Pro-Life, Where are the Choices?
Since the Supreme Court decision on Roe vs. Wade in January of 1973, a large percentage of U.S. citizens have been enmeshed in a conflict over whether the rights of the mother or the rights of the unborn child take precedence in abortion decisions.
Women who seek the right to choose to have an abortion have been derided and attacked, labeled selfish and promiscuous and condemned to Hell for their attitudes. Politicians have won or lost elections based on their own views of the issue, and the abortion question has been used as a litmus test for federal court appointees under more than one president. Pro-life advocates are demanding federal intervention to end abortions immediately, while pro-choice proponents oppose any legislation whatsoever.
Beneath all of the rancor, however, rest contradictions that pro-life forces refuse to recognize.
When fingers are pointed at women on the pro-choice side, devaluing their morals and standards, males are suspiciously left out of the arguments. When addressing abortion, sexual ethics and the relationship between men and women must be questioned. The legalization of abortion was, on one level, the further abandonment of women by men.
Men continue to dominate women through sexuality while outside of marriage taking no responsibility for their progeny. Female promiscuity has been discussed, debated and giggled about in spades, but until male promiscuity is condemned by our society, men will continue to use and then leave women. It is reckless power, and it is unjust.
It is simply unconscionable to argue that a 14-year-old girl who is unattractive and outside the social clique of her high school, suddenly dated by a teenage boy and falling over herself in love in a need for approval, can be said to have had anything but rape happen to her following her first sexual experience with that boy. Should this same young woman find herself pregnant several months later, the decision -- the choice -- is all hers. The boy will most likely be long gone.
At the same time, it is completely irresponsible and without credibility to attack women who choose abortion without offering them alternative choices and assistance.
The issue as generally framed by both pro-choice and pro-life groups is untenable because it assumes that the woman -- and the woman alone -- is ultimately responsible both for herself and for any child she might carry.
Statistics and personal experience show that women choose to have abortions for two basic reasons: the fear that they cannot handle the financial and physical demands of the child and the fear that having the child will destroy relationships that are important to them. In both of these cases, the woman who chooses abortion does so not because she is exercising her free choice but because she feels she has no choice. We cannot continue to tell women that they cannot make choices to alleviate their fears while offering no tangible solutions. It makes no sense.
There are over half a million churches in the United States and most of these sit empty six days a week. Many of them have nursery and pre-school facilities, and all of them preach a gospel of brotherly love and helping our neighbors. Why, then, do so many single mothers struggle to find day care for their children? Since almost every religious and philosophical belief system tells us to care for one another, what is the issue?
When you cut through the rhetoric of the abortion debate, you quickly realize that abortion is not a question about the law. Abortion is a question about what kind of people we are in a civilized, progressive and enlightened society.
What kind of choices can we each make, individually, to give a woman considering abortion a real choice?
Will we take unwed teen mothers into our homes, love them and feed them, provide for their medical care and then care for their baby as our own when it is born?
Can we maintain our pro-life integrity if we don't?
Can we support and hold accountable politicians who advocate universal health care, progressive welfare, equal and accessible education for all, job training and child care tax credits?
Can we maintain our pro-life integrity if we don't?
Will we demand that Washington shore up WIC, Head Start and other programs that have been shown to improve the lives of children and their parents?
Can we maintain our pro-life integrity if we don't?
And finally, can we love our neighbors as ourselves, remembering the "least of these" and building community through caring and sharing and loving one another?
Can we maintain our pro-life integrity if we don't?
We cannot simply throw the issue of abortion in the faces of women and say, "You decide and you bear the consequences of your decision."
As a society, our response to the abortion issue must be to shoulder the responsibility to care for women and children. We cannot do otherwise and still be "pro-life."
If we close our doors in the faces of women and children, then we close our doors in the faces of ourselves.
Women who seek the right to choose to have an abortion have been derided and attacked, labeled selfish and promiscuous and condemned to Hell for their attitudes. Politicians have won or lost elections based on their own views of the issue, and the abortion question has been used as a litmus test for federal court appointees under more than one president. Pro-life advocates are demanding federal intervention to end abortions immediately, while pro-choice proponents oppose any legislation whatsoever.
Beneath all of the rancor, however, rest contradictions that pro-life forces refuse to recognize.
When fingers are pointed at women on the pro-choice side, devaluing their morals and standards, males are suspiciously left out of the arguments. When addressing abortion, sexual ethics and the relationship between men and women must be questioned. The legalization of abortion was, on one level, the further abandonment of women by men.
Men continue to dominate women through sexuality while outside of marriage taking no responsibility for their progeny. Female promiscuity has been discussed, debated and giggled about in spades, but until male promiscuity is condemned by our society, men will continue to use and then leave women. It is reckless power, and it is unjust.
It is simply unconscionable to argue that a 14-year-old girl who is unattractive and outside the social clique of her high school, suddenly dated by a teenage boy and falling over herself in love in a need for approval, can be said to have had anything but rape happen to her following her first sexual experience with that boy. Should this same young woman find herself pregnant several months later, the decision -- the choice -- is all hers. The boy will most likely be long gone.
At the same time, it is completely irresponsible and without credibility to attack women who choose abortion without offering them alternative choices and assistance.
The issue as generally framed by both pro-choice and pro-life groups is untenable because it assumes that the woman -- and the woman alone -- is ultimately responsible both for herself and for any child she might carry.
Statistics and personal experience show that women choose to have abortions for two basic reasons: the fear that they cannot handle the financial and physical demands of the child and the fear that having the child will destroy relationships that are important to them. In both of these cases, the woman who chooses abortion does so not because she is exercising her free choice but because she feels she has no choice. We cannot continue to tell women that they cannot make choices to alleviate their fears while offering no tangible solutions. It makes no sense.
There are over half a million churches in the United States and most of these sit empty six days a week. Many of them have nursery and pre-school facilities, and all of them preach a gospel of brotherly love and helping our neighbors. Why, then, do so many single mothers struggle to find day care for their children? Since almost every religious and philosophical belief system tells us to care for one another, what is the issue?
When you cut through the rhetoric of the abortion debate, you quickly realize that abortion is not a question about the law. Abortion is a question about what kind of people we are in a civilized, progressive and enlightened society.
What kind of choices can we each make, individually, to give a woman considering abortion a real choice?
Will we take unwed teen mothers into our homes, love them and feed them, provide for their medical care and then care for their baby as our own when it is born?
Can we maintain our pro-life integrity if we don't?
Can we support and hold accountable politicians who advocate universal health care, progressive welfare, equal and accessible education for all, job training and child care tax credits?
Can we maintain our pro-life integrity if we don't?
Will we demand that Washington shore up WIC, Head Start and other programs that have been shown to improve the lives of children and their parents?
Can we maintain our pro-life integrity if we don't?
And finally, can we love our neighbors as ourselves, remembering the "least of these" and building community through caring and sharing and loving one another?
Can we maintain our pro-life integrity if we don't?
We cannot simply throw the issue of abortion in the faces of women and say, "You decide and you bear the consequences of your decision."
As a society, our response to the abortion issue must be to shoulder the responsibility to care for women and children. We cannot do otherwise and still be "pro-life."
If we close our doors in the faces of women and children, then we close our doors in the faces of ourselves.
Comments