Uh-oh, there she goes proselytizing again! Feel free to skip this one if you just can't stand it, or me. Although if you can't stand me...why are you even reading my blog?
Anyhoo. So we were watching this documentary the other day about the politicizing of abortion. And there was this scene where this lady was protesting outside a clinic, talking in a super high-pitched voice, pretending to speak for the unborn children of the women walking into the clinic. "Hi Mommy, I can't wait to meet you. Mommy, what are you doing? Mommy, why are you doing this to me? Mommy, please, I want to see your face. Mommy, NOOOO!"
Ugh. My stomach just about dropped to my knees. It was so horrendous I wanted to puke. I wanted to be there and ask that lady, "Just what good do you think that's going to do?" Does she think that by trying to sound like the baby it will change anything for that woman? I don't think so. In fact, I think that that scene is why people have such low opinions of some "pro-lifers". (see footnote 1) I wanted to yell at the screen for her to stop making us look like uneducated, intolerant fanatics! It honestly drives me crazy.
So here's my idea on how to help the pro-life cause. People seriously need to try to remain unemotional about the whole thing. I know it's hard, when you take in the enormity and the magnanimous reality of the whole thing. I know. It's hard for me to not get emotional about it as well. But I really think that we would all be better served to just stay with the basic scientific facts and go from there. You can't dispute facts, and remaining unemotional will definitely lead to more civil discussion.
If that's the desired end, anyway. For me, I don't think the issue is going anywhere until civil discourse ends up changing people's hearts and minds. On the other hand, if imparting guilt is the only desired effect, then by all means lets all go protest in high-pitched squeaky voices.
1 - When speaking of a group of people, I'll always put "pro-lifers" and "pro-choicers" in quotes. Because I don't think that a lot of "pro-lifers" are actually pro-ALL-life, they're actually just anti-abortion. And by the same token I think that using the phrase "pro-choicers" just masks pro-abortion with a prettier phrase. Semantics are everything, people.
I love semantics... I've often realized that it clearly wouldn't work to have it pro-life, anti-life (which are both misnomers anyway) but it also wouldn't work to have it pro-choice, anti-choice (the same issue as before). I think, though, that many pro-choicers are not necessarily pro-abortion... they're just not anti-abortion. Probably in the same way that those who are pro-life are probably not always anti-choice... they just see the possible choices a bit differently.
ReplyDeleteIt's too bad that there isn't a more centrist language we could use for these standpoints. Because, like you've said before, we all have more in common than we have that separates us. Why use language to create this as such an opportunity to categorize and hate fellow humans?
I agree, there's really no good term for either side. No one is pro-abortion. It's so much more complex than that. And you're right, not all "pro-lifers" are opposed to, say, the death penalty. So much gray area!
ReplyDeleteThis is an issue I feel pretty strongly about, so I'll spare you the horrible tangent, but I think very few people fall into either descriptions neatly, yet, like all things in politics, the issue gets shoe-horned into two extreme opposites.
Maria and Karen-
ReplyDeleteThis is an honest question--how can you be "anti" abortion yet "pro" choice? Does it depend on your reasoning behind not liking abortion?
Hi Kelly,
ReplyDeleteIt is a tough question, especially when phrased with pre-existing paradigms, which further ratifies the point that the terminology of today is not comprehensive enough to truly understand someone else’s stance/understanding of the situation. There really is just too much gray in people’s understandings/beliefs to be able to neatly categorize anyone.
There are so many intricacies (when does life begin? Or are there certain situations when abortion might be justifiable? Or is it sensible to legislate other people’s bodies? And many more…) that don’t get uncovered by terms like “pro-life” and “pro-choice”. Perhaps we just don’t have the time to have these conversations, so it seems easier to categorize people (much like politics: what if our only choices are “republican” or “democrat” or even “conservative” or “liberal”?). Either way I see these attempts at classification as more harmful than helpful.
I have never heard someone say “Hooray for abortion!” or even “Abortion is good” from either side of the debate. Our humanity is essentially common… the words we use to describe said humanity and our answers to the struggles of humanity are often where we distance ourselves from one another. (Which is why I think the discussion of semantics is so interesting... and meaningful.)
I'm definitely open to conversation about my views, but I wouldn't want to make any sweeping generalization and have others think that I speak for anyone but myself.
Maria-
ReplyDeleteI'm just pretty much mulling over some points and really would like to pick your brain about this because no one with an opposing view to mine has ever voluntarily entered into a dialogue, and I think it's great that we can discuss this civilly, which was the whole point of this post :-) I'd like to keep the comments on here because I think it's interesting, but can take it to email if you prefer!
