By Tina Grazier
When the everyday practice of abortion ends I think it will have happened because women, not legislators or the courts, choose to end it as a matter of conscience. I've believed this for a long time. It's the only outcome that makes any sense when you consider that women are naturally the givers of life, that women are nurturers at heart and that it was women who demanded the "right" to abort through Roe v. Wade.
We have spent the years since Roe v Wade stuck in a fight. Something that once made us a sisterhood now bitterly divides us. Pro-choice advocates cling desperately to a single argument, that a woman has a right to decide what to do with her body. Pro-life advocates insist that pregnancy marks the beginning journey for a precious individual human life. It's hard to get around the fact that women have and share this unique responsibility to carry, protect, and bring life into the world but somehow women for choice manage it. Moral concerns have been dismissed as the oppressive thinking of religious nuts who are pathetically stuck in an old fashioned paradigm and yet, there isn't a woman in the world who wouldn't breathlessly inform a soon to be father that they are expecting a baby. Even so, sophisticated pro-choicers choose to use cold scientific and medical terminology when the subject of pregnancy and choice comes up, a stance that infuriates and saddens pro-lifers who cannot fathom the coldness it displays.
Scratching and clawing for authority and power over the years on this subject has led us exactly nowhere and has inspired violence and tragedy. Yes indeed ladies it has amounted to a thirty five-year-and-counting cat fight that is unworthy of the position we hold as women. It makes very little sense to go on in this way. Women today are more educated than ever before. We are armed with new information and technologies to support us as we consider this weighty issue. But when it comes to acknowledging basic natural motivations and responsibilities we have fallen short. Too many of us are clueless, in denial, or unwilling to discuss the matter reasonably.
In light of the basic nature of women a single truth shines bright in the pro-choice argument and is, in fact, absolutely defensible: abortion should be rare. Since 1973 more than 50 million abortions have been performed. There is no way of knowing how many more have actually occurred by other means. Women, especially pro-choice women, should be reeling since we vowed in early argumentation that abortions would be rare. In 1973 women couldn't imagine the unintended consequence of the law...fifty million aborted...because women were raised to value life. Truckloads of guilt are waiting to be unloaded and experienced around that one tiny promise from the Roe v. Wade decision. If appropriate guilt has not crossed women's minds perhaps it's because they've clung too desperately to the freedom and power they think they've gained while giving little thought to the ethics and social ramifications of the decision.
The time has come to retract our claws, dig deeply into our beings and tell the truth. Women need to approach this subject as mature thinking adults and while we are at it consider our own baxic natures. Its the loving, nurturing nature of woman that turned concern for suffering or lost animals into a fierce, often over the top, battle for the protection of animals. It was the tenacity and passion of women fighting for the lives of themselves and their sisters that brought breast cancer to the forefront for funding and research. How can women be that concerned with the life of an animals and the lives of themselves and each other and not be equally concerned with preserving the life of their own, or their sisters, unborn child? This is the salient question that is often asked by Pro-lifers. How can we indeed? This question has gone unanswered. But now there is hope for honest self evaluation and debate. It came into my family room this morning in the form of a very good Salon article in which the writer, Frances Kissling, considers ethical questions about the choice position :
Can we ever say a woman can't choose?" By Frances Kissling - Salon
It's hard for pro-choicers to admit sometimes a woman shouldn't be allowed to choose abortion -- but we have to.
