LifeSiteNews has announced that it is being sued for $500,000 by a Catholic priest, Father Raymond Gravel. One of the items in the suit contends that the news service has referred to the aggrieved priest as being “pro-abortion,” whereas he has affirmed, on the contrary, that he is “pro-choice.”
This is a most significant legal case, and little can be said about it at the moment. However, it does raise the question concerning the relationship between being “pro-abortion” and being “pro-choice.” Can a person be “pro-choice” without being “pro-abortion”?
First of all, it must be understood that expressions such as “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice,” as well as “pro-life,” are not exactly terms that have specific, dictionary meanings, but group identifications in shorthand form that must be understood in a broad context that embraces history, politics, philosophy, and even, as we shall see, theology.
Being “pro-abortion” surely does not mean favoring or promoting abortion in every instance. Rather, it means advocating abortion under certain conditions. These conditions may be medical, psychological or personal. Some people who identify themselves as “pro-abortion” do not approve of abortion on the basis of the sex of the unborn, for instance. Pro-abortion people are not anti-life, at least in the sense that they are not completely opposed to all live births.
Being “pro-choice” is a less conditional approval of abortion. In general, “pro-choice” advocates are willing to leave the decision to abort to the pregnant mother (usually in consultation with her doctor). However, “pro-choice” people are opposed to using coercion to obtain an abortion against the pregnant woman’s will.
Being “pro-choice” does not cover everyone’s freedom to choose, even the father of the unborn child.
The expressions “pro-abortion” and “pro-choice” do overlap, although they do not coincide. It is possible to be “pro-abortion” only where medical reasons “require” it, or “pro-choice” for a broader spectrum of reasons. But if one is “pro-choice” on abortion, one certainly favors abortion in certain instances, especially when a woman chooses abortion. Therefore, to be “pro-choice” on abortion includes, though on a limited basis, favoring some abortions.
It is disingenuous for a person to think that by declaring himself to be “pro-choice” he has taken a position of neutrality concerning abortion and is therefore indemnified against the charge of being “pro-abortion.” Such disingenuousness has moved author Frank Schaeffer to outrage. In his book A Time for Anger: The Myth of Neutrality, Schaeffer makes the following comment: “Deceit and evil always go hand in hand, and our own age finds them wedded once more. For example, think of the abuse of language today. ‘Choice’ has come to mean ‘death.’ ‘Choice’ may seem to be a position of neutrality, but its application to abortion can be lethal.”
The term “pro-life” must also be understood in context. It does not mean favoring life by any means, including in vitro fertilization, cloning or any other technological form of reproduction.
Ultimately, being “pro-life” carries a rich theological implication. The Book of Deuteronomy is helpful here: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life” (Deuteronomy 30:15, 19). In a 2003 essay published in his book On the Way to Jesus Christ, Pope Benedict XVI maintains that “‘Choose life’ means ‘choose God.’ For he is life.” In choosing God, then, life is protected and tempered by love and acceptance. Being “pro-life” in this sense is not to take a mere political position or to assume a reckless regard for as much life as possible. It is understood in a specific context in which all life is properly respected and appropriately cared for.
“Pro-life” advocates rightly oppose being referred to as merely being against abortion. Hence, they reject being labeled “anti-abortion.” Nor do they accept being identified as “anti-choice,” since they urge people to choose life. The “pro-life” position is essentially positive inasmuch as it recognizes both the value of life and the need to provide it with continuing care.
It should not be offensive to a “pro-choice” person to indicate that his position subsumes the acceptance of some abortions. However, it is offensive to caricature the “pro-life” position, as is commonly done, in a negative and reductive form as being “anti-choice.”
Donald DeMarco, Ph.D., is professor emeritus at St. Jerome’s University and adjunct professor of philosophy at Holy Apostles College & Seminary in Cromwell, Connecticut.
Subscribe to the National Catholic Register! Click here to begin a trial subscription to the print edition, and receive 3 free issues with no risk and no obligation.
Comments
Post a Comment
All true Catholics are pro-choice. The so-called planned parenthood is even getting wary of using naral’s poor choice of these words. As you said, we are to choose good, not evil, and we will live. May God have mercy on us. JMJ
Clever distinctions which obscure rather than illuminate. Dr DeMarco contributes to linguistic dissembling by giving “Pro choice” a dignity which it does not deserve. Even more problematic is the defense of “pro life” and criticism of “anti-abortion”. The anti-slavery movement did not self-identify as the “pro freedom movement” , the anti-smoking lobby was not “pro respiratory health”. We should embrace move beyond “pro life” and embrace “anti-abortion” because we should use the word abortion as often as possible. Further, we should be unflinching in labelling ourselves anti-abortion because if we lack the courage to even name the evil we can’t possibly earn the victory.
