Pro-Balance: The Abortion Debate Redefined
When members of the church find out I’m a Democrat (or a Feminist), the first question they usually ask is about abortion. In other words. How can you? You support abortion? (Cue ominous music.)
It’s much more complicated than that, both being a Democrat (it’s not a one issue thing) and Abortion itself.
The way we talk about abortion is stupid. Despite the fact that the arguments we hear, the labels we bear, are often portrayed as extreme, most of us are not extreme.
My lack of ‘extreme’ doesn’t mean that I don’t care. I care. A lot. It’s just that neither pro-choice nor pro-life (and the policial baggage they carry) describe my feelings on the subject. I want a new label.
Most people who call themselves pro-life are not strictly anti-abortion. Most believe in exceptions. Even our very conservative church believes in exceptions. Rape, incest, health of the mother. Most people who identify as prolife, while disagreeing with the choice, still feel great sympathy for women in tragic situations who choose abortion.
On the other side . . .
Most people who call themselves pro-choice, are not truely pro-abortion. Most find abortion sad, unfortunate, (often deeply) morally problematic. Most want abortions to be rare. Most believe that abortion is a crappy means of contraception. Most believe in some degree of legal limitation.
Most all of us feel sick when we hear of two of a set of triplets being culled so the mother does not have to buy in bulk. Or girls being aborted as soon as their lack of a penis is confirmed. And we recoil from the image of the poor desperate women roaming the back allies prey to butchers (while the rich ladies jet off to Europe or pull the right strings).
Pro-Choice/Pro-Life are loaded terms. Can’t I be both? Value the sanctity of life, acknowledge the necessity of choice, mourn the abridgement of both, comprimise as best we can? I want a NAME, I want a LABEL that says “this is complicated and difficult and grey, we must comprimise”. Does the very nature of being a moderate (as many’an “Independent” may lament) demand that we remain nameless? Does our moderation automatically translate into a lack of will, a lack of voice? Or would it be possible to change the game, the very name of the game? I would like to see it done.
I’m sick and tired of being driven around by extreme sides screaming dooms-day slippery slope theories. I’m tired of these choices being driven by fear, fear of losing an inch of ground to “the opposition”. Deeply grey questions should not be decided by people determined to see only black and white.
People who insist that terminating a fetus is no more significant than removing an ingrown toenail are idiots. People who insist that sixteen cells in a petre dish are morally equavalent to a newborn baby are idiots. Why are these (idiot) people controlling this debate?
It is my opinion that moderate pro-life types and moderate pro-choice types (if we can overcome the stigma of the labeling) have a lot more in common with each other than we do with the extreme edges of this debate. Not only that, but our numbers far outweigh those loud (and for the purposes of media coverage) sexy fringes. And yet . . . where are our voices?
I think if we in the middle on both sides of the fence sat down and made a list of the things we agree on, I think that list would be both long and pragmatic. A road map to something balanced.
This is the way I feel about most (probably all) politics. Candidates and special interest groups seem to think they have to go to extremes to differentiate themselves, leaving those of us in the middle to try to find a way to think about all sides of the issues without having to make choices we find morally, legally, or ethically repugnant. I wish a politico would say, “I can see why this side has some good merits, and when I look at it from the other side I can see this particular gem, so let’s craft a policy that can benefit all.”
Thanks for this post.
Comment by Idahospud — November 29, 2006 @ 7:59 am
Lisa - thank you for this post. Like Idahospud, I feel this way about almost all political issues, but I find the abortion debate to be particularly hard, and particularly harmful to pretty much anyone who tries to enter into it. You said it best: it’s a deeply grey question, and all this black/white thinking just keeps us all from reaching any meaningful diaglogue/action.
Comment by EmilyS — November 29, 2006 @ 9:25 am
Bill and Hillary Clinton have both claimed they want to see abortion, “safe, legal, and rare.”
I think that’s pretty much what you’ve said.
Perhaps you should consider being Hillary’s VP candidate.
: )
What you say about the middle is interesting. In my Polisci studies at BYU, I learned that Independents are really not independent. After asking self-identified “independents” which way they “lean” (R or D), it turns out that they are more likely to vote partisan than those who consider themselves Weak Rep or Weak Dem.
The Myth of the Independent Voter (a book I believe, by Dave Magleby) is very interesting.
Anyway, tangent aside, there really are moderates out there.
But, in the church, the views that you express (which I wholeheartedly agree with) are seen as soooo sinful in the Church. It’s the label, for sure.
It’s tragic, really. After I gave an Enrichment presentation (rather unbiased) about the ballot propositions (last election) I found a GWB bumper sticker on my garage door. I still have no idea who put it there. Isn’t that harrassment?
I had one HT (EQ Pres, incidentally) who told me that my liberal views were a “stage,” a result of my college experience, and my desire to be different.
Sorry about all the various comments, but these issues are so touchy, especially for women who are Democrats in the church.
As for the label, let’s coin a new one. I’m not that creative, anyone else?
Comment by Jessawhy — November 29, 2006 @ 9:36 am
“Abortion” is one of the issues that drives me insane. I hope that I would never be in a position to feel that one was neccessary. My teenage daughter and I have talked about it and she knows that I am against it.
That being said, please note that I stated that “I hope I would never be in a position to feel that one was neccessary”. I honestly have NEVER met anyone who planned to have an abortion BEFORE they had an unplanned pregnancy. Instead, they believed they had NO other options.
That is what I object to… that these women believe (whether accurately or not) that they have NO other options. So why are we continuing to discuss the legality of abortions? Why aren’t we discussing SOLUTIONS to the barriers which prevent the need for an abortion? Why aren’t we discussing child support issues, social repurcussions, adoptions, programs such as the Nurturing Network, job training/education, health care, etc.? This issue is MUCH more complicated than the overly-simplified legality of abortion.
In addition, making abortion illegal will only result in illegal abortions. Women have been terminating pregnancies throughout history whether it is with knitting needles or throwing themselves down stairs. How desperate must a woman be in order to do that? Where is our compassion? Is it THAT impossible for America to address these issues? Do we really want to have our daughters and granddaughters permanently scarred, barren, or even dead because of self-inflicted or back-alley abortions? That is the reality we must face if America decides that abortions must be illegal.
I was at a workshop about 20 years ago and one of the speakers (a woman legislator) spoke of an incident in which the lawmakers were discussing a proposed law that required permission from the father prior to performing an abortion. One of the women in the room wanted an additional requirement: that the man’s WIFE also provide permission (i.e. before his mistress could have an abortion). Needless to say, the matter was dropped.
My point is this: The women who are most in need of legal and safe abortions do not have the resources or support to have a baby. These are the women who will be the most affected by laws prohibiting abortions. These are the women who are most in need of laws enforcing child support and addressing domestic violence/incest. These are the women who need job training and security. These are the women who need access to health care.
The women who will be the least effected belong to the same segment of society who can afford higher education, private physicians, etc. Their male counterparts are the ones whose families can buy them out of military drafts. My point: They are not effected by the same laws as our “most in need” citizens.
As long as we keep voting conservative and hypocritical men to represent us, we will be impacted by the legislation they pass.
I have also posted on this topic here: ABORTIONS: Every girl’s dream
I think most of us are “Pro-Life”… however, some of us recognize that the abortion issue is not about the fetus, it’s about the reality of the damage our society inflicts on the life of a woman with an unplanned pregnancy.
Thank you for this opportunity to express my opinion… like most of you, I do not have many safe avenues to vent!
Comment by Diana Rowe Pauls — November 29, 2006 @ 9:39 am
Well said, Lisa. One of the great awakenings in my life was when I realized that views on abortion could be represented better by a sliding scale than as a binary (and thus began my long slide into liberal politics). Even the church’s official position is kind of moderate when compared to strict anti-abortionists, but many Church members seem to group these all into one camp.
