A voice of sanity in amidst the name-calling...

[missroserose]

So the Empire's printed a couple of anti-Planned-Parenthood letters lately. They've at least appeared to be thoughtfullly written on the surface, although many of the arguments they've made have been based on faulty assumptions (something that the pro-choice people aren't entirely free of, either). One of them that really made me laugh was claiming that since Planned Parenthood was a business like any other, their entire purpose in offering discounted birth control and whatnot was to line women up for the big-ticket item - an abortion. That was so fallacious on so many levels I didn't even think it was worth responding to. A more serious letter had a response printed today that I thought was very reasonable:


I'm fascinated by the letter written by the president of Alaskans for Life (Empire, Feb. 3). I sincerely hope this was a bad example of their views, because Ms. Barnack made some pretty arrogant assumptions.

She says no one needs an abortion. I'd love to hear that said to a woman who has ever had pregnancy that occurred in her fallopian tube, for one thing. Or to the woman who would be beaten to a pulp if their partner found out they were pregnant, or to the rape victim or to the victim of incest.

Abortion is not only about medical need. Pregnancy is as much as an emotional and psychological state as it is a physical one. Is the president of Alaskans for Life arguing that a woman should have to go through a pregnancy just because? No matter how traumatized and unready they may be? Can we really say that yes, definitely, absolutely that is the better choice in all situations for all women? Is it wrong to put the mother's life, including her emotional well-being, at a higher priority than her pregnancy? Why is that so distasteful for us?

For those out there who morally oppose abortion, that's fine. Really. Seriously. No asterisks. No sarcasm. If you feel that life on a spiritual and religious level starts at conception, there's not really much to argue with. I'm not going to tell you that abortion is always the moral and ethical choice, because it's not my place and I don't know. And that, my pro-choice, pro-life and in-between friends, is what we should go on: I respect your right to do things I disagree with. You don't have to support abortion. You don't have to get one. But can you say that it is your place to make one of the most serious, major life decisions there is for another person?

This is the point that so many people (pro-choice, pro-life, Democrat, Republican, gay, straight, whatever societal label you want to give them) seem unable or unwilling to understand - people should be able to make their own decisions. That's what free will is all about. If you believe homosexuality is the scourge of the earth and should not be allowed under any circumstances, fine - but let those people who consider themselves homosexual discover that for themselves. After all, if you're right, they'll find out sooner or later, right?

Or to use the issue at hand - leave well enough alone. Women are people, they have free will, and while they may make decisions they'll regret, that's their lesson to learn, and it's not your job to prevent them from learning it. Or it's possible they won't regret it at all and it would in fact be better all around. The point is - you don't know, it's not your life, so let them live it.

Ooookay, this went on a bit long. I think I'm going to step down off the soapbox for a while...

Comments

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

The big problem with this, at least on the anti-abortion side, is that in their minds many of them feel that they are protecting innocent lives, saving babies, and these doctors are murdering actual people.(*) Whereas if somebody is homosexual, they're only sending themselves to damnation unless they manage to corrupt some other innocent and lead them into a life of sin as well. And so the idea that it's not their place isn't going to play well.

(*)I do notice that even the rabid ones who want to charge doctors who perform abortions with murder never mention charging the mother, who requested this medical service, with the same charges. I don't know why this is.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Interesting point about murder charges. I actually hadn't noticed that before.

This is a point that I really don't think I'm ever going to be able to see eye-to-eye with anyone on. Abortionfacts.com (which I've mentioned here before) claims that a woman has certain but not total rights to her own body*, and I think that's absolute BS. If you want to think of a fetus as a person, fine, whatever, but so long as it's physically dependent on me it's still part of my body and if I want to get rid of it that's a decision that should be between me, whatever deity(ies) I believe in, and my boyfriend/husband if I wish to share it with him. It's not affecting anyone else, so it's not their business. Period.

*It's beside the point but still interesting to note that that same site claims men have total rights to their body...are you telling me that once I'm knocked up I'm a second class citizen to both my husband/boyfriend *and* my baby? Give me a break.

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

And I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is, this is why that line of reasoning has, thus far, failed to produce harmony and peace between the varying factions. Because some of the factions believe it is not your right to do this thing they disagree with.
Of course, given their druthers, they likely don't believe it's your right to do a lot of other things they disagree with, like blaspheme or let gays get married or do business on a Sunday (another of the commandments that modern Christians seem to have mislaid--honoring the Sabbath and keeping it holy).

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

Heh. I'm sure you're right. Mostly I was lamenting the fact that I really can't see that side of the argument, whereas usually I can find some sort of common ground. *sigh*

I like your icon; it seems particularly appropriate to political discussions. :)

[cyranocyrano.livejournal.com]

I've got a few icons for political discussions, but more and more this one seems to be appropriate as politics becomes less and less a discussion about serving the greater good and more and more a 'war' over who's right and who's destroying this great country and should be charged with treason.

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

That one reminds me of a keychain I bought for Brian recently - "Stop talking. I'm out of aspirin."

[vindaloo-vixen.livejournal.com]

'Interesting point about murder charges. I actually hadn't noticed that before.'
Interesting point indeed. In that context, wouldn't she be an accessory, like someone who orders a hit? (Only if one thinks that way to start with, that is.)

This pricked my attention because of the recent news in Australia that RU486[*] has just passed one round of being made legal/available/whatever. Whatever my own opinions are, it's been interesting watching the way the media's been playing it. All the pro-choicers shown are women and appearing sensible, all the pro-lifers men and out-of-touch or generally loopy. Agenda-setting much?

At least they're back to calling an abortion an abortion rather than bizarre terms like 'pregnancy alternative' (yes, an expression I've heard used professionally). I don't know too many pro-lifers, but I can't think of many who have switched their views around because the process has a nicer-sounding name!

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

That does seem a bit agenda-setting, but I feel like I should point out that (at least here in Alaska) I've met many, many more loopy and vitrolic pro-lifers than pro-choicers. It may well be because they stand out against the woodwork, more. True, I have met some pro-lifers who are reasonable about things, but I've had to seek them out because generally they don't want to get caught up in the debate. So perhaps it's not bias on the part of the media so much as laziness. :)

"Pregnancy alternative"? *laughs* Wow, that's...really something.