My new heroes – heroines, rather –
are two high school girls who were sitting in a pizza place on
Lohman, saw the folks protesting the not-yet-opened women's health
clinic, and quickly made pro-choice signs and stood outside for hours
countering the protest.
The women's health clinic should be
welcomed. I'd defend to the death the rights of those who protest
it; but I disagree.
We should not refer to it as “an
abortion clinic” because abortions represent a small portion of the
services it will offer women who need them. But neither should
anyone be ashamed to say that the place provides abortions, safely
and legally.
In part, I feel so strongly because
the laws against abortion were a vestige of times and places where
women were not full citizens. Key decisions about their lives were
made by fathers, husbands, and even brothers – or by the State.
In larger part, I feel so strongly
because I'm old enough to recall a time and place when abortions were
illegal and some very ugly things happened to women and girls who
needed or felt they needed abortions and could only get them on the
black market.
Normally, an abortion in a hospital or
clinic is medically simple and safe; and if there's some
complication, it's quickly dealt with.
Outlawing abortions means girls and
women die in backrooms because they aren't prepared to raise a child.
Carelessness, particularly during the hormonal madness that is youth
for most of us, should not be a capital crime. (It isn't for men!)
As a white male, I'm privileged.
Black youths as rebellious as I was tended to end up dead or in jail
during my youth. I could experiment sexually, as is natural, with
some potential consequences but none as devastating as what girls my
age faced. I'm grateful – but without closing my eyes to others'
realities.
I understand the repugnance some folks
feel toward abortion. It's a heavy subject, deciding whether or not
a potential human being shall come into existence. But it's not
society's decision, legally or as a matter of fairness. Or if we
apply the ideal of freedom we espouse so freely in this country.
I'd understand the anti-choice folks
better if many of them didn't oppose birth control information and
access to birth control, thus funneling so many lives into the
abortion decision path at the same time they're trying to remove the
“decision.”
I'd understand their reverence for
life better if many of them weren't loudly pro-death-penalty, and if
others weren't displaying their lack of reverence for life by denying
current climatological and environmental threats to life as we know
it.
I'd understand their opposition to
choice for women if the issue hadn't gotten sucked into a larger
social controversy over the 1960's and society's role in individual
morality. Some say “life is sacred!” and mean it; but others
secretly mean “girls shouldn't fornicate, so let them be punished!”
All this is true even without listing
the horribles: that anti-choice folks would make a girl bear and
raise a child resulting from rape or incest, or a child with little
chance at a rewarding life, or where childbirth poses special dangers
to the woman's health.
Having a child should be beautiful.
The child should be wanted, and loved. Sadly, that's not always what
happens. The advocates of outlawing abortion cannot or will not care
for all the unwanted children, financially or emotionally. Even if
they could, they shouldn't get to decide the fate of a mother's body.
Religions should not make our
political decisions. Catholicism, Islam, and Buddhism offer much to
believers, but shouldn't legislate for non-believers.
-30-
[The column above appeared in the Las Cruces Sun-News this morning, Sunday, 5 October.
The first version was an account of a young relative's abortion back in the days when abortions were illegal. That incident isn't why I think as I do on this issue, but it deepens my feelings on the subject.
I don't know that the column adds anything new to the debate, but since some folks in our community seem determined to make it an issue again, it seems worth reiterating that the law permits abortions, that there are good reasons it does so, and that as a matter of common sense and constitutional law, such matters should be up to a woman and her physician. The freedom ideal we all cherish, whatever our day-today-political views, should protect women, particularly with regard to such an intimate subject as their own bodies.]
I don't know that the column adds anything new to the debate, but since some folks in our community seem determined to make it an issue again, it seems worth reiterating that the law permits abortions, that there are good reasons it does so, and that as a matter of common sense and constitutional law, such matters should be up to a woman and her physician. The freedom ideal we all cherish, whatever our day-today-political views, should protect women, particularly with regard to such an intimate subject as their own bodies.]
Excellent Peter! Thank you for concisely stating everything that I think and feel about the Pro Choice vs. Pro Life movements. Simple oppression is the reason why the government or other people have ever been given the right to determine what women do with their bodies in terms of the abortion law, and in my mind, it is time for the Pro-Lifers to go home and mind their own damn business! If they were actually good Christians, they would not be on this mission to oppress through the hegemony of religion and government.
ReplyDelete