I hate to link back to another blogger in two consecutive posts, but it's going to happen on occasion, especially with people like Dean Esmay and James Joyner.

This time it's Dean, who's written an especially thoughtful entry on abortion. I think that most of us can agree that the Roe v. Wade case was especially destructive to the national psyche, in that it was not a thoughtful decision legally--and that it Federalized something that should have been left to the states. It exacerbated tensions on the matter, and has kept the wound festering for forty years.

Official bias statement: I'll stipulate that I'm pro-choice, except in the case of partial-birth abortions, which I would prefer to allow only if the woman's life is in jeopardy. (I'd love to leave the language "life and health" intact, but health is often interpreted very loosely. [That is, sometimes it's taken to mean the woman's fertility. Others, it's taken to mean "mental health," which in practice equals "if she'll be upset by a live birth in any way, she gets to kill the baby."])

Dean discussses the gender gap on the issue, which falls contrary to where stereotypes place it: more women are pro-life than men. This has often been atrributed to various factors: 1) men are more likely to be interested in "no strings" sex (I'm unconvinced that this is the case WRT women in their teens and early 20s); 2) women carry children, and this experience (or even sometimes its potential) is more likely to give women a certain reverence for nascent life; 3) older women will sometimes get married, get pregnant, look at the ultrasound pictures, and have a "holy fucking shit!" moment. That is: "if it's a baby this time around, what was it that first time?" Answer: a baby.

I have something to say about each side, here. First, I'll look at something I see among some pro-lifers. I'm always confused--and perhaps even taken aback--by those who say that they are adamantly pro-life, but favor exceptions for rape victims. If your position is that the rights of the fetus should be respected, how is it different for a fetus that was conceived during a violent act? He or she can hardly be held responsible for that. To me, this position appears to represent the point of view that pregnancy is a punishment for sex. Since the woman isn't responsible for the sex act, she shouldn't have to endure the "punishment" for it. If that's your position, fine. But please acknowledge it for what it is. And admit that you only want to protect some unborn children, and not others. I don't think it's a position without merits, but it has an intrinsic contradiction, and there's a faintly sex-negative smell to it.

I also want to say a word to the pro-abortion people. One of the concerns that the anti-abortion people have is that the word "choice" is used a lot by those who would give young women no choice at all. That is, "I want my daughter to have a 'choice,' so I can pressure her into getting an abortion." Or: "I want my girlfriend to have a 'choice,' so I can threaten her with awful consequences if she doesn't terminate the pregnancy." After all, the debate over counseling usually comes down to neither side trusting the other to counsel young girls in a truly neutral way.

There is a tendancy for the "adults" around a young woman to go into histrionics at the idea that she might experience nausea that could affect her GPA. Or that she could have a rough trimester and have to take a term or two off from school. There is such a concern about the slightest delay in her getting that all-important education.

Say what?

I live in the richest country in the world. I belong to a gender that out-lives the other by years and years. If there is one thing we should have time and money for, it's having babies. (And, believe me--if you're young and pregnant, there are Christian groups [Catholic and Protestant] that will help you with prenatal care and the other costs you incur by carrying this baby to term.)

Graduate a little later. Have the kid, and have it placed. Years later, if you can't have children because you waited too long, you'll feel better asking young women to let you raise the kids they bear.

Trust me on this.

There's also that "selective sentimentality" thing, wherein young women are encouraged to feel so sentimental toward the little lives inside them that they can't possibly "give them up for adoption." But they can kill them. The most loving thing you can do when you haven't yet finished your education is to allow someone who has to raise that baby in a good environment.

What if we were to take the words "safe, legal and rare" seriously? What if we really tried to make that a reality, and stopped pressuring women and girls into having this procedure?

I think we'd be better off. I really do.

Posted by: Attila at 03:47 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 5 kb.