Choosing between 'Pro-life' & 'Pro-choice'

I must confess that I'm usually irked by complaints that the abortion debate in Ireland is divisive or polarising.  I do believe that we should strive for civility in our public discourse, but am profoundly uneasy with the idea that certain topics should somehow be resolved without discussion on the grounds that the debate itself is somehow destructive of society. Often, or so it seems to me, complaints about the divisiveness of the debate are aimed at closing down the discussion rather than improving the tone of public discourse. One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is the fact that our public discourse can (should?) be unsettling and forces us to think through things that we'd rather not have to deal with.

I was interested, therefore, to read today's article by Canon Stephen Neill, Church of Ireland Rector of Cloughjordan where he discusses the effect of the recent debate about the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill on his own thinking around abortion. Interestingly, he argues that the debate to date has forced him out of his self-described 'middle ground' into a 'pro-choice' position.

Canon Neill's 'middle ground' position was that abortion should only "be available in cases of rape, unviable pregnancy and a threat to the health and/or life of the mother." He also adds: "I would not have been and am still not in favour of abortion on demand, abortion as a late contraceptive or abortion as a means of terminating Down syndrome or other special needs pregnancies. I say this as the parent of a child with special needs who has brought untold joy to my life." 
His overall position is not one that I could agree with, and indeed I'd argue forcefully that it's not entirely coherent - but I can certainly understand how someone could seriously and contentiously reach that position and consider it to be some sort of 'middle ground' between a pro-life and a pro-choice stance.

However, I find the next part of his article confusing. Rather than argue for this so-called middle ground and justify his position, something about the nature of the debate forces Canon Neill to choose a tribe. He says: [i]n absence of that middle ground I am forced to make a choice fully conscious of the potential for many of the things I do not want to see happen becoming a reality. This, I cannot understand. I can understand having one's mind changed by argument. I can understand lending some support to a group or movement whilst not fully agreeing with them on the grounds that their aims or intents are somehow compatible with my own. I can understand tactical and political alliances.
What I cannot understand is what Canon Neill purports to be doing. Because the "middle ground" in the debate has been "sidelined", he therefore feels as though he must cleave to one or other of the extremes as though being on the right side were more important than taking a stand for the side that is right. That, to me, makes little sense.

It's interesting to read Canon Neill's assessment of both sides of the debate. His impressions are, of course, his.  As I don't open his postbag in the morning or read what comes in on his e-mail and twitter feed, I can't really say that he is being inaccurate. I know that there is an unpleasant and vicious element in the pro-life camp who prefer to shock and intimidate rather than persuade. (Likewise, need I add, there are those on the pro-choice side who smear and belittle those who disagree with them.) I know too that because this literally is a life-and-death issue we are debating that even good-hearted people on both sides of the debate can speak unkindly out of frustration and fear.
Still, looking at the public contributions to the debate and my own engagement with the pro-life movement, I don't recognise the picture he paints of an unsympathetic movement that is eager to accuse women of murder.
I'm also puzzled by Canon Neill's argument that it is "bizarre about non-medical politicians, clergy (of any church) and others trying to argue medical technicalities with highly qualified medical specialists." I would challenge the impression given that somehow it is the pro-life camp that is at odds with the medical profession, when there are plenty of pro-life doctors who argue their case effectively and when the proposed government legislation has failed to attract the support of the professional bodies in the medical field. The core of the debate is not about arguing technicalities with doctors. Medical practice is informed by more than technicalities - it also demands an engagement with bio-ethical philosophy and the fields of legal and human rights. We rightly expect our legal system and our society to challenge medical practice, when (for example) we learn of doctors performing female genital mutilation. The demands of justice, law and social opinion all have their just place in setting down the boundaries of acceptable medical practice.

I'm afraid Canon Neill loses me when he makes a theological point as well. Invoking our role as 'co-creators' with God and suggests that the choice of Mary to co-operate with God's saving plan and become the mother of Jesus Christ somehow points to a theological justification for a pro-choice position. I find that most untenable. His statement that "[w]e have been given the ability to create life, but it is not forced upon us" sits uneasily with my experience of life, of the Gospel and my ministry as a priest. Whether a believer or non-believer wants to talk about providence, fate or chance, it seems evident that much about our lives - for good or for ill - is indeed forced upon us. The Christian tradition does indeed privilege the free and moral choice as being central to living the good and ethical life, but the idealization of choice in itself as distinct from the good freely chosen is alien to Christianity and most ethical systems. If we want to introduce an ethical principle from the Gospel that seems apt to the debate, I'd suggest looking at the parable of the Good Samaritan, where we are invited to a radical solidarity with all of humankind, and in particular solidarity and responsibility for those whom circumstances have placed into our care.

