Why "Choosing Life" is a False Choice
When President Obama appeared last week at Notre Dame, he called for greater understanding on both sides of the abortion divide. While his nuanced approach deserves appreciation, what bothers me about the continued dissection of this issue is that it is not honest at its root.
The decision to "choose life" is simply a false choice. The recent Gallup Poll, for example, asked people if they were pro-life or pro-choice. But such a dichotomy is not only polarizing -- it offers "choice-less" options. As a mother, grandmother, and advocate of women's issues, I refuse to be labeled "pro-choice" or "pro-life." I am both, and I suspect the same of the majority of Americans. Let's not parse words; to be pro-choice is also to be pro-life -- it's just a matter of which life you're discussing: the fetus in the womb or the woman carrying it.
Being pro-choice or pro-life is a false distinction created by fear, and it is not founded on the moral high ground it clams to hold. Instead, the division of the abortion issue into two divergent camps is based on cultural anxieties regarding motherhood.
Before we go any further, allow me to offer my mothering bonafides: I have five children, including an adopted son, and seven grandkids. I cut my teeth in the '70s and '80s working on the issues of childcare and early childhood education. As it turned out, one of our children had special needs, and I became a Montessori teacher so I could take him to a school that would enhance his potential.
The most important issue for me has always been how women and men participate in work, family, and community. I have always believed that to be "for women" is to be for families -- including men -- no matter how often conservatives paint feminists as anti-male.
Nothing has validated my feelings on this issue more than my experience in the past decade working to get more women into leadership alongside men (an avenue, by the way, which will transform our nation by bringing all of our resources to the table). Connie Buchanan, the former Associate Dean of Harvard Divinity School, was the most influential voice to me on this topic. As she wrote in her book, Choosing to Lead, despite the enormous gains we have made in the last twenty-five years, "the cultural ideal of women in America is that of wife and mother."
I have personally witnessed this "cultural ideal" keeping women out of power, from the political landscape to the corporate arena. As co-founder of Take Our Daughters to Work Day, I heard over and over the same question from girls visiting the workplace: " Can I have a family and work here, too?" In my current role at The White House Project, as we train thousands of women to lead in civic and political life in America, I hear the same tune again as women continue to question female politicians about work and family.
So what does this have to do with being pro-life or pro-choice? Essentially, it forms the crux of the entire abortion debate.
As Kristen Luker said in her 1984 book, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, real concern about abortion has to do with whether women will stop choosing motherhood if we have other choices. Although the mantra of the pro-choice movement is prevention and not abortion, and though focus has been on the myriad ways women and men can use contraception, the rabid opposition to abortion continues. Interestingly, during the Clinton administration, abortions decreased, while under George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both "pro-life" presidents, abortions increased.
What if the immense amount of energy and money, the anger and divisiveness that go into the "pro-life" movement were to go toward movements that help men choose fatherhood, and help communities support families through abundant childcare? As a former preschool teacher, I know children prefer being with groups of other children and learning together, and that working with children alongside other adults (what amounts to tribal ways of raising children) is far superior to isolated nuclear families.
Fortunately, this is the direction Obama took in his address at Notre Dame. He encouraged respectful dialogue and policies that care for and support women and their children. When hecklers in the audience stood and shouted hateful epithets, the audience drowned them out, retorting with Obama's campaign slogan, "Yes, we can."
That is what it truly means to "choose life."
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
Part 1
I have personally grappled with this my entire life and have gone from one side to the other, and have found myself for many years now believing that the child in the womb is one of the most vulnerable lives, and therefore should be protected under the constitution. If this puts me in the wingnut category for some, so be it, but for others who do not memorialize others with fossilized interpretations, please hear me.
I have grave reservations when the final argument boils down to how could I - or should I - ever rightly force a particular choice onto someone else. I do not discount the kind of compassion that would lead someone in this direction, but doesn't it shy away from the whole picture? There are upwards of 800,000 abortions in the U.S., and I believe that is each year.
We have laws that protect life. If someone murders a pregnant woman, they are charged with double murder. There are laws against rape, murder, assault, etc. because they are crimes against life. Should these be rescinded? Of course not, as no argument would suffice.
To complicate the matter, what is your opinion on fetuses with birth defects?
What if the birth defect will kill the baby within a day of its birth (such birth defects do exist)?
Should a mother, finding this defect in the beginning of the second trimester abort the fetus?
Or should she carry it 6 more months to term, knowing it will die within the first day?
