I’ve been feeling under the weather today, which explains why I’m just now writing my Blog for Choice post, and why it’ll probably end up being a lot shorter and lacking in substance than I would’ve liked. Anyway, here goes.
There are people who think abortion is murder, and that’s all there is to it. These people are almost always religious, often leaning pretty heavily toward the “routinely taunts snakes as part of Sunday service” side of things. And most of them - barring a personal experience which wakes them the fuck up - are never going to think abortion is okay, under any circumstances. Sorry your father raped you, little Suzy, and then beat the shit out of you when he found out you were pregnant; but abortion’s wrong and there are other options out there, so just go ahead and carry an incestuous son or daughter for 9 months. No, don’t be silly, it won’t wreak havoc on your 12-year-old, 90-pound body or fuck you up emotionally for damn near the rest of your life.
The pro-choice majority needs to stop concerning itself altogether with people with that attitude. There are always going to be whackadoos and hardline fundies out there; but no one ever accomplished anything by appealing to the crazies.
Notice I said the pro-choice majority. Yes, that’s right. Polls bear it out, but even more importantly, there are a lot of people out there who are pro-choice and don’t even realize it. Getting through to these people is what matters. It means framing abortion in the larger context of personal freedom, the right to privacy (especially regarding health issues), and keeping the government the fuck out of your personal life. It means that pro-choice advocates, whether they are politicians, grass-roots activists, or just everyday schmoes, need to think about who they are talking to and put the abortion issue into the context of their audience.
We need to stop talking about abortion in a vaccuum (no pun intended; sorry). We need to show how it relates to freedom in other areas of life. We need to make clear the slippery slope of governmental interference in one’s personal life, and remind people that the conservative position is supposed to be one of less government - and if restricting access to safe and legal abortion isn’t “more big government” then I’m not a Georgia blogger.
Most average people are pragmatic, and selfish. They recognize that the world is not black and white - but sometimes they just need to be reminded that this fact applies in areas of life which may not directly affect them at the moment. Because one day this issue might affect them, and when a mother sees the hoops her 16-year-old daughter has to jump through to get an abortion (and hears the protesters at the clinic telling her that she’s going to hell, circumstances be damned) she’s going to be pissed, and wish she had been paying attention earlier.
READ ME: Disclaimer
13 Responses to "Blogging for choice"
Before the crazies (crazy? - Is there just the one?) that visit your blog get to this, I’d like to mention one of my favorite conservative hypocrisies…
In every election where abortion is an issue, the old white man who’s declaring abortion to be evil inevitably provides the following exemptions: Rape, incest, life of the mother. (I still hear that list in the voice of Bob Dole.)
Apparently, abortion ISN’T murder if the baby is conceived through rape or incest, or if the life of the mother is at risk. I’m not sure why THOSE babies’ lives don’t count, but they usually don’t. If it’s murder when a condom breaks or when someone just makes a mistake, wouldn’t it ALWAYS be murder? I mean, you can’t exactly claim self-defense on this one… It’s the same beloved innocent life, right? So pure and innocent, with feelings at 3 weeks, fingers at 2 days, and toes at 30 seconds (they’re shorter than fingers), it’s daddy’s smile from conception…
I guess this way if his God-fearing, Bible-thumping wife is raped in the Wal-Mart parking lot and happens to get pregnant, HE doesn’t have to live with another man’s child under his roof. That’s good to know. I bet he sleeps better at night with that assurance.
Nice post, Amber.
I am sorry if you are under the weather, but I am totally with you. I can’t even fathom how people condone the control over someone else’s body!? That doesn’t even make sense to me, and it certainly makes me feel very uncomfortable. What’s next?
Roe v. Wade is essential. Thanks for the post, Amber. You even inspired me to post about it by your reminder in the right column. Hope you feel better.
not to mention all those people who do not report rape, but still end up pregnant. so now we are punishing the victim a second time-depsite how we have learned the trauma-and the way we treat victims-can scare a person off? AND if she does report it (I am only using SHE since we are talking about abrotion) reports it but the attacker is convicted? Then she cant get one? a lot of loop holes with the white mens theories…big shocker!
Just to be entirely fair here, this is a rather misleading statement. The vast majority of pro-life individuals who do have moral objections to abortion do not fall under snake-charming crowd for their Sunday morning worship. If you’re trying to reach out to those individuals who are more moderate on the topic, but still hold legitimate moral concerns over abortion (as your post seems to indicate), such language can only be detrimental to your mission (as inflammatory language for more fundamental pro-lifers would be).
You claim to be wishing to view the world in not so black-and-white terms, but are doing just that. So derogatory statements about religion as well as simplifying what is a very complex issue into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ (and, by the by, framing it as a governmental intrusion issue) are not necessarily the best ways to achieve your mission (which I can only assume would be the preservation of abortion rights).
