Divided by Abortion
Divided by by Abortion, United by Feminism
Last week (January 26, 2013), in an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled, “Divided by Abortion, United by Feminism,” conservative pundit, Ross Douthat, suggested that feminist ideals had been so adopted by modern women as to make them virtually all the same with one exception—those who supported the pro-choice agenda on abortion rights and those who supported the pro-life agenda for same. This hardly seemed like a controversial point to me, given that every young woman I know confidently asserts her place in society on a regular basis and gives no thought to being less than a man. This is an amazing transformation of society that has happened in one generation, that is, approximately forty years.
While this observation on Mr. Douthat’s part struck me as merely recognizing the obvious, it, of course, fired up the liberal base of the New York Times’ readership who then wrote approximately one zillion comments suggesting the author was some kind of medieval troll trying to put women back in corsets and under their husband’s thumb!
A regular contributor to the Times’ comments section is “Winning Progressive” (I suppose they like the title or, perhaps, they don’t have the courage of their convictions and wish to hide their actual given name, but, in any case, they go by the moniker, “Winning Progressive.”). In what I regarded as a classic reaction from those who are incapable of seeing another point of view, “Winning Progressive” responded with the following comment:
Winning Progressive
Philadelphia, PA
To call anti-choice activists "feminists" is to remove all meaning from that word.
Feminism is about providing women with the same choices and opportunities around education, careers, domestic affairs, and reproductive issues that men have always had. The anti-choice movement is about removing, through the hand of intrusive government, women's ability to make those choices with regards to reproductive issues. The resulting impact is not only to force women to carry a pregnancy to term (even, in the fantasies of many anti-choicers, in the case of rape and incest) but would often be curbing women's choices with regards to all those other areas of life, as reproductive freedom is critical to women having freedom with regards to education, careers, etc.
If your religion or personal values teach you that abortion is immoral, then don't have one. In a pluralistic, secular society such as ours, however, you shouldn't be trying to limit the freedom of everyone else to make that decision and choice for themselves. But, if you are going to impose that sort of restrictive, anti-choice agenda on the rest of us, please at least have the decency to not pretend like doing so is part of feminism.
Being the argumentative fool that I am, I simply had to respond:
WP,
I would agree with you wholeheartedly but for one thing, the baby's life. When human beings commence giving birth to something other than other human beings, I will join your team. Until that time, I will stay on the side of life. Your freedom of choice does not extend to killing your neighbors because they inconvenience you. Why, then, is it okay for you to kill your child?
I am glad that we live in a time when pro-life forces also recognize the need to provide support to those pregnant women lacking same. Similarly, I am glad that we live in a time when adoption and other means are available to help women deal with the unwanted children they produce. Nine months of inconvenience is certainly difficult, whether the pregnancy was wanted or not. However, nine months of inconvenience pales in comparison to a lifetime of dealing with the murder of one's child.
Yes, I know, my point of view has no relevance to you because I am a man. After all, matters of life and death, right and wrong, are gender specific, right?
“Winning Progressive” did not choose to respond to my comment; however, as I thought about this discussion over the last week, I became more concerned with this line of reasoning. The abortion debate in this country has largely been, it seems to me, distracted by a couple of supposed obstacles—the mother’s choice as to her body and the right to use contraceptives. In addition, there is a Malthusian concern for over population of the Earth that some believe supports the killing of “unwanted” children. We may have murdered some 55 million babies in the womb, but, hey, we’ve made Mother Earth safer for the rest of us!
Last week (January 26, 2013), in an op-ed piece in the New York Times entitled, “Divided by Abortion, United by Feminism,” conservative pundit, Ross Douthat, suggested that feminist ideals had been so adopted by modern women as to make them virtually all the same with one exception—those who supported the pro-choice agenda on abortion rights and those who supported the pro-life agenda for same. This hardly seemed like a controversial point to me, given that every young woman I know confidently asserts her place in society on a regular basis and gives no thought to being less than a man. This is an amazing transformation of society that has happened in one generation, that is, approximately forty years.
While this observation on Mr. Douthat’s part struck me as merely recognizing the obvious, it, of course, fired up the liberal base of the New York Times’ readership who then wrote approximately one zillion comments suggesting the author was some kind of medieval troll trying to put women back in corsets and under their husband’s thumb!
A regular contributor to the Times’ comments section is “Winning Progressive” (I suppose they like the title or, perhaps, they don’t have the courage of their convictions and wish to hide their actual given name, but, in any case, they go by the moniker, “Winning Progressive.”). In what I regarded as a classic reaction from those who are incapable of seeing another point of view, “Winning Progressive” responded with the following comment:
Winning Progressive
Philadelphia, PA
To call anti-choice activists "feminists" is to remove all meaning from that word.
