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."

Comments

[jhw22]

I love this article. And I love that Joy Behar said something similar on The View the other day. This is a sign that we are reframing the debate that we allowed to be framed for us.

The Obama bumper sticker I chose to buy during the election was the "Pro Family, Pro Obama" sticker because I believe in family. And in no way is that in opposition to my belief in a woman's right to choose. Somewhere we allowed the right to hijack the debate with the words "Pro life" and "family values". I am for a woman's right to choose, for families, for values. I refuse to continue allowing someone else to define what my values are and what I stand for.

I also agree with the idea in this article that being a feminist does not mean that women are anti-mothering or anti-men. I have always hated the fish/bicycle metaphor because I believe that men and women need each other, give to each other, share with each other, etc. I am a well-rounded woman because I respect the women and men in my life. And as the mother of a boy, I feel this even more than I did before I was a mom.

Jennifer

[gotborked]

Except in as much as choosing abortion means that you oppose letting that child enter your family and in as much as it implies that you would rather sacrifice that child's life than make the personal sacrifices required for having it, of course you can be either pro-choice or pro-life and still hold common family values in high regard.

[valkyrie607]

How very morally superior of you.

Judge much?

[marxmarv]

Some of us do not fetishize sacrifice.

[jhw22]

I don't think of a wad of tissue as a child.

Do you know that most OB/GYN's don't see pregnant women before ten weeks pregnant because the chances of miscarriage, blighted ovum, etc are HIGH!? God didn't design women to know they are pregnant at conception. Women go weeks without knowing they are pregnant and many miscarry without even knowing. God created pregnancy in stages and commits abortions of his own throughout that first stage. When a "child" can survive without its mother THEN it is a child. Until then it's a wad of tissue. And until you chide God for the millions of abortions he performs, stay out of my uterus!

Jennifer

[CalexenderJ]

The debate is really pro-choice or anti-choice. Or to put it simply, should women have the option to choose to have an abortion. Now if you agree that they should, then you can go about trying to influence their decision. Things like comprehensive sex education and available contraception to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, affordable pre-natal care, childcare, flexible maternity policies, having men be more involved in fatherhood, providing education on adoption, all of these policies as well as many others would lead to an increase of women choosing life.

If on the other hand, you don't agree that women should have the option to get an abortion, choosing life is really a meaningless phrase.

[52projects]

Very well put CalexenderJ. Agreed.

[land2341]

Brava!! Well said!

[52projects]

I disagree with the author's suggestion that the majority of "rabid opposition" has to do with fear that women will not choose motherhood and thus disrupt this country's old ideals. I think any pro-lifer would say sure to author's suggestions, let's put energy toward helping fathers choose fatherhood, and toward abundant childcare, but the anger over the act of abortion would still remain, of course. To borrow from Hunkin, pro-lifers are angered by the denial of Truth. The author herself states "it's just a matter of which life you're discussing: the fetus in the womb or the woman carrying it" How right she is. Both are lives. How better than to be pro-choice for life. To voluntarily, of our own volition, choose life. And agreed, it should not be against the law to not do so. If anything, criminalizing the act of abortion strips woman of the right to choose, to borrow from the author "the moral high ground"

[ProgressiveVoice]

You emphasize the need to provide comprehensive family planning.

The most effective way to stop abortion is to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

[BigBadJohn]

"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." I don't think you want to carry this sentence to it's logical conclusion. You are saying the life of the fetus demands or destroys the life of the pregnant woman. The life of the mother is totally changed by choosing the life of the fetus, but it does not destroy the mother's life. The reverse choice by contrast does totally destroy the life and potential gifts and abilities of the child. If the choice truly did end the mother's future, the choice of abortion would always be the only one, but that is not the choice. I have personally experienced the overwhelming joy of a child's decision to not choose abortion in a seemingly impossible situation. The "fetus" is today the most beautiful young person and the mother's life is so much richer because of the decision to choose both lives.

