Proudly Part of the Problem
Last week, leading "pro-life" blogger, Jill Stanek, made a cameo appearance in the comments section of a blog of mine, "The Call for Common Ground on Abortion," here on Huffington Post. My post basically reported on, and offered perspective about, a conference call the White House organized for pro-life and pro-choice groups to announce the administration's intent to explore common ground in the abortion conflict. In my post, I pointed out that it's clear Obama's team wants to make progress on an issue that has divided and damaged us as a country for too long. They had explained the areas they hoped could unite pro-choice and pro-life people: reducing unintended pregnancy, including teen pregnancy, making adoption a more accessible choice for women confronting unintended pregnancy, and supporting struggling families with wanted pregnancies. They want to move forward, and have set up a common sense framework to do so. It's hard to demean such earnest intent.
But many veteran leaders in the "pro-life" movement are immovably stuck in their positions. They appear deeply invested in rehashing the same, seemingly eternal arguments, in continuing what even to a staunch pro-choicer like myself seems like a tedious fight. The natural inclination of rational Americans pining for common ground, as most of both persuasions on the abortion issue are, might be to zone out the heckling. But listening to this increasingly out of the mainstream arguments by people like Jill Stanek helps to understand the reason we have suffered from intransigence for so long. Too many of the most committed people, and here, the pro-choice side is not immune, feel that anything the opponent agrees to must be suspect. Bloggers like Stanek, those speaking into the echo chamber, are apparently so invested in continuing the fight that they won't budge. One suspects their intransigence is based not just on morality, but self-interest as well. If the vitriol isn't high enough they worry their base might drift away.
Jill is the perfect example of the unbending culture warrior. The one committed to fanning the flames of the ethereal, abstract side of debate and belittling or ignoring the common sense, brick and mortar proposals for problem solving. Jill is no doubt a smart chick. Her posts are always engaging even for those of the pro-choice persuasion like myself. If only she used her abilities not to undermine common ground efforts. Obama's common ground pledge (and my piece about it) did not muster any interest in Jill in finding a solution. It did inspire her to return for the billionth time to the well-worn arguments. She writes,
"Cristina, the basic questions: Why care about reducing the need for abortion? What's wrong with it?"
I answered,
"Hi Jill, nice to hear from you. I think it's the same reason to reduce teen parenthood and to reduce the need to place a child for adoption. If any woman in one of those circumstances were to be asked, "if you could go back in time and avoid being in this predicament, would you?" nearly all would say yes. I think we should reduce teen parenthood and the need for adoption too. These are each often tremendously difficult choices that ideally no woman should have to face. Adoption, abortion, and premature parenthood are all the results of unintended pregnancy and I believe women should have access to each of these options legally and safely. But it's unintended pregnancy that's the real problem here. That's what we need to work to avoid.
"Sorry to not give you the "gotcha" moment you were looking for. For Huffpo readers, Jill Stanek is a leader in the anti-abortion movement and probably the most popular blogger on that side of the issue. Jill, here are my questions for you: Why are you opposed to preventing unintended pregnancy and access to contraception as one vehicle toward that end? Why do you pursue the outlawing of abortion even though it has failed to reduce abortion rates wherever it's been tried? Why not institute the policies that result in the lowest abortion rates on earth? So what if it's the most pro-choice countries that have the lowest abortion rates, aren't "pro-life" results what you're after?"
She replied,
"Christina, seriously, thanks for the kind words on my credentials.
But you didn't answer me. You may consider my question a "gotcha," but it's foundational. How can we devise solutions when we haven't defined the problem? What exactly is the problem with abortion? Why is it "a tremendously difficult choice" that ideally no woman should have to face"?"What is wrong with abortion? Is it or is it not morally neutral or even superior, as new Cambridge Episcopal Divinity School pro-abort President Rev. Katherine Hancock Ragsdale tagged it - "a blessing" and "holy work"?"
I replied,
"Well, actually, if you read what I wrote again, you'll see I was referring to adoption and teen parenthood as "often tremendously difficult choices." Sure, abortion can be a difficult choice for some women too (though for some women it is accompanied by no grief, though, just relief) and studies show that the more religious a woman is the harder struggle she has with it. So possibly, it's the culture she's in that creates guilt with her decision.
