I would consider myself to be generally pro-life. I don't think I need to meet the zealous, effed-up criteria of Pro-Life Wisconsin to wear that badge, either. I think that abortion is deplorable and more often than not the wrong course of action. I also believe we should undertake every possible action to ensure that abortion is unnecessary. And but for the most heinous of life circumstances, in which case I would probably remain neutral (see below), I would never advocate that anyone have an abortion.
That means I support fully subsidizing birth control and making it available to women of reproductive age without their parents' consent, which I'm sure will make the heads of conservatives spin. That's just fine with me. If free birth control means fewer unwanted pregnancies, and fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions, then I think that's the right approach. I have little doubt that this would be the case. I believe if one is really anti-abortion, one is willing to throw everything and the kitchen sink at preventing unwanted pregnancies. After all, few wanted pregnancies end in voluntary termination.
I would be positively delighted to live in a world where the horror of abortion did not exist. I would also be equally pleased to live in a world where uncles did not rape their nieces, or where porn stars broke into sorority houses to assault girls in bed. Sadly, that will probably never happen. I'm pretty sure that if I had a daughter in that position, I would prefer that she be allowed to decide how to proceed instead of having a bunch of creepy old white men in navy blazers and red ties deciding it for her. And because of that, I'm reluctant to ever have government issue a one-size-fits-all edict on the matter.
Furthermore, just because I believe that abortion is not a preferable course of action does not mean that I believe it is my God-given right to use the authority of a secular government to trample on everyone else's beliefs. When it comes to governing our nation, the Constitution is a more perfect document than the Bible.
So with all this hullaballoo surrounding the Madison Surgery Center coming to a head, my thoughts are really quite simple. For me, it comes down to a basic question. In matters of health, should people be allowed to make their own health care choices among those options that are legal? Or should our choices in effect be made for us because the doctors around us are unwilling to perform certain procedures that are legal?
While I personally hate what they're doing, I applaud the doctors at the Madison Surgery Center for making sure that the decisions regarding pregnancy from 19-22 weeks can still be made by patients. I believe that when in doubt, giving the patient the ability to choose or not choose a legal procedure is always the preferable course of action. I may not like the decisions that some patients make, but I respect their judgment more than that of Sue Armacost, or Dan LeMahieu, or Glenn Grothman.
Just because a procedure is available does not mean that women have to avail themselves of it. This is the ground on which the pro-life movement should fight. This is where the battle needs to be fought.
Passing laws or taking away legal health care options from individuals does nothing to change anyone's mind or anyone's heart. It's just a shortcut for the intellectually lazy, who would rather use the power of government to compel action rather than the power of critical thought and persuasion to change the minds of those who might disagree with them.
That means I support fully subsidizing birth control and making it available to women of reproductive age without their parents' consent, which I'm sure will make the heads of conservatives spin. That's just fine with me. If free birth control means fewer unwanted pregnancies, and fewer unwanted pregnancies means fewer abortions, then I think that's the right approach. I have little doubt that this would be the case. I believe if one is really anti-abortion, one is willing to throw everything and the kitchen sink at preventing unwanted pregnancies. After all, few wanted pregnancies end in voluntary termination.
I would be positively delighted to live in a world where the horror of abortion did not exist. I would also be equally pleased to live in a world where uncles did not rape their nieces, or where porn stars broke into sorority houses to assault girls in bed. Sadly, that will probably never happen. I'm pretty sure that if I had a daughter in that position, I would prefer that she be allowed to decide how to proceed instead of having a bunch of creepy old white men in navy blazers and red ties deciding it for her. And because of that, I'm reluctant to ever have government issue a one-size-fits-all edict on the matter.
Furthermore, just because I believe that abortion is not a preferable course of action does not mean that I believe it is my God-given right to use the authority of a secular government to trample on everyone else's beliefs. When it comes to governing our nation, the Constitution is a more perfect document than the Bible.
So with all this hullaballoo surrounding the Madison Surgery Center coming to a head, my thoughts are really quite simple. For me, it comes down to a basic question. In matters of health, should people be allowed to make their own health care choices among those options that are legal? Or should our choices in effect be made for us because the doctors around us are unwilling to perform certain procedures that are legal?
While I personally hate what they're doing, I applaud the doctors at the Madison Surgery Center for making sure that the decisions regarding pregnancy from 19-22 weeks can still be made by patients. I believe that when in doubt, giving the patient the ability to choose or not choose a legal procedure is always the preferable course of action. I may not like the decisions that some patients make, but I respect their judgment more than that of Sue Armacost, or Dan LeMahieu, or Glenn Grothman.