What about really severe birth defects, the kind that will bankrupt a family?
What about fairly severe birth defects, the kind that will severely handicap the family, and the child will never be able to take care of him/herself after the parents die?
Should GOPers be able to force people to carry these to term?
Well lets take your thought a step further. What if someone wanted to selectively abort a fetus b/c they found out the sex and they didn't want it. What if doctors developed a test for the "gay gene" and parents want to abort on this basis?
I'm not a GOPer, but I believe that we all know there are certain risks associated with having sex, so when does personal responsibility come into play?
You are partly right about the laws providing for double murder charges in the case of a pregnant woman. HOWEVER, those laws take effect the same time that abortion laws STOP being in effect: At the start of the third trimester. If you were to kill a pregnant woman who was in the first two trimesters, you would simply be charged with a single murder. ONLY if you do it after the third trimester starts can you be charged double!
really? are you serious?
"it's just a matter of which life you're discussing: the fetus in the womb or the woman carrying it".
to equate the murder of a baby with a womans discomfort. to say that because i cannot drink or smoke for a few months i am on equal ground with having my life sucked out of my brainstem? to argue on behalf of abortion is your prerogative but at least try to find an argument that will hold water. i am sorry with all of the available adoption resources available there is no reason to abort a baby other than selfishness. the argument about the life of the mother is less than 1 percent, and we can set that aside, and debate the remaining convenience abortions. did you know how much money the planned parenthood corporation made last year? look it up. did you know they target minorities and poverty stricken individuals?
http://www
http://www
Why are you waving the OMG genocide flag around when in 2005 1.75x more abortions were performed on white women?
Carrying a pregnancy to term is more dangerous to the mother than medical termination of that pregnancy. Therefore I support abortion on demand in the interest of preserving the health of the carrier.
I am pro-choice. I chose to carry both my fetuses to term. There were only two because my husband and I chose to MAKE only two.
My daughters are pro-choice. One (along with her husband) has adopted a baby and fosters an older child. The other has had no children yet (and no abortions--she and her husband understand how to use birth control).
Pro-choice does not mean that we are all out having semi-annual abortions or prodding other women to do so.
Pro-choice means that we reserve the right to make our own reproductive choices. And we do not make these choices for anyone else.
I wish the anti-choice people would be just as respectful. (Make you own choices, and allow others to do the same).
At what stage of development is the baby allowed a choice?
viability, not before
Birth.
Immediately after the first breath.
Excellent post!
I don't think I have ever heard the Pro-Choice position conveyed so clearly and powerfully. To me, your statement.
"Pro-choice means that we reserve the right to make our own reproductive choices."
...says it all. It is a right that belongs to the person. Government should have no influence over it at all. That is why it has become an amendment to our Constitution.
No one wants to live under the weight of someone else's religious beliefs. Religions should tend to their flocks. But as a nation that is built on the individual's rights, no one's religion should be imposed on the citizens. There is an obvious corollary between this instance of religious influence in government and the one we all decry in Afghanistan and Pakistan where sharia law is being imposed.
"Interestingly, during the Clinton administration, abortions decreased, while under George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, both "pro-life" presidents, abortions increased.
That is not true. The abortion rate has been steadily declining since 1979.
http://www
If the abortion rate has been going down steadily since 1979, why are we in such a tizzy about abortion? I once asked a group of fellow churchgoers how many women did they know who had abortions? There were none in the group of 35. I then asked how many knew a woman who had a miscarriage; there were 5 responses to the affirmative. Nature (God) performs abortions more often than humans do.
"...why are we in such a tizzy about abortion?" Because there are still about a million every year.
tdpubs, people who oppose abortion do so because they believe that a fetus is a human life and, thus, abortion is the equivalent of murder.
Now read your argument again: The murder rate has been going down steadily since 1979, so why are in such a tizzy about people murdering other people?
If you support legalized abortion, then argue that a fetus is not a human life. The question of when human life begins is the only relevant issue in this debate.
Unplanned pregnancies & abortions did trend upwards in the latter part of GW's reign.
WRONG!!!! The rate has been relatively steady, with a decrease during Clinton's term, and an oppsite increase in Raygun, daddy, and the shrub's terms!
"As Kristen Luker said in her 1984 book, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, real concern about abortion has to do with whether women will stop choosing motherhood if we have other choices."
Well, 25 years later, she has been proven wrong. Women are still having babies even though we have access to abortion and contraception.