"Regardless, my point is that all choices accompanying an unintended pregnancy can be (but aren't always) difficult, but that's no reason to outlaw any of them. Based on your logic, it's grief that is the measure of what the "right" decision is. Then a woman who suffers grief after placing a child for adoption made the wrong choice, an immoral choice, right? Why not ban adoption then? Why not tell her that the reason she's feeling bad is because she made the wrong decision, one that God does not condone? That would be a terrible thing to do with women choosing adoption, and it's a terrible thing to do to women choosing abortion too."I've attempted to answer your question twice. You have not answered my questions even once. Please do. Why can't we agree to try to help women avoid having to make these decisions in the first place? Tell me Jill, honestly, what do you think are the areas we can agree on? Because I think there's a bunch."
In the end, Jill never once attempts to answer any of my simple questions, which is typical. I've noticed this tactic used often by those pro-lifers who work in the movement. Whenever the discussion gets off ethereal principles and onto the problem solving, they revert back to airy lectures. They continue to want to talk about the morality of abortion and are desperate to change the subject when it's about solving what they consider a moral crisis. They are trapped in an endless argument over semantics (Jill is currently arguing that pro-lifers should demand we reduce the "number" of abortions rather than "the need for" abortion. Good luck with that debate.) They're the ones who have a problem with abortion. Why is the pro-choice camp the only side trying to come up with solutions, often successfully, to their problem? President Bush didn't promise to attempt to reduce abortion rates during his presidency and, early indicators suggest, he lived up to that disinterest. The decline in abortion rates slowed during his administration, teen birth rates spiked, and the economic nightmare he left us in seems to already be causing an uptick in abortions. All that is traceable to Bush policies and mismanagement.
Meanwhile, the dramatic declines in abortion rates brought to us by President Clinton and the Obama administration's promise to deliver the same results elicit sneers and ire from the "pro-life" movement. (I put "pro-life" in quotes because you can't really be pro-life if your actions create more of the abortions you profess to hate.) Bill Clinton, if based on results alone, was the most pro-life president we've ever had and the pro-life movement hates him for it.
This is why the Obama team needs to look past the old-guard culture warriors. People like Jill Stanek approve of the rhetoric of the "culture of life" but are not interested in reducing the need for abortion. She's seems more interested in attracting eyeballs to her site. Looking for common ground solutions from operatives like her is like turning to Michael Vick for dog-training tips.
The common ground movement Obama is hoping to advance will come about because of people who want real solutions, whose livelihoods don't depend on the conflict continuing, people who believe we deserve a better national dialogue and better leadership on this issue. We've finally got an administration willing to moderate a productive discussion. It's time to get the hecklers out of room, and get on with the work.
This post was originally published on birthcontrolwatch.org
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Although a pro-lifer, I have to agree with you, Christina. You made some very good points regarding reducing the need for abortion.
This is the reason why I cannot see myself involved in any pro-life organization. They are not interested in compromising, and that is a shame. They do not seem to understand that a reduction in what we consider a poor decision (to say the very least) is a step in the right direction. Their inability to even engage in a conversation without being patronizing makes me question the sincerity of their intentions. Are they looking to stop abortions to save the unborn or are they searching for a method by which they can use their beliefs to control others?
As much as I am pro-life, I know that we cannot reverse Roe v. Wade without inflicting serious consequences on society. I hope that pro-choice people like yourself continue to budge pro-lifers until they come to the table. Good luck with your endeavors.
Cristina! Another excellent post from you. Always like a breath of fresh air.
Why has no one pointed out that sex is a powerful biological need? It had little to do with "responsibility" for thousands of years.
That would require a mature discussion about the pursuit of happiness. Apparently there are some in the world who consider that particular pursuit a sin without marriage. Funny how humans attach themselves to man-made concepts and not nature.
I suspect that pro lifers are against any of your measures because they have an additional unspoken agenda. They want the threat of full term pregnancy as a means of intimidation to prevent out of wedlock sex. As with abortion itself, this does not really stop the activity. There was plenty of out of wedlock sex in the "good old days" before the pill; resulting in shotgun marriages, abandoned children, and illegal abortions. These people have an unrealistic dream and are steadfastly trying to force it on the rest of society.
I suspect because the real issue is not abortion. It's about having sex with no "consequences."
The extreme anti-choice crowd (I refuse to call 'em pro-life if they're only interested in the pre-born), believe that sex should be restricted to married heterosexual couples, and pregnancy desired as the natural consequence of sex. Sex should be suspended when procreation has to be avoided for any reason. Anything else is unnatural and sinful.
