[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 4 (Thursday, January 7, 2016)]
[House]
[Pages H170-H171]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AUTONOMY VERSUS RELATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Fortenberry) for 30 minutes.
Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, I was listening to a talk show one day
when a 13-year-old girl called in. She was confused. At that tender
age, to put it mildly, she talked about how she had been walked all
over by her peers and subjected to the exploitation of an older man.
She had no sufficient sense of self-possession to know that she had
been used. She had no community support, no adult around her to protect
her.
The radio commentator was aghast. But, sadly, Mr. Speaker, this was
another troubling example of a culture of exploitation that is raging
all around us today.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is a bit of light on the horizon. In a
few weeks, tens of thousands of young people from around the country
will assemble around this Capitol to deliver a simple message.
These young people are saying this: They will no longer tolerate the
indifference. They will no longer tolerate a culture of exploitation.
They will no longer tolerate the darkness of the abortion industry.
They are members of the generation that have witnessed firsthand the
devastating consequences when wrong ideas take hold in a society, when
the smartest people in the land--the Supreme Court Justices--are
misguided and do not value all lives, when certain industries profit
from pain.
These young people are saying that women deserve better than
abortion. They are saying that children should be welcome, no matter
how hard the circumstances. They are saying that no one should be
abandoned. There should be no choice between a child and that child's
mother.
Mr. Speaker, it is understandable that many people are reluctant to
enter into arguments about abortion. It is difficult. It is painful. So
many people have experienced this individually or with family members.
But we have to be honest.
Mr. Speaker, if you look behind me at the dais here, you can see the
words ``peace,'' ``liberty,'' and ``justice.'' We have these words all
around our Nation's capital, our Nation's monuments.
But, in truth, we cannot find peace in a society that does not
protect its most innocent lives. We cannot find liberty when we are
indifferent to one another and simply turn away when a woman
[[Page H171]]
faces difficulty. We cannot claim justice for all when we throw away
the innocent unborn life.
Mr. Speaker, I want to delve for a moment into the deeper reasons for
these divisions over abortion and the deeper reasons why we have such a
caustic debate.
For those of us who are pro-life, it can be hard, frankly, to
understand why everyone just doesn't see our perspective. But I believe
that much of the ugliness surrounding the abortion debate hinges upon
the competing values of personal autonomy versus relational
responsibility, once again, personal autonomy versus relational
responsibility.
Of course, working hard, making something of yourself, refusing to
let difficult circumstances overcome you, are all hallmarks of a well-
ordered life essential to an individual's progress as a person.
But, Mr. Speaker, rugged individualism can lead to rugged
isolationism, crushing the vitality of the human heart and leading to
loneliness, hopelessness, and ultimately despair.
And could it be, Mr. Speaker, that the confusion surrounding abortion
is the loss of an understanding of the dignity of each person as they
are set in the environment of a community?
On this deeply painful topic of abortion, the primary community in
question is, first and foremost, the unique bond between a mother and
her child, followed by the bond of the extended family and extended
community.
All politics--all life--Mr. Speaker, is ultimately founded on
relationships. Happiness depends upon social life, on interdependency.
A healthy society depends upon stable and healthy relationships for
promoting sustainable values and our greater ideals.
But because of cultural confusion, we establish a false choice. Is it
a woman's right to choose or is it a child's right to life? This should
not be a consideration in the broader community that is committed to
bonds of solidarity.
Sadly, I believe, we have lost sight of the degree to which the logic
of radical autonomy, severed from foundational principles that order
human relations, namely, in charity, have created the circumstances in
which we now find ourselves.
Individuals who are alone so often become disassociated from
mutuality and community. Decades upon decades of this cultural
conditioning leaves us with an aggregate understanding that our
strength is only found in ourselves. No wonder a young woman, scared,
alone, or abandoned feels such pressure to abort.
Mr. Speaker, during last year's historic papal visit to the United
States, Pope Francis highlighted the need for what I call social
conservation.
{time} 2000
At its root, social conservation is the answer to the widespread
longing in all of our hearts, that longing for a culture of meaning, of
purposefulness.
Pope Francis promoted universal human values, the importance of
society, the primacy of the family, the dignity of work, the
responsibility of people to properly steward the natural environment,
and the sanctity of all life, especially the poor, the elderly, those
who are marginalized, and the unborn.
This holistic approach of Pope Francis does not fit our political
class distinctions, which rage all around us in this body. So this is
not a Democrat or Republican issue, it is about the protection of
persons and how we build a truly healthy society.
Children in the womb are vulnerable, precious members of their
families. We must defend them, not in isolation, but as a part of the
social fabric upon which our shared future as a people depends.
Now, some abortion advocates charge that defenders of the unborn are
pro-life only until birth of the child; that the pro-life position is a
part of a grotesque fiction called the war on women. That is a very
painful accusation.
In the end, I wish we could rise above this, because I believe
everyone should agree that the choice between radical autonomy as a
justification for abortion, versus relational responsibility, is a
false choice. To be pro-life is to be genuinely pro-child, pro-woman,
and pro-family.
No matter how hard the circumstances, we should all be loving enough,
caring enough, and we certainly have resources enough to protect both
the mother and her child.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to look for ways to reframe this
entire debate, to look for some light. Maybe there will continue to be
deep philosophical differences over the question, but maybe there is
some common ground.
A spectrum of policy proposals could more effectively build wider
coalitions, I believe, in the pro-life debate, advancing cultural
conversion instead of cultural war. Initiatives could include an
assault on the scourge of coercion, which forces many women, including
young girls, to have an abortion at the hands of an uncaring boyfriend
or unscrupulous doctor.
Can't we find it in ourselves to attack this injustice? I would like
to believe we can.
What about incentives for businesses to provide better pregnancy and
new parenthood assistance, including maternity and paternity leave?
Some of my colleagues speaking before me mentioned some of these
proposals. No woman should be forced to choose between a paycheck and
her child.
Other ideas could be adoption, enhanced adoption facilities,
countermeasures against workplace pregnancy discrimination, classifying
pregnancy as a qualifying event for health insurance, initiatives for
responsible fatherhood.
That is not my idea, that is President Obama's idea. In fact, I
commended him for that because he raised it in the State of the Union,
as I recall, about 2 years ago.
Finally, I think we should channel money from the abortion facilities
which are receiving America's taxpayer dollars, which most Americans
disagree with, by the way, toward nurturing pregnancy health centers,
and there are many beautiful examples of this all around the country.
By pursuing these policy proposals, maybe we shift the cultural
understanding that it is not a choice between radical autonomy--I can
only find strength in myself, me, as an individual, I am alone,
abandoned, no matter how much I need others--and a relational
responsibility that we all have for one another.
Let's elevate this idea of that relational responsibility of
interdependency within community because we are living in a shattered
society.
Nothing else is working, Mr. Speaker. We are in an age of anxiety and
a time of growing threat to the family, the very basis of the strength
of this great Nation.
Now, more than ever, compassion should be our first principle.
Abortion is violence. Abortion is not health care. Abortion is a
false choice that no one should ever be forced to make.
Let's elevate the ideal of motherhood, protect it, nurture it,
respect it, provide for it, celebrate it, the genius of the feminine,
and the beauty of all life.
Mr. Speaker, in a few short weeks, these young people who will, by
the thousands, tens of thousands, crowd around this Capitol, they are
really telling us one simple truth: Love them both, just love them
both.
I yield back the balance of my time.
____________________