I agree that too much energy is spent in conflict and I affirm the need to promote a proactive parenting involvement by both fathers and mothers.

[ellawensmom]

I've seen way too many "fetuses" who were carried to term, delivered, and then left to their own devices.
Children who are pimped out by mom and dad, beaten to death, abandoned, neglected, starved, raped, etc.
The story you have of a happy ending is not the only reality.
Being parented by absent, or drug abusing, or abusive moms/dads most often ALSO destroys the lives, potential gifts, and abilities of a child, and that is a FACT!

[CJ1]

It's not a "life." It can be frozen and thawed, so it is tissue. And actually, pregnancy is still the leading cause of female death in the world.

[marxmarv]

"The life of the mother is totally changed by choosing the life of the fetus, but it does not destroy the mother's life."

While they may move independently, form more or less grammatically correct sentences, and respond to stimuli, there are some I would hardly call _alive_.

[gotborked]

You say: "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."
Talk about false choice! Except in cases where a woman's life is in danger (and even the most avid pro-lifer would be in favor of using procedures that can result in the death of the baby when necessary to save the mother's life), no one is choosing to either off the woman or off the fetus.
What you pose is really that the degree of the mother's presumed QUALITY of life outweighs the fetus's actual life. Do the mother's wishes to go about obtaining a certain kind of life for herself outweigh the fetus's "wishes" for a life, period.

I know it stinks to be forced to pick a side/make a choice, and of course we all should work toward limiting those situations where an abortion is an appealing option, but when you get down to it--to an actual instance of a pregnancy--, you really do have to pick a side: are you going to say that the baby's life or death is primary to the mother's wishes to pursue a certain kind of life for herself (pro-life) or are you going to say that it is secondary (pro-choice)?

[ellawensmom]

The most avid pro-lifer would NOT be in favor of abortions if the mother's health were at risk.

[crowepps]

This statement is incorrect. Polls consistently show that a minimum of 4% and up to 12% of those asked believe "Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances, even if the mother's life is in danger."

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

[CJ1]

It does not matter what I say. It is not my body. It is hers.

[pfrogger]

"it's just a matter of which life you're discussing: the fetus in the womb or the woman carrying it"

I think you misunderstand the author's perspective.
Firstly, pro-choice means allowing the woman to choose. It's her life and her fetus. Shouldn't she have the final word? Because when we start saying people can't have abortions and make life decisions for themselves, then why can't I tell you how to raise your kids? why is that absurd but not the former? Does that mean I can choose for you and your family if I believe that I am protecting life in my opinion?
I am pro-life, but that doesn't mean I can tell others what to do with their body. I should never have the power over another human being to tell them what to do with their body and their fetus.
Fertilization of the egg is life? Human life? So is the egg not fertilized also life?. When you go from haploid to diploid numbers of chromosomes, it doesn't magically transform it into life, does it?
The final decision is a personal one and should be up to the mother, not some random individual who thinks they should decide another person's life. Why should the mother's choice be trumped by me or you, or anybody else?

[gotborked]

"...then why can't I tell you how to raise your kids? why is that absurd but not the former?"

You're right. You/society can't tell me how to raise my kids--up to a point. You/society can certainly tell me not to violently harm or kill my kids.

[ephoenix5]

Humm.... good point there. I guess we really are trying to label each other -- when the fact is -- most Americans would probably have to label themselves "pro-choic­e." Because they all would like to have the choice to end a pregnacy, if done by rape or incest or by some other unfortunate circumstance, etc. There are only a few religious nutjobs out there who would force a woman to birth her own brother or the child of a rapist.

The biggest devide the two camps have is the (let's call it) "casual" abortion done just because of the woman's wish not to carry to term -- for whatever reason -- school, family, too young, etc. But most would be "pro-choice" under other circumstances. There are less hard-core pro-lifers out there than we think.

