Bush v. Choice has designated today, January 22, 2007 as the second annual Blog for Choice Day. The theme is “tell us, and your readers, why you’re pro-choice.” I don’t think that any great political feat will be accomplished by this, but I do believe that creating a forum (or hundreds of blogger fora) to safely discuss controversial topics is important to coming to decisions about those topics. So may my words help break the taboo.
I’m pro-choice because I wish there were a better answer. My parents taught me that their religion taught them that life begins at conception and were very active in helping what they called “unwed mothers”. So at least their views were supported by their actions. This pro-life-ness resulted in me witnessing a video of an abortion being performed long before I knew how a child could be created (ultimately steeling my stomach for health classes and horror movies at that time yet-to-be-seen). Growing up in a very religious (although mono-religious) household, I developed an early desire to learn more about all religions. This quest eventually lead me to discover that sources as valid and ancient as those my parents cited for why life begins at conception also forbade a woman to mourn for a child stillborn or for any child who died before it was a month old. I also learned that I didn’t have to blindly obey the laws of my parent’s religion (whether actual or simply asserted).
I believe that sex is two things: (a) it is a natural drive to produce more of me and lots of fun and (b) it is an emotional act that has biological consequences. This belief is rooted in my fundamental beliefs about existence, as seem to be everyone’s beliefs about abortion. Since I don’t believe that there is a hell (or even a heaven), I don’t have a problem with recycling human souls, whether it’s an unborn fetus or a brain-dead loved one.
I believe that contraception, in the form of male & female pills, male & female barriers, and male & female sterilization need to be much more available to society at large as well as be understood as the responsibility of both parties. I believe that the earth is over-crowded. I believe that raising children is more important than having them. And I believe that it is the responsibility of society at large to care for its children.
I don’t believe that I would make a good mother, so I’ve taken steps to help ensure that I don’t. I do, however, believe that it is my responsibility as a non-parent to help parents (baby sit, pay taxes, &c.). I believe that men and women should get matern- and paternity leave after the birth or adoption of a child. I believe that teenagers should be given the tools to make smart choices about their sexuality. I believe that the government should provide financial assistance as needed to daycare, preschool, and kindergarten programs in cities and states. I believe that it is in the best interest of society that children (and adults) be educated.
In short, I don’t really know when life begins, but I do not believe that it ends at birth.
I have had elective surgeries and they are not to be trifled with. They are emotional and are decisions that need to be come to by the person (the surgee, if you will), the doctor, and trusted friends and family of the surgee. When I had a lump from my breast excised, I discussed it with my doctor (not the surgeon, but the doctor I trusted) and with my mother. With other surgeries, I discussed it with my doctor and my husband (my best friend). These were decisions which were mine to make, but I had people who supported me regardless of my decision around me. My recoveries were difficult and emotional (my brother-in-law says that my sisters and I are gifted with tears) on a level I didn’t expect from a simple surgery. I believe that abortion is a medical procedure, whether done surgically or medically and as such should be done with full consent of the surgee, with a medical professional (whether surgeon, OB/GYN, or herbalist), and with a support system, (whether family and friends or counseling). I believe that a woman may indeed walk away from an abortion in the way that I did from oral surgery: normal recovery period, end of story. But I also believe that a woman may walk away from it the way I did from my lumpectomy: with emotional issues that need to be dealt with, cried about, with more narcotics than were assumed to be necessary, and with a scar that won’t go away. I believe that denying that some women have emotional responses to abortions is a disservice to all women. And I believe that denying access to abortion is, too.
I hope for a future where pre-conception birth control is so good that abortions don’t happen. Not because I’m anti-choice but because I would rather have changed my eating habits before I discovered a lump in my breast than have had it surgically removed. But until that happens, I will work (and blog) for access to abortions for everyone who needs one. And for those would cannot bear it and would rather bring the pregnancy to term and put the child up for adoption, I believe that our society must support that, too.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Miko // Jan 22, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Other Bloggers for Choice:
• an American ex-pat has a UK perspective
• reasons from an ex-Catholic
• personal experiences
‚Ä¢ a male feminist Quaker weighs in (& it’s not John!) and reveals hypocrisy
‚Ä¢ Feministe has a (1, 2, 3, 4,) 5 part series for the day…more may be posted later…
‚Ä¢ One Woman Army has a Canadian perspective and graphic graphics (consider thyself warned, it makes my stomach turn to look at…)
‚Ä¢ Feminist Law Professors (I’ll be going back there!) have a few ideas about how to celebrate/activate today
‚Ä¢the Lady has her thoughts as well as (including George Carlin, it’s worth it) on the subject
• However, the prize for best worded & best points made goes to Pandagon
2 John // Jan 22, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Miko, thanks for blogging this, and thanks too for the links. My favorite is the second Feministe chapter on Blogging for Choice; it essentially bullet points powerful reasons for legalizing abortion. I recommend that anyone with mixed feelings on the topic visit the link and consider the human costs of illegal abortions.