You shouldn't mislabel the people who are anti-abortion. Most of them worry that a later term fetus will feel pain while being cut to pieces or burned with saline in the womb. They wonder at what point does the baby have the right to live, the basic human right. Isn't a society judged by how it treats its least powerful members?
I think abortion for sex selection is female genocide. Aborting babies with minor defects is eugenics.
Don't oversimplify the issue and impugn false motives to those who disagree with you.
"Don't oversimplify the issue and impugn false motives to those who disagree with you."
I don't believe she did.
most every body tries to fit this odd shaped factual situation into either a perfect square or a perfect circle. a fetus at any stage is not simply a part of the mothers body, nor is it a true person from the very moment the sperm touches the egg. neither one is the truth. but most people on either side want to avoid the truth to get to where they want to go. I dont even know what the real motivation is with many on either side. it is typical of recent politics, everything must be filtered through a political lens.
The courts have decided that a fetus is most "viable" after the third trimester. As a father of two boys and the father of a third fetus that was aborted by Nature (God) I accept the fact that not all fetuses will come to term.
I have not found any reason to tell others when to determine the viability of their fetus. Those who wish to dwell on the pain and suffering of fetuses are in the same camp as those who feel the pain and suffering of animals heading for slaughter.
I will respect their right to their beliefs but in the end, they need to let others live their lives and make their own choices. It's called personal responsibility.
I would never equate a baby in the womb with an animal going to sla ughter. That's repellent.
Some children get sick or have accidents and di e before reaching adulthood. This does not give license to anyone to k ill a child, so this is another repellent argument.
Again, I am ok with very early abortions being legal (and any abortion to save the mother), but the arguments some pro-choice people use are just horrible. I sympathize more with the anti-abortion crowd because they don't see innocent human life as sub-human or disposable.
Let the nutcases froth on. Those who call themselves "pro-lifers" are, ironically, all too often rabidly in favor of the death penalty. The same "pro-lifers" have a tendency to link arms with racists, anti-immigrant types, child labor apologists, misogynists and creationists. You aren't going to reach the wingnuts on this issue, no matter how much you attempt to reason with them.
so if we stand for faith and the teachings of christ we are wingnuts? i challenge your reasoning as i is apparent that you have none. true christians are opposed to all racism as that is what the bible teaches. the death penalty is commanded in the bible, and anti immigration has nothing to do with race as hispanics are generally considered white. also why would we want 20 million central americans to flood in and bring their culture to america when it so obviously works there? is creationist meant to be disparaging? since i am still waiting for darwin to show me that elusive intermediate species of apefishrep
just a side note, that since we have become more diversified in our culture and more tolerant of alternative lifestyles, i find a world increasingly lost and utterly devoid of morals. when society looses its foundation of faith and segments of the population have no conscience to restrain themselves in everything from a lies to murder, at that point either the government does or we devolve into anarchy as mexico has, and either choice is doom. lets hear your "reason".
Where is the death penalty commanded in the Bible? There are a lot of things in the Bible that most Christians do not take literally, but pick and choose what suits there needs.
Not much one for facts, are you?
Jesus condemned the death penalty. Hispanics are not considered white on any document I can think of. And before you go moaning about the immorality of lies, ask who's lying to teenagers in an attempt to make them hate sex, who's lying to the American public to goad them into supporting a war, who else is lying to the American public to stir up the sort of fear that delivers the GOP vote.
YOU FAIL.
So where in the Bible does it say that it's against the law to abort a fetus?? I can point out to you SEVERAL places where it sure looks like it's okay according to god's law!
Rmath, there is nothing "ironic" about being opposed to abortion (i.e., an innocent fetus should not be terminated) but being in favor of the death penalty (i.e., people guilty of certain crimes do not deserve to continue living). The real contradiction comes from those people who think abortion should be legal but the death penalty should be abolished.
If a person doesn't believe in choice, don't have an abortion and keep your biases to yourself. Your opinions don't hold power over anyone else.
Mr. Everts, people who oppose abortion primarily do so because they believe that a fetus is a human life and, thus, abortion is murder. Now, read your argument again: "If you don't believe in murder, don't murder anyone." That's great logic. If you want to argue that a fetus is not a human life, please do so, because your current argument just shows that you don't understand the other side's position.
And if you would like to argue that an unborn fetus IS a human life, please do so, because your current argument just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about!!
Tell you what, I know for a fact that I was conceived on July 4, 1978. So on July 4, 1996, was I able to go out and buy a pack of cigarettes?? Nope, I had to wait until my BIRTHDAY, which was in April of 1997!!! So tell me exactly where there's a legal argument that fetuses are human life!