Feminism is about providing women with the same choices and opportunities around education, careers, domestic affairs, and reproductive issues that men have always had. The anti-choice movement is about removing, through the hand of intrusive government, women's ability to make those choices with regards to reproductive issues. The resulting impact is not only to force women to carry a pregnancy to term (even, in the fantasies of many anti-choicers, in the case of rape and incest) but would often be curbing women's choices with regards to all those other areas of life, as reproductive freedom is critical to women having freedom with regards to education, careers, etc.
If your religion or personal values teach you that abortion is immoral, then don't have one. In a pluralistic, secular society such as ours, however, you shouldn't be trying to limit the freedom of everyone else to make that decision and choice for themselves. But, if you are going to impose that sort of restrictive, anti-choice agenda on the rest of us, please at least have the decency to not pretend like doing so is part of feminism.
Being the argumentative fool that I am, I simply had to respond:
WP,
I would agree with you wholeheartedly but for one thing, the baby's life. When human beings commence giving birth to something other than other human beings, I will join your team. Until that time, I will stay on the side of life. Your freedom of choice does not extend to killing your neighbors because they inconvenience you. Why, then, is it okay for you to kill your child?
I am glad that we live in a time when pro-life forces also recognize the need to provide support to those pregnant women lacking same. Similarly, I am glad that we live in a time when adoption and other means are available to help women deal with the unwanted children they produce. Nine months of inconvenience is certainly difficult, whether the pregnancy was wanted or not. However, nine months of inconvenience pales in comparison to a lifetime of dealing with the murder of one's child.
Yes, I know, my point of view has no relevance to you because I am a man. After all, matters of life and death, right and wrong, are gender specific, right?
“Winning Progressive” did not choose to respond to my comment; however, as I thought about this discussion over the last week, I became more concerned with this line of reasoning. The abortion debate in this country has largely been, it seems to me, distracted by a couple of supposed obstacles—the mother’s choice as to her body and the right to use contraceptives. In addition, there is a Malthusian concern for over population of the Earth that some believe supports the killing of “unwanted” children. We may have murdered some 55 million babies in the womb, but, hey, we’ve made Mother Earth safer for the rest of us!
To the first point, the mother’s choice, I would respond that women, just like men, have a responsibility for their actions. In the case of sexual relations, women have, it seems, more responsibility than men. This, of course, is viewed as unfair by many women; however, it isn’t men’s fault that women conceive and bear children. Given this situation, women will always be the ones to bear the consequences of sexual intercourse. This immutable truth has been known through all generations since the beginning of time and has not changed with the introduction of birth control pills and other forms of contraception. Regardless of the contraceptive choice, it is the woman who bears the majority of risk in a sexual encounter. As such, women must be wise in their choices. When, inevitably, some women are not wise in these affairs, or the condom breaks, it doesn’t follow that they then have the right to determine whether a child lives or dies any more than they have the right to determine if their annoying neighbor lives or dies. The notion that women are possessed of some great wisdom in discerning whether a child should live or die is often belied by their lack of wisdom in getting pregnant in the first place. The hard truth is that, if they didn’t want to be pregnant, they should have exercised more caution.
Regarding the right to use contraceptives, it seems to me that the Catholic Church, in making a rigid stand against them, has created a rich opportunity for pro-choice advocates to rail against the “backwardness” of the pro-life movement. And they would be right. While I understand the Church’s objections to contraceptives (God said, “Be fruitful and multiply,” which is seen as a command to enjoy sexual relations with a goal of fulfilling this command.), I believe the lives of millions of unborn children would be better served (and protected) by limiting that teaching to those who are actually Catholics and, otherwise, getting on with the business of changing hearts and minds in this society unencumbered with such theological positions. Many, many people desire to have sex without also desiring additional children (count my wife and I among them). Contraceptives provide a means of meeting these two desires and, as a result, do not cause more abortions. This is, I believe, a generally supported view by most pro-life advocates outside of the Catholic Church and one with which I agree wholeheartedly.
The “over population” argument is, to me, the least supported. A simple exercise demonstrates why I remain unconcerned by this fearful viewpoint: All seven billion people currently living on the Earth could be contained in the State of Florida with approximately 233 square feet per person. We are a long way from filling up the Earth! Despite claims for a couple of centuries now that the Earth can’t support the increasing population, advances in technology keep improving our abilities to feed, clothe, house, etc. the swelling population. Instead of seeing this as a good thing, however, some insist on railing against mankind for simply wanting to live on the planet we’ve been given. It seems that, in their eyes, humankind is a pollutant that must be removed from Mother Earth. My suggestion for those who believe such things is that they begin the removal effort with themselves and leave unborn children to make their own choices!