I used to be a committed anti-abortionist. There were three things that turned me against the pro-life movement:
1) I studied the development of the embryo. I realized then that it was ridiculous to compare a fertilized, unimplanted egg to an almost to term infant.
2) I was troubled that pro-life activists seemed to value the potential life of a blastocyst more than the lives of the pregnant women and other children. Also, it seemed hypocritical that the jingoistic Christians who tend to be pro-life also valued the lives of Americans more than the lives of other people around the world.
3) It bothered me that pro-lifers did little to help women avoid getting pregnant in the first place. They opposed public sex education and easy access to contraception. Not only did people have to not get abortions, they had to have sex on the pro-lifers’ terms.
This was a long struggle for me, because for a long time I had a consistent life ethic (similar to Hugo Schwyzer’s): I was anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-capital punishment, and a struggling vegetarian. Even now, I see abortion as a necessary evil for the most part (except perhaps in the earliest stages), but I do believe that the women who are pregnant should be fully empowered to make the difficult choice.
3 Jonathan // Jan 24, 2007 at 6:41 am
Miko - great stuff! I really appreciate the reasoning you use to explain your position on such a touchy subject. With a belief in reincarnation, your position makes sense. Although I must ask, would capitol punishment not also be a mechanism to recycle souls for better use? The answer is no, but I’m not sure why.
I am with you to some degree on the concept of reincarnation - although I believe we only get reincarnated once :). This helped me get by a common problem that broke my heart in the area I grew up in - that many satanic cults would get young women in their ranks pregnant to sacrifice their babies. Some of these women eventually got out of this cult, but spent a lot of time in recovery in a local mental hospital - in fact there is a whole wing dedicated to overcoming cults. Anyway, I was able to see (from my world view) that God was merciful to these babies, and He was allowing this to happen so that they would not grow up in such an awful environment, but instead be return to Him.
I came to my beliefs regarding abortion due to awareness of my abounding ignorance. I couldn’t be sure if an unborn baby was alive and conscious or not, so I thought it would be best to play it safe. Of course, in the case where my wife would die if she were to give birth, I would probably make the choice to abort - and let the baby, alive or not, be returned to God. What a tough decision! I hope it will never happen. Oddly enough, the Old Testament says two things about how God feels about death - He hates it when ANY people who don’t know him or who are evil die, and He is happy when good people do?! I can find the quote if you want - that makes the Old Testament look a lot different when you realize that. (I’m reading it right now, so it’s on my brain right now…)
One thought regarding overpopulation - since the sex drive is natural one, do you think it could be curbed by nature as well? People, when unconsciously perceiving overpopulation, might opt to have less or no kids? Just a thought - I’m wondering if population control is less a conscious act and more a natural (and unconscious) one.
John - I really appreciate your thoughts on this tough issue as well! You have touched on an issue I have been dying to ask someone without the threat of offending them because I am curious. Since you thought about this a great deal, and don’t just believe stuff because it is status-quo, I was hoping to understand this a little better - I have never understood the inconsistency between being anti-capital punishment and being pro-choice. If life is sacred, and there is doubt (is the criminal truly guilty or can he/she change? or is the baby really alive and conscious or just a mass of cells…) Wouldn’t you want to err in both cases on the side of doubt- just in case the criminal can change or the baby is in fact conscious (Even Sam Harris admits that conscious can not yet be detected)?
I’ll try to see if I can guess what you’ll say - and show my ignorance
You mentioned not wanting to be aligned with the pro-life movement, and I can’t agree more. I think one of the greatest drain on my relationship with God is my disgust of other arrogant, self-righteous, hypocritical Christians. If I’m to take a stand on a belief or a cause, it will be on my own terms, not that of any denomination or pastor. I feel the same way with the pro-life movement. Unfortunately by stating that, I am also being arrogant and hypocritical myself - since I think I am somehow better and more enlightened then the rest of Chistiandom, which I am not. Regardless, the hell with them, and the hell with my reactionary thinking tendencies to throw the baby out with the bathwater - I will believe what I want to on my own terms regardless of whether other annoying Christians share my beliefs. This is easier said the done for me… I’m still working on it.:)
Your final point is the best, and toughest of all. The mother’s choice. I am for the mother to choose too, but from my worldview, I want it to be for the right reasons. If her life is in any danger, I have no problem, but if it is not, then I’m uncertain. If she is a teenager, then what would be the reason? No established job or career path yet? Is the worth of a baby’s life less than a mother’s future career? I just worry about opening up abortion to be allowed for any reason. I would rather it be restricted to what is right. It seems that deformity is a new reason for abortion, even after being born or even in late term - but even Henri Nouwen, one of my favorite Catholic writers ever, in his book about taking care of a man who was paraplegic since birth, talked at great length about the man’s incredible spirit and joy that changed him (Henri, a Harvard Prof.) deeply. Again, I am left to err on the side of caution even here because of my woeful ignorance.
