« I like this blog | Main | Bottum on Kerry »
April 21, 2004
Ono defends himself...
The conservative approach to reducing the number of abortions is a “supply-side” approach. The idea here is to criminalize abortion providers, thus resulting in a reduction in the number of abortions. Unfortunately, eliminating abortion providers is much like trying to solve the drug problem by solely going after drug suppliers, but ignoring demand. It is a fact of market dynamics that as long as demand exists, there will be supply.ed. note: Which is why, of course there were 1.5 million abortions a year before Roe. Not.
Pro-life moderates and liberals embrace the “demand-side” approach. This approach seeks to reduce the number of abortions by addressing the social issues that compel too many women to contemplate what would normally be unthinkable. If social conditions were changed so that women were empowered, and if we effectively addressed issues such as health care, child care, family leave, wage inequity, domestic violence and other women’s issues, we could reasonably expect a significant reduction in the number of abortions in the United States. For instance, 21 percent of abortions in the United States are a result of inadequate finances. This category of women, though not exhaustive, represents a very fixable opportunity. Consider the following simplified example. If a woman for whom inadequate finances were the primary reason to consider an abortion is confident that there would be assistance to compensate for her lack of finances, the lack of finances then weighs less in her deliberations.
Pro-life "conservatives" who are all about prohibition and not about creating a culture of life or offering alternatives: Straw Man, very boring, and unknown to people who actually work with pro-life groups, the vast majority of which spend most of their time, energy and other resources in direct assistance to pregnant women in need.
Secondly, what is most mystifying to me about this position is *how* promotion and fought-to-the-death legal protection of easily available abortion through all nine months of pregnancy fits into a "pro-life" vision or a "culture of life." In other words, what is wrong with trying to limit abortion through legal means besides the others? Why the objection, if life is really what you're all about - if you really and truly believe all those fetal remains are kids, individuals brought into existence by God because He loves them....why would you even for a second demean the effort to protect them by the law?
As the March approaches, stay tuned to the After Abortion Blog for informed commentary and links, including one to an article in the British press about reactions to the filmed abortion:
"Journalist Lauren Booth, a pro-choicer who has also had an abortion, said she recoiled when watching the film's pivotal moment. 'My hand flew to my mouth in shock,' she said. 'I swallowed. I didn't want to say it, but the word "murder" came to my lips.'"
(Note: Comments will open on this in the morning. I don't like waking up to a war zone.)
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8342b464153ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ono defends himself...:
Comments
There are many different ways to fight against abortion. One way you do not fight against abortion is by supporting a candidate for president who runs ads touting how he will defend to the death legal abortion. That is akin to fighting anti-semitism in Weimar Germany while voting for the Nazis.
Posted by: Donald R. McClarey at Apr 22, 2004 7:24:08 AM
Oh! I get it now: it's like when a bank robber passes a note that reads "fill this bag with money or I will kill you" is merely indicating that the bank has a supply or money and the robber has a demand.
What you thought was a crime was in reality an economic transaction.
Posted by: Patrick Sweeney at Apr 22, 2004 7:59:13 AM
It is just unbelievable the rationalizations some people will come up with to justify voting for a guy with a conscience so darkened that he supports partial birth abortion and opposes the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Ono is shocked -- shocked! -- when somebody objects to calling that position "pro-life."
I wonder what he thinks the abortion rate was like during the Great Depression, or during the 2,000 years of Christian history before Roe v. Wade when people were much more desparately poor than they are now and there were no programs for single moms or day care or whatever.
I'm still waiting for the day when one of these "personally opposed" politicians says, "You know, I'm personally opposed to hoarding all your money and not giving it to the poor, but I can't impose my personal morality or my religious views on others by raising their taxes to fund welfare."
Posted by: kyle at Apr 22, 2004 8:20:05 AM
Patrick,
like it or not, there is an economic transaction involved here, just as there was in the days of legal slavery. The fact that it involves a human life is repugnant, but one must be able to see the problem clearly in order to combat it.
