The actual facts

The statement “You cannot be pro-life and pro-choice at the same time” (“The facts,” Anne Barbera, Nov. 17) is not a fact. There is no well-constructed fence that divides the abortion debate.

The term “choice” has more complexities than the traditional abortion debate acknowledges. A pregnant woman who opposes abortion chooses to carry her child to term; thus, she is making a choice. In a world where the existence of available options (one being abortion) generates the necessity of choice, she made a conscious decision to give birth. Traditionally, this woman is “pro-life.” Other “pro-life” advocates would support her decision. However, the “pro-life” side of the “fence” normally fails to recognize that they are supporting the woman’s decision to choose life. The fact that choosing life is excluded from the pro-choice spectrum shows that the fence analogy is flawed.

Maintaining a moral stance on an issue does not mean that you cannot respect other opinions. One can genuinely believe in the Catholic faith while respecting another’s right to choose a different religion. A woman can maintain the position that she would never choose to abort a child, yet respect another woman’s belief that abortion should be permissible in certain circumstances. Wouldn’t that traditionally make her both pro-life and pro-choice? No one knows the truth. It is not our place to judge and label one another.

The real fact is that we will never live in a world where there is complete consensus on complex moral debates. The best that individuals with differing views on abortion can do is to work together to find common ground in the matter, such as focusing on efforts to reduce unwanted pregnancies that create the need for abortion in the first place. Furthermore, we should stop seeking to divide the issue into such black and white labels; the search for truth in morality should not be treated as a civil war within humanity. It is not that simple.

James Petrocelli

senior

off campus

Nov. 17

7 comments

Jacquitta

Sun Nov 22 2009 14:51

Whether one believes in abortion or not, there are women having them. Why? Focusing on the consequences of premarital sex is getting us no where. Let's figure out a way to deal with this through education. Educating young men and women about the dangers of entering into a sexual relationship with someone who is not your husband or wife. Maybe if that became the focus the number of abortions would show signs of decrease. And I would have to disagree about there not being a gray area.

Kevin

Thu Nov 19 2009 23:44

Tom:

There really is no disagreement as to when life begins. It is biologically well established when life begins. The disagreement is that people are unwilling to equate human life with human personhood. This of course promotes an ethical relativism that is determined by those who are in power as opposed to an objective reality.

Additionally, you are promoting a statement that essentially says there is no absolute morality - this is ethical relativism, which is an inherently contradictory position. "There are absolutely no absolutes." This position cannot logically be held.

John

Wed Nov 18 2009 21:33

Not at all. as catholics, the best we can do is SEARCH for the truth while acknowledging that only GOD knows the truth. YOU, my friend, are NOT GOD.

Your name

Wed Nov 18 2009 21:19

"No one knows the truth"
lost complete credibility with that statement, especially as a Catholic

Tom

Wed Nov 18 2009 20:48

Kevin,
Let's try a part of your argument on another issue.
It is quite natural and normal to die of cancer. Surgery is not.
The gray area comes when people disagree on when life begins. You don't see that because you think there is an absolute morality based on your religion.

Mike

Wed Nov 18 2009 14:00

Pro-life absolutely does not mean you choose abortion.

Kevin

Wed Nov 18 2009 13:48

Let's try part of this argument on another issue:

Maintaining a moral stance on an issue does not mean that you cannot respect other opinions. One can genuinely believe in the Catholic faith while respecting another’s right to choose a different religion. A man can maintain the position that hewould never choose to rape a woman, yet respect another man's belief that rape should be permissible in certain circumstances. Wouldn’t that traditionally make him both pro-woman and pro-choice? No one knows the truth. It is not our place to judge and label one another.

The term "pro-choice" is a semantic dodge to advocate for abortion. To choose is a transitive verb - it must have an object. The person who labels himself as pro-choice ultimately fills the object with "abortion." It is quite natural and normal to have a child. Abortion is not. The semantic shift is an attempt to mask an intrinsic evil with the American ideal of liberty and choice. Yet we all know that unrestricted choice is not a virtue - it is anarchy.

There is a very well defined understanding of what abortion is - the gray area comes when people choose to ignore the simplicity of the moral issue by complicating it with all of the other areas of life.

Add comment


I am not posting spam. I understand posting spam or other comments that are unrelated to this article will cause my comment to be flagged for deletion and possibly cause my IP address to be permanently banned from this server.

Enter the characters in the image above:

log out