Common Ground

Returning to Obama's speech at Notre Dame, I wanted to address the question a bit more deeply of what it means to speak of "common ground" on the subject.

Anonymous in comments has been raising some very good questions about the implications of, and the sincerity of, Obama's claim of seeking common ground, some of which you can read in comments. Let me just quote a bit of one of my responses, and then follow up with some detailed replies to Anonymous's counter-response.

Since I don't acknowledge the premise that a fetus is entitled to "human rights" in a fully vested sense at every stage of pregnancy, I would agree that my view of common ground excludes that discussion. That's why it WOULDN'T constitute common ground. That seems fairly clear. The point of achieving common ground is to work around the things we agree on, not argue about the things you don't.

Put it this way: Would it matter that abortion was legal if we were successful in ensuring that no unintended pregnancies took place? I'd submit it wouldn't. The issue would be moot. To rather than argue about the legality, about which we don't agree, let's strive to reduce unwanted pregnancies, about which we do That's common ground.

Anonymous replies at length, and I'm going to intersperse his reply and my responses to his points below. In invite responses from anyone else who cares to chime in on the issue as well:

It is good to hear that you don't believe a fetus bears human rights from conception; I assumed that this was your position, as otherwise your stance on abortion law would be rather monstrous.

Well, there's nothing like starting a conversation by implying your opponent may be monstrous. But apparently I'm not since I start from a different set of premises than Anonymous does. *Phew!* Dodged that bullet!

But let's examine the substance of the claim: Anonymous seems to be saying that, if I were to acknowledge the fetus as entitled to full human rights "at conception" (whatever that means), then any position which allowed for elective abortions would be monstrous. But this doesn't follow. Consider the classic "Violinist" case, elaborated by Judith Jarvis Thompson. In this case, I wake up one morning to find that I have been attached involuntarily to a life support system, and as a result I am the only thing standing between death and a famous violinist. Am I, as a result of having been attached to this life-support system, morally obligated to remain attached to it?

Jarvis Thompson acknowledges that both I and the violinist are in possession of the full complement of basic human rights. But I did not consent to be attached to the machine, and would not have consented had I been given the choice. My attachment to the machine is a matter of luck (good or bad) and happenstance. What are my moral obligations?

Jarvis Thompson argues that I cannot be morally obligated to remain attached to the life support machine.

So my own view is that even though you ought to let the violinist use your kidneys for the one hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so--we should say that if you refuse, you are, like the boy who owns all the chocolates and will give none away, self-centered and callous, indecent in fact, but not unjust. And similarly, that even supposing a case in which a woman pregnant due to rape ought to allow the unborn person to use her body for the hour he needs, we should not conclude that he has a right to do so; we should say that she is self-centered, callous, indecent, but not unjust, if she refuses. The complaints are no less grave; they are just different. However, there is no need to insist on this point. If anyone does wish to deduce "he has a right" from "you ought," then all the same he must surely grant that there are cases in which it is not morally required of you that you allow that violinist to use your kidneys, and in which he does not have a right to use them, and in which you do not do him an injustice if you refuse. And so also for mother and unborn child. Except in such cases as the unborn person has a right to demand it--and we were leaving open the possibility that there may be such cases--nobody is morally required to make large sacrifices, of health, of all other interests and concerns, of all other duties and commitments, for nine years, or even for nine months, in order to keep another person alive.

Jarvis acknowledges, as I do, that there may be cases where you could potentially make the case that abortion would be a violation of rights in some cases, but her point, and mine right now, is that even if we grant that a fetus, like the violinist, is fully vested with human rights, there is no necessary obligation to refrain from abortion. The rights of the fetus cannot be bought at the expense of the rights of the mother. And the mother cannot be obligated to give up her rights, even if we might think her callous to insist upon them.

Anonymous continues:

It is easy enough for you to say that there's no common ground on the moral status of the unborn child, and so we should be working on aspects of the problem that we agree on, or perhaps on those things where an approximation of an agreement could be hammered out.