In fact, as I recall, the Missouri Compromise of 1850 prevented any new States from being slaveholding States. That was a start, but of course we still had the bloodiest war in American history ten years on.
I find myself wondering if the current culture was will play out in a similar fashion. Will the opponents of abortion eventually find it necessary to conduct a "John Brown" campaign against abortionists and those who work in the murder mills? It's surprisingly easy to make a moral case that one is saving lives by snuffing out a few others, and even that one has a moral imperative to do so; but we currently abjure such extreme measures. Frankly I doubt this scenario because no legitimate moral or religious authority endorses it.
Similarly, if Roe v. Wade is overturned and the States are allowed to make their own laws regarding this hideous procedure, will the supporters of abortion organize perverted "freedom rides" into the South to protest our lack of legalized Slaughter-of-the-Innocents? Would they receive the same (or a harsher) reception than the real "Freedom Riders" of the civil rights era? When you get down to it, the right to live is the most basic of civil or human rights. Those who deny it to 1.5 million human beings a year are sodden with the blood of their iniquity. And before anybody asks, no, I am not without sin, but supporting and sanctioning murder isn't among my sins -- even the murder of abortionists.
So what will the outcome be? I don't despair, but as Gollum would say, "We wondersss, yesss, we wonderssss."
Posted by: Jonathan at Apr 22, 2004 8:29:07 AM
Ono's reasoning is valid up to a point. That point is the failure to recognize that the real driving force for the late '60s / early '70s push for the legalization of abortion, and the driving force for the more determined elements within the pro-abortion movement today (the "promote and fight to the death" brigades which Amy mentions), was and is the sexual revolution. I believe this is a very provable point, although it would take some work to document it. In the meantime, two observations:
(1) I was there. I'm a 55-year-old ex-hippie. I know what the radicals of the '60s said among themselves and I know how we thought. You can take my word for it or not, but this is true: Cultural radicals then and now believe that a free life is impossible without sexual liberation and that sexual liberation is impossible unless the possibility of pregnancy can be removed. Abortion is the absolutely essential birth control of last resort. These people are not lying (that is, not consciously speaking falsehood) when they say they believe women cannot be free unless abortion is unconditionally available.
(2) Does anyone really believe pop musicians and movie stars--the vanguard of both propaganda and practice for the sexual revolution--take part in marches like this because they're concerned with "wage inequity" etc.? Gimme that proverbial break.
There could be some common ground between those who believe as Ono does and those of us who support legal restriction or prohibition of abortion. But the Kerrys et.al. do not really believe as Ono does; rather, they have thrown in their lot with the revolutionists, and that's why they won't cooperate in any measure whatsoever that would have the effect of discouraging abortion.
Posted by: Maclin Horton at Apr 22, 2004 8:45:04 AM
Peace, all.
Most of all, what is needed is a ratcheting down of the rhetoric on the issue. Realize, friends, that rationalization is a human privilege, not a leftist one. I've read Kr Ekeh's commentary, and I see nothing to suggest He Is The Enemy. A pro-lifer with different tactics: no more, no less.
The suggestion that armed violence and anger can clothe the expression and politicking of a life issue reveals just how far we are from a solution. If Mr Ekeh is supporting the Weimar regime, then we're all citizens of that republic, sad to say. For too many people at both extremes, the icons of life and choice have been replaced by the demigod of The Cause.
Posted by: Todd at Apr 22, 2004 8:47:29 AM
Actually, Todd, I think he was accused by analogy of supporting the Nazis, during the Weimar Regime. Nothing Wrong with being part of the Wiemar Republic, as long as you are fighting to keep control of it away from the Party of Death.