Just because a procedure is available does not mean that women have to avail themselves of it. This is the ground on which the pro-life movement should fight. This is where the battle needs to be fought.
Passing laws or taking away legal health care options from individuals does nothing to change anyone's mind or anyone's heart. It's just a shortcut for the intellectually lazy, who would rather use the power of government to compel action rather than the power of critical thought and persuasion to change the minds of those who might disagree with them.
18 comments:
I think given the opportunity the pro-life movement does avail themselves as you suggest.
I do have a question, you state "Passing laws or taking away legal health care options." Isn't this the same thing. Wouldn't the passing of laws make something legal? Or am I missing the point here.
Thanks.
Not necessarily, although apparently I didn't make that clear enough! Where are my editors when I need them?
The latter was, I believe, the intent of the pro-life groups who were pressuring UW and the Madison Surgery Center to not provide abortions between 19-22 weeks. If the center doesn't provide them, it effectively takes the option off the table for women who, for cost or other reasons, simply can't travel further (to Milwaukee or beyond) to have the procedure done.
There's no functional difference between making it something illegal and ensuring that legal procedures can't be accessed. The end result is identical.
Hope that helps to clarify my meaning.
taking away legal health care options
The "taking away" was done by someone else, RS.
The issue is "re-starting", not "taking away."
"When it comes to governing our nation, the Constitution is a more perfect document than the Bible."
I agree. The Declaration of Independence guarantees life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Because we have a secular government, does that mean it is okay for me to murder my next door neighbor because he's playing his stereo too loud, even though that is against your personal beliefs? At some level, there is a basic moral line that needs to be protected.
I think one can be pro-life without having anything to do with the Bible. Check a sonogram sometime and see a little person with a face and the same body parts you and I have, with a beating heart. That being deserves to have some rights protected and I don't need the Bible to tell me that.
I think it's a lazy argument to say "Well, I think it's wrong for me but I'm not going to stop someone else." If it were 1800 you would be saying you would never own slaves, but it's ok for that sharecropper down in Alabama to own some. That's the kind of moral relativism that is awful about this day and age.
Just because private doctors in this area are not willing to do late term abortions is not my problem. It's not the government's job to make sure this option is available on every block (and thus making me pay for it). I'm sure there are some other types of medical procedures that are rare and require some travel -- or is that government's job too?
Thanks for sharing some thoughts. A few in response:
- Where some see moral clarity, others see moral arrogance. I believe that developmentally, a four-month-old fetus is the same whether the mom wants it or not. If the mother does not consent to impregnation (say she was raped), should that be a consideration in what happens to the pregnancy? Or are you willing to tell a rape victim she has to carry the child to term? You can say yes and I will respect your consistency but know that this is where pro-lifers get a reputation among mainstream society for being crazy.
- I do concur that there is a pro-life argument that can be made without referencing God. Pro-lifers would be smart to use this approach more often than they do, which presently is about never.
- If providing this procedure required the purchase of millions of dollars of equipment and the purchase of that equipment could jeopardize other investments by the health care provider, I would agree with your argument. However, this procedure can be provided with equipment the facility already owns.
- In theory, the government is aiding and abetting abortion the second it plows a doctor in Wisconsin out of two feet of snow and clears the streets so he can get to work. I mean, no plow, no work. No work, no abortions. So with your last paragraph, you can follow your logic clear to the point of absurdity. If the snowplow driver is pro-life, should he refuse to plow the street, lest he be complicit in the murder of the unborn? How many people are allowed to project their own private morality into business that does not involve them?
I am in almost perfect agreement with you on this, RS. I am personally pro-life and I think abortion is almost always a bad choice. There are some time, though, when it is the compassionate choice, for the pregnant woman, the fetus, or both.
The rabid prolifers will never see that, though. They will argue that the morning after pill, the regular pill, and an IUD constitute murder. They will argue against fetal stem cell research because a microscopic embryo that will otherwise be destroyed or allowed to stay in frozen limbo for who-knows-how-long has the same rights that you or I have.
Thanks for the reply and it did clarify it better.
Sorry, but I do not believe that terminating a life in vitro is a "health care choice".
If I choose to cut my (healthy) arm off because I believe it will make me a healthier person, I am free to do that.
I doubt any physician would agree to assist me in that endeavor based on my rationale and even though doing so is perhaps perfectly legal.