They might bend on this when it comes to married heterosexual couples, but, of course, birth control is available to everyone. Birth control allows unmarried couples to indulge in sex without the inconvenience and public shame of an unsanctioned pregnancy to fear, and thus encourages hedonistic sex.
Therefore, to talk about avoiding pregnancy with anything but abstinence from sex is anathema, and the real reason why the extremists fight even the safest forms of artificial birth control -- beginning with sex education. .
Which is why President Obama and like-minded moderates of faith are not going to be ceded any reasonable common ground with the extremist anti-choice crowd. They do not want sex without the risks of pregnancy to be an option.
The National Socialist Party was able to what they did by stating and legally supporting that what they did to their victims was not illegal and was a correct policy and process. The Democrats have been able to do what they do to the unborn by stating and legally supporting what they do to their victims as not illegal and a correct policy. The National Socialist Party was very pro choice - as is the Democratic Party - the only difference is who makes the decision (i.e. has the choice) in the end the one without the decision/choice is legally destroyed.
An embryo is not a victim. It is a small collection of cells that, in the course of events, may or may not develop into a baby. The person inside whose body that embryo exists does have the right to decide whether that pregnancy will produce a baby or not. Anything other than that is forcing the will of others upon that woman. That's all the "pro-life" movement is about, forcing your will upon others. If you think abortion is wrong, then don't have one, it's that simple.
I am not so sure about the pro-choice attribution to the Nazis. They certainly were opposed to Jews and Gypsies having children, or even continuing to live. However, they were quite active in seeking to bolster the "Aryan" population. I have difficulty believeing that the people behind the Lebensborn project would approve the abortion of German fetuses.
"The National Socialist Party was very pro choice"
Proof?
even if the embryo was an actual person who was viable, born, and lets say around your age, would u grant that person the decision to live off some1 else's body because the only way he could live is by physically attaching himself to that other person, even if the person who he attaches himself to, does not want him to be? or let's say that person A needs a kidney and person B is the only person in the world that is an exact match to person A. can government or some third party make person B donate his kidney to person A? while it would be a very nice thing to do it is not required and no1 has the right to any1 else's body. everyone has a right to live but not by any means necessary. its the truth and sorry if any1 feels differently
You said "People like Jill Stanek approve of the rhetoric of the "culture of life" but are not interested in reducing the NEED for abortion."
Your evidence shows that they consistently take actions which increase abortions.
If you want to reduce abortion, simply ignore what the pro-lifers say. If you WANT to increase abortion, pro-lifers provide the best route to that end. The data is all you need.
Maybe the best explanation for why they do that is, "God works in mysterious ways".
Moral and ethical positions aside, I view the political dimension of this issue in the following light: Conservatives have had near-total power in this country for the last 8 years, and a large share of power over the last 30 years, and, despite all the rhetoric, they HAVE NOT DONE ONE THING TO ADVANCE THIER STATED POSITION. Why? Because it's just too good a wedge issue come election time. I look at results and performance, not talk. So, when someone has a position that they claim comes from deep within, and does nothing about it, I look deeper. The neo-Conservative movement that has arisen from the blending of free-marketeers, the religious right, and the world-wide Pax Americana crowd over the last 30 years are all about getting and using power at any cost, not about solving problems. Especially when those issues (god, guns, and gays) are such delicious wedge issues and cash cows. THAT's why they are not interested in solutions.
Access to safe and legal abortion has decreased substantially in our country, with some states (South Dakota and Mississippi come to mind) having only one or two providers left.
Most American women (80%) live in a county with no access to abortion services.
You're correct that not much has happened on the national level, but on the state level, where most health related policies are made, the changes have been drastic, and very damaging to our nation's poorest women.
The "Pro-Llfe" side really never wanted a solution the issue was politically advantageous to them. Why kill the golden goose.
I am anti-abortion/pro-choice. When abortion wasn't legal, women/girls STILL had them, and they died, horribly, and often alone. A a lose/lose situation.
It's possible for pro-life people to spend less time protesting and more time providing support for women/young girls considering abortion. I have met people who ARE doing that - running "half-way houses" for pregnant women/young girls. They are TRUELY pro-life.
Big problem - letting "morality" stop us from dealing with REALITY. Morality - sex before marriage is bad; REALITY - it happens and should be dealt with: morally - at home; REALITY- in the world - sex ed classes; not just birds and the bees, but RESPONSIBILITY. A child isn't a pet - it's a lifetime commitment.
Kids sexually mature 2-4 years earlier than 50 years ago. Their bodies are like loaded guns, and they don't know how to deal with them responsibly. SOMEONE HAS TO TEACH THEM!!!