Posted by: Franklin Jennings at Apr 22, 2004 8:53:10 AM
The basic issue, Todd, is why constantly demean those committed to making abortion less available via the political process? If you're pro-life, why? Ono and others are continually "reminding" us of the many ways to be pro-life (as I say, DUH, to those actually involved in pro-life activities), but seems to me that in the process all they do is play the game of inferring that those who are involved in political/legal action are somehow less prolife than they. Which makes no sense.
Posted by: amy at Apr 22, 2004 8:57:08 AM
In Ono Ekeh's case, Todd, "rationalization" is a kind of falsehood, and that's not a privilege, it's a sin and, when done in the name of the faith, a scandal. I never said anything about it being peculiar to leftists -- for me at least, and for many people I know who believe "The Cause" of protecting the unborn baby who will die in the next 20 second is the most pressing political issue there is, it has nothing to do with partisanship or left-right anything. I've written columns praising pro-life Democrats. I grew up one and might be one still if I felt it was a tenable position. There's the retired union guy who wrote me a letter once after a column I wrote explaining that as a Catholic, he felt like he couldn't vote Democrat because of abortion but felt like he was slitting his own throat pulling the lever for Republcans. I wish like you can't imagine that both parties were chomping at the bit for my vote.
In fact, it's Mr. Ekeh who makes it a partisan issue, by couching his terms in left-right and misrepresenting the views of conservatives.
This matters. Presidents appoint judges, who like or or not are the oligarchs who really run this country. Presidents set policy for foreign aid and for the vast executive bureaucracy. Presidents use the biggest bully pulpit in the world to frame issues. Presidents sign or veto legislation. Presidents make a difference on abortion.
If somebody doesn't feel comfortable supporting Bush, I can respect that. But for somebody to actively support Kerry, with his morally monstrous views, and then call it a good, Catholic, pro-life choice -- that's nuts.
Posted by: kyle at Apr 22, 2004 9:01:53 AM
Peace, all.
I'm not convinced some of you are not rationalizing over Mr Ekeh yourselves. Amy asks, " ... why constantly demean those committed to making abortion less available via the political process?" and I have to wonder. Ekeh demeans no one. His commentary suggests more than one approach is possible. That's a debatable point, certainly, but he's not in any way suggesting his is the only way. In fact, he's had to defend his position more than he's tried to impose it on others. You can't say that about Deal "Headhunter" Hudson. I would ask why some pro-life persons, possibly including you, Amy, take such offense at another way. For the record, I think the Kerry way is a very bad way, but otherwise, Ekeh brings some good points to the table. If you feel he's strong-arming St Blog's, why not just walk away? If anyone's behaved meanly, it's Hudson.
Kyle, if we felt as strongly as you do about the issue, the only moral choice would be to quit all our day jobs and ride the anti-abortion train. Anything else would be a mortal sin.
Posted by: Todd at Apr 22, 2004 9:14:16 AM
I don't get how the "demand" and "supply" sides of abortion have to be either/or. If you have a killer disease on your hands, something that results in 1.5 million deaths a year, you'd work towards both prevention and cure.
But, as Cardinal Newman wrote, "men go by their sympathies, not by arguments". Trying to win over pro-choice Catholics can't be done with reason.
Posted by: TSO at Apr 22, 2004 9:19:48 AM
It's necessary to remember as well the strong element of social Darwinism in the Democratic Party's abortion dogma. Recall the last Roman Catholic politician to run on a national ticket: Geraldine Ferraro defended taxpayer subsidy of the killing of unborn children by arguing that "it's cheaper to do that than to put them through the system." That mindset, that owes so much to Margaret Sanger and her views on eugenics, still has a home in the party that ran the Jim Crow regime.
Posted by: Francis at Apr 22, 2004 9:54:37 AM
Ono’s valid point is lost in political fog. Both carrots AND sticks are important in trying to discourage one form of behavior (abortion) and encouraging its alternative (childbirth). He’s right to suggest that throwing people (here, doctors and women) in jail may not always be the only or best way to discourage bad behavior and that prolifers often seem solely obsessed in the political realm with “making abortion illegal” (i.e., criminal) without regard to other, non-criminal public policy initiatives.