Finally, Canon Neill makes a point about trust.  He argues, "[a]nd finally it comes down to trust. If we are to truly respect the role of women in childbearing then we have to trust them without subjecting them to the kind of overbearing oversight that is proposed in the new legislation."  If only we lived in such an ideal world that 'trust' could be used to do away with all sorts of positive law and that all rights would be respected on the basis of trust. I cannot think of any area of life or fundamental human right that can be protected purely on the basis of trust. We have laws against all kinds of offences and violations of human rights - not because we have some kind of prejudicial lack of trust but because we know from bitter experience that trust can be abused and the rights of innocents are not always respected.

Canon Neill has done us a favour in writing this article. Even though I don't recognise the picture he paints of the pro-life side, it's a pertinent reminder to us of how we must conduct the debate with clarity and in charity. It reminds us too that the pro-life cause isn't just about changing laws, but about effectively living and communicating a philosophy of life that respects both mother and child in a way that makes the deliberate termination of an unborn child's life unthinkable. Whilst we have a short-term objective before us in defeating a disastrous piece of legislation, our fundamental mission is cultural.
However, despite being thankful to Canon Neill for setting down the details of his philosophical journey from being someone who held the 'middle ground' to the adoption of a more radically pro-choice position that would go even further than the government's proposed legislation, I have to declare myself puzzled by some aspects of the journey. What is it Canon Neill sees in this debate that left him unable to defend his 'middle ground'? Why the seeming need to join a tribe (either pro-life or pro-choice) and why frame the decision in terms of seeking the less objectionable tribe rather than the rational pursuit of justice and the good?      

Draft of a letter to Professor John Crown

A response (in draft form) to this article.

Dear Professor Crown,

I write to you as a citizen and a Catholic Priest in order to take issue with a number of the points you make in your article in today’s Sunday Independent.  I find myself astonished that a respected parliamentarian could have penned an article that so profoundly misunderstands the nature of justice and democracy and that seems to be aimed at discrediting the participation of ordinary Catholics in the democratic process by branding their contribution as being at the service of a foreign power.

I’ll trust you not to simply dismiss this letter as being just the special pleading of an agent of a foreign state, but ask that you take me seriously when I say that your talk of coups and plots is profoundly insulting to Catholic clergy and ordinary Catholic people who have been lobbying their politicians on the abortion issue.  The depiction of Catholicism as being foreign and sinister was a familiar trope of English anti-Catholicism and it’s worrying to see an Irish parliamentarian try to imply something similar.  You may not agree with the position of the Irish Bishops, ordinary pro-life lobbyists or some of your parliamentary colleagues on the proposed abortion legislation, but on what basis can you seriously throw around accusations of sinister foreign influence and coup d’etat?
The people who lobby against this legislation and your fellow parliamentarians who oppose the legislation are Irishmen and women with a full stake in the past, present and future of Irish society and a concern for the common good.  It is this concern for the common good that causes them to express their concerns and participate in the democratic process articulating a vision of human rights and justice that encompasses a holistic concern for human life.  Yes, many (but by no means all) of those arguing against the legislation will have their views formed by Catholic teaching and the statements of the Holy See (not the same thing as the Vatican City State, by the way), but surely it’s absurd to suggest that the free diffusion of ideas between cultures is somehow antithetical to democracy or the progress of humankind.  I would not have thought you such a cultural isolationist.
Apart from suggesting that some Irish people and parliamentarians allow their thoughts and philosophy to be shaped by Catholic teaching – as is their right – I fail to see why you have reason to imply that the Vatican’s influence in the matter of abortion legislation is somehow sinister, unless it is your belief that no one should allow their thinking to be in any way informed by unIrish influences.