Generally, doctors and patients make decisions on matters which will lead to "better health". I do no believe a decision to abort a child meets that standard.
Thanks for your thoughts, Mr. Pants. I'm curious to know if you feel the same way in cases where the woman does not consent to the pregnancy (e.g. rape). Do you view that the same or differently as a situation in which the woman is responsible for her own condition?
I am consisent in my position. Certainly, rape is a heinous act, but destroying the child is not a solution to that act.
And if I may be blunt, an allegation of rape may be made as an excuse to terminate the pregnancy. And yes, it has occured; ask Norma Leah McCorvey a.k.a Jane Roe.
A very interesting read (the comments too).
Mr. Pelican Pants, yes, for some women (and admittedly the rape scenario is a red herring because it is a rare reason for abortion) terminating the pregnancy that resulted from a rape IS a "solution."
It doesn't make teh rape go away, but it means that the woman does not need to go through an entire pregnancy, a swelling body, explaining her pregnancy, people asking her about her baby with smiley faces, and asking to touch her belly, etc. etc.
It does mean that she won't experience painful labor for hours, a ripping perineum, and the emotional tear of feeling/seeing a baby that was born as a result of her terror and trauma. Do you REALLY believe that you know better than she if an abortion will be a "solution" for her?
Imagine you are a young woman who hopes one day to have a baby with her husband. Instead, your first pregnancy, your first labor pains, your first childbirth experience will be this sullied reminder of a horrifying experience. Okay. You know better.
Question: is Plan B acceptable to you? Or is it "destroying a child" to take that, as well?
It's always so convenient to say that a child is a "health care issue" or a "socio-economic problem to be dealt with". Well, the operative word in that sentence that continually gets overlooked is: CHILD.
And, the argument of rape and incest is such a lame perspective. Out of 100,000 pregnancies, less than one are from rape and incest COMBINED. So while you can look at people as not having sound reason when they beat you over the head with Religion, those very same people can come back to you with the miniscule number of times that a pregnancy happens in the cases you bring up.
The reason there is a moral argument is that Man has a concience. We have a concience and a moral compass for a reason. Abortion feels wrong BECAUSE IT IS. Also, that squishy middle of the road regardin the position of not deciding for others is conveninent too. Let's all not really have a complete opinion on this, shall we?
As for a bunch of "creepy guys in blue suits" deciding for your daughter. Well, chances are, your daughter got pregnant from someone she's dating. Whether that date was tonight and she simply went too far on the first date or that pregnancy happened on her wedding night, the bottom line is that it is not the child's fault.
My Parent's were married on February 27th and I was born on October 15th. Do the math. I thank God every day that while my Mom was a student in College and because of me, she married my Dad, that even though she's a bleeding heart Liberal, she didn't make me a choice.
RS, I agree that a ban on abortion without those exceptions will never happen. I also agree that if women are desperate enough not to continue a pregnancy, false accusations may arise.
So would human suffering lessen, or increase, because of a ban like that? It would be unreasonable to require a woman or girl to "prove" the case before she can obtain an abortion, so I guess the only solution would be to take her word for it, provide the abortion, then seek criminal prosecution of the man or men named as rapists or incestuous attackers, or seek criminal prosecution of the woman or girl if she recants. Again, would that increase, or decrease, human suffering? The abortion took place, so that human suffering was not avoided, but some innocent men would be prosecuted, perhaps even convicted, of heinous crimes.
I suppose any attempt at accounting whether a ban or would increase or decrease human suffering would have to acknowledge that many women/girls would not make up accusations to get an abortion and would go through an unwanted pregnancy. Some, but not most, according to statistics, would give up their babies for adoption.
Most would keep them, for good or for ill. If most of these babies are kept by mothers who were not prepared for them, didn't want them, and would otherwise have aborted them, do you honestly believe that human suffering would increase, or decrease, as a result?
I ask you to look at the example of Romania, where abortion (and birth control, to be fair) was banned before answering this question.
Tony, abortion "feels wrong" to me, too. I have been quite amazed, though, to find out that for many other people, it doesn't feel wrong at all. Almost 100% of these people I know have not had an abortion themselves or been partnered with someone who has, but for them, if anything, their feelings are neutral. I'd argue that our religious upbringing/current belief has had a very large impact on our feelings of "wrongness." I'm an atheist now, but I was brought up Catholic.
