I was thinking of continuing an argument with Contratimes about access to abortion and his views on the responsibilities of women, but I've come to a very quiet place about this issue.
It is my belief that safe and legal abortion should be accessible to every woman, young and old. For the poor, that means free abortions. I don't fear it because G_d and/or biology chose women to bear children, with good reason, I assume. Most of the time, about 80% of the time in this country, women choose to carry their pregnancies to term. Sometimes, biology ends our pregnancies. I know lots of women who have had more miscarriages than children. I will never accept that a fetus is an independent person from its mother, and until we learn to grow babies without mothers (G-d forbid), this will be my view.
I believe that a pregnancy is a physical and spiritual relationship between the mother, the father (if she's lucky), her child, and her G_d. Mother and child are symbiotic, not separate human beings. I believe it really is the most precious, spiritual relationship I will ever know. I grieve for the mothers who do not feel this relationship, and for those who do, yet are still compelled to have an abortion, or who have suffered a miscarriage. I do grieve for the tragic loss of human life, whether from miscarriages, or from abortions.
If one, any one, coerces, manipulates, threatens, intimidates or supports legal roadblocks to a woman seeking abortion, they are replacing their moral conscience for hers. No matter the law, or our moral judgements, she must bear the weight of her decision alone, and with G_d, and hopefully, with her family.
As Contratimes said, most women are built for having children. Most of us want to have children. That does not mean we are required to have children, that does not mean we are limited to that function, that does not mean that all women can have children, nor should, and that does not mean that we are required to risk having children every time we desire sex. Most of all, that does not mean that any man or woman can replace a woman's moral choices about her reproductive future, with their own.
I'm tired of being angry about this issue, tired of feeling resentful that a whole movement calls women murderers for ending a symbiotic life, and that voices scant support for preventative contraception and emotional education. For the very few women who abort callously, I cannot have anything but compassion and sympathy for a human being who has found herself in such an unfeeling position. I must work on finding sympathy and compassion for those who believe that unintended pregnancies that end in abortion is the most pressing cultural problem in this country. I think our abortion rate is a symptom of two much larger problems--emotional intelligence and dwindling communal institutions. Making abortion rare involves drastically improving our tool sets for our familial relationships and our communities.
Peace.
5 comments:
The concept of symbiosis between mother, child and G-d (and the dad, if lucky) hit me in a way I hadn't thought about it before. For men, at least, it is this very lack of it that enables us to impose such a moral judgment on a woman - at best, he sees the life independent, worthy of protection, at worst, he abdicates responsibility for the pregnancy onto the woman and that she and the baby must face the consequences of it.
As for women, I can't say I'm remotely qualified to comment about what it means to face a pregnancy. Which is why I can't condemn it or advocate criminalizing it.
Thank goodness I'm not in this situation, but what about a couple who becomes pregnant, and the man wants the baby to be carried to term and the woman doesn't?
Through wars we, the male species, became to dominate our women. Only in some rare societies where warring wasn't a neccessity, women got leading role. They also had the say about their reproductivity. To me, there is no question that all the arguments against abortion are basically because of men wanting to have this supremacy over their women in the most profound way.
I love your taste in music and Jarred Dymond (did I spell right) writes truths like nobody else.
Happy thanksgiving to you and yours, Pinks!
For what it's worth, I am linking for you my 'forever' position on Reproductive Rights.
I especially liked your phrasing above,
"I will never accept that a fetus is an independent person from its mother, and until we learn to grow babies without mothers (G-d forbid), this will be my view . . . .
. . . .Most of us want to have children. That does not mean we are required to have children, that does not mean we are limited to that function, that does not mean that all women can have children, nor should, and that does not mean that we are required to risk having children every time we desire sex. Most of all, that does not mean that any man or woman can replace a woman's moral choices about her reproductive future, with their own.
The last sentence quoted above addresses, if it does not resolve, Schmog's question.
I checked out the author's name and sadly once again managed to screw it up. The name is, of course, Jared Diamond. The Guns Steel and Germs changed totally how I view the world.
Vigilante, yes, but there's another element also. The quote prefacing that last sentence says the desire to have children (or sex for that matter) does not automatically lead to the requirement to have children. True enough. But put another way, that leads to the conclusion that a potential father in ALL cases shouldn't have a say in the fate of his baby. That acknowledges a moral trade off that needs to be highlighted.
Hypothetical for instance - what about a couple who has been having sex for years, both emotionally invested in each other? Say further they never discussed what would happen if she did become pregnant and he wants the baby? Is there some responsibility and assumption of risk on the woman's part if she does become pregnant? Is there a social contract between those two? How emotionally devastating for the man would that be if his baby were aborted against his will? What if he legally is bound to be caretaker and is proven to be a capable parent, no less so than a single mom? Aren't we denying him part of his ability to fulfill his humanity?
Ultimately I do side with the final decision resting with the woman, primarily for the reasons that Pink lays out in her post and in my first comment. But, as with so many other things, the decision comes with a price.
Post a Comment