RU-486 pill should be more readily available. Life can't begin at conception because of IDENTICAL TWINS (unless we've decided they have only 1/2 a soul). An identical twin develops (or not) from a fertilized egg approx. 11-12 days AFTER conception.
So teach kids RESPONSIBILITY, teach them how their bodies work, give them the truth about sex, adoption, abortion, parenthood, etc. And make the RU-486 available so that pregnancies AND abortions can be prevented.
Nosebird
I am also anti-abortion/pro-choice. I agree women performing self abortions is a lose lose as both individuals died. I hope you would join me in supporting a local Problem Pregnancy Center, an anti-abortion organization dedicated to supporting young women in the pregnancy and adoption process. They are truly helping these unfortunates who made one poor choice from making another.
I am quite confused in your interest in making RU486 more readily available, this is incongruent with your anti-abortion position. Unless you are lying to yourself and others. Maybe I am mistaken but isn't RU486 the abortion pill?
I would say prolifers are more likely to teach their children responsibility than those who advocate passing on the responsibility of their poor decision tto teh child they just had surgically removed and dissected from their womb.
RU486 is a pre-implantation BC method, (an IUD functions the same way). It also is used prior to 2 months to induce an abortion, but my understanding is such cases are medically supervised, etc.
I dislike buzz-words used to demonize things that each side doesn't like. That's one of them - so is calling someone who is pro-choice "pro-abortion" (not you - others).
Pro-life/pro-choice isn't the deciding factor in teaching responsibility. My mother was catholic - taught me nothing about responsibility (she taught the opposite by her actions - and possibly the only thing she DIDN'T do was get an abortion). I taught myself, and was probably lucky in who my friends were.
I have MANY pro-choice friends who are anti-abortion- I think most pro-choice people are actually pro-life, but they realize that crap happens and has to be dealt with. I would rather it be in a medically safe manner - not convenient at all, but safe.
The pendulum swings too far each way - there are extreme pro choice, who ignore the facts about abortion and the emotional scarring that occurs. There are are extreme pro-life who make no exceptions (rape, incest, mothers' life in danger). That is wrong.
We have to think with our hearts AND heads: to teach true personal and social responsibility so that unwanted pregnancies decrease in #. to help those that are pregnant to take care of it as best they can or find someone who will.
Although kids may be maturing a bit earlier, the truth is that 50 years ago a lot of states had lower age of consent limits than they do now. I found a website with marriage records for a county near Philadelphis for the 19th century. I would estimate that about 10% of the brides were 14. Add in the 15, 16, and 17 year olds, and it would appear that about half of the girls were married before they were 18. There are good economic and educational reasons for delaying child bearing, but clearly teenage sex (within marriage) was not considered wrong in that period (Victorian era). In general, I think that the conservative view of "Traditional Values" is a pipe dream which does not stand up to historiccal scrutiny. Besides the 19th century marriages, you have the Gay 90's and the Roaring 20's. I might add that some of the evangelical religious leaders of those periods don't stand much scrutiny as moral models, Aimee Semple McPherson being an example.
and in the Victorian era, as throughout history until the 20th century, no one, including the Catholic Church, believed life began at conception. It was universally agreed that life began at "quickening" or, in modern terminology, when the mother first felt movement. Abortions prior to that occurrence, which happens around the fourth month of pregnancy, were not illegal, as they were not considered to be "abortions" because the fetus was not considered "alive".
So well put!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think there's a subtext here, and it's not about saving the "unborn". It's about controlling women's sexuality. If the "pro-lifers" REALLY cared about reducing the number of abortions, they WOULD be pushing contraception, at least for adults. And although I have heard some people say they're against the pill because it's an "abortifacient", why are they also against condoms? Why is so little talk about other barrier methods? Why the "conscience clause" preventing women from getting contraception?
If you put together their attempts to outlaw abortion with their attempts to make it harder to get contraception, what you end up with is women going back to being slaves to their reproductive systems the same way they were pre-Roe/pre-BC pill. It would create a situation where women could not make the decision to have pre-marital sex without the fear of unplanned and, possibly forced, pregnancy as punishment. It certainly would make it more likely that X-tian girls and women don't back out of their "purity" promises, and it would also make sure that women who don't share their religious beliefs have to live by them, anyway.
If "controlling women's sexuality" means I'd like to maintain the ban on dismembering viable babies and crushing their skulls, I'm guilty.