Well basically what I'm wondering is why do you think abortion is 'not good'? And if it is 'not good' then why do you (or speculation on the part of a lot of people) think it should it be legal? Which leads me to wonder if it all just depends on that 'why'. Since, as you pointed out yourself, no one is exactly jumping in the streets shouting, "Hooray for abortion!"
For instance...and bear with me on this comparison...I think adult prostitution and marijuana are 'not good'. One far moreso than the other, of course! But I also don't necessarily think they should be illegal. I think one is just a dumb personal choice and one is, well, a REALLY dumb personal choice and both are wrought with negativity. However, I still think that it's not entirely necessary for them to remain illegal.
On the other hand, I also think abortion is 'not good'. But in this case, I DO think it should be illegal because I think it extends beyond a 'dumb personal choice'. When that personal choice infringes on another human being, it is no longer a freedom of personal choice. Now, granted, I know a lot of people aren't going to agree with my conclusion simply because there is debate on when human life begins.
But that's why I'm asking if landing on one side of the fence or the other merely depends on the views of WHY abortion is 'not good'.
Hi Kelly,
ReplyDeleteI think it's fantastic to have these discussions in a civil manner because, honestly, people's emotions are often so tied up in this issue that the "conversations" all too quickly denigrate into wedging and bludgeoning. But I'm sure the two of us can be different. :) Let me start by saying that I'm not very good at short answers. Here was my short answer to your final question/statement: "I have a feeling that landing on one side of the fence or the other might have more to do with the idea of when life begins than anything else… because the difference between a mass of cells and a human life gives someone a lot of leeway for options."
However, like I said, I'm not good with short answers. This is definitely not an issue that I take lightly, honestly, because I feel I can see/understand both sides. I grew up so fiercely one-sided that I often have to consciously realize where my philosophies of yesterday and today don't match up… but I think that keeping these sorts of things in constant review is beneficial. So here are some of my thoughts...
I think that you're right in saying that much of this debate hinges on when human life truly "is" human life. This is key to any sort of broader policy understanding as well as the debate itself. Because, like we've said, there is no one out there cheering for abortion, and I think one would be even harder pressed to find someone who could vocalize approval for things like 3rd term or partial birth abortion. Actually, this "when does life begin" is perhaps the most integral part of the conversation. I would like to believe that the vast majority of people are not okay with killing another human being simply for the sake of convenience. (Although, there is an extremely interesting RadioLab from NPR that talks about morality… and some of these tough questions are brought into light.) Without getting into the discussion of when human life actually "is" human life, I think we end up weighing which may be the lesser of two evils. And, ultimately, are we honestly the ones to decide for every person's life in every single situation what the lesser of two evils might be?
Abortion has never been an easy decision for anyone. When people use the terminology of "abortion as birth control", I think it demeans the heaviness of that decision. The fact of the matter is that *no matter what the choice is* in that situation, it is *never* an easy decision. Keeping the baby is not "easy". Adoption is not easy. Abortion is not easy . None of this is easy… and kicking someone when they're already stuck between a rock and a very hard place just doesn't seem like the right thing to do either.
So the issue with legislating against abortion is this: by banning abortion, will it actually stop abortion? No. I think that people will still make that choice; again, out of perceived necessity. My understanding of socioeconomic class standards is that the wealthy will just "have it done" ultra-privately, which just relegates the middle to low class into situations where even more will be hurt. Excuse the language on this one, but here it is: When things are done with coat hangers, no one wins. Are we more okay with the "offending" woman dying via hemorrhaging after a "back-alley" abortion? Banning abortion effectively criminalizes health care and strips women of safe and appropriate health care options.
Moving forward from either standpoint, I often think it's funny that many people I know who are "pro-life" are also the first to advocate for cutting welfare. If they are going to force a decision for someone who doesn't want and can't afford a baby, they better be willing to support that decision with as many resources as possible because that child is often already so far behind our children in the luck of the game we call life that they will need every "leg up" they can get.
Ultimately I think it comes down to two things: first and foremost, we would need to agree on when human life actually *is* human life, because it is the difference between people making hard decisions, moral vs. immoral decisions, and legal vs. illegal decisions. Beyond that, we would need to agree on when it truly is justifiable to choose for someone else what would be best for them in their lives… affecting the mother, the potential child, and society as a whole.