...by something I read today. On a blog I check periodically, which I believe has quite a following, the author wrote a post about the "Right to Life" being the main issue guiding her decision this election. She claims that, while she equivocates and even disagrees with many of the platform policies of the Republican party, she believes that the question of abortion is the one that guides and is currently the most pressing for our country. I simply don't understand how this can be so.
First, as for my standpoint. Without getting too personal, or too political, I am for my own reasons and in my own life fairly conservative on this issue. That is to say, I am pro-choice, but my choice is life. The author of the blog I am writing about invokes Dr. Seuss (she acknowledges that he has denied vehemently any intention of this being pro-anything) when he writes "A person's a person, no matter how small." She uses this as a catch phrase, basically summing up the conception argument for pro-lifers. And, in a personal way, I very much agree. Given my own experience, I do not believe that a baby becomes a baby just because someone wants it. I like to think that life is life. But, to paraphrase my husband, for myself, abortion has never been an option and let's say I believe it to be "wrong," but it simply isn't up to me to impose my own morality on a nation of people making decisions for myriad reasons.
Here is where the lines become blurry. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason this is an issue right now is because some pro-lifers believe that a potential McCain-Palin administration would challenge and (hopefully to their minds) defeat Roe v. Wade. (I am hoping it is not because of the essentially terrorist allegations that Barack Obama somehow wants to mandate abortions and hurt babies nation wide.) To quote Obama, abortion is a "profoundly difficult" issue and any woman facing that decision is facing "anguish." This doesn't sound like a great option for anyone then, right? But, life is complicated, and it doesn't ever seem to be my right to decide for someone a "profoundly difficult" issue. (Certainly for me, in the more critical and unthinkable situations, where someone is forced to make a choice that we should respect for its sheer magnitude, regardless of the outcome, in my opinion. I.E. Rape, incest, suffering, death.) Ought we not leave it up to people's own moralities to make those decisions in any case?
So, the issue that I really WOULD like people to respond to, should they feel up to it: I suppose my philosophy makes me pro-choice, despite my clear personal choices leaning to the side of pro-life. But, I don't think that makes me unique. (It probably puts me in line with many pro-choicers.) What I honestly want to understand is why some in the pro-life contingent feel it is necessary to challenge the law that gives any woman in any situation (however grave) the right to make that decision for herself? Why isn't it enough to make decisions for our own moralities? Even if one would like to evangelize, making statements about the supposed immorality of abortion, why is that not enough? Aren't there some situations, even be they one or two if you are stringently pro-life, that make you think that maybe Roe v. Wade is in place for a reason OR is the issue so poignant to some pro-lifers to make it THE issue whenever the two options are presented as part of greater packages?
I think people reading here might have something to say about this. If not, I'll take it down soon. Because I don't need to politicize all over the place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
(*my brain is slightly jumbled today, so forgive me if i don't make sense.)
i'm sitting next to you on this one. for myself, pro-life. i believe life begins at conception. to get a little personal here, when trying to get pregnant with Abigail i waited for that little second line to pop up with the same amount of love and hope and belief of life as i continued to have when my doctor told me she couldn't confirm "viability", and the same amount when i finally saw that little teeny heartbeat on the ultrasound montior. for others, well, it's ultimately up to them to decide. the decision for someone else to keep ones baby is not up to me or my government. and because of that i would consider myself pro-choice. i also like the bumper sticker/saying that says: "against abortion? then don't have one." i'm not a fan of it to be snarky, i'm a fan because it's the truth. HOWEVER, and this might be an opinion up for contention: i am not for abortion when it's been a particular woman's third time (or enter whatever number appropriate) go-round. that, in my opinion, needs some other sort of intervention.
I am in the car. But DO NOT take this down. I really, really want to comment!
I agree with you; I am "pro choice" BUT would never have an abortion personally. I do feel it is wrong but also feel that a woman should be able to make the decision for herself. If I were to be raped I may feel different. All of my children were created in love so it is easy for me to say. I also believe life starts at conception. Having had 3 children and one miscarriage, I have seen their little hearts beating very early on. I also read the blog you are talking about; I don't agree with it. I also would never vote for a president based on one issue. Our country is in such a mess that I feel that would be totally irresponsible. Thanks for this post! It makes you think for sure.
Khatch@maine.rr.com
I have to say that I hate the implication by some pro-lifers that being "prochoice" somehow equates with "pro-abortion." You and I seem to see this similarly. I am pro-life for myself and I would like others to be as well, but I'm vehemently pro-choice when it comes to Big Brother's involvement.
These same people that are looking down their noses and sneering at women who would dare abort, for any reason, are the same who are screaming that they do not want to have their tax money spent on social programs. Well, guess what? Those social programs make a difference to women who are on the line of making a decision. If they have access to medicaid, shelter, childcare assistance, etc, then their problem may not be insurmountable. Take that away and you've taken away their option. Oh yeah, and we need your tax money to pay for the social welfare of those who don't abort if abortion where illegal -- the drug addicted, foster children who have no where to go and nothing but medical bills and delays. That sounds awful, but its true. Are the Pro-Lifers willing to step up and care for the unwanted babies that come with making abortion illegal???
I am passionate about choosing life and being blessed with what parenthood can offer, but I am not so naive to conclude that my opinion is the end-all, be all. I hope that people choose life and choose good things in general, but I think the key is support, both emotional and possibly financial, if we want to make any real changes. Overturning RvW would just force more women to do more dangerous things to get an abortion, involve Gov't in things they have no right to govern, and cause a greater strain on our foster care system.
Sorry, can you tell I'm a die-hard liberal? LOL. I love what you wrote, its so true! With my pregnancy brain, I doubt any of that made sense :)
Really good points. Glad to know I'm not the only one to feel this way. Also, Lora, I agree with you about the backwardness of removing social programs AND the right to choose. (Obviously, as I've stated, I would rather take adavantage of social programs than the alternative, but I'd like to have a choice either way.) I hadn't thought about that and what a sneaky trick that is by "hands-free" government.
Finally, any dissenters?
I will never understand what other people's religion has to do with me, my body, or the laws of the land. I don't impose my religion on others.
Like you, I am pro-choice for all but pro-life for me. I don't even think I could take the morning after pill.
Post a Comment