The culture trenches
Among other changes in this country, there has evidently been some stir over a new Gallup poll in which more Americans were found to be pro-life than pro-choice. I wonder if this doesn't reflect as much a change in perception as position.
I find it hard to believe that, when pressed, most people who identify as "pro-life" wouldn't argue that their stance is moral, not legal. This is to say that they strongly urge women to "choose life" but would still be uncomfortable with the thought that women should literally have no choice. Forced gestation is one of the most terrifying concepts I know, and is antithetical to the "culture of life" that the "pro-life" seem to espouse. It is not life-affirming when an unwilling woman endures nine months of an unwanted presence within herself, permanent changes to her body, life and identity, and finally a long and excruciating delivery to a child she did not intend to conceive. It is quite possibly the most destructive and traumatic experience I can imagine as a young woman.
If the "pro-life" would admit that the most rigid of birth control techniques do occasionally fail, and that sex is not a credit card to be eventually "paid" with childbearing, the need for abortion would be apparent. Women who obtain them do not do so for their own amusement; it is a medical procedure, after all. The "convenience" argument, too, is insulting in its belittlement of the great effort that raising a child entails. Having a child is no small life change, and it should involve preparation. Why disrespect the woman one expects to adequately care for a child by insinuating that she is not intelligent enough to decide whether or not she is up to the task? Am I really to believe that those who say, "I would never have an abortion," are willing to speak for every woman in every situation? It is a privilege to be able to say that. Not to face, along with an unwanted pregnancy, the prospects of domestic violence, homicide, starvation, loss of employment or loss of educational opportunity is a highly privileged position. Yet these are the real considerations of women facing abortion.
I believe that the pro-life movement has demonized the stance of the pro-choice with the logical fallacy of "that which is legal is compulsory." The pro-choice stance is not to promote abortion as a desirable experience, but simply that abortion is a private matter and should not be decided by the government. One would think that this would be the position embraced by the Republican Party, if it hadn't taken on board the extremism of the religious conservative movement.
I have said nothing new or unusual here. But I suspect we are in need of a new platform for this debate. It is currently a battle of idealism vs. reality. Wouldn't we all like to be "pro-life" and imagine that nothing but the vague, distant, looming threat of abortion stands between a woman and happy motherhood? But shouldn't we all recognize that life is far more complicated than that, and that having a choice does not equal taking it?
I find it hard to believe that, when pressed, most people who identify as "pro-life" wouldn't argue that their stance is moral, not legal. This is to say that they strongly urge women to "choose life" but would still be uncomfortable with the thought that women should literally have no choice. Forced gestation is one of the most terrifying concepts I know, and is antithetical to the "culture of life" that the "pro-life" seem to espouse. It is not life-affirming when an unwilling woman endures nine months of an unwanted presence within herself, permanent changes to her body, life and identity, and finally a long and excruciating delivery to a child she did not intend to conceive. It is quite possibly the most destructive and traumatic experience I can imagine as a young woman.
If the "pro-life" would admit that the most rigid of birth control techniques do occasionally fail, and that sex is not a credit card to be eventually "paid" with childbearing, the need for abortion would be apparent. Women who obtain them do not do so for their own amusement; it is a medical procedure, after all. The "convenience" argument, too, is insulting in its belittlement of the great effort that raising a child entails. Having a child is no small life change, and it should involve preparation. Why disrespect the woman one expects to adequately care for a child by insinuating that she is not intelligent enough to decide whether or not she is up to the task? Am I really to believe that those who say, "I would never have an abortion," are willing to speak for every woman in every situation? It is a privilege to be able to say that. Not to face, along with an unwanted pregnancy, the prospects of domestic violence, homicide, starvation, loss of employment or loss of educational opportunity is a highly privileged position. Yet these are the real considerations of women facing abortion.
I believe that the pro-life movement has demonized the stance of the pro-choice with the logical fallacy of "that which is legal is compulsory." The pro-choice stance is not to promote abortion as a desirable experience, but simply that abortion is a private matter and should not be decided by the government. One would think that this would be the position embraced by the Republican Party, if it hadn't taken on board the extremism of the religious conservative movement.
I have said nothing new or unusual here. But I suspect we are in need of a new platform for this debate. It is currently a battle of idealism vs. reality. Wouldn't we all like to be "pro-life" and imagine that nothing but the vague, distant, looming threat of abortion stands between a woman and happy motherhood? But shouldn't we all recognize that life is far more complicated than that, and that having a choice does not equal taking it?