But your response here has everything to do with the legal default position that you enjoy. A number of abortive procedures are currently legal in the U.S.-- Does this mean that in a hypothetical situation where all abortion was illegal, you would still say, "I don't believe that fetuses bear human rights at all stages, therefore we don't have any common ground here, therefore we should work on things where there's agreement?"

I would certainly continue to say that. But I would also, to one degree or another, strive to change the mind of my opponents, and, where possible to change the law. But, more to the point, the situations are not actually parallel from my perspective, precisely because I do think a woman is vested with human rights. I think the woman's position as a bearer of rights is unambiguous, whereas, at best, the rights of the fetus are ambiguous. And so, yes, I would, in such a situation, prefer to recognize and protect rights that are unambiguously acknowledged over against rights that remain ambiguous.

But again, in the mean time, nothing would prevent me from working on whatever common ground issues were raised by the situation (it might be interesting to contemplate what that might be, but certainly stopping unwanted pregnancies would remain an issue). The situation in that sence would remain parallel to the present situation, and again, my hypothetical question would remain: If unwanted pregnancies were reduced to zero, the question of elective abortions would be rendered moot (however, issues of when an abortion would be medically necessary or desirable would still remain).

Back to Anonymous:

You are arguing for retaining the status quo on aspects of the problem where we've reached an impasse, and that sounds sensible enough. But such a position is very convenient to take given that abortion is legal in many instances. Do you really blame those who find this to be a human rights violation for pushing against this status quo, "common ground" be damned?

No, I would expect those who disagree with me to continue engaging in a discourse designed to facilitate open communication, in which the possibility of changing my mind always exists. Frankly, I have never encountered an argument that "life" (whatever that means) begins at "conception" (whatever that means) that is not, at its core, question begging. But I leave open the possibility that someone may come across with one that I will find convincing. If the attitude of someone on the other side is "common ground be damned," then I don't see how they could reasonably expect to convince me of their good will. I would expect that they're much more interested in coercing me.

Anonymous continues:

And how do you explain Obama's actions in lifting restrictions on embryonic research, or repealing Bush's (granted, 11th hour) conscience clause, or other similar policies? All of these actions were taken with no regard for whether there was "common ground", and all of them had serious ramifications for the pro-life movement's goals.

I disagree that the actions were taken with regard for whether there was "common ground." They were undertaken consistent with his frequently reiterated campaign pledges, for which he recieved a significant majority of the vote. And, at the same time, he recognized the legitimate concerns of those who differ from him on the issue:

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values.  In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent.  As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering.  I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research - and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance.  Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research.  I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear.  The majority of Americans - from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs - have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research.  That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree.  That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research.  We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend them for that work.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek.  No President can promise that.  But I can promise that we will seek them - actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground.  Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly.  We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted.  We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse.  And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction.  It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

There are of course other paths of stem cell research that may also prove fruitful, but recognizing that doesn't require that we abandon the potentially fruitful advances made in ESC research.

Anonymous:

But I don't blame Obama for doing that. Because unlike you, I can recognize that there are some fundamental moral battles being fought here, and that punting to the status quo isn't necessarily the morally responsible (nevermind the politically viable) thing to do.

Who says I don't recognize that fundamental moral battles are being fought here. Just because I draw the battle lines in a different location doesn't mean I don't recognize the issues at stake. Again, nothing like a bit of strawman to temper an otherwise reasonable argument.

Back to Anonymous:

During the civil rights movement, or during the abolitionist movement, or the gay rights movement, did religious leaders choose to abandon issues that they felt to be human rights atrocities for the sake of dialogue over those aspects of the debate where common ground could be found? Whether or not you would associate the current pro-life movement with these other human rights movements, it's necessary to recognize that one who is pro-life is such on the basis of what is perceived to be a massive violation of human rights. In such an instance, would you advocate for retaining the status quo because the issue does not enjoy common ground? Isn't speaking truth to power despite calls for "reasonable consensus" or "compromise" or "moderation" what prophetic politics is all about? I imagine the only reason why you don't recognize the legitimacy of this in the case of the pro-life movement is because of personal ideological differences, rather than because of any objective assessment.

