Questions for Anti-Abortion 'Moderates'

Some of you in the Bay Area may remember the ads that appeared a few months ago (in BART, on bus shelters, etc.) with the tagline "Abortion - have we gone too far?" The ads were put out by the Second Look Project, a Catholic Church-sponsored organization designed to give a moderate face to the anti-choice movement. The ads focus on what they portray as the 'extreme' nature of Roe v. Wade; they are designed to give the impression that these people just want 'sensible' limits on abortion, not to outlaw it altogether.

Yesterday's San Francisco Chronicle carried an op-ed piece by Monika Rodman, who works for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland and coordinates the local Second Look Project. The piece was written to give the same impression--'we're all reasonable people, let's have a conversation and meet in the middle', yadda yadda yadda. After reading it, I'm afraid I'm not entirely convinced. I have a few follow-up questions for Ms. Rodman...

Americans' thinking on abortion is beginning to shift. First, new appointments to the U. S. Supreme Court have changed the character of the court and the debate. Then, last month South Dakota's governor signed a ban on all abortions except those few performed to preserve the life of the mother.

In response, Planned Parenthood's national president lamented, "It's a sad day for the women of South Dakota." The governor retorted that "the true test of a civilization" is "how well people treat the most vulnerable and most helpless in their society," citing unborn children among those who need and deserve protection.

Such statements appear only to reinforce the polarization that has governed this debate for four decades: abortion rights supporters talk about the woman; abortion opponents talk about the child.

Question #1: You do not put quotation marks around 'child', which suggests that you endorse that designation. Are you prepared to agree that a fetus is not a child? If not, if you believe a fetus is a child, how does that position reduce polarization on the issue?

Many wonder if the debate has gone anywhere in 40 years; many more feel pulled between their own moral sensibilities and their allegiance to partners, friends and family who have been through abortion.

There is, however, an evolution of sorts underway that could lead to a real conversation in the place of the usual shooting match of mutual denunciations. Consider these two Bay Area developments:

On this year's Roe vs. Wade anniversary, San Francisco's second annual "Walk for Life West Coast" drew a youthful and ethnically diverse crowd of 15,000. The event focused less on law, and more on life.

Question #2: Statements on the Walk for Life website refer to "the value of every human life from conception"; "protection for the unborn"; "our most precious citizens, whose....lives [have been] destroyed"; "the pro-choice side of another great moral issue, the issue of slavery"; and "this holocaust of abortion". In what way do these statements promote 'conversation' on the issue of abortion?

It voiced a message both sides might agree on: Women deserve better than abortion.

Question #3: If women 'deserve better than abortion', in a sense that 'both sides might agree on', does that mean they (and you) are advocating for wider access to contraception (including, for example, Plan B)?

Those gathered were challenged to practice solidarity with women and couples considering abortion. Abortion was treated not as a "right," nor as a sin, but as the act of violence it is against women and children.

Question #4: If abortion is an 'act of violence', there must be a victim; the victim must be the fetus; the fetus must be a human life; and terminating the human life must be murder. Why, then, do you say 'act of violence' when what you really mean is 'murder'?

A diverse platform of speakers was united in a common message: One can be feminist, Democrat, of any race or ethnicity, have gone through one or more abortions and still stand proudly on the side of a nonviolent response to unwanted pregnancies.

Question #5: On what basis do you contend that coercing women into giving birth is 'non-violent'?

Even in the Bay Area, most folks I talk with simply do not support the Roe-Doe status quo.

Question #6: Who are these 'most'? Do you contend that the people you talk with are representative of the Bay Area as a whole? If so, on what basis?

Many concede the need for more humane limits on abortion practice. It is a conversation about such limits that our campaign promotes.

Question #7: The position of your employer is that abortion is murder; your own reference to 'violence' above implies that you agree. Are you opposing the position of your employer and your own beliefs in saying abortion should merely be limited? Or are you being dishonest about your true agenda?

Not a single anti-abortion supporter I know proposes that a woman be thrown in prison for seeking abortion.

Question #8: If you believe abortion is murder (see above), why would you oppose criminal penalties for the person ordering the killing?

She is our neighbor and friend; she did not become pregnant alone, nor, in most cases, does she resort to abortion alone. Despite ceaseless repetition of the mantra, "It's a woman's choice," real life abortions frequently are coerced.

Question #9: If, as you claim, abortions are frequently coerced, how does coercing other women into giving birth solve the problem?

Abortion opponents are open to reasoned dialogue on appropriate ways to enforce appropriate laws.

Question #10: If, as you apparently believe, abortion is 'murder', where is there room for 'reasoned dialogue' about 'appropriate laws'? Murder is murder, isn't it?

Numerous studies indicate that abortion can hurt women psychologically and compromise their future childbearing capacity. Infertility, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and premature births are often correlated to internal scarring or a weakened cervix resulting from past abortions.

Question #11: Is it appropriate to coerce women into giving birth in order to save them from the potential physical and psychological complications from abortion?

Question #12: Is it your contention that there are no physical or emotional complications caused by giving birth?

If abortion practice is restricted, both private and publicly funded support to those facing pregnancy in difficult circumstances must continue and expand.

Question #13: Given the current political climate, do you believe that public funding will actually expand to the level necessary to meet the need caused by restrictions on abortion?

We invite our neighbors to join us in conversation about what happens next on this issue of such consequence to individuals, families and our nation.

Question #14: If you believe abortion is murder, what the hell is there to talk about?

[That's all, folks]