You were somewhat clearer in your explanation as to why you regard opposition to the proposed legislation as being contrary to our system of constitutional government.  However, I would argue that your understanding of the role of the legislator in a democratic society is fundamentally flawed.
You are unhappy with the fact that some of our parliamentarians see a huge injustice in the X-Case decision of the Supreme Court.  You point out that Article 34.4.6 states that “the decision of the Supreme Court shall in all cases be final and definitive.”  That means that there is no further recourse for any individual legal case in our domestic system beyond the Supreme Court.  However, what you fail to do is establish that the judgement of the Supreme Court in a particular case should somehow constrain legislators in their decision to vote for or against a particular Bill in the Dáil or Seanad.  That’s not in our Constitution and that doesn’t respect the separation of powers.  To suggest that an elected representative’s choice between the ‘Tá’ and Níl’ lobby can be controlled by the Supreme Court has no basis in our Constitution or our laws.
Legislators who hold that there is a grave injustice and faulty reasoning at the heart of the X-Case decision are perfectly entitled under the Constitution to propose and lobby for legislation – even though it does not seem to accord with the X Case – with the hope and expectation that the Supreme Court might re-visit its own reasoning should the new legislation come before it.  Our system of checks and balances works by allowing the Supreme Court to strike down unconstitutional legislation, not by tying the hands of our legislators.

Your understanding of the duties of legislators to the Constitution is belied by the fact that the Constitution itself is capable of amendment and such amendment always has its beginning in the Houses of the Oireachtas.  Loyalty to the Republic and the work of the legislator cannot be straitjacketed into a blind devotion to the Constitution.  Even though it expresses the basic principles according to which our State is run, making contentment with the Constitutional status quo a prerequisite to participation in the legislative branch closes the door to Constitutional reform and development.  I know that it is not your intent to exclude reforming voices and votes from the Dáil and Seanad, and yet it is unsettling that you seem to believe that some reforming voices should be excluded on the grounds of disloyalty to the Constitution.

The very fact that the Constitution is open to amendment should also make it clear that written law and court decisions are not the final determinants of what is just and good in our society.  Certainly they set the limits by which the machinery of State can operate in order to promote the common good and protect the rights of citizens, but the Constitution and court decisions are not irreformable and unchangeable.  The legislator, therefore, needs to have a broader understanding of rights and justice so that he or she might participate in the work of refining and improving our Constitutional system so that it better fulfils its role.  Of necessity, the legislator will take account of the representations his and her constituents, but will ultimately need to decide how to legislate, how to vote on particular matters, based on his or her understanding of justice and the common good.  Imposing some kind of litmus test that excludes particular understandings of justice and the common good from the Houses of the Oireachtas is a profoundly anti-democratic suggestion.

I would also take issue with a number of other points you raise in your article:

·         If you are able to discern the will of the Irish people from the failure of a Constitutional Referendum opposed by both Dana Rosemary Scallon and Ivana Bacik, then you have a greater gift of reading the intentions of the Irish people than DeValera claimed when he looked into his own heart.

·         The concerns of parliamentarians regarding the potential abuse of seemingly restrictive procedures in approving abortions are well-justified if one looks at the experience of the United Kingdom where supposedly restrictive criteria have become de facto abortion on demand.  Why should we suppose that things should go any differently in Ireland.

·         It is most unfair of you to throw mud at Cardinal O’Malley of Boston regarding child abuse in the Archdiocese of Boston, given the fact that he had no involvement in the Archdiocese until he was brought in to ‘clean out the stables’ after the disastrous tenure of Cardinal Law.

Professor Crown, I never thought that I’d have to write to an Irish parliamentarian to ask him to refrain from painting Catholicism as being a sinister, foreign influence in the country with designs on the integrity of our State.  I would have thought that a man of your intelligence would realise that such an absurd suggestion gives validation – inadvertently, I’m sure – to the crudest forms of religious bigotry.
Nor did I think I’d ever have to write to a man of your reputation in order to remind him that it is not an unhealthy thing for a legislator to develop an understanding of justice and the common good that is rooted in something other than blind devotion to the Constitutional status quo.  Indeed, it is to the credit of the legislator when he understands the extent of his responsibility to the common good and exercises himself or herself in seeking to understand the nature of justice and how our current system might serve us better.

