Review: Beyond the Abortion Wars | National Catholic Reporter

Review: Beyond the Abortion Wars | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: It's good Prof.Camosy wrote this book. There is a danger in saying what is missing in a book without having a copy before me, however I suspect that if he mentioned these points, MSW would have screamed bloody murder. Still, Camosy nails it on the mushy middle and I suspect he is correct on the possibility of compromise, if only because it would shut the rest up.



I will submit first that Abortion in America is much more about politics than morality. The debate over the Affordable Care Act proved that. There was no chance of the Catholic bishops ever endorsing the Act and the most tenuous arguments were used against it. The unaptly named Susan B. Anthony fund took the inch by the bishops and spun a mile of yarn to rid Congress of Pro-Life Democrats who voted for the bill. One look at who sits on the National Right to Life Committee would likely prove how much the bishops have become involved with the GOP, except that they don't post that information on their web page - but go to the March for Life if you have any doubt. And if you want to see someone run from a proposal, suggest that they make a $1000 per month, even $500 per month, per child (the last of which is easily paid for by getting rid of the child exemption, the mortgage interest deduction and the property tax deduction - now that would be tax reform! Camosy, do you read your reviews? By the way, this solves the problem of the economics of having another child,



Then we have the other side. Public school teachers unions.  Most of the women you see at Democratic National Conventions are teachers.  Some are retired and are old enough to remember the bad old days pre-Roe, where there were more abortions, many more deaths and harrassment - not so much of doctors but of advocates for legal abortion.  They are not budging, but they might like that tax credit - although they fear it might lead to the old restrictions.  Indeed, even the prospect of state by state action, which we essentially have with trap laws is a matter for concern.  No one quite believes such laws are for the health of the mother.



The personhood argument is interesting.  My readers can probably recite it. No one questions the personhood of a second or third trimester fetus.  Either something is majorly wrong - Downs, or fatally wrong.  On the fatally wrong side, the bishops are against taking action in the face of the inevitable.  Doctors want it done yesterday and the doctors are right. At this stage, the argument is not one of innocence. Its danger - as in giving birth to a child with no chace to even survive birth can be fatal with the wrong kind of chromosomal defect (these migrate past the fetal blood barrier in the placenta with potentially fatal cardio-vascular effects. You didn't know?  Shame on you. We can certainly have ethics boards, but only if the Catholic bishops change their health care directives to take out their fear of doctors playing God.  Non-negotiable. No evangelization should even occur to a Church whose bishops are sure that God is an Ogre. So, the moral analysis must admit that the issue is danger, not innocence - although the innocence argument is great for the GOP agenda.



On the Downs topic. No making it illegal until the Church, with or without public funds, houses or offers respite care to the families of all Downs children.  The state's history in housing these folks is aweful and it has used the opportunity to enforce Eugenics. The whole group home thing?  I have a mental health diagnosis and if you believe what the deinstitutionalization forces said, there should be a free group home bed waiting for me - and for every Downs patient not living at home. Still waiting.



Continuing with personhood. This time in the first trimester.  The problem with assuming personhood for all embryoes is that it turns the embryoes who die in miscarriage as subjects of law. (There is no such thing as a first trimester fetus. You didn't know? Double shame on you and the person who did not teach you the right terms.)  Being a subject of law means that if you die, there can be an inquest.  Its funny when a pro-life public servant hears about my argument and says we need to investigate every micarriage.  He obviously did not get the joke. Avoiding that nonsense for families grieving the loss of a child is why we don't do that.  We also don't want tort suits against doctors in this area. Nothing is more morally repugnant, even then abortion, then the thought of an army of Ave Maria and Liberty law grads aggressively seeking to make their names seeking these suits - and making miscarriage a public event would give them names on the public record. That flaw makes any first trimester ban untenable.



Then there is before pregnancy.  Fertilization to gastrulation.  This one is easy.  Not a person. While it has DNA from both parents, only the maternal DNA is active in growth.  When both sides work, you are a person.  In some species (not ours) fatal hybrids continue to develop until gastrulation. Assuming for a second that happened to humans, do dog-human hybrids that are destined to die have souls? Lets do another animal that does allow hybrids. Do human-horse combinations before gasturlation have souls?  Do they go to Heaven? I am not even going to do twinning, which also stops at gastrulation.If you had a Catholic ethics class before Evangelicum Vitae, you know that twinning was the standard argument against life at fertilization.  Now the lame retort is that God gives the twin a soul at twinning.  Pure fiction.



What about the pro choice side? That is easy.  Go to the NARAL-Pro Choice America web page or the one for the National Center for Reproductive Rights if you doubt the need for their work.  NCRR is the law firm that works on abortion cases - big success rate  - their major loss was partial birth abortion - if you call that a loss. The goal of the law was a shot at overturning Roe. The pro-lifers were certain their boy W had given them the right justices in Roberts and Alito.  Nope. Roberts and Alito went with Kennedy on a decision that invoked the Commerce Clause to give Congress the power to do the law (odd that they could go there on abortion and not mandates in the ACA). Does the Democratic Party love this an issue? Sure, but if the pro-life movement suddenly was raptured, the Pro-Choice movement would go away.  Also, I suspect most of the movement would love to see the Child Tax Credit increase I suggested above pass, even though it might put a big chunk of the abortion practice out of business (no more abortions for economic danger). Pity the bishops won't get behind it. When they do, when they provide such a wage for their employees, I will believe they are serious.



What about pro-choice Catholic politicians? They are cowards. They know most of the facts I have laid out above - even the ones about personhood. They certainly know the implications of the bishop's cooperation with the political scam that is the pro-choice movement. Yet they say nothing but repeat the lame defense offered by Cuomo - pluralism. Letting the current political regime goes on does have electoral advantage, but mostly it is done out of fear that the truth will alienate Catholic voters who don't like seeing the Church attacked, even if they agree it is wrong. Maybe soon, courage will be rewarded, starting with that tax cut.