[laocoon]

most people are both. if you dont spin this as an absolute for politics most people see what is true, the process is enigmatic but it is a process and a 5 day old fetus is not a full person as a 1year old child but it is also not another appendix of the mother. the extremes of either side are wrong and often motivated by issues they do not admit to.

[aprilshowers]

Thank you, thank you, thank you Marie Wilson. Amen! Why are there not more dialogues like yours out in the public arena? I have never understood how we let these anti abortion activists get away with calling themselves pro life. We are all pro life! The difference here is in the legal right of a woman to choose whether or not she would have an abortion. It is a grave decision that I would think is never taken lightly. If you are pro choice, you respect a woman's right to choose. If you are anti choice, you do not think that a woman has the right to choose. That's it, pure and simple. Take out emotional references and ask questions about a woman's right to choose versus no right to choose and see what a totally different response you get from the skewed Gallup pole that recently came out.

[gotborked]

How could the poll be skewed? Do you think anyone didn't understand what they mean by "pro-life" and "pro-choice"? Are you trying to tell us that if Gallup called you up, you'd answer that you were "pro-life"?

[bknott]

I agree - set the semantics aside, everyone knows (after 35 years!) that pro-choice people want abortion to stay legal, and that pro-lifers do not.

[COPerez]

Not "statistically skewed" but the choice of answers in the poll give a false result. Most people have a more nuanced stand on abortion than "pro-choice" and "pro-life".

[CJ1]

The only choices were: never, anytime (even in final term), only in instances of rape/death. According to the poll, I am pro-life because I don't think someone should be able to have an abortion two days before their due date (in the final trimester). That is how it is skewed.

[pfrogger]

you missed the details, and the devil is always in the details.
even though many consider themselves pro-choice, an overwhelming majority of the same don't think people should vote to take away a woman's right to choose.
I am pro-life, as is aprilshowers. But I should never have the power to tell others what to do with their body or their fetus. How is it OK to take away their choice? Can I take away some of your choices if I feel I am protecting life?
no one should have the power to take away another person's right to choose what to do with their body and reproductive choices. Ever!

[Just4theHalibut]

I would say that pro-life is a BS term made up by the anti-choicers, and HANG UP.

[averygard]

Amen. I so agree with you...I just know why Pres. Obama is saying what he's saying, though. There's probably no way to get done as much as we need to without getting at least a little less obstructionism from the right.

Personally, I'm all for even changing the terms--Pro-Choice versus Anti-Choice. That's what it means to me. Also, it never ceases to amaze me how few rabidly anti-choice people seem to care about, say, animals suffering, but they seem quite concerned about the "rights" of a non-sentient teaspoon-sized piece of tissue. The fact is, too, that if it was the other way around--if men could get pregnant--I firmly believe this would SO be a non-issue. Even the rightest of the right wing would see to it that every man had the right.

[youvegot2bekidding]

A famous feminist once said, 'if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.­'

It's also been misquoted as '...aborti­on would be a god given right' - and you can believe they'd claim just that.

[LeftRight]

Speaking as a man, I can assure you that this is UTTERLY TRUE!!!

[ufopp]

Along the same lines, I once heard that every office desk would have a built-in changing station.

[laocoon]

even if true it avoids the real question. I think God gave us a spiritual question, an angel with which me must wrestle in each case where the issue arises. I think both sides want to make this easy and automatic and are avoiding the spiritual exercise god intends.

[supersoygrrrl]

THANK YOU for drawing the conclusion that no one seems to see -the hypocrisy of its ok to inflict pain and suffering upon animals but to worry endlessly over a 'pre-born' human.

[AllanHunkin]

The thing that most fundamentalists don’t get on this issue is that no amount of shouting and polarizing will ever turn something from “untrue” to “True.” True is something you can only do in an individual situation after you have included all the factors as best you know them at the time.

Another mistake we make is that Inclusionism is not the polar opposite to Exclusionism because an Inclusionist can include an Exclusionist’s ideas within the possible solution but an Exclusionist cannot include Inclusionism in their possible solution.