It angers me that we waste so much time and energy screaming at each other from the extremes. I feel like those most impacted are little more than pawns in a great rhetorical battle. If pro-lifers really care about the lives of the children, then they should be encouraging everything from welfare, raising the minimum wage, sex education and contraception, so that women have fewer reasons to have abortions in the first place. And it is difficult for me to respect the arguments of extreme pro-choice advocates when they seem to care so little for the emotional trauma (minimized in their arguments to make a point) that women experience when choosing to abort their pregnancies.
Comment by John Remy — November 29, 2006 @ 10:07 am
Those grey areas are why I don’t identify with either political party. I’m right-leaning on some issues and left-leaning on others. But I have a hard time getting worked up about politics, it just doesn’t interest me much. I’m one of those annoying apathetic people.
But I will say this: about 15 years ago, when my niece was 15, she had a friend who had a baby. This girl was also 15, and it was her third pregnancy. She’d already had two abortions.
There’s something very wrong there.
Comment by Susan M — November 29, 2006 @ 10:21 am
It makes me so angry that abortion and gay rights have become the two issues that determine what your political leanings are. How is it possible that we are voting who we want to run our domestic social system (and incidentally, the worlds’ as of late) based on where they fall on these two issues?
It’s ridiculous. The framers of the constitution and the free world would roll over in their graves. John Locke and Thomas Jefferson would say that we have totally missed the point. And it’d funny that the people who extol small government (”small enough to drain in a bathtub” conservatives) are the ones that want the government to have the final decision on these two issues.
I am pro-life (I love babies. Even unborn babies) and I think abortion is wrong (in other words, God does not like abortion), but God does not like a lot of things that are perfectly legal. I do not equate an embryo with an actual human baby and for many reasons (including my respect for this country’s promise of freedom), I think people should have a choice.
I wish the abortion debate and the gay marriage debate would just go away and leave us to discuss the things that are really important.
Comment by mb — November 29, 2006 @ 10:28 am
My students, neighbors, and family members all know that I am Liberal and a Democrat. I am also a feminist (this is not as well known, though obvious). They all seem to assume that since I am LDS, I must not be a bad Liberal Feminist Democrat. This means that I sure could not favor legalized abortion. Yet, I am proud to be pro-choice. Yes, pro-choice. I do not shy away from the label because I represents my moderately liberal stance on abortion. I feel that I should be legal, accessible, and safe. I do feel that it is unfortunate. However, I am not as appauled by abortion as I am by a world that would lead women to seek abortions.
I am particularly concerned about the scorn and shame which is poured on women (and girls) who have had abortions. I also do not think that abortion is murder. This is probably where I diverge from most members. If it is wrong, I think that it is more like a sexual sin (make your own list), rather than homocide.
The academic debate about abortion is rather thoughtful, though it is heavily pro-choice. Rosalind Hursthouse’s article on Virtue Theory and Abortion is in many ways in line with your position. It on JSTOR for those with access
Comment by Chris H. — November 29, 2006 @ 10:40 am
The greatest obstacle to compromise on the question is the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade. As soon as the court discovered (invented?) and declared a right to abort a fetus, the possibility of compromise ended, and people who would otherwise accept the grey-ness of the issue (including, as you point out, the Church) found themselves pushed to one end or the other of the spectrum.
It’s time for the Court to undo the damage it did over 30 years ago, and return the issue to the political arena where the center, rather than the extremes, can lead the way to a workable policy.
Comment by Mark B. — November 29, 2006 @ 10:43 am
Roe is a well reasoned philosophically, even if it might not be sound judicially. I find it to be a constitutionally sound ruling. The Court must protect individual rights against the majority will and it has done so in the abortion rulings since Roe.
Comment by Chris H. — November 29, 2006 @ 10:46 am
Lisa, I wrote an article several years ago about this issue that I titled, “The Pro-Love Movement.” I will dig it up and send it and maybe you can use it as a guest post.
Comment by Bored in Vernal — November 29, 2006 @ 11:03 am
Would it be politically incorrect to suggest the label “pro-consequence”? Those women who have made the choice to become pregnant shouldn’t be able to choose their consequences. Those women who didn’t play a part in the choice of becoming pregnant (rape, incest, health of the mother) should be able to choose the consequence of the non-choice.
Comment by Rusty — November 29, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Such terms as “pro-consequence” fail to take into account that woman do not always fully choose to have sex. This include instances which, at least legally, are not considered rape of incest. Consider the arguments like those of Dr. Laura who say that woman are obligated to meet the sexual needs of there husbands above all other obligations. Does that sound like choice?
The problem with most pro-life (or pro-consequence) arguments are that they assume that women who have abortions for reasons other than rape, incest, and health/life are somehow dumb irresponsible sluts. Abortion is part of the largely struggle to overcome a male-dominated society which uses sex to reinforce the supposed inferiority of women. So those who oppose it often feed in to those falsehoods. Feminist authors have long argued that abortion is the final tool in granting women sexual autonomy since males often can control whether contraceptives are used or if birth control is purchased. I agree.
Comment by Chris H. — November 29, 2006 @ 12:38 pm
Rusty, I agree with you overall regarding consequences, but I have a few qualms about making it quite that “cut and dried”. Unless someone is actively trying to get pregnant, she’s not choosing to become pregnant, she’s choosing to engage in an activity that may result in her becoming pregnant. It’s easy to say, “well, she knew the possible consequences of having sex, so now she needs to face up to those consequences by accepting that she is pregnant and she cannot change that.” The corollary to that argument is that the baby is unable to make any decisions in the matter, and shouldn’t have to face the consequences of the mother’s decision to abort it.
The sad fact is, innocents of all ages have been bearing the consequences of other people’s bad decisions throughout history. The Lord does not always intervene, but sometimes has allowed people to be hurt or killed, so that those doing the harm can demonstrate their true nature and then bear the consequences of harming their fellow man. If someone decides to have an abortion, I think it’s a tragedy for the unborn baby, and a tragedy for her to choose to bear the guilt/mental anguish/etc and any eternal consequences of having that abortion. But I don’t think it’s right for me to say she can’t have the abortion. And I really don’t think it’s right for a man to say whether I have to carry an unwanted baby to term in my body. If we could just find a way to transplant fetuses into men, then I’d be all for eliminating abortion as an option! Until then, I don’t think I’m ready to tell someone she has to suck up all the consequences of her actions. Even if she gets an abortion, she’ll be facing the consequences of her actions, they’re just different consequences.
Comment by Space Chick — November 29, 2006 @ 12:59 pm
“However, I am not as appauled by abortion as I am by a world that would lead women to seek abortions.”
I agree with this completely. I don’t think that legalizing or criminalizing abortion is where the headway is going to be made. As long as pregnancy is viewed as or is literally a punishment then women will continue to seek abortions any way they can.
The best way to prevent abortions isn’t to make getting an abortion worse than the other consequences of pregnancy, but is to make the consequences of pregnancy a net positive. So I call myself pro-pregnancy.
Comment by Starfoxy — November 29, 2006 @ 1:02 pm
Great post, (and comments) and I agree. Just one thing made me flinch a lil bit,
“Most all of us feel sick when we hear of two of a set of triplets being culled so the mother does not have to buy in bulk. ”
I think the very, very large majority of women pregnant with triplets worked very hard to get pregnant at all, and likely endured all sorts of tests, medicines, and financial strain. I wouldn’t think that buying in bulk is a concern. Many have probably had multiple miscarriages, and even carrying a singleton pregnancy is very risky. Triplets pose a significantly increased risk to all 4 parties involved even in the best of circumstances, and the vast majority of women carrying triplets did not start out in the best of circumstances. They don’t call it “being culled” they call it “selective reduction” but you could choose to look at it all the same way. Its a decision that these women have had to think about even before they got pregnant, probably, and it’s something that they don’t have a lot of time to reconsider once they find themselves in that position. Probably, after all she has gone through, the mother wants each of those babies, even the ones being “culled.” I would hate to ever have to make that decision, and would hope not to make the choice any more guild ridden than it already is for somebody else.
Comment by then some — November 29, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
by then some,
those are excellent points, but I was actually referring to a real case of a woman named Amy Richards. (you can probably find out a lot about her through a google search). I don’t feel inclined to demonize her, but I honestly have a very hard time sympathizing with her choices. Hers is an extreme that makes me very sad.