See Elizabeth Gregory's Profile
Well said! I'm with you Marie that the underlying debate here is about women's status in society -- only when women are in full control of their fertility can we get the education and then move up the work ladders into policy making roles in sufficient numbers to get our voices heard (see my recent post on Abigail Adams ["remember the ladies"] and the circularity of the problem -- as long as women are kept out of leadership roles in government and business, they can't change the culture to one friendly to women's and family's interests, and to date male legislators (with a few exceptions) have not seen it as sufficiently interesting to do it for them).
http://www
But we're getting there incrementally, and the next few years may be game changers.
Governors such as Jane Swift and Sarah Palin have pioneered governing while mothering small children. Palin brought her newborn to the office.
Both women were attacked by Democrats for doing that.
I too look forward to the day when our culture is more friendly to women's and and families' interests, but I would like to see both parties be honest about it, and quit the partisan attacks and hypocrisy.
I have no respect for the way Sarah Palin conducted herself during her last pregnancy and she should held up as what not to do in the latter part of a pregnancy.
Jane Swift was attacked by Mitt Romney by the way as well. I lived in Massachusetts at that time. On the other hand, Jane Swift was an awful governor; she abused a lot of things.
Sarah Palin was critized for bringing her newborn to work because she is a hypocrite.
1. The child has special needs and shouldn't be carted around like a trophy.
2. No other working woman would be able to boast about that. How many companies do YOU know that allow women to bring their children (let alone newborns!) to the office with them?
She even slashed the budget in her home state for funds for people that have special needs children.
I wasn't happy about the level of misogyny thrown her way but she is NOT the perfect mother the media portrays her to be.
Thank you. This is a major part of the reasonable, open-minded, open-hearted discussion we need to have on this topic.
I once got into a conversation with a cab driver, who started telling me about all the problems in the world that were caused because women weren't at home raising the kids. He proceeded to explain that women were supposed to be wives and mothers first, and not get distracted making a living.
So I asked him, what is a woman supposed to do when her husband turns out to be a bad person, and beats her, or beats the kids, or torments her, or cheats on her, or drinks, or otherwise fails to hold up his end of the bargain... and she's got no bank account, no assets, no skill set, no resume, no job experience, nothing that would allow her to make a life for herself and protect herself and her kids from this jerk?
His response, "I don't know... you're right..."
So even people who lean in the direction of being "old-fashioned" don't seem to have an answer... they just try to avoid thinking about the ramifications of their position, I guess. That "head-in-the-sand" attitude seems to be very popular for conservatives.
Beautiful turnaround!
Clavis, so the only reason women should be in the work force is so that they can be prepared just in case their husbands turn out to be alcoholic abusers?
methinks you miss the point.
no. we should be in the workforce so we don't have to rely on another person whether they treat us well or not. we should be in the workforce as our own independent selves and support our own independent selves.
What we need to continue to do is empower our daughters with the concept that it is their body and their choice. We must stop polarizing this issue and condemning the other side. Lets work to help make our communities more family-friendly including jobs in offices with good daycare facilities, better healthcare benefits and flexible hours that underscore the pro family mantra so both fathers and mothers contribute as equally as possible in the raising of their children. Lets stop the bickering between working mothers and non-working mothers both from peers and one generation to another that trickles down to making that decision to have a child or not.
Mary Ellen Walsh
www.daught
As one who has serious and grave issues with the current approach to abortion in our society, I nevertheless have always shied away from those labels. Pro-life suggests those who are on the other side are somehow anti-life. Of course, it goes both ways. Most people who are against our current approaches to abortion are not anti-women, anti-choice, or want government crawling into someone's body. The problem with this, as well as most hot button issues today, is that they are clouded by such broad and sweeping generalizations of those with whom we disagree. And naturally, the opposite reaction can be just as bad. As soon as you say you're on the 'pro-life' issue, those who will not budge an inch will, before you know it, start asking things like 'what's so big about life anyway', or saying 'there's only some life that is valuable.' And once you go down that path, your posterity is royally screwed. Which is, of course, where those who say they are pro-life don't want to go in the first place! So, better descriptive terms would not hurt.
most people recognize that the development of the egg into a person is a gradual one and are less concerned with an early abortion that a later. oddly enough the bible seems to agree with the notion of a gradual process rather than a bright line now you arent there and now you fully are. the church used to believe that the fetus quickened at 40 days. some recent studies might suggest the pineal gland mediates between the soul and the body. it develops at 49 days. the politics of the issue has polarized both sides into rigid positions.