But the sticks/carrots are not usually exclusive methods of using the law, and, most important, Ono does not describe what a true “carrots” approach would look like. It would be something like this. Women who bear children would be PROVIDED special welfare, social, educational, and benefits, while women who abort would be DENIED these benefits. Childbirth services would be subsidized; abortion services would be severely taxed to benefit women and families who give birth. Women (and the their husbands) with children would be given many more legal advantages in the workplace and in the tax system. The public schools and government funded media programs would encourage childbirth and condemn abortion as much as they now condemn tobacco use and unsafe sex. I could go on and on. The list of possibilities in using (non-criminal) social and economic incentives to discourage abortion and encourage childbirth is virtually as endless as our tax and welfare codes.
Now, Ono, would your boy Kerry and his ilk really support a genuine program to encourage such a non-criminal program to encourage childbirth over abortion? Who knows, if comprehensive enough, it actually might work better than a criminal law standing alone in light the relative ease of performing abortion and difficulties in enforcing the criminal law against it! NOT A CHANCE. Ask yourself: Why is that?
Posted by: T. Marzen at Apr 22, 2004 10:09:01 AM
As I was making my way through this post, a FedEx package came for one of the employees here. I put it on her desk, and noticed she was reading a .PDF flyer for an "interfaith service" to be held before the "March for Women's Lives." My heart sunk. This woman is by far the kindest person to me in this office, and we've become friends in the month or so I've been temping here. I dragged my feet back to the front desk, sat down, found her a link to one of the sites that promotes awareness of how abortion hurts women, and e-mailed it to her.
She came up here about five minutes ago, visibly uncomfortable and a bit put off. She gave me the usual line - "I don't like abortion and don't think women should have to do it - but if they need to, they should be able to." She then informed me that although she planned to participate in the March, she was also sending her donation today - she had it in hand - to a pro-life pregnancy center.
I asked her if she saw it as a life-and-death issue. She kind of skirted that. I told her that I'm not looking at this from within a vacuum, that I have a close friend who went through this - under the worst of circumstances - and forever feels as though she murdered her own child.
"I could never look at it like that." She responded. I saw conflict in her eyes, but she was convinced.
"I'm on both sides of the issue. I guess that makes me a hypocrite." She walked back to her desk.
I don't know how we can ever address this problem without at least the recognition that a fetus is a person. Some feminists, like Natalie Wolf, recognize this. They still think women have the right to kill their babies, but at least they are intellectually honest enough to look it square in the face and see it for what it is.
But the majority of people do everything within their power not to see that. The human mind is a marvelous thing, and so self-destructive at times.
I don't know how to reach them. I want these people to know I am not judging them, but the cultural wall that exists - the inability to breach the gap and actually talk about it with honesty and respect - that's not there. I can do that with other matters of the faith. But especially as a man, they just look at me like I'm from another planet. I know they can see the truth.
I just don't know how to get it to them.
Posted by: Steve Skojec at Apr 22, 2004 10:09:43 AM
Peace Todd,
Do you actually believe your own rhetoric or are you just messin' with us?
You seem to have an odd fascination with defending intellectually weak arguments, while at the same time claiming to be personally opposed to them. It's almost as if you want to pick a fight with everyone but you are unwilling to define and defend where YOU actually stand. I get the impression you're the type of guy who likes to throw a lot of punches as long as there's no chance you'll get hit back. The blogging world undoubtedly provides a fertile environment for your cowardice to blossom.
Posted by: Poppi at Apr 22, 2004 10:25:53 AM
The other thing we should be asking Mr. Ekeh is: Have abortions gone up or down since post-Roe v. Wade liberals have begun pursuing Ekeh's plan: "if social conditions were changed so that women were empowered, and if we effectively addressed issues such as health care, child care, family leave, wage inequity, domestic violence and other women’s issues." Abortions up since '73, or down? This is not a hard answer. All of the issues he describes have been liberalized significantly.