Yours sincerely

Pope's Letter to the Catholics of Ireland

Full text available here.

To be quite honest, apart from welcoming it whole-heartedly and repeating the Pope's own request that Irish Catholics read it themselves, I think that too much comment is superfluous. Just let it be read prayerfully, seriously and repeatedly. It would be naive to think that the problems of the past and present can be sorted out within the space of a few short media cycles. However, that's not the impression one gets when watching the news or reading the papers. There seems to be an assumption that problems can be dealt with swiftly - a hurried resignation here, a statement of apology there, and then mission accomplished. Not so! Any meaningful kind of healing, purification or renewal is going to be a long and deliberate process, and if we claim to be Christians, then the healing process must involve a turning back to Christ and a willingness to offer penance.

Amnesty International & Domestic Politics

John Waters in today's Irish Times turns his attention to Colm O'Gorman's recent comments about the proposed civil partnership bill, and in particular the position of Amnesty International in the debate. Now, I was wondering whether his remarks were made in his capacity as Amnesty International's executive director or in a private capacity. I guess its coverage on the Amnesty Website resolves that to some extent.
I recall Amnesty visiting our school when I was 11 or 12. I think I unnerved the visitor somewhat by asking whether their defence of human rights included protection for the unborn child. She explained that they stayed out of that debate - and in retrospect, one can understand why an organisation concerned with representing prisoners of conscience might steer clear of such a disputed and divisive issue in order to focus on their core mission. However, in recent times, Amnesty has dropped its neutrality on the issue of abortion.
(By the by, I should hope that it's obvious to readers involved in education that Amnesty should no longer be welcome in our Catholic schools.)
John Waters notes that Colm O'Gorman's statement on civil partnerships also represents a shift away from what used to be Amnesty's priorities:

WITHOUT ANYONE emphasising or questioning the shift, Amnesty International has gone in recent years from being an organisation devoted to the rights of prisoners-of-conscience in foreign jurisdictions to a lobby group concentrating selectively on ideological issues within the immediate jurisdictions in which it operates. I often wonder what its founders would have thought about this. I wonder, too, if people who stuff cash into the boxes of Amnesty’s street collectors are aware of the implications of what has occurred.
Twenty years ago, the idea of Amnesty lecturing the Irish Government in partisan terms on a matter on which there is democratic controversy would have been inconceivable. The old-style Amnesty considered human rights too vital to be mixed up with everyday political argumentation within democratic societies.

What's also interesting is that Waters valiantly attempts to point out how O'Gorman and other gay rights activist try to (and in general succeed) to change the meaning of the concepts used in our national discourse in order to muddy the issue and demonise those who promote a traditional understanding of marriage and the family:

O’Gorman’s statement was laden with disingenuous constructions and weasel words. Amnesty is either arguing for gay marriage or it isn’t, but can’t have it both ways. The Bill does not discriminate against gay couples any more than unmarried heterosexual couples can claim to be “discriminated against” for similar reasons. In not dealing with the adoption of children at all, the legislation might be said to discriminate, in accordance with public policy, against both categories by comparison with married couples, but this is a false comparison. And nor does the legislation discriminate against adopted children being brought up in gay unions any more than against adopted children being brought up by unmarried parents who are not gay. It does not deal with adoption at all. O’Gorman’s reference to “the right not to be discriminated against because of who you love” is a piety designed to fudge the issue and bully the public.
[snip]
The gay lobby has made its case by mangling the meaning of terms such as “marriage” and “discrimination”, and by bullying with accusations of “homophobia” and “bigotry” anyone who refuses to acquiesce in the new definitions.

Of course, the question should be about what is meant by marriage and why it's an institution worthy of legal recognition.

Marriage, a contract between a man and a woman, is an institution maintained by society for reasons having little or nothing to do with “love”. All men and all women have a right to marry, provided they wish to marry members of the opposite sex to whom they are not closely related by blood. Heterosexuals, like homosexuals, are prohibited from marrying people of their own sex. It is no more valid to allege wrongful discrimination in this context against gays than to argue that cycle lanes “discriminate” wrongfully against wheelbarrows.

Now, that statement needs a lot of unpacking, and it probably says a lot about the quality of catechesis in Ireland that not many of the decision makers in our society are willing or capable of doing this.