A "Truce" on Abortion?

Some feminist pro-abort website refers to Vox Nova as an "anti-choice" blog and Tony A's / Morning's Minion's response is to ask "Is a Truce Possible on the Abortion Issue?":

Even though we are all Catholics on this blog, and accept the Church’s position on abortion, it is still the topic that exposes the greatest divisions among us. What is true in this tiny, rather insignificant blog, is also true in the global Catholic world. Now, I notice that Vox Nova is singled out as an “anti-choice site”: M.Z. has a post on that particular issue. I would like to made a different point, a broader point. Is dialogue possible between Catholics and those who disagree with the Church on abortion? Can we find “common ground”? Cardinal Bernardin certainly thought so, although his initiative did not survive his death. Too often, those who support abortion and those who do not simply talk past each other and, in the blog world, that so often means preaching to the converted and scoring points among a close circle of like-minded individuals. At the same time, they are not going to convince us that abortion is a “right”, and nor will we convince them that abortion is intrinsically evil. Are we at an impasse? I hope not. Despite everything, I believe there is scope for fruitful dialogue.

As a starting point, we can talk about the best way to deal with the thorny issue of abortion from the legal perspective, but one thing Catholics will never accept is that abortion is a “right”. We are not hypocrites, for we believe in a “seamless garment” approach to the life issue that would condemn not only abortion and euthanasia, but the death penalty, torture, unjust war, as well as policies that faciliate poverty and inadequate health care. Fundamentally, we hold that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God and that life is sacred, even the life of the unborn. Even if you disagree with last conjecture, you must at least accept the validity and power of this argument.

Having said that, it is quite clear to me that abortion is related to poverty and prevailing social conditions. Declines in abortion in the US occurred most rapidly during times when poverty rates were falling– most notably under the Clinton administration (see here for detailed argument). Look at some of the statistics: 57% of women opting for abortion are economically disadvantage, and the abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). And when asked to give reasons for abortion, three-quarters of women say that cannot afford a child.

And yet, the political pro-life movement often ignores this aspect. Not only that, it often uses the abortion issue to cover some less savoury aspects of policy. Note that when supposed pro-life candidates are elected, we see little impact on abortion, but a major advance in economic policies that foster upward redistribution. And too often, the pro-life lobby contents itself with minor victories that have little direct impact on abortion, but do rally political support. Case in point: I am pretty certain that S-CHIP will do more to lower the abortion rate in the US than the partial-birth abortion ban, which everybody pretty much agrees will do almost nothing. [ED.: See here for why this statement is complete nonsense.]

It is also the case that banning abortion often does not really impact on its incidence...

***
We need to tackle poverty and economic conditions. We need universal health care urgently...

(emphasis added)

Huh?

First of all, given the unfair but widely-held perception of Vox Nova as a "left-wing" Catholic blog, I would think that having the epithet "anti-choice" hurled at you by pro-aborts provides you with some mighty fine orthodox street creds. Why, in response to that, do you want to call a "truce"? If you're serious about Catholic orthodoxy, embrace that "anti-choice" label. This commenter at Vox Nova comes close to summing up what I'm talking about:

I am not sure why Vox Nova would want to declare a truce on abortion. Why? I think the fact that this site is singled out as a anti choice site is a great thing.

Why would one want to have a truce. Is there a call for a truce by some on here on Republicans, the War on Terror, on immigration, on economics?

I disagree with a lot of people on here on their postings especially as to Iraq and Republicans. However this BLog has given me hope that while Catholics can disagree on certain issues that s on some things were not to be compromised.

I got turned off by many “liberal” Catholics once because at one time they seem to be on the right track as to the poor and other issues but were fragant is in their opposition to basic church teachings. It was deemed not very important.

I now see a alot of Orthodox bloggers that are far more liberal than me political wise but they are pretty Orthodox. That gives them credibility in my eyes and I listen to them more and have them challenge me.

So no I think doing a “amnesty International” would not be productive.

(emphasis added)

As the commenter notes, Vox Nova has credibility among many more conservative Catholics like me precisely because we know the folks over there are committed to the Church's teachings on building a Culture of Life. Besides, if some pro-abort feminist blog were to call Pro Ecclesia "anti-choice", I'd prominently place it in the "What They're Saying" portion of my right-hand sidebar.

The second point I'd like to make regarding Tony's post is a political one (regarding the DNC talking points he spouts). But, once again, that point is better left to what another commenter at Vox Nova had to say:

“We need to create the conditions that would encourage women not to have abortions in the first place. Could this be a point of common ground among Catholics and pro-choice feminists, since we are not really going to change each others minds on this matter? If we would focus less on the coercive side, would you be willing to work to minimize the abortion rate? … We need to tackle poverty and economic conditions.”

For the sake of argument, I will answer with an emphatic NO!

Here’s the thing. Let’s assume that abortion is intrinsically evil — either murder, or akin to murder. If that’s the case, it cannot be enough to “minimize the abortion rate”; we have to work to outlaw it. If we’re unsuccessful, so be it. But we can’t just accept the status quo, can we?

The notion that the way we would “reduce the abortion rate” is “to tackle poverty and economic conditions” strikes me as absurd. Because the poor will always be with us, this is just a way of saying forget about abortion and focus on poverty. It is a perfectly tenable position, I guess; but don’t expect to get the anti-abortion movement to buy into it.

It can be difficult for any movement to maintain cohesiveness. I believe that the anti-abortion movement should focus on its core mission — reversal of Roe v. Wade and outlawing abortion — and not get side-tracked on other issues. Just because it calls itself “pro-life” doesn’t mean it has to be against the death penalty (any more than the fact that the abortion rights side calls itself “pro-choice” should mean it has to be in favor of decriminalizing drugs or prostitution). It’s probably hard enough for the anti-abortion movement to agree on abortion-related issues (such as what valid exceptions there might be, if any; and who, if anyone would be prosecuted). To start throwing in things like the death penalty or poverty relief is entirely unrealistic.

Clearly, I’m not saying that a person can’t be anti-abortion and anti-death penalty. I’m just saying that you should join two different groups if you are, because not everyone who is one is also the other. Similarly, you’re not going to convince all anti-abortion people that general poverty relief is going to be either effective or appropriate.

Is “minimiz[ing] the abortion rate” a laudable goal? Sure. In the same way that minimizing traffic fatalities would be a laudable goal. I would like to minimize innocent deaths at every turn, if possible. But please don’t suggest that people should not seek to outlaw intrinsically evil behavior and should instead work on minimizing its incidence. Is there any other serious moral issue on which we have embraced such a position? (I can’t think of any off the top of my head.)

While I have every confidence that Morning’s Minion posted this in good faith, I must point out that it could have come out of a pro-choice handbook. Let’s not forget that the (un)official liberal position is not that abortions are good and should be embraced without apology (only the fringes admit that); rather, it is that abortions should be “safe, legal, and rare.” A “let’s focus on poverty and abortion will take care of itself” policy would be music to pro-choice ears. Not surprisingly, it wouldn’t play well in pro-life camps.

(emphasis added)

In other words, the sort of "truce" Tony A is talking about is one that is strictly on "pro-choice" terms. Those supporting legalized abortion on demand give up absolutely nothing, and we all agree to pursue the big government program du jour in hopes of keeping abortion "safe, legal, and rare". No thanks.