Me personally, I'm a big believer in sleeping in the bed you make. I'm also a believer that if a fetus could vote, it would probably vote to live rather than be aborted. I think that's a logical conclusion. I don't hear a lot of hue and cry from poor folks who wish they were aborted.
So if I could have my way, I would gladly make abortion illegal except for the small handful of cases we're discussing now - cases where the mother's health is at risk or where the woman did not consent to the pregnancy.
I think the wording of those exceptions is tricky, of course, and given that a woman's gestation moves more quickly than our legal system, it's hard to imagine a scenario that doesn't give the benefit of the doubt to the woman.
As I mentioned earlier though, I'm also a big believer in making birth control as cheap and available as possible. It's not really prudent social policy to assume that just because people are poor or have limited access to birth control that they therefore won't have sex. They will, and taxpayers are the ones who end up on the hook for helping the family.
If we agree that reducing unwanted pregnancy is the goal, we should also agree that making birth control easy to obtain is the simplest way to achieve it. I'm all for encouraging abstinence, too. But to tell kids to keep it in their pants and expect that they all will is also foolhardy from a policy perspective. I get that some people really *want* that approach to work, but on its own it never has and it never will.
More likely than not, abortion will remain legal, if only because Americans hate to seriously contemplate abortion more than just about anything. The reason so many liberals get uncomfortable with pro-lifers showing off the byproducts of an abortion is that it makes everyone profoundly uncomfortable. And you know, it should. The reality of abortion *should* make people uncomfortable.
But just because abortion is legal doesn't mean that there aren't simple ways for people of all political stripes to work together to reduce the need for abortion in society. Finding that common ground might mean leaving the Mike Huckabee crowd on the bench, but so be it.
Thanks for your comments, Tony. Can I ask you a few questions that popped into my head as I was reading your comment?
I understand well that rape/incest/life of the mother are the exception and not the rule when it comes to abortion. I'm not trying to use those situations to buy cover for everyone else. But even though they are few in number, they are serious situations that warrant our consideration.
The overwhelming majority of Americans support exceptions for those three instances. If we were to ban abortion but for those instances, how does one word that statutory language to prevent abuse? Can one "prove" rape or incest without a conviction? Are we willing to take the woman's word for it? Is there some standard of physical proof that must be met?
Or what about the life of the mother? If the assumption is that the woman's life is never in jeopardy unless a doctor says so, how many doctors need to agree before the procedure can be performed? What if there are differing opinions? Again, it's not like a woman has years to litigate the situation.
You are never going to get an abortion ban passed in America without those exceptions. Realistically, it will not happen. You can complain that people are being morally squishy or whatever, but that's the political reality.
A rational pro-lifer would believe that a ban on abortion with those exceptions would be better than no ban at all, some progress being better than none. So my question to you then is, how would you word those exceptions in such a way that patients/doctors couldn't abuse them? And can that even be done?
I'm sorry to be so long between posts. You have a point, I respect that, however, it's the "continual shades of gray" that are getting us all into trouble. I stand by my comments and I stand by my convictions.
You know this really does translate into other areas of society as well - forgive the digression, I do have a point to make... It's the 24% of the people surveyed of 100,000 registered voters that DON'T KNOW that gvmt's money comes from taxes... It's bad enough that these idiots vote, let alone reproduce.
It's the squishy, case-by-case basis officials in Waukesha that are only going to cite some teenagers with disorderly conduct when they widely distributed naked pix of a 14-year old girl. "Kids will be kids" is NOT the answer for this!!!! Child porn is child porn... Do the crime, do the time.
My point is that while compromise is fine in budgeting and "you give, I'll give" situations, regarding abortion, I'm sorry, the child is not at fault. They do not need to be the innocent bystander who gets killed. Why should that child pay the ultimate price for the Mother's pride, dignity or worse yet, comfort and convenience.
The bottom line to my point is that it all starts at home. This is not a legislative issue, this is a moral issue in which the fabric of convictions need to start at home. We, as a society are raising a whole lot of kids with very high self-esteem. They are so self-absorbed and have bought so deeply into the victim and/or entitlement mentality, that there is no consequence for actions any more.
As to answering your question, no, I'm afraid, truly afraid that no wording will ever please everyone. (See Abe Lincoln's quote on that - ha!).
Thank you for the healthy and rational discussion on this as all too often, the anonymity of the internet really can make people instantly divisive. Maybe I will form that exploratory committee after all. I am tired of sitting on the sidelines and watchinng what I feel is a perfectly good country start to go down the tubes.
Post a Comment