Condoms aren't allowed because every sperm is sacred.
http://www.lyricsdepot.com/monty-python/every-sperm-is-sacred.html
Political operative and Obama foe Jill Stanek has been widely discredited since she made up crazy stories about what was happening in Chicago hospitals and spread false information about Obama's record. (both things easily discredited)
Wouldn't worry about anything she says...
You make some good points. We all dissemble to one degree or another, some more so than others. For example, R-v-W extends civil liberties to babies in the third trimester. In reality, this right has never existed and we pro-lifers have had to fight to restore it, making only minor inroads in preventing cases of the most barbaric forms of termination of viable kids. One would think that common ground would be easily achieved on this topic, but we struggled for decades and now Obama may undo even this small progress.
You make a staggering comment in your exchange above: "…studies show that the more religious a woman is the harder struggle she has with it (post-abortion grief). So possibly, it's the culture she's in that creates guilt with her decision."
Isn't the same true for stealing, lying, incest, pedophilia, and murder? We would absolutely reduce guilt if we just killed the taboos against these behaviors has well.
Your post is a great example of the "unbending culture warriors" this article is all about. Keep throwing your money into highway billboards while we do the real work; as usual.
You stumped me. No idea what you're talking about.
"...this right has never existed and we pro-lifers have had to fight to restore it..."
How exactly does one go about restoring that which has never existed?
Are you misinformed as to the meaning of the word "restore"?
Between the desire to force religious beliefs on other people, and the insatiable thirst to control women's bodies and women's sexuality, the hard-core "pro-life" is never going to try to find common ground with anyone. It's their way or the highway.
Thank God the U.S. isn't a theocracy.
And yeah, pun intended.
I think the reason it is so hard for them to budge is simply because they believe that life begins at conception and ending a life is murder so there is no moral gray ground for them. The part that doesn't make sense however, is the lack of birth control so they don't have to get to that point.
The opposition to all of the other birth control methods besides abortion is because they want to make sure that the female is punished for having sex (or maybe just for being female), regardless of whether consensual or not, no matter who the male involved is, no matter the age of the female or the risks to her of carrying to term.
The answer to the question you pose in the bi-line is quite straight forward and simple. Pro choice means someone has the right to chose, pro life means that you live under someone's religious beliefs.
I read it a little differently.
Pro-choice means I get to live a life without responsibility.
Pro-life means that everyone has to act responsibly.
if you have no choice you have no responsibility.
I think that when a woman makes the deeply personal decision that she is not ready or able to parent a child, and terminates an early unintended pregnancy, that is quite responsible.
Choosing to continue a pregnancy and then raising that child well, that is also very responsible.
That is pro-choice. That is personal responsibility.
I get that you personally would never have an abortion, right? (I assume you're female.)
That's great for you. Where it ends is that you don't get to tell other women what to do with their bodies. Maybe it bothers you that women have this much control over our destinies, but it's much better for society when we do.
I wonder why it's always people have to "act responsibly", when it comes to pregnancy or abortions. That statement basically has to assume that not only the woman, but everyone around her has to "behave" as well since she can't get pregnant on her own. Granted, there are women out there who are promiscuous and use abortions as their birth control, but it's unfair to punish all women for the ignorance of some.
Other than the poor women who are raped, there are still those women who end up with unwanted pregnancies that act very responsibly. What about those women who are married? Hopefully, you've already noticed, but there are plenty of married women in this country who can't afford birth control. Are they being irresponsible because they sleep with their husbands? What about the women who get sick from birth control? How about the times when these drugs don't work? Many women become pregnant when they were doing everything right, so saying that they didn't act responsibly is ridiculous.
I have also found that "pro-life" ends when the child is born. No one seems to care what happens to it then. Otherwise, why aren't all these "pro-lifers" spending their time taking care of all of these poor children in our terrible foster care system? If you're so concerned about the life in the mother's belly, then that concern should carry over to the life they'll lead once they're able to breath on their own!
There is nothing wrong with abortion and I don't see any reason to take steps to reduce what is a very useful operation for sexually active women.
Are you forgetting the part about the fetus dying?
(Kind of hard to miss).
The pro-abortion groups are awfully two-faced about this. If abortion isn't a bad thing, then why are they trying to find "common ground" in reducing abortions?
It is an implicit admission of the evil in ending another's life.
Are there lives that are worse than death?
There is nothing wrong with abortion...for you! Now who's trying to push their beliefs on others?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