Comment by fMhLisa — November 29, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
The extremes of all issues control the public debate. It’s soundbite worthy. It’s great to want for something better. It’s even better to start shouting it via all availabe resources and see if you can rise above the cacaphony of the extremes.
Comment by nee — November 29, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
The strange thing about Roe v. Wade–well, one of the strange things–is that it explicitly says that the state has the right to restrict abortion after the first trimester, but you would never know that from the way abortion-rights advocates talk about Roe, as though it guaranteed abortion on demand. As nonsensical a decision as it was, it did not go that far. But people still interpret it that way.
That point aside, Mark B. (#9) is right about Roe being a stumbling block for reasonable, moderate discourse on the abortion issue. Most reasonable people believe there’s an implied right of privacy in the Constitution, but no reasonable person believes it’s a right without restrictions. Abortion isn’t a constitutional issue. Circumventing the legislative process severely damaged the public debate on abortion ethics. Most legal scholars, including the pro-choice ones, agree that Roe was a bad decision, even if it had a desirable outcome (for one side, anyway). (Alan Dershowitz draws a parallel with Bush v. Gore.) Legally it’s nonsense, but worse than that, it’s encouraged us to surrender the debate to the extremists.
Comment by madhousewife — November 29, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
CAN I SHOUT IT ANY LOUDER
I LOVE THIS WEBSITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Comment by trish — November 29, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
madehousewife,
Roe only allows state to limit abortion after 28 weeks or the second trimester.
Comment by Chris H. — November 29, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
Lisa, consider me sitting on the fence right next to you. Thanks
Comment by TracyM — November 29, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
I think it is interesting that the church doesn’t recognize a still born baby as sealed to the family but thinks abortion is amoral. We really don’t know when life begins.
Comment by gina — November 29, 2006 @ 3:21 pm
# 4. I agree wholeheartedly. It doesn’t make sense for a political ideology to say that it is illegal to abort a baby but not give you any options to the contrary. No health care for expecting mothers- don’t get me started on pregnancy as a “pre-existing condition” for insurance companies. But for the government to not help out at all makes even less sense. I feel blessed to live in California where a program exists that made it possible to have my baby, but other states are not so fortunate and if you don’t have maternity coverage you are out of luck.
And birth control education and adoption assistance are of course other sides that need to be addressed.
Has anyone read freakonomics? That whole bit about the legality of abortion bringing the crime rate down when those babies that were aborted would have been born grew up- very interesting! And I saw it less as an argument for abortion but as proof that as a country we don’t take care of unwed mothers or women in trouble.
Comment by cory — November 29, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Chris H. - I meant to say that Roe says the state can regulate, i.e. place “reasonable” restrictions (relating to health) on abortions after the first trimester, but you are correct about the state only being able to *proscribe* abortion after the second trimester. I think my point still stands, but thanks for the clarity.
Comment by madhousewife — November 29, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
I read this one piece once about a nurse who works in an abortion clinic. She told about one teenager who came in who honestly didn’t even know how she got pregnant or where the baby was supposed to come out. She said in her article she wished we lived in a world where abortion wasn’t necessary– but the truth is, abortion is necessary in this world.
one of my dad’s close friends works on a committee (mainly catholics) who try to work with individuals who get pregnant, trying to find solutions other than abortion. my dad’s friend had a daughter get pregnant in high school and she carried the baby full term and gave it up for adoption. I can’t imagine how hard that would be. he wanted my dad to be on the committee, but the other catholic members were a little wary of having a Mormon on it.
I agree with what someone else said– if abortion were illegal, that would not stop them from happening– it would just mean girls would put themselves at risk for infection, infertility, death, etc. Is it Venezuela which has outlawed all abortions? That’s horrible.
So, I’m a fence-sitter too. I agree that it’s so frustrating that the “only” opinion you can have is pro-life extreme or pro-choice extreme. it seems pretty obvious that we need to find better solutions and work to fix the problems in our society– not just worry about this one thing. I hope and pray with all my heart I will never have to make that decision (for myself or in helping a daughter).
Comment by cmac — November 29, 2006 @ 4:24 pm
I remembered an article that I read a while ago about pro-life women who get abortions. I just located it again. Very interesting…
“The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion”
When the Anti-Choice Choose
Comment by Diana Rowe Pauls — November 29, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
I’ve been looking for hard-and-fast abortion statistics with no gobbledy-gook bias thrown it . . . It’s a tough ask! Specifically, I want to know how many D&Cs are carried out as abortions and how many are carried out because of miscarriages. Both are classified as abortion; but of course the two procedures are very different.
There are approximately 1 million abortions performed in the US every year. According to the Guttmacher Institute, if you provided contraception to low-income women, you could cut the number of abortions by 200,000. If you provide medical care, daycare, and a rise in the minimum wage, you could cut the number of abortions by another 300,000. Already, if we just take care of the poor - which we should be doing anyway - we cut the number of abortions in half.
So, we’re down to 500,000 abortions instead. How many more abortions could be prevented by increasing respect and equality for women in society? If men respected women, they wouldn’t commit acts of rape or incest. If men respected women, they wouldn’t force their partners to get abortions. (Don’t say that never happens. A friend of mine had four abortions because her husband beat her until she agreed to do it.) If women respected themselves, they wouldn’t feel the need to enter into sexual relations for the wrong reasons. I would suggest that we could get rid of at least another 300,000 or so abortions by empowering women in society - which, again, we should be doing anyway.
Of the 200,000 abortions left, it’s probably safe to assume that 100,000 to 150,000 of them are actually D&Cs performed following a miscarriage. Thus, by doing what we should be doing anyway, we could cut the number of actual abortions by about 90%.
But of course it’s much more threatening to the establishment to empower women and eradicate poverty than to finger-point and harass women who feel abortion is their only option. Empowering women? We all know that’s a scary thought - after all the ERA still hasn’t passed, nearly 100 years after it was first proposed. And eradicating poverty? Well, just look at all the people who got their backs up when I talked about raising the minimum wage to a living wage. Look at all the people who tried to argue it was actually detrimental to the poor to give them enough money to live off of for doing a hard and honest week’s work. That’s definitely a scary thought. It’s much easier for the people in charge to say, “These darn slutty women, running off to get abortions, isn’t it shameful” - to use them to polarise the rest of us and get us on side.
Comment by Quimby — November 29, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
A few weeks ago on NPR, I heard a startling statistic that hasn’t left me, that I can’t understand, or reconcile with the teachings of the church (but that is for another thread)
There are 150 Million orphans in the world.
That figure astounds me, considering the US pop. is 300 Mil.
So many children need someone to care for them.
I just think about how empowering women and creating a living wage can help these children as well as their mothers.
As far as the Freakonomics article, it was actually an error in his data that produced those results. Another group found the error and he apologized. He gathered some new sources and recreated the curve, which wasn’t as dramatic a decline, but still there, to maintatin his claim, but by then his credibility was shot.
Still, it was a thought-provoking idea. I especially like the story about the country (maybe it was Venezula, but I thought it was in Europe somewhere) where they outlawed abortion, and the children that were born in the wake of this law became the ones to overthrow (and kill?) the ruler who decided they must be born.
Very ironic.
Comment by Jessawhy — November 29, 2006 @ 6:36 pm
No offense to the Guttmacher Institute, but in order to reduce the number of abortions by providing contraceptives to low-income women, you would have to somehow ensure that the low-income women would use the provided contraception. Contraception isn’t really that difficult to acquire in the first place, but even middle- and upper-class women who should theoretically have *no* difficulty acquiring contraception still fail to use the contraception for the same reason anyone fails to use contraception: they prefer to risk the consequences. All kinds of women–married and single, poor and not-poor–have gotten “accidentally” pregnant because they chose spontaneity over caution at a crucial moment in their monthly cycles. Even women who get pregnant on purpose may choose abortion because their circumstances–or their perceptions of them–change (e.g. they break up with their partner, or the partner isn’t as thrilled to be a dad as the woman hoped he would be, or medical issues arise). I would bet dollars to doughnuts that this is the case far more often than women not being able to afford contraception or not knowing where their vaginas are.
