White House Discerns 'Need for Abortion,' But Some Disagree
Corrected on 06/30/09: An earlier version of this article misstated the name of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country
As it works to draft a common-ground plan around abortion and related reproductive issues, the White House is careful to emphasize that is not trying to reduce the number of abortions.
Rather, it says, is aiming to reduce the need for abortion.
Interviewing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Deirdre McQuade, assistant director of policy and communications at the "pro-life secretariat," I was reminded this week that some religious groups object to the very idea of a need for abortion. Says McQuade:
The phrase "reducing the need for abortion" is not a common-ground phrase. We would say that there is no need for abortion, that abortions are signs that we have not met the needs of women. There is no authentic need for abortion.
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (33) | Print
Reader Comments
Can survive on its own
"A fetus in the third trimester can survive on its own, but becuase it is not born yet, you believe it is "absurd" to count it as a person?"
If all those fetuses can survive on their own, why is 1 in 115 a stillbirth? The way to tell whether a fetus to survive is for it to BE born, after which we know which ones are 'persons'.
Your bringing up Scott Peterson, for the millionth time, leads to the question - how can we possibly convince women that abortion isn't the right choice when the fathers are so reluctant? The leading cause of death in pregnant women is partner violence.
Rob Winslow
Rob Winslow,
Why is Paul Bradford's notion that the unborn should be counted as people so absurd? A fetus in the third trimester can survive on its own, but becuase it is not born yet, you believe it is "absurd" to count it as a person? In my mind, not counting a baby that can survive outside of the womb is "absurd." Take a look at the Scott Peterson case. If it is so "absurd" to count an unborn baby as a person, then why was Peterson convicted of 2nd degree murder for killing his unborn child?
Paul Bradford
carries the non-sensical arguments about "persons in the womb" to an absurd extreme by indicating that "ageism" is responsible for our not counting the "unborn" in the same way we count actual humn beings outside the womb (maybe Bradford is being ironic--no matter, just read on).
Did I say "the absurd extreme?" I think I can go him one better and by so doing give real meaning to the Roman Catholic Church's prohibition on contraception.
Since the US Constitution counted slaves as three-fifths of a person, could we agree to count sperm (aren't there millions of them released during sex?) as, say, one-half a person? Partial people (like slaves and sperm) should be regarded with at least some reverence for life and thus considered as we count our total population.
I can't see any logical reason for assuming a fetus or an embryo has a right to lfe and a sperm doesn't. And don't forget the unfertilized eggs.
advertisement
