We're not so different after all

I realize this is overdue, but I just wanted to comment on the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, which came and went on Jan. 22. Much has already been said about it, including (hopefully) what I have to say here, but in case it hasn't been said, here goes.

All my life I have been a fairly devoted pro-lifer; for me, the question of whether or not an unborn fetus is a human person is one of the few ethical questions that seems straightforward and unambiguous. I was pleased to discover this year that the Catholic Church in America is officially observing the passage of the Roe v. Wade anniversary with a national day of prayer and penance for an end to abortion (since the 22nd falls on a Sunday this year, the official observance was on the 23rd, but you know, it's the thought that counts).

The observance of this day of penance and prayer can include the celebration of a special "Mass for the Preservation of Peace and Justice." I think the fact that it is a Mass for peace and justice, not "For an end to abortion" per se, elegantly demonstrates an important truth that is often lost in the highly emotional pro-life/pro-choice debate. Especially with presidential elections looming, having polarizing and divisive language surrounding any ideological difference seems only natural. Needless to say, this is sadly characteristic of the abortion controversy.

I remember going to a pro-life rally somewhat recently and being struck by the unpleasantly combative tone the keynote speaker took when referring to pro-choicers. Then there was another rally I went to a few years ago where a few of the opposing pro-choice demonstrators showed their disdain by running naked across the plaza in which the pro-lifers were gathered.

This sort of behavior — this rather undiscriminating treatment of the other side of the debate as evil or stupid — is less than ideal. This is not just because it shows a lack of respect for one's opponent who, as a human, demands that respect, but also because it loses sight of a pretty fundamental truth of the whole issue: No one likes abortion. For some, however, it seems a necessary evil. Necessary because of the greater evils of poverty, disease, substance abuse, domestic violence, etc., all of which make the world seem an unreasonably inhospitable place into which to bring a child. Readers who consider yourselves pro-choice, feel free to disagree with me, but I get the impression that you all aren't interested in abortion as an end in itself but rather as a potential means of securing the well-being of disadvantaged women and preventing the suffering of would-be-unwanted children. Pro-lifers, for their part, are not insensitive to these concerns either, but they feel that the response to them should not entail a further injustice of depriving an unborn child of his or her life.

As wildly different as the pro-choice and pro-life positions are, they both hold the crucial similarity of a concern for the dignity and well-being of those impacted by unwanted or otherwise troublesome pregnancy, and it oversimplifies the issue to claim that pro-lifers crassly disregard the needs of women or pro-choicers the needs of children. As a priest I know recently pointed out in a homily, a woman and her child are something of a "package deal," and as such have needs and concerns that are closely intertwined. Abortion comes into the issue as a result of injustices, of things that should not happen, that threaten to drive apart a mother and child. Pro-choicers see abortion as an unfortunate but necessary way of addressing the suffering caused by such injustices, while pro-lifers do not. Both, however, would prefer a world in which those injustices aren't there in the first place, a world where abortion need not even be considered because poverty, rape, drug abuse and whatever else are not forcing its consideration.

Obviously, such deep-seated and complex problems as poverty and sexual violence are not going to be solved anytime soon, and so the division between pro-life and pro-choice is not going away either. But it behooves both groups to realize their important similarities: Insofar as abortion springs up as a response to injustice, pro-lifers and pro-choicers are both concerned with the redress and prevention of those injustices. Although it may be reaching to say that this is what the American bishops expressly had in mind, I think it is implicitly recognized in their recommendation of the celebration of a "Mass for the Preservation of Peace and Justice." As the Roe v. Wade decision approaches its 40th anniversary, that's an important recognition to make.