Regarding the right to use contraceptives, it seems to me that the Catholic Church, in making a rigid stand against them, has created a rich opportunity for pro-choice advocates to rail against the “backwardness” of the pro-life movement. And they would be right. While I understand the Church’s objections to contraceptives (God said, “Be fruitful and multiply,” which is seen as a command to enjoy sexual relations with a goal of fulfilling this command.), I believe the lives of millions of unborn children would be better served (and protected) by limiting that teaching to those who are actually Catholics and, otherwise, getting on with the business of changing hearts and minds in this society unencumbered with such theological positions. Many, many people desire to have sex without also desiring additional children (count my wife and I among them). Contraceptives provide a means of meeting these two desires and, as a result, do not cause more abortions. This is, I believe, a generally supported view by most pro-life advocates outside of the Catholic Church and one with which I agree wholeheartedly.
The “over population” argument is, to me, the least supported. A simple exercise demonstrates why I remain unconcerned by this fearful viewpoint: All seven billion people currently living on the Earth could be contained in the State of Florida with approximately 233 square feet per person. We are a long way from filling up the Earth! Despite claims for a couple of centuries now that the Earth can’t support the increasing population, advances in technology keep improving our abilities to feed, clothe, house, etc. the swelling population. Instead of seeing this as a good thing, however, some insist on railing against mankind for simply wanting to live on the planet we’ve been given. It seems that, in their eyes, humankind is a pollutant that must be removed from Mother Earth. My suggestion for those who believe such things is that they begin the removal effort with themselves and leave unborn children to make their own choices!
I am well aware that there are many other arguments offered by those who support the killing of the unborn. I just don’t have the time to discuss and challenge them all. I will, however, take on one more issue that is, I believe, of compelling effect—the life of the mother. There are, in fact, situations that arise where the life of the mother is threatened by pregnancy. Here is a place where choice really does come into play. I have personally known women who, when faced with this choice, prayerfully committed themselves to trusting God to preserve both them and their unborn child. I am glad to say that those women whom I have known who did this all came through their pregnancy safely, holding a healthy child in their arms. However, I know that there are women who, when faced with this difficult decision, have chosen to terminate the pregnancy through abortion. If we must provide an exception, this would be the exception that the majority, I believe, of pro-life advocates (excluding, again, Catholics) would accept as a reasonable means of achieving a limitation on other abortions. I am confident that, if such an arrangement was made, some women would claim the need for an abortion when their life was not actually in jeopardy. However, there will always be some who are willing to lie to achieve their objectives. That is what the legal system is for. If it seems, for example, that a particular gynecologist has a great many patients who must have an abortion for their own safety, that gynecologist may become the subject of an investigation into their medical practices! Nonetheless, this would seem to be a method whereby the pro-choice and pro-life movements could find some ground for compromise.
What is often overlooked by pro-choice advocates is the effect on women of killing their children. I realize that I am bringing up an unpopular and old-fashioned notion when I suggest that women’s consciences will be troubled by such acts, but I believe it to be so. In my experience as a counselor to others, I have often encountered women who were grief stricken years later by the thought that they had murdered their child. I would not wish that kind of pain on anyone. The lifetime of depression and misery that this brings is, simply put, worse in my eyes than nine months of difficulty carrying a child to term and delivering it. Even if the child is put up for adoption or ends up in foster care, at least that child has been given the one great opportunity given all of us, the right to live. That is certainly a better memory for the mother than remembering how she participated in the murder of her child.
As I noted in my brief comment in the Times, I realize that there are many women who will want to dismiss what I’ve written as being of no standing since I am a man. However, I would challenge those women to consider whether truth and notions of right and wrong are dependent on the gender of those who are speaking? If women believe this to be true, then their powers of logic are so atrophied as to be meaningless and their hopes of a truly egalitarian, gender-neutral society are doomed. A society cannot stand with two standards of truth, one for women and another for men.
What is often overlooked by pro-choice advocates is the effect on women of killing their children. I realize that I am bringing up an unpopular and old-fashioned notion when I suggest that women’s consciences will be troubled by such acts, but I believe it to be so. In my experience as a counselor to others, I have often encountered women who were grief stricken years later by the thought that they had murdered their child. I would not wish that kind of pain on anyone. The lifetime of depression and misery that this brings is, simply put, worse in my eyes than nine months of difficulty carrying a child to term and delivering it. Even if the child is put up for adoption or ends up in foster care, at least that child has been given the one great opportunity given all of us, the right to live. That is certainly a better memory for the mother than remembering how she participated in the murder of her child.
As I noted in my brief comment in the Times, I realize that there are many women who will want to dismiss what I’ve written as being of no standing since I am a man. However, I would challenge those women to consider whether truth and notions of right and wrong are dependent on the gender of those who are speaking? If women believe this to be true, then their powers of logic are so atrophied as to be meaningless and their hopes of a truly egalitarian, gender-neutral society are doomed. A society cannot stand with two standards of truth, one for women and another for men.
|
|
|