Indeed, as a couple of people have said, few if any women make the decision to abort lightly.
And yes, giving a child up for adoption can be difficult at a personal level, and the social pressure against is tremendous. That's just wrong. Giving a child up for adoption is often a courageous act, recognizing that one isn't prepared, at least at the time, to raise a child, and allowing another parent or couple (often childless themselves) to have that child.
I think there are more people like me on my side! If I had true courage, I'd be seeking a wider outlet, with my real name on all this. I don't because I've had people scream, "You don't care if women die!" once when I did join a prayer vigil. In print, I constantly see people saying that pro-lifers who call themselves feminists are hypocrites, that we're really "anti-choice" and want to see women pregnant and oppressed, that we all oppose all forms of birth control, and lots of other nonsense. I read this from otherwise sensible people; I can hardly read Anna Quindlen anymore, the last straw coming when she told anti-war people not to allow Mennonites into the movement because they also oppose abortion. Ellen Goodman also writes intemperate things. These are women whose work I have often read with pleasure.
On the other side, pro-lifers are associated with James Dobson and Cal Thomas, men who have very regressive views on a number of issues. The most public pro-lifers are often an embarrassment--and not people I happily call pro-life, although I hate to tell people they can't call themselves what they think they are.
Pro-lifers who are feminists get hit from all sides, so many keep a fairly low profile. I have heard of academics being denied tenure and one prominent feminist having to step down as chair of her department after she "came out" about her position. So I think there are more of us than many think. When the issue arises, I do tell the truth about my position--but mostly people assume I'm on their side, whichever it is, and don't raise it!
I didn't bring up the technology issue because that raises a whole new problem. Maybe I should write a Part III (when I'm not exhausted from real life!). I have a niece who was a preemie (thirty weeks). Babies born as young as twenty-two weeks sometimes survive. Abortion is often legal at ages at which babies increasingly would live, will live, if delivered. And yes, I think we'll see technologies that push those ages further and further back.
That's when we'll see who is truly pro-life--because those technologies won't be cheap. Are anti-welfare conservatives who won't pay for health care for children and expectant mothers going to pay to keep alive a baby who will otherwise be aborted? We'll see. I am willing to put a chunk of money there.
But I also think those technologies will reframe the question of who is alive and human. I don't want to push my religion on anyone, though I gladly share with the curious and those considering conversion. Yet I believe fetuses are human beings. To me, that's not simply a matter of imposing my morality. I can't just stand back and say, "Okay, you don't think a baby is human" any more than I could say, "Okay, you don't think Celts are fully human" (in recent history, try "the Irish", but the prejudice is well over a millennium old!) or "Okay, you don't think Africans are fully human" and stand back and say that killing either group was fine and dandy.
And yet the analogy won't fully hold, because pregnancy puts the fetus in a different relation to one person in particular, the mother, than members of racial groups have with members of other racial groups. (Moreover, it took a civil war to end slavery in this country, and even now we still don't have full equality. I'm not willing to see the country torn apart over abortion. It always comes back to not wanting people killed!)
I'm tired and can only hope I'm still making sense. I'm deeply gratified that we can have this discussion (pace the extremists on both sides).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-09-25 01:32 am (UTC)And yes, giving a child up for adoption can be difficult at a personal level, and the social pressure against is tremendous. That's just wrong. Giving a child up for adoption is often a courageous act, recognizing that one isn't prepared, at least at the time, to raise a child, and allowing another parent or couple (often childless themselves) to have that child.
I think there are more people like me on my side! If I had true courage, I'd be seeking a wider outlet, with my real name on all this. I don't because I've had people scream, "You don't care if women die!" once when I did join a prayer vigil. In print, I constantly see people saying that pro-lifers who call themselves feminists are hypocrites, that we're really "anti-choice" and want to see women pregnant and oppressed, that we all oppose all forms of birth control, and lots of other nonsense. I read this from otherwise sensible people; I can hardly read Anna Quindlen anymore, the last straw coming when she told anti-war people not to allow Mennonites into the movement because they also oppose abortion. Ellen Goodman also writes intemperate things. These are women whose work I have often read with pleasure.
On the other side, pro-lifers are associated with James Dobson and Cal Thomas, men who have very regressive views on a number of issues. The most public pro-lifers are often an embarrassment--and not people I happily call pro-life, although I hate to tell people they can't call themselves what they think they are.
Pro-lifers who are feminists get hit from all sides, so many keep a fairly low profile. I have heard of academics being denied tenure and one prominent feminist having to step down as chair of her department after she "came out" about her position. So I think there are more of us than many think. When the issue arises, I do tell the truth about my position--but mostly people assume I'm on their side, whichever it is, and don't raise it!
I didn't bring up the technology issue because that raises a whole new problem. Maybe I should write a Part III (when I'm not exhausted from real life!). I have a niece who was a preemie (thirty weeks). Babies born as young as twenty-two weeks sometimes survive. Abortion is often legal at ages at which babies increasingly would live, will live, if delivered. And yes, I think we'll see technologies that push those ages further and further back.
That's when we'll see who is truly pro-life--because those technologies won't be cheap. Are anti-welfare conservatives who won't pay for health care for children and expectant mothers going to pay to keep alive a baby who will otherwise be aborted? We'll see. I am willing to put a chunk of money there.
But I also think those technologies will reframe the question of who is alive and human. I don't want to push my religion on anyone, though I gladly share with the curious and those considering conversion. Yet I believe fetuses are human beings. To me, that's not simply a matter of imposing my morality. I can't just stand back and say, "Okay, you don't think a baby is human" any more than I could say, "Okay, you don't think Celts are fully human" (in recent history, try "the Irish", but the prejudice is well over a millennium old!) or "Okay, you don't think Africans are fully human" and stand back and say that killing either group was fine and dandy.
And yet the analogy won't fully hold, because pregnancy puts the fetus in a different relation to one person in particular, the mother, than members of racial groups have with members of other racial groups. (Moreover, it took a civil war to end slavery in this country, and even now we still don't have full equality. I'm not willing to see the country torn apart over abortion. It always comes back to not wanting people killed!)
I'm tired and can only hope I'm still making sense. I'm deeply gratified that we can have this discussion (pace the extremists on both sides).