We could support women and children (and all families) more than we currently do, for sure, but I wouldn’t expect to see such a significant reduction of abortions as long as a) it remains legal and b) the stigma of unmarried sex is absent. For the record, I’m not particularly gungho about outlawing abortion in the first trimester, mostly because I don’t think it’s practical (or particularly prudent, given the current cultural environment). I think the way to reduce abortions is to convince women they don’t want to have them because they’re morally wrong (in most cases). I’m not talking about aggressive social pressure, just more honesty (on both sides) in the abortion debate. A lot of women feel guilty about their abortions but feel they have no choice–but for other women in similar circumstances, abortion (not childbirth) falls under the category of “not a choice.” Women get abortions for many reasons, and some scenarios are more sympathetic than others, but the common denominator is that they don’t want to have *this* baby at *this* time. We will never remove enough of the hardship and sacrifice inherent in parenthood to change that.
Comment by madhousewife — November 29, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
condoms are easy to come by but birth control pills are still expensive and need a prescription, which means an expensive visit to the doctor. How many of you choose condoms over the ease of the pill?
Comment by cory — November 29, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
Roe vs. Wade is here to stay, and it’s not going to be overturned anytime soon, so, IMHO, making decisions about what party/candidate to vote for based on their stated stance on abortion is nonsensical. It’s irrelevant to reality. It would be nice to see people vote based on something the candidate or party might actually have an impact on.
Unfortunately, most of the casual republicans (not all that interested in politics, not all that informed) I know personally are republican largely because of the abortion and gay marriage issues. They see any vote for a democrat as a vote for pro-choice and gay marriage, so they feel morally obligated to vote republican. We were talking politics at book club one night and ALL of the women indicated that they were Republicans. But when I asked them about OTHER individual issues, excluding gay marriage and abortion, their stances were actually far more liberal and they probably would have been happier legislatively/socially with non-Republican candidates. But because of these two issues, they voted the R party everytime. The issues are straw men. It’s disappointing.
Comment by Sue — November 29, 2006 @ 7:47 pm
For years I have felt detached from my opinion on abortion. Logically I was a fence sitter but still struggled with the thought of ending a life. I hoped the issue would go away so I wouldn’t have to think about it.
A few months ago I took a pregnancy test and it came up positive! For an entire day, I was pregnant. It was only then that I felt very protective of my body and pregnancy. It was very clear to me that what was going on with my body was no-one’s business. Not a politician or a religious leader or the people arguing about abortion.
I am still a fence sitter but I am much more solid on the “choice” side.
By the way, I took two more tests that night–both negative. I have still never figured out how I ended up having the rare experience of a false positive.
Comment by AngelaM — November 29, 2006 @ 8:02 pm
when a behavior is legalized, it becomes more common. Witness increased alcohol use and liver disease post-Prohibition.
Nevertheless, abortion should be legal, even though it is certainly not a behavior that society should promote. I have a hard time articulating why I am so certain of this. Part of my reason is that I have been (an currently am) pregnant. It is tough experience–a woman should not have to have her body taken over for this long (in such a potentially unpleasant way) unless she consents to it. I am extremely happy about this baby. It was wanted. thus, the pain and sickness is worth it. However, I have had another pregnancy with an unwanted baby at a terrible time. It was almost unbearable, until it ended in miscarriage. I never would have ended it on my own because of my moral convictions, but why should I impose that conviction on another woman?
But I am pro-choice for other reasons: for the crack babies and meth babies and alcohol-addicted babies who are the victims of their mothers. I work in the criminal justice system and see women all of the time who should not be mothers (but who, tragically, are). If one of these women has the good sense to realize that she shouldn’t have a child before she gives birth to a child that she will help ruin, why should the government interfere? So often it is the least capable who are the most careless in becoming pregnant. They should have a choice to get out of it.
I am pro-choice because of the desperate acts that woman will resort to if abortion is not legal. We all know the stories. Those women deserve compassion. However, there is often no familial or goverrnmental support for vulnerable pregnant women. The same people who fight so hard against giving poor women health care fight to force them to keep their pregnancies.
I am anti-abortion, very Mormon, but absolutely pro-choice. And I am so grateful to the women like Margaret Sanger and others who worked so hard on legalizing contraception so that I could plan my (very, very loved) family.
Safe, legal, rare.
Comment by Natasha — November 29, 2006 @ 8:04 pm
Moderation in all things. I swear, that’s my motto, and somehow this idea fits right into it (thanks, fmhLisa –that’s a sincere thanks, by the way).
Okay, that said, am I the only one bothered that the MAN has no say? Because it’s the woman’s body, she is the only one that has a choice? What about the husband/boyfriend/fiance? Isn’t that child his as well? Didn’t he engage in sexual intercourse just as she did and help provide half the cells to create that life?
I totally get that a raped woman has the final say –but what about the married one? Or the engaged one? A child that was conceived between two consenting adults?
Of course, I do understand how grey this situation can be (i.e. an abused girlfriend, etc.), but I still don’t see how the man is completely out of the picture. At the very least, he should get half the blame!
Comment by cheryl — November 29, 2006 @ 8:20 pm
#30 “I wouldn’t expect to see such a significant reduction of abortions as long as a) it remains legal and b) the stigma of unmarried sex is absent.”
Unmarried sex still happened when the stigma was around. Doing family history work and aiding several friends doing theirs proves that. Amazing how many first borns arrived 6-7 months after wedding dates. I shared this with a friend who comes from “pioneer stock”. He said, “Yeah, in Utah we joke about all the 8lb ‘preemies’.”
Bless you for your naievete if you think contraception is easily acquired for all women who want to use it. If contraception were available to lower income people , sure some wouldn’t use it. However, there are many who would. There are many, many women who utilize planned parenthood’s sliding scale to get on the pill. If they were not around and abortion was legal, I guarantee you the rate of abortion would skyrocket further. However, PP cannot carry the entire weight of providing contraception.
They are not funded well enough nor are there enough locations. It’s a shame when people blast PP for referring people to locations for abortion. I had a scare when I was 18 and thought I could be pg. I wasn’t. I went to PP for a test and it was their counselor who told me the straight facts on when pg could occur and the utter necessity of birth control all month. It was due to her that I did get on consistent bc at that time. Their #1 goal is to prevent the unwanted pg’s in the first place. However, they will help those who end up in a situation where abortion is necessary. They will also provide referrals to adoption agencies. That’s how a friend of mine got referred to an agency. Like it or not, not everyone subscribes to the moral card of no sex outside of marriage. Even those who do often break their own rule.
I have 2 friends who got abortions. One is a member now and she says she’d still make that same choice today because of the circumstances at the time. I don’t agree with the choice either one made and yet I cannot fully know the pain they carried or if they could have handled the sheer anguish of handing those babies over if they opted for adoption. It was simply not my choice to make for them. How could I dare?
The number one thing anyone can do and it has been mentioned here is to educate girls and women on the the health facts about sex and STDS and pregnancy and at the same time, work to promote a healthy self image. Also, men need to be educated as well on treatment of women and health issues. This is not and cannot be 100% on women to carry.
Abortion is a microcasm of a bigger issue - that of treatment of women and their view of themselves and each other. NOTHING good comes from browbeating women with the morality argument. Are we all not sinners? I didn’t see mention in your comment, #30 about shaming men. Do you lay all culpability at the feet of women?
What will most productively reduce abortion is not stigmatizing sex or making abortions illegal.
What will do it is love. Love for each other, love for all women. To be totally cliche, “Love’s the only house big enough for all the pain in this world.” It’s true.
Comment by nee — November 29, 2006 @ 8:34 pm
And apologies to FMH for the post length comment.
A nerve was struck and I didn’t realize how long it was until it posted.
