Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Just plain Rivka's avatar

Asking the hard questions.

Expand full comment
Lydwine's avatar

In the early 1960s, opposition to abortion was considered something of a Catholic hobbyhorse, and was often tied to the Church's opposition to artificial contraception. Both, in Church teaching, contravened natural law, and so were seen as inappropriate for human flourishing. As abortion laws began to liberalize at the state level throughout the decade, Catholic bishops wisely encouraged Catholic clergy and laypeople to begin making alliances with non-Catholics (Jews and Protestants). This is really the beginning of what we now call the pro-life movement, which began to coalesce several years before Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. Part of that bridge building between faiths and denominations was in reframing the issue of abortion outside arguments rooted in natural law, and placing the arguments instead squarely within the rights-based language of American discourse - which is how we end up with "pro right-to-life" as a cause, eventually shortened to "pro-life". But in laying aside natural law arguments in favor of rights-based language, the issue of contraception was decoupled from the issue of abortion. Arguments about abortion became much more rooted in the right of the child to live, and less about how our sexuality must be oriented toward human flourishing. This was an effective strategy, but also leaves some unfinished work to be done by the movement - specifically, a deep discussion of whether fertility in itself is at the center of human identity, or whether it is best understood as a disability or a disease to be managed through medical/pharmaceutical intervention. This is part of the story we're hoping to tell: https://lydwine.substack.com/s/praise-her-in-the-gates

Expand full comment
3 more comments...

No posts