. Almeida | Mar 18, 2005 10:58:12 PM

The state of having a condom on your penis is also a physical state rather than a mental one.

Yes, it is. But its a state that is chosen.

Therefore, a condom user can also be "open to having children."

Assuming, arguendo, that the presence of the condom is not a result of a conscious choice resulting from desire to avoid having children, this is a defensible position. The only possible realistic application this might have, though, is if the condom use is to prevent transmission of an STD, in which case the case is somewhat parallel to therapeutic use of drugs (including the "birth control pill") for non-contraceptive reasons, which also is not illicit, nor is it illicitto have sex while doing so. Though I'm certainly not familiar with any specific discussion relating to that kind of condom use, the fact that use of "the Pill", even when it renders sex infertile, is not illicit in the case where it is not a product of not being "open to children", I think this is an unproductive avenue in your search for contradiction.

So what is the relevance of this characteristic with respect to the teaching that NFP is permissible but not condoms?

It's not relevant to that except tangentially. Its relevant to the question of post-menstrual sex, which it was in response to.

But you just said that being "open to having children" is a mental state.

Correct.

You cannot infer the mental state of gay men on that matter from their choice to have sex with another man any more than you can infer it from the choice to have sex by an infertile married heterosexual couple.

This is not an unreasonable argument; again, the principle argument against gay sex is not contraceptive, so I find the case rather irrelevant anyway.

But the decision to have sex is a choice (or, to use your characteristically long-winded verbiage "voluntarily stems from a mental state").

Correct.

So since chosen sex between fertiles using contraception (NFP or artificial) involves choice, and chosen sex between infertiles also involves choice, and both choices involve sex in which the procreative aspect is either impossible or unlikely, why aren't they both morally illicit?

Because the thing that makes contraception illicit is not the choice to have sex under circumstances in which procreation is impossible or unlikely, nor the choice to abstain from sex under circumstances in which procreation is likely, but the choice to actively create circumstances which would not occur otherwise in which procreation is inhibited for the purpose of having sex without procreation.

You can have sex when you are naturally less fertile, or infertile, and that is not illicit.

You can refrain from sex when you are fertile, and that is not illicit.

You can have sex when you are less fertile, or infertile as a result of some voluntary act whose purpose was not infertility, and that is not illicit.

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 10:59:39 PM

How much adherence is "too strict"? Are couples required to be careless with their natural family planning? How unlikely can conception be rendered before it's a sin?

Posted by: Matt G. | Mar 18, 2005 11:09:29 PM

P.B. Almeida:

The use of a condom is an affront to God because it distorts and corrupts an act that is central to what the Church teaches is a sacrament, by rendering said act hostile to the possibility of life.

Sigh. New phrasing, same argument. NFP used to try to prevent a sex act from producing a pregnancy also "renders said act hostile to the possibility of life." In fact, since a couple using NFP may be even less likely to conceive than a couple using condoms, despite having just as much sex or even more sex, the use of NFP may be even more "hostile to the possibility of life" than the use of a condom. So if this "hostility to life" is what makes condoms illicit, why doesn't it make NFP illicit too?

In the same way, an overly strict or scrupulous adeherence to natural family planning might well, too, have the same effect.

What constitutes "an overly strict or scrupulous adeherence to natural family planning?" What conditions must be satsified for NFP to be morally licit? Why can't sex with condoms also satisfy those conditions?

Absistence, though -- even informed by our modern understanding of human biology -- isn't morally illicit in the same mannner as condom use by definition. It only becomes morally illicit when abused.

Huh? How is condom use morally illicit "by definition?" I thought the condom prohibition was supposed to result from some Catholic moral principle, rooted in the nature of men and women and sex, that is consistent with all the Church's other teachings on sex and reproduction. So what is that principle? If it exists, and you think you know what it is, then describe it.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 11:09:48 PM

But Catholic teaching does hold that gay sex is wrong in part because it cannot "transmit life."

The "in part" is important here. It is not illicit because of that alone, but that is one of the pieces of evidence cited in justifying the teaching that it is contrary to God's plan. The infertility of gay sex is not held to be, alone, a sufficient grounds for finding it illicit.

The teaching that sex between married infertile straights, which cannot "transmit life" either, is obviously inconsistent with the gay sex teaching.

This is obviously wrong, unless "in part" means "entirely".

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 11:11:54 PM

cmdicely:

Yes, it is. But its a state that is chosen.

So what? The distinction you made was physical state/mental state, not chosen state/involuntary state. You keep changing your argument.

Assuming, arguendo, that the presence of the condom is not a result of a conscious choice resulting from desire to avoid having children, this is a defensible position.

It's not merely "defensible," it follows logically from your premise that being "open to having children" is a "mental state." But if an additional requirement for this openness to be present is the absence of a "conscious choice [to use the condom] resulting from desire to avoid having children," then anyone who consciously chooses to use NFP resulting from the desire to avoid having children isn't "open to having children." And if that openness is required for the sex act to be morally licit, then NFP can never be used with the intent to avoid getting pregnant. That is not the teaching of your church. Try again.

Posted by: Don P | Mar 18, 2005 11:23:57 PM

So what?

So you are wrong.

The distinction you made was physical state/mental state, not chosen state/involuntary state.

When I made that distinction, I made it reference to questioning how epistemology claimed that that particular physical state necessarily implied that particular mental state, since it was only tht particular mental state that was relevant to the doctrine.

You keep changing your argument.

No, in fact, I don't. You and epistemology keep saying different things, which requires making different points related to the same doctrine. But it pretty much boils down to this, that I stated above:

The thing that makes contraception illicit is not the choice to have sex under circumstances in which procreation is impossible or unlikely, nor the choice to abstain from sex under circumstances in which procreation is likely, but the choice to actively create circumstances which would not occur otherwise in which procreation is inhibited for the purpose of having sex without procreation.

If you try to bring up different analogies or arguments or random questions that are tangentially related, yes, sometimes different responses or different distinctions will be relevant to those arguments. That's not changing my argument, its responding to a different point. You aren't half as stupid as you are acting, here, and if you keep acting this way, there is really no point in continuing to have a discussion with you.

It's not merely "defensible," it follows logically from your premise that being "open to having children" is a "mental state."

Yes, its also largely irrelevant to reality, because people don't just randomly wear condoms.

And if that openness is required for the sex act to be morally licit, then NFP can never be used with the intent to avoid getting pregnant.

Consensual sex acts within marriage are generally morally licit. As with crimes under US law, the sin of "illicit marital sex" has both a mental state component, and an unlawful act requirement. The mental state component is the desire to avoid procreation -- the failure of openness. The act requirement is any action taken to create circumstances which would not otherwise occur which inhibit the procreative function of the sex act.

(Well, there are other categories of illicit marital sex, that make periodic abstinence under certain circumstances also illicit, that have different mental state and act requirements.)

Posted by: cmdicely | Mar 18, 2005 11:41:31 PM

cmdicely:

It's not relevant to that except tangentially. Its relevant to the question of post-menstrual sex, which it was in response to.

Well, gee, you and P.B. Almeida need to get together and get your story straight, because he claims (albeit incoherently) that the issue of openness to producing life is central to the moral prohibition against artificial contraception.

Because the thing that makes contraception illicit is not the choice to have sex

Matthew Yglesias

Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community

The Elusive Middle

TrackBack

Comments