Comment by nee — November 29, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
Cheryl, on the issue of men and abortion -
It’s very grey. I’ve been reading a bit lately on men’s reproductive rights. They don’t have many. I read about a man who recieved oral sex, wearing a condom. The woman used the sperm in the condom to get pregnant and then sued him for child support, and he was held liable. Then, there’s the case of a man whose sperm was used as “anonymous” sperm for a woman undergoing AI. Only problem was, he went in with his partner intending the sample to be used on her. A pregnancy resulted. He’s currently suing for access to the child, and the courts are reluctant to give it because, legally, it isn’t his child. Both cases are blatantly unfair; I think pretty much all of us would agree.
But it quickly becomes grey. What about a man who has a one-night stand with a woman that results in pregnancy? Should he have to pay child support, or should he be able to sign away his rights? What about a man who impregnates his long-term girlfriend and then decides he wants nothing to do with either? Should he be able to sign away his rights? If we say the man who had casual sex has no obligation to his child, where do we draw the line - does the couple have to be together a month? a year? If we say all men should have the right to have a “legal abortion” and get out of paying child support, is that fair to those women who choose to continue with the pregnancy and have the child? Should that option be available to husbands who leave their wives and families behind?
Ultimately, women bare the greater brunt of pregnancy and childbirth. Men have very little to do with it. Sure, it’s his genetic material too, but it’s the woman’s body - she nurtures the child, she provides its first home, she is the conduit through which the child enters the world. Should man really have equal say, when he isn’t doing the hard work? And if so, how far do we extend it? Does the man have the right to say, for instance, “No, you can’t drink Diet Coke because that’s my baby and the Diet Coke might hurt it,” or “No, you can’t go to work because you have to walk past the front door and there are always people smoking there and that could hurt my baby”? You may think they are extreme cases - but you can bet your bottom dollar there’d be situations like that if we gave men equal rights and protection over a fetus. And is it really right that a man should have that much control over a pregnant woman, just because he provided a bit of genetic material?
Pregnancy is one area - probably the only area - where women have more rights than men. Some radical feminists have argued that “biology is sexist” because women bare the brunt of child-bearing. It’s true - biology is sexist. But this very basic biological right means there is one area where women have more rights. And as harsh as it sounds: Good. Let ‘em know what it feels like for us in every other aspect of daily life.
(Having said that, bring on a male pill! I’d love to not have to worry about birth control.)
Comment by Quimby — November 29, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
Quimby-
Your points are very valid. In fact, I find little room for argument. I guess the whole situation is just unnerving to me –and I’m sure to almost any other person –that a man can just leave his sperm and disappear. Or, on the other side, that a woman can take a man’s sperm and disappear. It’s an awful predicament on both sides.
Having more time to think about your comments, I believe I’ll take the sexism in biology as well. I wouldn’t trade my pregnancies for anything…
Thank you for your male perspective…
Comment by cheryl — November 29, 2006 @ 9:54 pm
(Actually I’m a woman . . . I meant let MEN know what it feels like to be discriminated against for a change!)
Comment by Quimby — November 29, 2006 @ 10:16 pm
#24 I read Freakonomics. Very eye opening.
That whole point about abortion dropping the crime rate makes me want to keep it legal for the simple reason that we as a society aren’t able to support the women who need support the most. We dig our own crime hole when we don’t let them get an abortion but then provide no means for them to provide for their child mentally, physically, and/or emotionally.
Also which is more important, the people living now, or the embryo or fetus/child that will likely get a second chance at being born, perhaps even into a better environment(though with different genetic material…same spirit though…anyone find sound scriptural support to back me up on this?)? My child has as much of a right to life as the unborn child, but if the unborn child will become a criminal or murderer, I want to give that woman a chance to terminate her pregnancy to protect my child and anyone else that would be effected, including the stress and anguish the woman will feel by having an unwanted child.
Best case situation would be a perfect world, women and men are careful and catious when having sex, you wait until you’re married, or let people adopt children from unwanted pregnancies, but until then I fully support the right to choose.
Comment by soybeanlover — November 29, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
This discussion reminded me of when I went to a doctor for a pregnancy test. I already knew I was pregnant and stressed out about how to pay for it. I finally figured out a way through a government program AIM. All I needed was a doctors signature for my application confirming the pregnancy. I went to a random doctor near my work who took walk ins and said I needed a pregnancy test. When he came back saying it was positive I guess I wasn’t excited enough( it wasn’t a surprise- I think my exact words were “okay”). Or maybe the fact that I was alone and dressed for work in a suit and on my lunch hour- I don’t know but he asked me if I wanted to be referred to someone. I thought he meant an OBGYN and I said I already had one (I didn’t, but knew that the program would provide me one) and he nodded and proceeded quietly to tell me that based on his calculations I was only a few weeks and I needed to wait until 6 weeks to terminate. I finally got it and said, “no no, I don’t want to terminate!” We then talked about vitamins and what antihistamines I could and could not take. It was an interesting situation. I laughed about it but if I had been looking to terminate, he was really nice about it.
Comment by cory — November 29, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
Quimby-
LOL! Sorry! I don’t know why I’ve thought you were male –I need to pay closer attention…
Comment by cheryl — November 29, 2006 @ 11:15 pm
I bet it’s because of mayor Quimby
Comment by cory — November 29, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
#41 “but if the unborn child will become a criminal or murderer, I want to give that woman a chance to terminate her pregnancy to protect my child and anyone else that would be effected, including the stress and anguish the woman will feel by having an unwanted child.”
Saying the option should be there for abortion is one thing. One could infer from your statement here that more women should get abortions. There’s a hella lot of women who actually didn’t want their babies until they were born and they held them. After holding them they couldn’t imagine having terminated their pregnancies or giving them up.
I can’t imagine telling a woman who’s feeling that she doesn’t want her baby you think she should abort because her baby may end up a murderer. Or encouraging abortion because a baby would be born to a better environment. I hope that is not what you are saying.
If that’s a rationalization for abortion then one could take it to the next logical step and say perhaps women in NYC should abort because a baby born in Iowa will have better air quality. Or perhaps tribal women in Africa should abort until all genital mutilation is erradicated, they then can resume having children. Or perhaps the middle class woman with 4 children aready should abort because that child’s next opportunity is to be born to a millionaire with no children. They will have more opportunities with the millionaire.
That is some dangerous territory to decide why abortion a better choice for some women and not others. Let’s leave that to the women who have to make the choice to decide why they should or shouldn’t.
Comment by nee — November 29, 2006 @ 11:27 pm
Sorry, but I still don’t buy the “birth control is not available” argument. If you (impersonal you) truly can’t get your hands on some contraceptives, maybe you should not be having sex. Obviously condoms are less convenient or less desirable than the Pill or Norplant or an IUD, but if condoms are all you can afford, then condoms are what you use, if you really want to make an effort to stay un-pregnant. This isn’t naivete; it’s maturity.
Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never said that women with unplanned pregnancies don’t deserve sympathy or support because their problems are “their fault.” But pregnancy is, generally speaking, not something that just *happens* to you, like cancer or a hurricane. What’s naive is thinking that you can solve social problems by removing the inherent difficulties of life and making responsible behavior effortless. That’s never going to happen. Acknowledging that some unfortunate situations are of our own making is not the same as turning your back on people in need. I mean, I hope not. We’re always obligated to be charitable to those in need, regardless of why or how they got where they are. We all make poor choices but you can’t learn from your choices if you won’t own them. “I would have used contraception if I could have had the kind I wanted for the amount of money I was willing to spend” is not owning your choice. You can’t eradicate abortion without changing hearts and minds. Funding free clinics and contraception programs are good and necessary things, but they don’t address what is essentially a spiritual problem, i.e. a deficit in respect for human life.
Incidentally, I’m aware that unmarried sex was invented long before 1973. I’ve lived a sheltered life, but not that sheltered.
Comment by madhousewife — November 30, 2006 @ 12:57 am
#45 you are right that is not what I am saying. Obviously I didn’t explain well enough, sorry. I was trying to put that forth as an argument to NOT force women to keep children they don’t want. I am by no means espousing forced abortions. A woman has a right to choose, she knows better than anyone if she can support a child emotionally, and I don’t think anyone can tell her she must have it any more than than can tell her she must not. If we force a woman to have a child we as a society will reap the consequences for taking away her . The same goes both ways.