**Joan Walsh's appearance on Fox's "O'Reilly Factor" set me to thinking again about these tough questions, and whether it makes sense for the pro-choice movement to deal publicly with the ethical issues as well as the legal issues surrounding abortion. There's always been a fear in the choice movement that if we deal with "morality" we are going to lose. Even the word morality sends chills up the spines of some choice advocates. We are somewhat more comfortable talking about "ethics," although both words have the same meaning. Morals comes from a Latin root and is a "hot" passionate word, conjuring up religion. Ethics, from the Greek, is cooler, dispassionate, more distancing and secular. The anti-abortion forces make the moral arguments and we use the rights discourse; they talk about fetuses as babies, and we talk about women as autonomous people. *** But tough questions come up more frequently than they did in the first years after Roe, as more is known about the choices some women and couples make, and fetuses have become as visible as women. *** The thought of putting every woman through the indignity of meeting with an ethics committee, or getting a doctor to sign off on her reasons for abortion, has forced most of us to stick with the principle that women must be allowed to make their own private ethical decisions, without the state getting involved. But is it really leadership for us always to simply shrug and say: "Who knows whether that was an unethical decision for that woman?" Don't we express moral views about every other issue under the sun, from the number of embryos it is ethical to insert into a woman's uterus to the morality of bonuses for Wall St. executives who robbed us blind? Expressing our views about controversial issues is how society develops norms and shared values. *** If pro-choice advocates follow the example of those opposed to abortion and present only one value -- a women's right to make this decision -- as the only ethical consideration worth discussing in difficult cases, do we not become as extremist as we say they are? Is there not, in an ethical sense, an important weighing of women's rights and needs against a respect for life, even the life of nonpersons? Is there a point in pregnancy when our respect for life might outweigh a woman's right to make this choice? And is the fact that we have avoided it part of the reason that polls show that more people are willing to call themselves pro-life than ever before? **
Ms Walsh asks a very good set of questions. Here's another one: what would make a woman whose own body was designed to bring another human life into the world refer to a fertilized egg planted and growing in the womb, possibly her own, as a "nonperson"? I get the science, I;m not as backward as pro-choice advocates imagine, but women, as nurturers, consider more than facts in a book when they consider matters pertaining to life. A woman consults her conscience and her heart as well as her mind. The question for women shouldn't be whether or not a person os growing in our wombs but whether or not we have the humanity, the love, the moral and ethical responsibility to bring another human into the world, especially when, in most cases we had something to do with placing it there. If we can make peace with that question within our own hearts maybe we can get beyond the catfight and reach a reasonable, morally sound decision that finally makes instances of abortion rare, safe and legal. It is up to us, you know. I hope the debate can begin in earnest now and, I have to say it, it is my fervant prayer that unborn children are the big winners in the debate.
It's Fathers Day...I can't think of a better day for women to turn the corner for life. For those who may be interested the following link leads to a powerful video along with articles and information in support of life.
"Everyone Against Abortion, Please Raise Your Hand!" Priest for Life
"When the everyday practice of abortion ends ...."
Another tacky attempt to demonize the opposition. There is nothing "everyday" about the prospect of abortion. Women driven to it are anything but casual in their decision. You are disrespectful; yes, you are.
You may bask in your righteous contempt. I will see to it that "driven" young women have the option.
Tina;
Very well put and the timing is excellent. On this day when fathers around the country are being blessed by their children, we should all mourn for those children who will never be able to say, "Happy Fathers Day Dad".
Well leave it to you to take it personally, Libby, and view it as an "attempt to demonize". What was actually in my head was that this is something that occurs in towns and cities across America every day making it...an every day occurance. Wouldn't it be better if it didn't happen every day?
Libby, I really think you are reaching there. I didn't see it as an attempt to demonize at all. It is something that happens every day.
That Salon article was very interesting. I have never heard of women who choose to abort because of such trivial reasons. But that is a rarity, and I hope pro-lfers don't latch onto such stories in order to demonize the opposition. (I know you're not, Tina, but some will.)
In such cases, I think Walsh is correct in saying that doctors need to use common sense and ethics in refusing to perform such procedures. And I also don't have a problem with doctors requiring stated reasons from the patient as to why they need the abortion. We don't give any other kind of operation without reason, why not abortion?
But I share Walsh's discomfort with forcing women to remain pregnant, even for good reason.
Thanks, Tina, for showing that this issue isn't the black-and-white one that both sides sometimes make it out to be.
This was very persuasive. I agree with you that it should be up to women to find the common ground that will satisfy women on this complex issue, not the government and not the courts.
Unfortunately that common ground seems too elusive for women for a number of reasons. The more obvious examples are, not everyone can ever share the same intelligence, thoughtful deliberation, education and high moral standards, which is why we have women who range from Saintly Nuns to Crack Whores. Makes me wonder how in the heck will we ever close that huge gap? Sure will be tough and it certainly won't come anytime soon! But, we can hope (there's the H word again) that as the tide of wisdom spreads, so will moral behavior and that enlightenment will gradually lift all boats.