Again, I don't know why this seems to be unclear: No one is asking anyone else to stop advocating for what they deem to be the right thing. The point is to work on the things we do agree on in the midst of our deeply felt disagreements, not to stop working on changing hearts, minds, and laws. The question is, in the mean time, what are you going to do? Society is constructed and functions on the basis of our agreements, and despite our disagreements. When we turn our focus exclusively to our disagreements, then society grinds to a halt.

Anonymous again:

But even where you DO propose action based on common ground... is there really common ground, or are you simply constructing it to make your case? Now, I'm not against contraceptive education or availability myself, nor am I against government welfare and social services to help young women and expectant mothers. But can you really say with a straight face that this is a point of "common ground"? Have you forgotten all of the disputes in this country between abstinence-only and "comprehensive" sex education? Or more general opposition to a contraceptive culture? Or opposition to expanded government action in social services? It seems that there's no more common ground here than there is on the question of how to deal with the legal status of abortion. What makes you think of these sorts of approaches as "common ground"?

At a certain point, there is always going to be someone who is willing to move the goal posts farther down the field. You make policy on the basis of what you think is the right thing to do. If you convince enough people, you get elected -- or reelected. If you overstep, you lose the next election. Policy isn't about making everyone happy all the time. And what Obama demonstrates that many of his opponenets don't is a willingness to listen to and take seriously other points of view. Obama is more likely, based on his recent record, to make allowances for "abstinance only" and extra-governmental social services in his policies than his opponenets seem to be to move toward him. Who in this situation is engaging in a good faith argument and who isn't? you seem to be turning your fire to Obama. I'd focus more on his opponents.

And finally:

My sense is that there is both more and less "common ground" than Obama tends to speak of. There's more in the sense that even where people disagree, we can still speak of "common ground" in a weak sense, closer to "compromise"... though we may not agree entirely, we can give some political territory here and there for the sake of the common good (with sex education, or with conscience clauses, or with some more clarifications on what constitutes "health of the mother", etc.). But there's also less "common ground" than many recognize, insofar as calls for "reducing abortions" are often altogether too vague about how exactly these abortions would be reduced, and usually the approaches to reduction just meet that many more fundamental disagreements.

Well, one way to examine this is to look at what policies actually work. If your commitment is to reducing abortions, what policies have actually be successful at doing so? This is an empirical matter, not an ideological one: Where there is comprehensive sex education, access to contraception, emphasis on women's sexual health, and a robust system of social services, abortions decline. Where there is not, abortions don't decline. Do a state-by-state comparison of abortion rates, and you'll note that where those structures exist, there are fewer abortions. Where the emphasis is on abstinance only, and where social services are lousy, there are an increased number of unwanted pregnancies, and a concomitant increase in abortions.

Comments

[anonymous]

Thanks for the extensive response. I'm sure I won't address everything adequately, but I may revisit later too.

The point from your original post that I started off responding to was this: "...[Obama] was willing and ready to engage directly with his opponents on this issue, and do so not from a position of conflict but from one of seeking mutual common ground." And I agree with this, that he is ready and willing in large part to engage on this sort of level.

What strikes me as shortsighted, however, is to recognize that Obama advocates keeping abortion legal, "not from a position of conflict" while assuming that,

"On the conservative end, there was probably litterally [sic] nothing Obama could have said short of "I renounce my support for abortion rights and fully support a constitutional ban on abortions," that would have pleased them."

My point is simply that on Obama's end, there is a similar sense that, short of accepting a situation of recognized "abortion rights", nothing the pro-life movement has said would have pleased him.

Language of common ground is helpful, but there's no very clear sense of what that ground is. Depending upon who is speaking, certain groups may or may not be within the pale of those "seeking mutual common ground" in advocating for opinions that are a matter of dispute.