One final thing that concerns me the most is the potential of life. It is not too much different that the potential of a convicted criminal on death row. There is potential for him/her to change, or in the case of a baby, a potential to grow up and change the world for good. Why not give every potential for great good an opportunity? The greatest men and women come from the most unlikely places, do they not? Even the reincarnation argument needs to be defended here - was a baby not meant to be born for a great purpose? Wouldn’t it be tragic if he/she never made it to become the next Ghandi ( A man who I do appreciate)?
I know that the both of you (John and Miko) have thought about all these complexities before and worked your way though them - All I know is my own Christian upbringing and the experiences I had in live that brought me to the tenative believes I hold (loosely) now - I want to understand how you guys think, but I was hoping to find out more depth in your positions (how have you handled these tougher questions? - the tough questions are the ones that have plagued me and have caused me to not take a clear stand on either side - pro-life or pro-choice.)
I of course hate debate, so my purpose is only to bring a more deep, rich conversation that doesn’t shy away from the tougher criticisms to such an interesting subject that is close to all our hearts - the preciousness and potential of life. I think this is the goal and spirit of this post anyway - deep clarity of your position of pro-choice in face of tough concerns. If this stuff just upsets you, then please just ignore me:) I’m just curious, nothing more.
4 Miko // Jan 24, 2007 at 9:52 am
Jonathan–thank you for the comment, I thought I’d scared everyone off
You have some great points that I want to respond to, but I don’t know if I’ll hit them all…if I miss one, lemmie know.
Capital Punisment:In a Christian Ethics class (where I met & gained great respect for many Muslim philosophers), we discussed why capital punishment could be considered ethical. At that time I was very anti-capital punishment but pro-abortion, not really understanding that there might be a conflict. The argument made (better than I can, but I’ll try) was that the punishment is a respect for the choice of the criminal. That is, if you know the law of the land (and not knowing is never an excuse to get out of a crime, so I guess one is assumed to know the law), you know that the punishment for theft is jail. So, when you steal something, you have taken into account that, if you are caught, you will go to jail. If a child steals something or (and this is where it gets sticky), a person of limited mental capacity (deemed by the courts to be a child regardless of age), they do not get the same punishment as an adult because they are known not to understand the consequences of their actions. It is therefore society’s duty to carry out the law (capital punishment) when a crime is committed that warrents it. Not to do so would be an insult to the intellectual (and ethical) capacity of the criminal.
Now, I don’t know that I agree that capital punishment is an ethical law to begin with, but the logic in the above argument (or at least the one given me in that class) is sound. Socrates, after all, drank hemlock in accordance with the law, that he might be known to be acting ethically in accepting the authority of the law. My current belief is that rehabilitation is a much more ethical (and less “cruel” or “unusual”) way of dealing with crime. I think that prisons should afford criminals education (rather than cable and weight rooms) because they should be places where we encourage criminals to become “productive” members of society, to reintegrate them. If the crime is so aggregeious (sp?) or consistent that rehabilitation has not worked, I could see when capital punishment might be the only ethical option for the remainder of society. In the same class, we were taught that human life is so precious that it is infinate in an ethical sense; that is, taking two human lives is not twice as bad as taking one because each one is infinate and you can’t get worse. I don’t believe this is the case. I believe that, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (ethics as taught me by Star Trek). I believe that, if a criminal is so criminal that s/he cannot be rehabilitated and (and this is the real sticking point) the justice system has worked properly, capital punishment may be more ethical than life imprisonment.
This takes into account not the potential of a human life but the autonomy of it.
Overpopulation: When I was taught biology, we also studied ecology. We discussed not just the anatomy of a spider but also the number that could exist in a square foot of the forest in the schoolyard. In general, ecosystems seek to maintain balance. Many species of frog, if there are too many of one gender, have the capacity to switch to balance the society. This is an extreme case, more often it is (and this is a very simplistic example) the case that, when there are too many wolves to be supported by the amount of deer, they will die off; or if there are too many deer, the wolves will increase. This happens within the body as well with insulin and…the other, opposite hormone which I can’t think of the name right now.
So, on a small scale, systems try to stay balanced. As the scale gets larger, balance continues to be the goal. As a human, I have a biological desire to procreate (although, I haven’t hit it yet unless it simply manifests as a desire to have sex). I am no so arrogant to believe that my desire not to have children might not be a product of an attempt at balance. I also believe that this is not the only way that balance might be achieved. Increased rates of cancers, incurable virii, and resistant bacteria are also evidence, to me, of an attempt to balance. I may indeed be acting out the ecology’s attempt at minimizing the population by simply describing my beliefs to you (a small frog, switching gender because it is needed). Or not.