Comment by soybeanlover — November 30, 2006 @ 1:04 am
#46 “…if condoms are all you can afford, then condoms are what you use, if you really want to make an effort to stay un-pregnant. This isn’t naivete; it’s maturity.”
Yes a maturity that YOU may have but not neccessarily everyone.
Your naivete is that you think it’s so easy for everyone to get even condoms. I’m glad for you that you haven’t known people or known of people who really have been in that situation. But just because you haven’t encountered people with this dilemma don’t think it isn’t happening.
It’s easy to say it’s all about choices. It’s all about humans and humans make bad choices. That’s reality. If people get pregnant they generally acknowlege it’s their choices that led to it. Making bc more accessible on the front end would help. I don’t know how I can make that more clear since you don’t believe anyone currently has difficulty getting it.
Regardless if the validity of some of your points, it still comes back to dealing with humans and acknoledging that even though it’s people’s own fault, playing the morality card is not going to help the situation. Your comments are incredibly judgmental on a “let them eat cake” level. Your statements in comment #30 are insulting, morally correct and devoid of compassion.
I don’t know if the comments bother me as much as the fact that a couple years ago, I probably said things equally judgmental and harsh.
I’ll agree with you on this point, there is a spiritual problem - “a deficit in respect for human life.” That may be as much your problem as the women you’re berating. You’ve found the mote in their eyes. Maybe eventually you’ll notice the beam in your own.
Comment by nee — November 30, 2006 @ 2:03 am
Nee
Please keep it civil. Arguing positions is fine, personal attacks are not.
Comment by Not Ophelia — November 30, 2006 @ 6:28 am
duly noted
Comment by nee — November 30, 2006 @ 8:42 am
Its unfortunate, but people just need to be more responsible. Both men and women. I dont know the answer, but being responsible for your actions - and responsible enough to plan your actions - would go a long way to minimize a heap of problems.
Most people today have an entitlement attitude, and until that shifts a bit, social problems are going to continue to increase.
Comment by Jason — November 30, 2006 @ 10:02 am
Nee, I think you are still missing my point. Perhaps I can clarify it by saying what my point is NOT. My point is NOT–and by NOT, I mean the OPPOSITE of “is”–my point is NOT that people who make bad choices don’t deserve compassion (or should be forced to eat cake, for that matter). I thought that was clear enough when I said the words…let’s see, what were they…”We’re always obligated to be charitable to those in need, regardless of why or how they got where they are.” And: “We all make poor choices.” Did I actually say that? Are those my words? Why, my name is at the end there, so I must have typed them. It wasn’t just a dream.
I have nothing against making birth control easier to get. NOTHING. I am just not naive enough to think that in 21st century America limited access to birth control is the strongest contributing factor to either unplanned pregnancies or abortions. Women have more access to more contraceptive options AND more economic opportunity and mobility than they have EVER had in the history of the world, and the abortion rate has actually gone down in recent years. You can make contraceptives more available than they currently are, but I don’t think it’s going to have that dramatic an impact on the abortion rate because the reasons women get pregnant and sometimes have abortions are way more complicated than that.
Please re-read that last sentence. That is my point. Only that. NOT all the stuff you ascribed to me which I never said.
Comment by madhousewife — November 30, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
I’ve had three pregnancies — one ended in abortion, one in my darling son, and one in miscarriage. [this would be a good point to mention that I am a feminist and a housewife, but not a Mormon].The miscarriage was very similar to the termination in terms of how I felt, but being more recent seems like it was harder, sadder, and worse.
I was twenty when I had the abortion — I was with a long-term boyfriend and taking the birth control pill. I don’t know why it failed — I never missed a pill, but sometimes I took one later in the day than I should have. We were both very bright people and you’d think we’d have figured the birth control thing out. I do conceive very easily — that has been my experience since. But anyway, it happened. I knew the moment I found out, with absolute certainty, that I would not have the baby. I was nannying at the time for an adorable six-month-old, so I had a very painful sense of what I was giving up but I also had a glimmer of a sense of how tough it was being a parent, and I just didn’t have it in me. I was pro-choice and didn’t feel especially guilty about the choice — just terrible that I was facing it. I didn’t even consider adoption — I felt like I was the person meant to bring up my children. I say all this not to be controversial, just because it was how I felt then. My boyfriend was supportive of having the baby (somewhat) but still wanted to move across the country after graduation (while I stayed on the opposite coast). He saw his role as mostly financial. I think if I had wanted to have the baby he would have played a larger role but at that crisis moment I knew he wasn’t who I wanted a future with as our relationship was already deteroriorating (no need to tell me I shouldn’t have been sleeping with him; hindsight makes that very clear).
Anyway, my point in telling you this is that as time wears on, I become more wistful and wonder if I should have had the baby. How bad could it have been? I find myself, while still pro-choice, definitely drifting into a more conservative view than I had at 20. Now that I am married and stable and want children, it’s hard for me to remember how desperate I felt then. On the other hand, had I had that baby, I would never have moved away from home and gone to the grad school program where I met my husband. I wouldn’t have ever met him, which makes me almost cry to think about. And the baby I have now would never have been. He’s worth something too.
Comment by anon — November 30, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
#52 I re-read both of your comments several times.
What is amazing to me is this site full of feminist women who I’ve see jump up and defend the rights of women who feel they are in desperate situations quiet as crickets after your moral flogging of some women. That is not a personal attack. It is an observation of the words you used to describe many women and their situations.
There is a lot of selective application of feminist virtues and values around here. I don’t know why that is. I suspect that wouldn’t have happened back when this blog first started. It likely wouldn’t be the case either, if you posted under another name or anonymously.
I returned to reading here after a long absence when I reached a point of finally “getting” a lot of the points I’d read here before. Now it’s frequently as innoculous as a relief society lesson. The “Mormon” is almost always present. The “Feminist” could be asterisked with a disclaimer. There’s enough delightful people posting and commenting to keep it interesting and enlightening, inconsistency aside. Hell, we’re all inconsistent at times. Just wish it wasn’t happening with greater frequency. And god(dess?) knows this blog isn’t around for my pleasure.
I won’t read or comment further on this thread. I wouldn’t have thought I would be alone defending women in desperate situations being morally attacked in some comments. I shouldn’t have been.
Comment by nee — November 30, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
I am one of those women who got pregnant while on the Pill. (Like anon, I never missed a day either.) So I don’t come at this from the perspective of someone who’s never had an unplanned pregnancy and doesn’t understand how it can happen. The situations we find ourselves in are almost always a combination of factors under our control and factors *not* under our control. The point is not to assign blame. It’s separating the stuff we can *do* something about from the stuff we can’t do anything about, in order to come up with workable solutions. It’s very easy to say, well, we should just have better family planning programs. We should eliminate poverty while we’re at it, as long as it’s simply a matter of distributing goods and services. That is not taking the human element, the individual, into consideration. I don’t think that’s terribly compassionate either.
Comment by madhousewife — November 30, 2006 @ 2:30 pm
While I was pregnant with our first kid, we were still in school and had a low enough income for me to get my prenatal care through medicaid (medicare? I can never remember which is for old people and which isn’t). During the interview process our case worker asked conversationally as she walked us to the door if the baby was planned, we told her it was. She was nearly gushing when she said “Oh good! That is so wonderful to hear. You’ve no idea how many women we see here that just don’t know that antibiotics interfere with their birth control pills. You’d think the pharmacists would tell them about stuff like that.”
I tend to think that while contraception may be available, few women really understand how it works, what their options are and various factors that reduce or increase effectiveness. More education never hurt anyone.
Comment by Starfoxy — November 30, 2006 @ 2:47 pm
The BYU health center says that most anitbiotics don’t interfere with birth control– that it’s kind of an old wives tale. But the few times I have been on antibiotics, I use back up, just in case. I wonder what the real deal is with that.
Comment by cmac — November 30, 2006 @ 4:02 pm
According to WebMD:
Regardless of whether it is just some antibiotics or all of them, the main point is, those women weren’t told about the loss of efficacy at all. Their pharmacists weren’t doing their jobs.