The main issue is that a Catholic priest should never be “Pro-Choice” or “Pro-Abortion” since they mean the same thing. Furthermore, that a Catholic priest is still getting paid by the diocese while openly declaring his opposition to the Magisterium is something that should be rectified immediately.
Let’s not get too hung up on PR slogans. It’s sad that we let them walk away with the “Choice” slogan without a fight. The girls walking into Planned Parenthood have no idea they have a choice, and when they leave they are scheduled for an abortion - again, they have no idea they have other options. In Prescott we offer Life Connections (set up shop next door) and we offer them lots of choices. Abortion is a sign of desperation. We are praying outside Planned Parenthood locations all over the world throughout lent. Visit 40daysforlife.com
A more worthy topic for discussion is whether contraception inevitably leads to abortion.
An interesting column. I generally describe myself as both pro-choice and pro-life. I do not favor abortion, but I understand that it may sometimes be necessary to save the life of the mother. I do not support sacrificing the life of the mother to save the child, unless that is her choice. I am pro-life because I hope that women and mothers will CHOOSE to carry their children to term but I do not feel that it is the government’s place to force them to do so. I believe in the sacredness of all life as well as the right of the mother to choose whether she will 1) get pregnant and 2) whether she will maintain the pregnancy before viability of the child.
I used to appreciate the public service messages that came on tv with the message, “Life: what a beautiful choice.” That is my position. Let us choose to create life.
When someone tells me that they are “pro-choice”, I ask them-“pro-choice of what? Naral’s use of this term was to create confusion with the press; which was very successful, but, as we know, it is really anti-choice that they are talking about. So, when someone says pro-choice, make them proof it by showing them the absurd lie that they are saying. All of us should loudly say that we are PRO-CHOICE, not them, as we know that all life is sacred and to let God decide when we are to be called back to Him. As the late Dr. Nathenson said, there is never a need for abortion to save the live of the mother and more important, Holy Scripture tells us (1 Cor 3-16) that we are the temple of God and if anyone destroys God’s temple, He will that person. Yes, even the unborn baby is a temple of God and if this doesn’t change our minds about abortion, then I don’t know what will. May God have mercy on us all. JMJ
TL;DR
If a medical procedure needed to save the life of a pregnant mother entails the undesired but unavoidable side effect of ending her unborn child’s life, it’s really not properly called an abortion, since killing the baby or even ending the pregnancy is not the objective.
As for the pro-choice moniker, I suggest that the only people who can really claim it are those who have never had to deal with the reality of what abortion is. Once they are forced to defend their position, inevitably they either become pro-life, or they accept or disseminate what they know to be a lie about abortion, in which case they become pro-abortion.
There never has been a need to “save” the life of a pregnant mother; in fact; “planned parenthood” tells the victims that it is a glob of cells, which means that they are not in fact, mothers; which also would mean that there is not a need for the abortion. Kevin, you may make all the suggestions that you want, but you are dealing cards in the wrong game. The point is to take back our words that the evil ones are misusing and use them the way that they should be used. When a pro-lifer says that they are Pro-choice, they show the anti-life people just what a farce they are living. ALL abortion (and birth control) is wrong and horrible and we have to do our very best to stop it and to wake everybody up to the physical, moral and spiritual dangers that they are promoting. Of course, if you can’t tell people why you are pro-choice, then of course, you can stay on the “safe-side” of the street and call yourself pro-life. Unfortunately, not all anti-abortionists are truly pro-life, as the news media keeps showing us. Thank God that our Blessed Mother was pro-choice or we would still be in complete darkness. PRO-CHOICE and loving it. JMJ
JMJ, such situations as I suggested do arise, where a pregnant woman has a condition that requires treatment that will or may endanger the life of her unborn baby. That’s not to say that every treatment of a pregnant woman that results in the death of her baby is morally licit, nor does it say that a woman faced with such a life or death situation cannot choose to forgo treatment if doing so will increase the likelihood that her child will survive, even if it decreases the likelihood that she will. At some point, however, this becomes heroic rather than required. To say that it doesn’t is to deny the heroism of women that have been made saints by the Church, such as Saint Gianna Beretta Molla. In fact, I suggest reading about the medical circumstances surrounding her last pregnancy to better understand the morality of such situations: http://www.saintgianna.org/medicalcircum.htm
Yes Kevin, St. Gianna is a role model for Pro-choice people to bring up to the so-called pro-choice people that haven’t a clue about what “pro-choice” means, which was what the original article is all about. For a woman to give up her child in order for her to live as what happened at St. Josephs in what used to be a Catholic hospital is a sad sign of selfishness. For all concerned, it is a very difficult decision to have to make and my heart goes out to all the people that are involved. How many times have the doctors been proven wrong and both mother and child lived? So, with all that, I still say: BE PRO-CHOICE as God clearly tells us in the Holy Scriptures: choose life and you will surely live. God bless. JMJ
In answer to your headline - er, yes they are.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.