On a personal note I know a woman who killed her unborn son because of a long list of logical reasons that seemed totally justifiable. First, she felt she was too young to have the baby, she was only 17, not emotionally prepared. It would have got in the way of her college plans and it wasn't with the right father. She thought she loved him, but he was too rough for the family and she was persuaded to break up with him.
Her college education turned out to be worthless. Never got her anywhere. Her parents divorced about 5 years later because they were too focused on their own petty little issues. I think they just hit that rough spot and there was not enough to keep them together, it was just that simple.
Her mother now admits that a baby in the family back then would probably have been just what they needed to keep them together. The baby's father cleaned up his act after high school, as so many kids often do and he became successful in his own right. He's no millionaire, but he's doing just fine! He was devastated when he learned his baby had been aborted and carries that memory with regret that he didn't find out until it was done.
And as for that baby, he came from a handsome dad and a beautiful mother, both were smart, athletic people, one might think he would have turned out pretty good. He would be 21 years old today. I’ll bet he would have been a big asset his family. He would have been in line to carrying on their family business with a bright future ahead. I’m sure he would have softened his mother's heart in ways only a child can do and made her a more complete person. But, instead they were all left empty.
That "almost mother" has become reclusive and bitter over how her life turned out, the family sold off their business and they all lead separate lonely lives now. In hindsight that abortion was the worst thing they could have done, but it looked so right at the time and they were so quick to cover up this inconvenient pregnancy that they just didn't think it through and perhaps just as bad, they didn't trust in Devine providence, that God works in mysterious ways.
We have talked before about how legal precedence can lead to changes that may not be desirable depending on ones perspective. The Wall Street Journal has an interesting piece on the Constitutionality of Obama’s health care plans with information that applies to this subject. For your consideration:
** The Supreme Court created the right to privacy in the 1960s and used it to strike down a series of state and federal regulations of personal (mostly sexual) conduct. This line of cases began with Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (involving marital birth control), and includes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. *** The court's underlying rationale was not abortion-specific. Rather, the justices posited a constitutionally mandated zone of personal privacy that must remain free of government regulation, except in the most exceptional circumstances. As the court explained in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), "these matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and the mystery of human life." *** It is, of course, difficult to imagine choices more "central to personal dignity and autonomy" than measures to be taken for the prevention and treatment of disease -- measures that may be essential to preserve or extend life itself. Indeed, when the overwhelming moral issues that surround the abortion question are stripped away, what is left is a medical procedure determined to be "necessary" by an expectant mother and her physician. *** If the government cannot proscribe -- or even "unduly burden," to use another of the Supreme Court's analytical frameworks -- access to abortion, how can it proscribe access to other medical procedures, including transplants, corrective or restorative surgeries, chemotherapy treatments, or a myriad of other health services that individuals may need or desire? **
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562948992235831.html
Not only might those rulings stop Obama care, they might also prevent laws that limit or stop abortion on demand. If that is the case then peer pressure and pursuasion are the only tools in our toolbox to remedy the irrisponsible create/destroy cycle that is the pro-choice legacy.
* I have never heard of women who choose to abort because of such trivial reasons. But that is a rarity, and I hope pro-lfers don't latch onto such stories in order to demonize the opposition. (I know you're not, Tina, but some will.)*
I wish I could believe what you believe, that such reasons are rare. When I was not paying attention to this issue I made a terrible assumption that women wouldn't get abortions except under very dire or terrible circumstances. I have no desire to demonize anyone but I think it is time we opened our eyes to ugly, tragic realities.
*We don't give any other kind of operation without reason, why not abortion?*
Absolutely! Especially when you consider that doctors take an oath to "first do no harm".
*I share Walsh's discomfort with forcing women to remain pregnant, even for good reason.*
If we don't want our society to sink into a dark, unredeeming abyss we had better learn that sometimes we get to do uncomfortable things and sometimes we get to endure uncomfortable things because it serves a greater good.
We have been letting it all hang out, making it all seem very reasonable in the process and our society reflects the carelessness of it all.
Max thank you for sharing this story, most of us have one or two friends or family members that have dealt with this problem and it is never an easy decision to make or live with.
I know a few people who are grateful that abortion was not an option when they faced an unplanned pregnancy. They knew that at the time they were too immature to make that kind of decision and knew too that they would probably have chosen abortion simply because it would have been easier.