Comment by Starfoxy — November 30, 2006 @ 4:46 pm
In general, I tend to believe that if something is not being done that is the right thing to do, and people are using the fact that it isn’t being done as an excuse, we should do it and remove that excuse. For instance: If there is an argument being made that women are getting abortions because they lack access to safe, affordable, effective birth control, make birth control widely available to everyone. If there is an argument being made that women are getting abortions because they can’t afford to bring up their children, working a 40 hour week on minimum wage, raise the minimum wage. (It’s hardly “removing the inherent difficulties of life and making responsible behavior effortless” by paying someone a decent living wage for a full week’s worth of honest, often difficult labor.) Remove as many excuses as possible.
Yes, you’ll still have abortion. You’ll have abortion because of rape/incest or because of maternal/fetal health. There’s not a lot you can do to solve the problem of maternal/fetal health, and as for rape and incest, sadly, it can’t be solved in one generation.
You’ll still have abortion because birth control fails - so we work to remove that excuse. Develop a birth control that is 100% effective, without the horrible side effects of Implanon, which, when I was on it, caused me to have a 3-month-long period. Develop a male pill. Make men take more responsibility for birth control. Chances are, if a man and a woman are both using the pill, it probably won’t fail.
You’ll still have abortion because of a very small, miniscule percentage of the population that is just plain irresponsible. They are out there. My husband had a friend in college who had 4 abortions in one year because she liked having sex, but didn’t like birth control. I’ve met die-hard pro-choice people who are still disgusted by that; it’s just plain bad behavior. But how many people fall into that category? Not too terribly many.
We do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. It should have the added benefit of (in this instance) reducing the rates of abortion. But even if it doesn’t, it’s still the right thing to do.
Comment by Quimby — November 30, 2006 @ 5:02 pm
Starfoxy, I agree with you (I hope it didn’t come across that I was being nit-picky with your argument). There are plenty of things about birth-control that pharmacists should tell women taking contraceptives which they don’t– including antibiotics, timing, you’re not covered the first week, what to do if you miss a pill, etc. Obviously that information is out there, but people probably won’t think to look unless they realize, “uh-oh I might be pregnant.”
Comment by cmac — November 30, 2006 @ 5:38 pm
“(It’s hardly “removing the inherent difficulties of life and making responsible behavior effortless” by paying someone a decent living wage for a full week’s worth of honest, often difficult labor.)”
I’m assuming this comment is at least partially for me since it quotes me, although the connection between this comment and mine is a little too obscure for me to grasp. If so, I must be doing the world’s crappiest job of communicating. I honestly can’t figure out what I said that could be interpreted as “we shouldn’t do x because it won’t help anyway.” I never said we shouldn’t do x. I never said x wouldn’t be helpful in and of itself. I never even said abortion should be illegal. I also never said that irresponsible sexual behavior is the reason there are so many abortions. (There are a myriad of consequences to irresponsible sexual behavior, of which abortion is my least concern.)
What I said was that we can’t expect family planning to do the heavy lifting on this issue because–and believe me, I realize I’m in a minority here–the reasons women have abortions are more varied and complex than “I couldn’t have the Cadillac of birth control so I decided not to use any.” I’m sorry, but how condescending and presumptuous is it to say that the overwhelming majority of abortions are had by women who can’t navigate the adult world unless it’s everything it ought to be? I’m not against making the world what it ought to be, but there also has to be a strategy for the interim. Well, I think there does, anyway.
Comment by madhousewife — November 30, 2006 @ 7:03 pm
I’m sorry, madhousewife. That did come across as unncessarily harsh.
Comment by Quimby — November 30, 2006 @ 8:17 pm
To clarify . . . When I read your statement, I thought (wrongly, it seems) that you were arguing that any attempt to alleviate the problems of abortion through social reform is also, by its very nature, an attempt to “make responsible behavior effortless.” Generally speaking, I think we all like responsible behavior to be as effortless as possible - that’s why we prefer the pill to a condom, for instance, or why I would prefer a male pill that my husband can take so I don’t have to bother.
Further, I (again wrongly) assumed you applied the same school of thought to alleviating poverty - that we should not make the attempt because it was, in effect, letting the impoverished off too easily. I based this assumption on your statement in post #55
As a person who is passionate about ending poverty, I made the assumption (again, it would seem wrongly) that you were taking the all-too-common approach that the poor are to blame for being poor, when all too often it is a more institutional problem - governments that will not distribute aid, organisations like the World Bank that put crippling condition on their aid, big business that exploits the working poor in the name of cheaper goods for us, etc.
I apologize for misrepresenting you.
Comment by Quimby — November 30, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
I haven’t read all of the posts, but I wanted to chime in. Lisa, you’ve well-articulated something I think many of us agree with. I’d have to say I’m a Pro-Life Moderate (or a Moderate Pro-Lifer?) and that I agree that if Pro-Lifers really want to limit abortion, we’ve got to do everything we can to support those in the dire straits of unprivileged society who feel like abortion is their best option. We’ve absolutely got to promote contraception and stop enforcing our view of sexual morality on everyone else (not to mention the girls and women who are essentially molested do to hyper-sexualized views of the female body and a still, if less blatantly so, misogynistic society. We’ve got to support adoption and fostering, and do it in a much more effective way. We’ve got to respect and support women to the point that a woman can avoid pregnancies, child bearing, and child rearing that if she is unable to manage the financial, physical, or emotional workload. Which is going to take a serious shift of general cultural paradigm and governmental policy (PLEASE let’s get a different Title X nominee).
Comment by Artemis — December 1, 2006 @ 1:51 pm
I’ve always thought the Church’s stance best fit the slogan “safe, legal, and rare.” That’s certainly the way my mind sees it.
The good family who introduced me to the Church, while not uptightly conservative, do vote the Right to Life party every time, just to make sure they are never supporting a candidate who supports abortion.
I also believe abortion is a buzzword, a dead-in-the-water issue. It’s something politicians throw around to make us emotional.
Comment by Cyl — December 1, 2006 @ 2:26 pm
I am so grateful for Roe v. Wade. I had a girlfriend who got pregnant on purpose when our relationship was getting a little tough. She was scared that I was going to leave her, which I was. She thought that the pregnancy would coax me into marrying her. I had to theaten her in order to get her to have the abortion. I promised her that we would be together forever and told her everything that she wanted to hear. After the abortion I left her. There was no way I was going to be tied up with child support to something I had no control or rights to. I was young and nobody can expect me to control my hormones. She promised me she was being responsible with birth control. It is good to know so many good woman from this site support a womans right to choose.
Comment by a man who has learned his lesson. — December 1, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
While I do think that women should have access to abortion- what you’re describing doesn’t sound very much like a ‘woman’s right to choose,’ it sounds more like you choosing for her and being glad it was legal. I can expect all men, including you, to control your hormones.
Comment by Starfoxy — December 1, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
I’ve not followed the discussion (relatives in town and other distractions) but wanted to provide a link to Naomi Woolf’s classic “Our Bodies, Our Souls“, her article on rethinking abortion rhetoric. Woolf if a pro-choic feminist who nontheless senses problems inherent in the reductive rhetoric bandied about by the left as much as by the right. I very much like her comments regarding our need to respect rather than patronize the agency and moral understanding of those women who terminate pregnancies. It’s an excellentarticle for anyone who believes linguistic choices matter in moral dialogic.
Nee, I’m not sure what all has been said in this discussion, but rest assured that plenty of us claim the title feminist exactly because we understand that morality renders social judgment more, not less, complex and in need of compassion.
Comment by janet — December 1, 2006 @ 7:52 pm
btw, some of the comments following Woolf’s article sort of exemplify her point with their reductiveness.
Comment by janet — December 1, 2006 @ 9:01 pm
Male birth control:
Great idea for guys that really don’t want to risk a pregnancy and ensuing consequences. Maybe like “the man who learned his lesson”-
I, personally, wouldnt ever use male birth control as an only method - I love my husband dearly, but he’s a little forgetful, and I’m the one that gets pregnant. I think women remember to take the pill because of the dramatic things that happen if they don’t - if you don’t want to be pregnant, pregnancy is a real threat. Having the guy in the relationship in charge of the birth control seems like a true accident waiting to happen.