Up, or down?
Posted by: Tom Harmon at Apr 22, 2004 10:44:16 AM
Peace, Poppi.
I'm struck by your approach, and I thank you for underscoring my point about the universality of rhetoric. I've made my own position clear on my blog -- so if you want to discuss mu position, go there. I've been clear elsewhere, even here. I think some pro-lifers and some pro-choice folks don't like my positions, but I've taken hits from both ends on it. It doesn't bother me much. As Pat Benatar used to say ...
The blogging world provides a fertile environment for a lot of things, my friend. I don't need to return your compliment.
Posted by: Todd at Apr 22, 2004 10:50:25 AM
The other thing we should be asking Mr. Ekeh is: Have abortions gone up or down since post-Roe v. Wade liberals have begun pursuing Ekeh's plan: "if social conditions were changed so that women were empowered, and if we effectively addressed issues such as health care, child care, family leave, wage inequity, domestic violence and other women’s issues." Abortions up since '73, or down? This is not a hard answer. All of the issues he describes have been liberalized significantly.
Up, or down?
Posted by: Tom Harmon at Apr 22, 2004 10:50:51 AM
Todd writes:
Kyle, if we felt as strongly as you do about the issue, the only moral choice would be to quit all our day jobs and ride the anti-abortion train. Anything else would be a mortal sin.
Peace, Todd. As flattering as that bit of hyperbole is -- it's hard for me to imagine taking too seriously the murder of, conservatively, 3,000 innocent people a day who are utterly unprotected in law -- it's hard to see where you derive it from what I've written here.
It seems to me my main gist has been this: If one wants to support the candidate who thinks it's a constitutional right to rip open the head of a baby a minute from birth with scissors and kill her, who will appoint only judges who share that view to the nation's courts, who will pay for doing that with tax dollars, who will spread that philosophy to other countries through foreign aid, who will advocate for treaties in the United Nations imposing that view elsewhere, who will advocate that view to the nation through mass media at every opportunity while presenting himself as a faithful Catholic -- well, then one shouldn't try to pass that support off as being pro-life or in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church. It isn't.
First you imply I'm a partisan. When I demonstrate that's not true, even noting that I can understand someone not wanting to vote for Bush, you accuse me of some kind of impossibly high standard. Actually, all I'm suggesting is that pro-life Catholics should not vote for a president who thinks murder is a constitutional right, whatever party he may be from -- or at the very least, not pretend that it's the pro-life, Catholic thing to do.
Perhaps you could give me the benefit of the doubt the next time there's a question of what I mean?
Posted by: kyle at Apr 22, 2004 10:53:45 AM
Peace, Kyle.
I will take your points, especially on benefits, to heart. You are correct. Except perhaps where you're eager to label something as "sin," when it seems unclear to me such a thing is for certain. Some adjustment is needed there, I think.
I tried to be clear that Kerry is far from the right candidate for me (or really, for anyone) and that Ekeh and I would differ on that point. However, our current president was not very effective from the get-go on the matter. I don't believe it's likely either major party man will slide abortions up or down very much at all.
Is it a sin to be a pragmatist? A realist? The rhetoric I read on this thread talks about John Brown, labels those outside the camp as sinners and Nazis and cowards. Lively talk, perhaps, but not life-ly.
Posted by: Todd at Apr 22, 2004 10:57:09 AM
As Ono is using economic terms to address his views, I will venture to respond from that perspective. The economic terms address the behavioral matters and alternatives available to women with crisis pregnancies. If we do want fewer or no abortions to occur, we should generally seek to limit its availability and to influence the willingness of women to seek an abortion.