We are so unskilled at Inclusionism It is hardly taught anywhere and is one of our greatest needs in these complex times.

With Gratitude
Allan Hunkin
Speaker, Writer, Broadcaster
Author of "Finding The Elegant Solution in Any Situation"
http://www.theelegantsolution.net

[youvegot2bekidding]

and what is your elegant solution here MR Hunkin?

[AllanHunkin]

I say in my book that WIN is a place beyone Win/Win "where everyone is winning but no one really feels the need to keep score"

The Elegant Solution would include both ideas... a woman's right to choose and the Religious Right's acknowledgement that life begins at conception­.'

Let me ask the question instead? What would world be like if we could allow, deep within us, for those two things to be True?

[CHRISLEE]

" Can I have a family and work here, too?"

NO!

[201curzonst]

I say "pro-life" protesters are knitting-needle abortionists - they are naive enough to believe that if Roe v Wade were suddenly overturned, there would magically be no more abortion.

[CHRISLEE]

In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed

If they were puppies&ki­ttens~you'­d be outraged!

[KrystynM]

And how would this change by overturning Roe V Wade?

[youvegot2bekidding]

1.21 million women made a difficult - for themselves, their families, their futures. No life began - and no life ended.

And no-one would be upset, let alone outraged, if cats and dogs were getting abortions.

[Jonny38103]

Actually no I wouldn't. 1.21M more children whose parents didn't want to or couldn't care for them? God knows the Right wouldn't care for them - they wouldn't vote for SChip, constantly cut education, are more than willing to continue to pollute the environment, just do about everything bad that hurts children once they're born. I say, put up or shut up. Until you adopt a biracial Downs Syndrome child, shut up. I don't see how your side of this dicussion is "pro" for any life. As always, it's love 'em 'til they're born.

[SoozeNYC]

(Actually, I AM outraged by the millions of animals that are euthanized every year because so many people believe that spaying and neutering is "unnatural­".)

[ellawensmom]

From 2003 to 2009, over 100,000 Iraqi people have been killed in the Iraq war. What are you doing to stop that? What about what's going on in Darfur, or Zimbabwe, or Somalia, or anywhere else that has massive bloodshed of the living? As far as puppies and kittens...­how many of those do you suppose get euthanized every day? I can almost guarantee there were more than 1.21 million in 2005.

If you don't choose to have an abortion, good. That doesn't give you the right to choose for other women.

[DDA]

Now article however it still is demonizing the Womans right to choose, yes Life is precious but what is good about a life when you are unwanted a burcden to the family and society Oh yes and DO NOT forget a BASTARD if you belong to a church. As a man I can listen to the woman and help her wrestle with the choice and the choice IS HERS for only she has to live with that decision.
A few years ago I listened to a radio station discussing Aburtion and Life and it wasn't the usual tirade of self glorification I hate you I am a christian or religeous demagoue, it was a insightful look from the women who made that choice it was a heart wrenching soul bearing ACCOUNTABLITY of the mental anguish these women went through. That day as a man I am glad I was driving and no one saw my tears for the pain that these women went through, fpr unlike the Wackos with their political action groups and their intefering church groups these women vascillated long and hard before maklung such a decsion. As you stated it is the interaction of all to help rear a Child, but in this Country that child better be a certain race color and religion, and be in lock step or be condemned. Only self annointed religious FREAKS they are carrying their gods message as they read their book of Fairy Tales.

[billyfromphilly]

You know, attacking religion really "helps" the debate. I don't know how you show a great understanding of the bloggers post and ice the cake off with a dumb remark about "book of Fairy Tales". Believing in God has very little to do with opposing abortion or contraception. Believing in a group of old powerful men claming to be the voice of God is the problem.

[RachelMc]

"Believing in God has very little to do with opposing abortion or contraception. " tell that to the 95% of "pro-life" people then that's their main argument about when a "soul" enters a body. and let that pesky pope know too.