I hope to see it soon, I think it gives guys more control over an aspect of their lives, but I don’t think it does much for the woman. I don’t see it as a great feminist boon at all.
Chris
Comment by ChrisK — December 4, 2006 @ 2:04 pm
The problem is not that there isn’t enough sex education or education about contraceptives and birth control, but that it is the wrong kind of education. We say “here is a condom, this is how you use it, then you won’t be burdened with a child before you’re ready.” We say “practice safe sex.” We say “if you do this, you’ll get an STD.” We even say “sex is sacred and should be kept within the bonds of marriage.” What we DON’T teach, either in the world or in the Church, is the burden of responsibility and the ramifications. We say the words without the meaning.
With the abortion issue, we teach that having an abortion is bad, except in certain circumstances, and we dance around the very real emotional, financial and physical issues. We don’t teach that having an abortion can possibly make it impossible to have children in the future, we don’t teach the guilt the would-be mother may live with for the rest of her life. We forget to say that having an abortion does not absolve any of the real problems that result from having sex - either within or outside of marriage - when the participants are not able to care for the child.
And, on top of it all, we continually try to separate actions from consequences. Rather than teaching that “this is sex” and “that is becoming pregnant” we need to teach responsibility for one’s actions - and that consequences cannot be avoided, only postponed for a time. “Wickedness never was happiness” means that certain actions lead to certain consequences. Having an abortion is often only the beginning of sorrows.
Comment by UnicornMom — December 4, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Personally, I’m no advocate for the pill. Or any other chemical birth control– I’ve seen it ruin too many lives. I’m sure you know the kind of examples I’m talking about. Anything from thyroid troubles to menstrual irregularities to difficulty getting pregnant afterward…
my problem is blood clotting. A birth control pill for me means that I could end up dead from a pulmonary embolism.
I personally don’t want to mess with the delicate hormonal balance of the female reproductive system.
As far as B/C is concerned– I think that it is best to stick to barrier methods. Or abstinence. I think the argument that the guy shouldn’t accept the responsibility is a little bogus. I mean, true, they aren’t the ones who get pregnant. So why don’t we women (the ones who do get pregnant) insist on it? I mean, carry condoms around in our purses. I seriously doubt the guy is going to refuse to have sex if you make him wear a condom.
And this cool thing, vaginal contraceptive film. And lots of other stuff. You know. Anyway, just wanted to throw that out there.
Comment by Sare — December 4, 2006 @ 7:15 pm
i’m confused on how you equated democrat with feminist, the two are not necessarily connected.
Comment by confused — December 5, 2006 @ 12:54 am
I am a feminist pro-life democrate. I like the nuances of the label. It covers a lot of ground and embraces the values that I hold near and dear.
Comment by michael — December 5, 2006 @ 12:48 pm
The churches position on abortion has nothing to do with consequence and everything to do with the sanctity of life.
Official Church Position
The church is currently very pro-adoption in regards to unwed mothers. Parents of unwed mothers are specifically counseled NOT to persuade their daughters they have to keep and raise the child as a form of restitution for sin or punishment.
The sanctity of life really boils down to sometime between an egg being fertilized and the child exiting the womb a human being exists. That human being has a right to life and to take away that life is murder. Perhaps that happens at birth itself, perhaps it happens at fertilization. Can you say for certain that deliberately killing a fertilized egg is not murder? Perhaps the Lord looks at it as a sliding scale, ending the life of a 4 and a 1/2 month old fetus is only 50% murder? Who knows. All I know is that ending the life of a baby after it exists the womb after 9 months is certainly murder. Also there seems to be little difference between a 8 month old fetus and a 9 month old fetus, except size. 7 month old does not seem so different from and 8 month old.
I believe this is something we should error on the side of caution on. Even the Church Handbook of Instructions(pg 185) states “As far as has been revealed, a person may repent and be forgiven for the sin of abortion”
Comment by some dood — December 5, 2006 @ 6:04 pm
a man who has learned his lesson,
I assume you are being being facetious to prove a point, if not, God have mercy on your victim(s). My heart goes out to her and others like her. Sadly, this is probably all too common.
Comment by some dood — December 5, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
some dood,
My victim(s)? I am the victim! She could have had the baby and not had me interfere if there were laws in place that protected me and prevented her from taking any part of my paycheck. But since I don’t legally have any say in the matter, I had to interfere.
Comment by a man who has learned his lesson — December 6, 2006 @ 2:24 pm
If indeed you`re for real, ” a man who has learned his lesson,” I hope you`ve had a vasectomy.
I know a man with a similar attitude: he got stuck paying child support for years, after an ill-chosen one night stand. So he “got snipped” — more than 30 years ago, and said it was the best decison he ever made. Be a real man — not a victim.
Comment by L. — December 6, 2006 @ 9:53 pm
I think his attitude illustrates a growing and unfortunate outlook on life. The “abortion issue” is more than a question of when the baby can be considered a human. It also reflects a deeper rejection of responsibility for the consequences of actions.
I hardly think “Learned His Lesson” felt much like a victim when he was busy making his baby.
Comment by UnicornMom — December 7, 2006 @ 7:03 am
Please don’t feed the troll.
Thanks.
Comment by not ophelia — December 7, 2006 @ 7:49 am
Intercourse with a woman is, at minimum, a contract to provide for any resulting children.
Comment by some dood — December 7, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
An interesting article about meetings between the leaders of different pro-life and pro-choice groups is described in this article: http://www.publicconversations.org/pcp/resources/resource_detail.asp?ref_id=102
It is an interesting article, and it is good to know that the debate is being carried out in “grey” language, even if they had to meet up in secret to be able to talk respectfully to one another.
Comment by Douglas — December 9, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
I am a libertarian mostly because of my LDS beliefs. The government shouldn’t have a hand in regulating abortions. I am personally disgusted by the practice, however.
The sad part is that the Pro-Choice movement is funded by groups who believe in eugenics and eliminating the “undesirables”. Such as Planned Parenthood, for example.
They seek to move beyond the reach of Roe Vs. Wade. They carry the message that abortion is a modern convenience and that it should be afforded at all costs.
We are moving closer and closer to a culture of “designer babies” and you would be amazed to find out about our country’s history of “forced abortions.”
I struggle constantly lately balancing my “lasez faire” political philosophy and standing up for our Heavenly Father’s children that are being denied their chance at agency in this life.
I am also afraid for those who claim to be “feminists” who haven’t made the dangerous connection between feminism, population control, and eugenics.
Please know that Satan desires to sift us like wheat. He is moving throughout the political landscapes. On the left and the right. Please be careful in our “Brave New World.”
http://www.eugenics-watch.com/roots/chap06.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger
Comment by Libertarian Guy — February 2, 2008 @ 1:25 am
I like to call myself “Wise Choice” when they ask my opinion on abortion. Meaning, you can do it if you must but you should choose wisely. It is hard to argue with that point of view.
Comment by Eric — October 3, 2008 @ 9:39 pm
I’m a conservative. That being said, I tripped over this website, but I still agree with some of the things being said. There is a middle ground on this and on most things. For the person that said we can’t vote for a conservative, well, we can’t vote for a liberal either. We need someone to do the middle ground. Abortions being illegal would result in some terrible things, but they should be limited. I’m very much against aborting just because the baby is the wrong gender or any other testing they do around 20 weeks. If the baby is TOO deformed the child wouldn’t live. For myself I’m against abortions. For those that have to deal with rape, incest, and other things they should have an option of a very early termination (the day after pill or very very early abortion of some sort). I’m dead set against a partial birth abortion and especially just letting the baby suffocate to death if it happens to live (something Obama doesn’t agree with me on, but many democrats do agree with me. I believe Clinton voted to make that illegal, Obama opposed it.)
Comment by Jennifer — October 4, 2008 @ 7:38 pm