Mother’s Choice: If I were pregnant, I would feel that it was my pregnancy. Couples who say “we’re pregnant” often annoy me. I agree that the involvement of a man (though we only have the woman’s word that it was that man) is necessary. I also agree that I have difficulty making large purchases without discussing it with my husband. Not because I defer to him, but because a large financial decision would have an impact on him as well, so he deserves input. I expect the same from him. So, I would feel that his input would be valued in the matter of a pregnancy as well. If it were not his child, I would value the input of him (as my husband) and of the father. Ultimately, though, if we disagreed, it would be my choice. I would not want to be forced to be a mother against my will any more than I would like to be forced to have an invasive procedure against my will. But I am a very lucky and (relatively) well-off woman. What was my acronym in a past post? PWW? If I were not in a loving and equitable relationship, it may very well be that I would not need or desire the input of the father or husband, and it may be that obtaining their input might be a detriment to my health or pregnancy.
When I first became sexually active, pregnancy was a huge fear for me. I was petrified of it. My mother has 10 brothers and sisters, I have 5, and I have 17 nieces and nephews. I know that I come from a line of extremely fertile women. So, despite all the efforts at birth control that I made, I had backup plans. While I was still in college, I did not feel that I could raise a child. But I was not so arrogant to believe that I might be able to abort a potential pregnancy. In the event that I could not, I had resolved to give my child to my sister (the one who lived closest) to raise as her own. We look alike, so no one need ever know. As I became financially able, I would contribute to its care by her. If I became able to raise it myself, that would also be possible. I never discussed this with her although I’m sure she would have been happy to be a part of this (perhaps not the keeping it on the down low, but certainly the rest of it). Knowing that I had so many options often helped me sleep at night (especially when I was 1 day late, my periods have never been regular, the source of unending stress even before I started engaging in activities which might have left me pregnant). But again, I am a privledged woman. I would hope that any daughter of mine could come to me with her problems (as every parent does). I also hope that any of my nieces, nephews, and siblings-in-law know that they can come to me. Because I know I could not have gone to my mother.
Potential: As I noted above, potential is not as big of an issue for me as, perhaps, it is for other people. I am more concerned with the potential and quality of life of the parent of a child, though I am concerned with the quality of life of the child as well. I could not given my child the attention it deserved when I was attending school. It would not have been fair to either of us to have had a child at that time in my life. The potential of a criminal to reform and begin contributing is important, but if the desire is not there for such reform & contribution, the good of society outweighs the potential of that life. IMHO…
hope that caught most of the points…my laptop’s running low so I should go plug in…thank you again for the comment
5 Jonathan // Jan 24, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Miko - Not a problem! I love to think through this stuff deeply. I like the way you explained your points too - personal experience contributes so much weight to a discussion that otherwise can just be pie-in-the sky and esoteric and not real to life.
Yeah- I think you caught the majority of my questions - I probably tossed about a hundred at you.
6 John // Jan 24, 2007 at 10:28 pm
Jonathan, I’m going to have to meet you in person someday. You are capable of disagreeing with someone on a heated, divisive issue while making them feel like your best friend! *doffs hat*
I think that I’ve been able to maintain some consistency. I revere life, but I don’t see a zygote or blastocyst as the moral and legal equivalent of a late term child. Apparently Nature (God?) doesn’t either, because well over half of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted (most w/o the mother knowing any better). This is standard medical knowledge, but no one seems to be mourning this as a great loss of human lives.
So I have to consider the relationship between the life of the fetus and the life of the mother. I weigh the quality of life of the mother much more heavily than the potential life of the early fetus. As that potential is transformed, step by step into actuality (from conception to implantation to organ development to viability), I find more value on the life in the womb. Apparently society does too, whether pro- or anti- abortion.
I hope that makes sense, and doesn’t just come off as another pro-choice spiel.
7 Jonathan // Jan 25, 2007 at 4:53 am
I agree with both of you guys actually except on a few minor points (like my belief in God)
I just like to complicate things with deeper questions! I really enjoy discussing this stuff with people who are a little more open minded then most of the folks around here (Rochester). Maybe I’m taking my cue from Socrates, but I love discussing an issue and play the devil’s advocate sometimes just to make sure we’re on the right track.
I long ago realized that this was a very controversial subject (duh), and one that caused people with different world views to come to different, yet logical conclusions. I mostly enjoy trying to understand how other people see things rather than championing my own tentative believes. In other words, I’m always trying to learn.
8 Miko // Jan 25, 2007 at 8:32 am
a friendly devil’s advocate is hard to come by…thank you
Leave a Comment