Nonetheless, this is a moral issue. If we believe that unborn children are human life and should not be murdered, then we must support efforts to make abortion illegal, unavailable to women, regardless of what else we do. As long as abortion is legal, the demand side approach is very vital because the woman can by law choose to abort her baby. She must be persuaded of the immorality of it. Further, if we can provide other incentives to encourage her to give her child life, then we must use whatever tools are available to us. I don't necessarily agree with all of the economic incentives that Ono cites. I know many lower income young women (white) who give birth to their children and think it's a pretty good deal that they get welfare. Because of today's lack of moral standards, they think nothing of their way of life. So, I'm not really thrilled, myself, with the incentives this creates. Yes, the children are saved, thank God, but are the young women dissuaded from their behavior that landed them in the situation in the first place? No. Have the economic incentives or moral persuasion been enough to save the babies? I am not sure. [I don't have precise figures in front of me, but I think we can all stipulate to the following general facts.] While the rates of abortion continue unabated, the rate of children born to unwed mothers continues to grow--and not just in minority neighborhoods. We need a behavior change, which bumps right up against the quest for absolute sexual freedom referred to above.
Because these efforts are not enough--though very important and must be continued--do NOT misunderstand me, it is clear to me that abortion must be made illegal in order to reduce/stop it in any meaningful way--just looking at it from an economic perspective. The crisis pregnancy centers should still exist b/c women will continue to need guidance when pregnant and single, for example. The things we are doing today should continue, ie, encourage adoption or guide mothers to some plan for living if they raise their children.
Anyway, my hat is off to all who labor to save unborn children, whether by their pursuit of legal prohibition, their direct work on the front lines with the women in such desperate need, prayer, or contributions to pro-life groups (around the world). I think all of this work is valid and important. Demand and supply approaches are complementary, and both should be pursued.
The bottom line, however, is that it must be made illegal because it is the intentional murder of innocent human beings. Thanks again to all of you who labor to save children.
Posted by: Peggy at Apr 22, 2004 11:18:49 AM
Nothing new here. Just another tired rehash of Mario Cuomo at ND circa 1984, and it's even less true now than it was then. Here's the money quote from Ono's apologia, and it's a lie:
"This demand-side approach will take time and does not immediately make abortions rare, but our goal is to change a culture, not just a law."
Who's the "our" in that sentence? Certainly not J. Forbes Kerry, who's publicly professed to be "proud" of favoring the federally funded deaths of innocents until the moment that they have fully emerged from the birth canal. He's on the record as being opposed to changing the culture. Ono needs to find another candidate if he's looking for someone committed to "our goal."
(Oops, sorry, I got carried away. Ono's obviously not looking for a candidate but a fig leaf.)
Posted by: PMC at Apr 22, 2004 11:34:28 AM
T. Marzen says: [Ono's] right to suggest that throwing people (here, doctors and women) in jail may not always be the only or best way to discourage bad behavior.
But it works. And after thirty years and twenty million abortions the folks are getting just a wee bit impatient. I venture to say that if an unborn baby had a say in the matter, he or she would be too. Just a hunch.
Posted by: TSO at Apr 22, 2004 11:36:04 AM
Peggy:
The "bottom line" is not making abortion "illegal," but stopping abortion. Who cares if it a crime to procure an abortion if this does not effectively prevent abortion? You are trading symbolism for substance, potentially sacrificing the lives of unborn children in the process.
Posted by: Celine at Apr 22, 2004 11:41:57 AM
Tom Harmon, the thing we should be asking Oko Eneh is what, precisely, in his proposed strategy:
"if social conditions were changed so that women were empowered, and if we effectively addressed issues such as health care, child care, family leave, wage inequity, domestic violence and other women’s issues"
is Europe not already doing? And if Euro-socialism has not eliminated abortion there, why does Eneh think it would here? (I suspect that the question answers itself -- if abortion disappeared tomorrow, he would advocate all the same things anyway; the abortion issue is merely a rhetorical device.)
Posted by: craig at Apr 22, 2004 11:59:22 AM
