Ending the problem of abortion in the United States will require not just a change in hearts and laws, but a collaborative effort to address the many complex issues that result in women choosing to end their pregnancies.

But while pro-life and pro-choice advocates may be able to agree on this goal, there is still much debate over how to meet the challenge.

A number of prominent Catholics and other pro-life speakers discussed with their pro-choice counterparts new ways to approach the issue of abortion during a conference entitled “Open Hearts, Open Minds and Fair Minded Words,” held on the campus of Princeton University Oct. 15-16. The conference, which drew more than 400 attendees, explored the moral, legal and social dimensions of abortion with the hope of establishing areas of common ground in which both sides can work together.

Helen Alvaré, a professor in George Mason University’s School of Law, Arlington, Va., and a former spokesperson for the U.S. bishops’ Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities, argued that abortion should be considered from the perspective of family law, which emphasizes concern for the relationships between people, as opposed to taking a Constitutional law perspective. But the problem, she said, is that society has come to view sex, pregnancy and marriage as three separate entities.

“Abortion changed the culture by layering over the contraceptive revolution another form of insurance against getting pregnant when you didn’t want to be,” Alvaré said. Studies have shown, she explained, that the prevalence of abortion and contraception has had a greatly negative impact on relationships, resulting in more out-of-wedlock pregnancies and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

“We need to have a cultural change in the direction of… thinking again that sex and procreation and marriage are a good package and not splitting them up,” Alvaré said. This requires a change to the current approach of sex education, she said, with greater emphasis placed on marriage and promoting strong family relationships.

“The laws at the very least need to advantage marriage and discourage out-of-wedlock sex and pregnancy,” she said. “We need to move our marriage and divorce laws toward greater stability.”

Addressing Causes
Speakers on both sides of the issue agreed that the number of pregnancies occurring outside marriage or in unstable relationships are a serious problem. In addition, economic conditions were cited as a key reason for why women turn to abortion.

According to a 2008 study published by the Guttmacher Institute, 42 percent of women who had abortions reported incomes below 100 percent of the federal poverty level, meaning an annual income of less than $10,830 for single women with no children. An additional 27 percent were identified as low-income, while 33 percent did not have health insurance.

“All of these factors are documented to contribute to the demand for abortion,” said David Gushee, a pro-life Baptist who teaches Christian ethics at Mercer University in Atlanta, Ga. “A woman finds herself pregnant and doesn’t think she has any other options, so she chooses abortion.

“It is a forced choice,” he continued. “And if Roe v. Wade were overturned tomorrow, there would still be a significant number of people who found themselves in that situation and who would then face the same choice, but in a different context.”

One common goal is to reduce the number of women who find themselves in that situation by preventing unintended pregnancy, which studies show accounts for roughly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. A panel discussing this goal, however, focused heavily on increasing access to artificial contraception and promoting more effective contraceptive methods.

Father Joseph Tham, a bioethics professor in Rome’s Regina Apostolorum University, attempted to present a Catholic view on the issue but was in the minority on an otherwise pro-choice, pro-contraception panel. In an interview after the presentation, Father Tham added that he was disappointed with the panel’s emphasis on contraception and its failure to discuss the successes of abstinence education.

A more Catholic solution, he explained, would be to promote broader discussion of natural family planning methods – something that was not given any consideration in the discussion on preventing unintended pregnancy.

“You need doctors, priests and couples speaking out on this,” Father Tham said. “The doctors give it more scientific credibility, the priest gives it the moral reasoning and the couple gives the testimony. I think you need all three in order to make an effective argument and sometimes that is very difficult to find.”

Engaging in Dialog
Despite areas of disagreement, however, Father Tham explained that it is important for Catholics to be involved in discussing life issues with those who are pro-choice.

“It is important for us to be in these kinds of forums as Catholics,” he said. “It is easy to just stay where we are comfortable, in a setting where we can talk to people who are with us… But for us to really have charity in truth, true charity means going out of your comfort zone and trying to engage those who have different opinions.”

Alvaré added that bringing a Catholic voice to a public discourse on abortion serves two important purposes – it is an opportunity to present a convincing argument to those who may not have a firm position on the issue and it is a chance to better understand the opposing side’s argument.

“I like to see them at their allegedly ‘best game’ and say, what is the hardest thing I need to respond to?” Alvaré said in an interview after the conference. “It was great for me to hear them explain themselves so I could explain ourselves back.”

To sit down and engage in discussion with pro-choice supporters may be difficult, she noted, but it is also an important step in adding a human element to the often heated battle between the two sides.

“It is always good to reach out to other human beings, period,” Alvaré said. “Some of them will be, like the speakers who support legal abortion, pretty hard and fast in their position. But it is still good to meet them so that they understand that they ought not to demonize the people who are pro-life.”