I'm not a big Ruth Marcus fan, but every once in a while she writes something that strikes me as sensible and balanced. On the subject of Sarah Palin's recent revelation that she considered aborting her most recent baby, Marcus threads a tough needle with moderate language and insight.
What Marcus finds interesting is the depth of Palin's thinking on the subject of terminating the pregnancy (I guess all it took was to THINK about having an abortion for Sarah Palin to get a fair shake from the left), a rich and emotional inner monologue only made possible for Palin through the availability of a choice to terminate the pregnancy. As Marcus points out, it is clear that this was not a point Palin was attempting to make in her speech--but she made it nonetheless.
I struggle with this issue....mightily. I cannot say that I am pro-choice, because I find abortion horrific. I cannot say I am pro-life because I cannot begin to conceive of what goes through the mind of a woman who is carrying a baby she does not want to have.
The Pro-Life movement does an insufficient job in demonstrating its understanding of the real and emotional struggle women go through who are considering abortions. Additionally, they might make up some ground were they to be seen as the leading advocates of early childhood education, health care and adoption.
The Pro-Choice movement would go a long way if it for just one minute...just an instance in time....actually considered the morality of abortion. Rather than looking at the choice as the end game, talking frankly about what it is the choice will do--destroy life--would make them appear (to me at least) to be more than a collection of moral relativists without any moorings to their fellow human beings.
I realize there are people on either extreme of this issue who will criticize me for my indecision and fence-sitting here. So be it. I am unprepared to speak with certainty on issues of which I am so uncertain. But Ruth Marcus' editorial pushes forward a view that should be considered, and her deft touch in its crafting should be recognized.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
"The Pro-Choice movement would go a long way if it for just one minute...just an instance in time....actually considered the morality of abortion."
I do believe that's exactly what the Pro-Choice movement is doing: making that consideration of morality something every single person thinking about abortion has to do -- and not something the government should be doing for those individuals. Pro-choice = individual accountability and responsibility vs. the anti-abortion nanny state.
Ghost of Halloween Past - "I do believe that's exactly what the Pro-Choice movement is doing: making that consideration of morality something every single person thinking about abortion has to do." Really? No, I'm serious...do you honestly believe that? Could you support your belief with one or two, no, one will do, instance of a national "pro-choice" entity who devotes any meaningful portion of their message to a reflection of the morality of killing a fetus. Any mention of reflecting on the reality that the this choice the chooser is contemplating is possibly balancing one's personal convenience with ending a fetus' life? Just curious. And open to rethinking my opinion of those groups upon receiving such evidence. Thanks.
Mudge, I'm as skeptical as you are. I think the pro-choice movement is so fanatical about keeping that choice available they shut their ears to any other consideration on the subject. But then, I generally have little to contribute to the abortion debate because I have a tough time grasping the concept of unplanned pregnancy. Yes, I know it happens occasionally. But are we to believe every abortion in America is the result of a broken condom?
Here's an interesting read--http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/04/01/powers_naral_planned_parenthood/
"Could you support your belief with one or two, no, one will do, instance of a national "pro-choice" entity who devotes any meaningful portion of their message to a reflection of the morality of killing a fetus."
I would hope NOT to find this as part of a discussion outside my church, or in your case, whatever is the place that you might go to for moral guidance. I certainly wouldn't rely on a bunch of 20 somethings manning the phone lines at a political movement HQ as my moral compass.
My point is that the responsibility for reflecting on the morality of the decision shouldn't and fortunately doesn't fall to a government or legislative entity, or a national entity of any sort. It falls squarely on the shoulders and the heart of the person, the individual. Again, this is a matter of individual responsibility and accountability, not an agency we subcontract to make our toughest moral decisions. If I were facing Sarah Palin's situation (and I'm old, too, so the same potential for developmental issues would apply), I would certainly not rely on my government to make that hard choice -- it would be mine and my husband's (and while I don't know what we would really do unless put in that position, given my husband's very strong sense of a higher being and purpose behind all things, I believe we would likely make the same choice as Palin on this one).
But that's a very, very tough decision to make, and I understand you saying that you want someone else to face that decision for you. But I firmly think that you, the individual, should be the one to say "yes, I will have and love this child" if, as Sally mentions, your condom breaks or you just don't think about the ramifications of your actions in advance, or you find yourself in other situations such as hearing that your fetus is shown to be developing with leaking spinal fluid and will face a lifetime of agony that starts with many extraordinary surgeries in the NICU or you are brutally raped and find yourself pregnant after being denied emergency contraception at the hospital you were taken to, etc. Hard as it is to face, the government, the state, the political organization -- either anti-abortion or pro-choice -- shouldn't be your moral compass, that's your responsibility.
My question merely focused on your claim that the "pro choice movement is...making that consideration of morality something every single person thinking about abortion should do". Nothing more. I am not a fan of government dictating much of anything to me. Morality being one of them. But I see the majority of those involved in the pro-choice movement espousing convenience, licentiousness without accountability and a remarkably complete dismissal that a human fetus is anything more than an unnecessary bodily growth. You've answered my question. You have no such example of a "national "pro-choice" entity who devotes any meaningful portion of their message to a reflection of the morality of killing a fetus." I was actually hoping you might have one. Thanks for your response.
Great volley, gang. Illustrative of how tough this whole issue is.
It seems to me that all Marcus has done is take Palin's words and thoughts and attribute the meaning most convenient for her. People can talk all they want about the "decision", the "choice", and the "morality" of abortion, but the cold hard facts remain the same. At the moment of conception a new and unique human life is created. That is scientific fact. Either we as a society believe that all human life is of infinite worth and, therefore, all human life is worthy of protection or we don't. Either is it okay to take a human life, whether in utero or ex utero, or it is not. As things stand in our society today, we have an inconsistent set of laws - murder is illegal ex utero but legal in utero. It makes no sense. I would suspect that many women throughout the centuries have struggled with unplanned or difficult pregnancies. Roe did not change any great truths, it only made it legally permissible to commit the unimaginable.
CW, you might look into the pro-life movement a little more closely. I know numerous individuals who work for crisis pregnancy centers and they are some of the few voices calling out for adoption as an option for women who feel they cannot parent a child. I have spent many hours counseling women in crisis pregnancies and the general theme is that they can't carry the child to term due to financial or emotional considerations - no money, no job, a partner who doesn't want a child. Rarely does the woman actually "want" an abortion. Most feel they have no other choice. Women deserve better than this despair. Planned Parenthood and other organizations that espouse choice do not offer any help if a woman decides to carry her child to term. They only offer abortions. It IS the pro-life movement that is offering real choice and real help - the choice to parent or not, money and materials for financial survival, emotional support to handle the difficulties. Marcus and those like her really believe in abortion, not choice.
"At the moment of conception a new and unique human life is created. That is scientific fact."
It is a scientific fact that life is created. It is a matter of faith that at that point in time it is a fully vested human life.
I think both sides should work towards abortion reduction, by admitting that most women choosing abortion are generally making a choice between two bad options. Pro-life and Pro-choice should be equally willing to work towards sex education, birth control, day after pill dissemination, early childhood education, counseling for unwed parents, health care and day care. That way unplanned pregnancies will be proactively reduced, and when women do carry babies to term those babies will be supported. Two ways to reduce abortions--which I seriously can't believe anyone considers desireable. Speaking of which, the pro-choice people should definitely stop marching with ballooons and spangles and acknowledge that the heart of the choice they are protecting is a somber and sad matter for most women--but must be protected so that the moral choice they ultimately make is that...a choice, not coercion.
Post a Comment