I don't disagree with you that a rights-bearing fetus doesn't imply a complete restriction of abortion; in fact, I'm not supportive of a complete restriction of abortion (although I'd also say that I think Thompson's characterization of the disputed rights of the violinist is problematic). I'm not trying to prove anything wrong about your position on abortion, its coherence, or the worthwhile goal of advocating for what you believe on this.

All I'm trying to say is that Obama's seeking of mutual common ground is no different than Bush's. In both cases the basic questions of this debate are not a matter of common agreement, and we can only speak in a very tentative sense of what is common ground. In both cases there is a good faith recognition that the opposition makes a heartfelt and important case. And in both cases, law simply has to be made or remade as needed, whether or not everyone will be pleased with it. As you say, certain constituencies will probably never be pleased.

I'm just trying to call a spade a spade and say that mutual dialogue is a good thing, but we should not try to fool ourselves about whether the Obama administration has been uniquely cooperative or attentive to those who disagree. I'm not saying he's been inattentive, but I'm saying that pro-choice advocates under Bush were just as impossible to please as pro-life advocates under Obama.

On the constructive work to reduce abortions, we also need to consider that strategies to achieve this goal also overlap with other questions of political concern... that is, yes, sex education will reduce abortion, but education policy has its own problems and goals. Yes, social services will reduce abortion, but they have their own costs and are their own concern apart from the question of abortion. That's not to deny the importance of considering them, but just to say that someone can disagree with these policy solutions without thus being contradictory about their commitment to reduce abortions. On the other hand, it's also worth considering that reducing abortions is not the only basic goal of the abortion problem. The argument might be similar to those who are opposed to capital punishment. Certainly it is sensible to tighten standards of evidence and make sure that capital punishment is reduced in practice to cases of absolute necessity, but for someone who is opposed to the practice outright, this isn't in itself a viable solution or the ultimate goal, even if it's something where some compromise can be reached. Part of the goal of the pro-life movement is to end a culture where abortion could be considered a viable option, and that's a different goal than simply assisting more people so that the moral viability of abortion doesn't need to be considered one way or the other.

[anonymous]

"You make policy on the basis of what you think is the right thing to do. If you convince enough people, you get elected -- or reelected. If you overstep, you lose the next election. Policy isn't about making everyone happy all the time. And what Obama demonstrates that many of his opponenets [sic] don't is a willingness to listen to and take seriously other points of view."

I would agree with this, but it's worth clarifying that a political mandate is not the same as common ground. What you're saying here is the same thing that Bush said in 2004 about cashing in political capital. Which, again, is fine. But it's not particularly cooperative in any way, and when you follow up this comment by saying that Obama is more willing to listen or even implement other points of view, I think your argument is on rather unsteady ground. Again, not because I think Obama is uncooperative, but because I think you underestimate the extent to which 1) the opposition is trying to work cooperatively and constructively and 2) the extent to which Obama's gestures at cooperation are undercut but his radically different basic stance of toleration of abortion (that is... what you think prevents many of his opponents from seeking common ground- a basic insistence against the moral viability of abortion as a matter of human rights- is the same sort of thing that prevents Obama from seeking common ground in the eyes of his opponents- a basic tolerance of a grave human rights violation).

[Ed Darrell]

I think Obama is seeking common ground. He has done little to make abortion more easily available. He's done nothing to slow the terroristic attacks on abortion providers and abortion seekers. He urged dialogue at Notre Dame (a point the Vatican picked up on, but few anti-women protesters in the U.S. did).

Allowing people to make their own decisions about whether to have children and when is not radical in any sense.

[anonymous]

"Allowing people to make their own decisions about whether to have children and when is not radical in any sense."

Of course it's not. No one's disagreeing about that. Even the most stringent Catholic opponents of contraceptives support alternatives like NFP. The opposition of the pro-life movement to abortion has nothing to do with an opposition to decisions about whether or when to have children, in the same way that an opposition to infanticide has nothing to do with it.

Please try to understand the other side that you claim to be dialoging with. Language of "anti-women" is no more helpful than "baby-killer" language. Don't tell us you're seeking common ground and call us misogynist in the same breath- that's incredibly patronizing.