Before abortion was made illegal, it was commonly accepted that life did not begin until quickening - about the 4th month, when a woman first felt the baby move. No one considered abortion prior to that point as being the taking of a life.
That was my understanding anyway. Maybe you are right about the 40 days.
Thank you for the info about the pineal gland. It sounds fascinating and something to investigate further (my knowledge of it, that is)
Are you such a simpleton that you believe your genome is THAT important? Screw posterity. Less posterity = more to go around.
Your statement:
"I know children prefer being with groups of other children and learning together, and that working with children alongside other adults (what amounts to tribal ways of raising children) is far superior to isolated nuclear families."
is either something I completely disagree with, or is misleading. What you seem to be saying is that we should scrap the traditional nuclear family, and start Kibbutz's, like they have in Israel.
Show me some evidence, because I believe that most kids do best having close relationships with the people they live with.
It's so true! Studies showed kibbutzniks raised in the cooperative style were far less capable of forming cohesive long-term relationships than non-kibbutz raised kids.
I think the whole article is misleading. Citing her resume and talking about work is really not the same as being pro-life or pro-choice, even if I agree that most people are "pro-life.
So what? Maybe they were far more capable of polyamorous relationships.
I think you just misread the intent of that sentence. Note the contrast is against "isolated nuclear families". Note the word isolated. In otherwords kids like being around other kids and learn best in that environment. Nothing too controversial there.
Actually many studies have shown that children that spend time in daycare before school age do better in school and in social situations, but not if they are in daycare 24/7. Just google it.
how traditional is the traditional nuclear family? i suggest people didnt used to live primarily in nuclear families. the modern age of consumerism has encouraged that and it does encourage consumption. do you really believe that people didnt live in tribes, villages or extended families during most of history. the merchants want us to live in smaller units because we end up buying more of everything that way. mom and dad and jr live in a separate house far from cousins and uncles and aunts and each must have a car and probably the consumption of food and other items is less efficient. isolating the nuclear family is very good for business but maybe not for kids.
I don't know about the "traditional" family but isolated? What else would you call the environment that was created by homesteaders and the westward migration?
I think the positive effects of children spending their time alongside both mother AND father is underestimated.
I think finally someone is getting to the heart of the matter. Roe V Wade is settled law for over 30 years because it gives women "liberty" over their own bodies, reproduction, labor, childbearing and family planning. This is a liberty that the majority of the US population (women) have won and should have never had to fight for, or risk losing ever again. Why are men even allowed an opinion for something they cannot do or will never face (pregnancy) other than to control women? Women have been controlled through centuries, by men in the church, men in the law, men in the Congress..
When a single liberty is being compromised that affects a select group of people, whether it be women, gays, muslims, christians
I have a fundamental liberty as a woman to bear or not bear a child. It is a private medical decision that affects no one but me. No one has to know unless I make it known. The subjugation of women has gone on long enough. The oppression going on against women around the globe has been going on for centuries. I do not think the United States has to, 30 years later after Roe V Wade, tell women what we think they should be doing with their private decisions.
At what point does a female fetus obtain the right of control of her own body? When does she have the right to live?
When she has the right to have an induced miscarriage without guilt or judgement.
This is like saying that a child in the home should have the right to have control of her own body. I don't know about you, but my parents made me follow the rules, and I didn't have a say while I lived under their roof. they paid the bills, they made the choice. To ask when a female fetus has the right to control her own body when a fetus is incapable of surviving outside the mother's body COMPLETELY ON HER OWN" is a ridiculous argument.
At the age of 18, if you ask most evangelicals.
Roe was a proper and logical application of the 4th amendment limiting the reach of government. however had it been clear that in 1781 a fetus was generally regarded as a person it would have been different because you would have a conflict between the rights of two people. IN 1781 I think it was not generally accepted. therefore the founders did not intend that the government would have the right over the individual to seize her person. Prolife people should honor the constitution and seek an amendment. that might force a real debate about it. I think trying to take an absolutist approach of this- is- just- a- part- of -my -own body is as wrong as saying a fetus is from the moment of conception a full blown person. we need to stop forcing the truth into the molds we like. most people when the issue is not framed in absolute terms see the essential reality. insisting on polarized concepts is leading us around in circles and only serving political agendas.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