Count me - a pro-lifer- as a member of a large portion of citizens who feel there is much common ground both sides can share in order to reduce abortions to a point of extinction. But hard-line bluster from both sides does little to further my goal.
Amber is being specific, Johnathan. She is talking about the people who neither make concessions nor have concern for the painful circumstances that can result in a n unwanted pregnancy. For them abortion is murder ‘and that’s all there is’ to say about abortion. She’s not talking about anyone who has some moral concerns with abortion but can see occasions where it happens, she’s not talking about people who are on the fence personally and politically. She’s talking about people who have not only already made up their mind, but have made up their mind that there are never any reasonable or common situations in which abortion is acceptable. Her example, I think, shows exactly what she has in mind.
It’s people such as yourself, more moderate, centrist, and so on, who Amber would like to have the pro-choice community court, rather than expend its energy on people for whom there is little hope of persuading.
(Sorry for such a large blockquote)
Yeah, but Jmac, you are in favor of working to prevent the conditions that often lead to a woman deciding to have an abortion (poverty, teen pregnancy, sexual assault, etc., just to name a few). IIRC, you are in favor of comprehensive sex education instead of just abstinence education, for example. I imagine you also can recognize why abortion would be a reasonable choice in some circumstances (rape, incest, etc.), despite whatever moral/religious objections you may have.
The people I was referring to do not seem to care about prevention or social change, nor do they make any exceptions - a mass of cells and tissue is more important than the well-being of a women or teenage girl.
Also bear in mind my disclaimer that this post isn’t as good as I wanted it to be, since I was sick all day yesterday.
First off … Amber you need to look into Airborne. You always seem to fending off some sort of ailment. That stuff is like uber-vitamin mix, and seems to help with the colds and what-not. Or you can try Walgreens cheap knockoff, sadly named … Walborne.
Secondly, thanks for the clarification to both Amber and Charles. My only point was that when you do find religious individuals who are pro-life and more open to working, to some extent, with pro-choicers, language which belittles the moral reasoning for their position or their religion can be off-putting. I don’t think you intended to do this, so it’s merely food for thought.
No, not really; I just make sure to complain about it plenty when I am.
FWIW - I have an Ionic Breeze, which helps a lot with allergies and “the sniffles.” And I take a multi-vitamin every day. (I’m sure you’re interested.)
Yesterday was some stomach thing… I’ve decided to blame the Mexican breakfast buffet I had. Which is a shame, because it was soooo good.
And when you said “Airborne,” at first I thought you meant the delivery service. Speaking of which, you need to send me your address so I can send you your collectible UGA knick-knack.
Not at all, and in fact quite the opposite. As Charles correctly surmised, my point was that the types of religious people you mentioned, along with other people who are reasonable, sane individuals but for whatever reason might not be inclined to label themselves “pro-choice,” are exactly the people we need to be reaching out to and working with for a common goal. There is a lot of common ground to be found, even if we may disagree on whether abortion is morally wrong. If we can put aside differences of that nature and focus on solutions that we all can get behind, then who knows how much progress will be made. My point was that this should be our focus instead of trying to reason with the folks who refuse to put aside differences and who don’t seem interested in limiting/preventing the issues that can lead to abortion.
If they manage to overturn Roe v. Wade, how long before they require the mother to fill out a “certificate of pregnancy” or somesuch whenever they learn of the pregnancy? And do we start investigating miscarriages as potential homicides? Do you charge them with negligent homicide if they smoke or drink booze during pregnancy causing it to miscarry?
If a fetus is as human as any of us, then those seem like the logical next steps. And I believe there are even bills waiting saying just that here in GA, just waiting for when Alito gets to the Court.
Amber:
Beneath your argument lies the position that “pro-choice” is a pragmatic and selfish alternative that will appeal to other selfish and pragmatic Americans if choice on abortion can be linked to other issues. What you are advocating is a secular conservatism, which represents a minority position in the Republican party.
The problem for your argument is what authority to you have for this right of freedom from government intrusion? How is it grounded? Does it derive from the State or from some other source?
I would suggest that while superficially abortion should be the “small government” position, ideologically it will not because “choice” can not be defended as an inherent right unlike life.
Last year in Virginia, some religious-right nutter introduced a bill that would have required a reporting of a miscarriage or abortion within 12 hours of it happening.
Luckily, he (and didn’t you just know it would be a male legislator?) backed down, but the fact that he even thought of this appalls me.
And recent-convert-to-religion alert: I have no problem with individual religions or denominations affirming the worth of a fetus, but for Pete’s sake, your religion is not necessarily mine. Religious sinfulness and civil policy matters are not equal. You can write your canon law or whatever, but in the civil side of things, let abortion be legal and let the decision rest with the woman and her conscience.
Owning yourself means owning your actions means owning the power of choice. It’s not an irreducible right; it’s a corollary to a right.