SOMEONE ONCE ASKED GANDHI what he thought of Western Civilization, and he responded that he thought it would be a good idea. I would probably give a similar response if someone asked me what I thought of the “pro-life” movement.
I am familiar with the arguments in favor of abortion rights. The majority of my left-liberal friends and acquaintances believe that the choice to procure an abortion is between a woman and her doctor. They believe that controlling her fertility is a basic right a woman must not be denied; that women have a right to determine what happens with, and in, their bodies; and that the issue boils down to a woman’s right to self-determination and autonomy.
When I hear women say, “I have a right to control my body,” I agree — control of one’s body is one of the most basic rights there is, which is why crimes like torture and rape are so particularly heinous.
But here’s the thing: Neither major political party is pro-life in anything like a holistic sense.
Republicans often profess opposition to current abortion laws, but lip service is usually all that is on offer when it comes time to actually make a stand on the issue. There is some action around the periphery, but nothing resembling an effort to truly end the practice. They also oppose practically any policy that might make abortion a less tempting possibility.
In my view, the pro-life movement throwing in their lot with the Republican Party was a serious strategic error. In exchange for “supporting” pro-lifers, Republicans have bought the relative silence of pro-life Catholics and other Christians on other issues — the previously mentioned torture and war, as well as tilting the flow of economic benefits toward the rich and much else — where truly pro-life advocates would otherwise oppose them, and in the strongest terms.
For their part, national Democrats have defense of abortion rights as part of their platform and are beholden to NARAL, Emily’s List and other abortion rights advocates. (Worth mentioning, though: the party is enough of a “big tent” that there are Democrats like former Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, former Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, former Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and others who advocate a more restrictive regime.)
To be blunt, I seriously question whether the national leadership of the Republican Party even cares about abortion in any serious, committed way. Ask yourself: if they really consider abortion to be the equivalent of genocide, why is it that, when they actually gain power, the things they prioritize are all about tax cuts and economic deregulation (both of which hurt workers in different ways) and so forth?
Republicans could have made a lot of progress on abortion by going to the Democratic leadership in the House and Senate and saying: “Look, folks: we’ll brush off the insurance industry pocket lint from our suits and give you single-payer health care, if you’ll throw Emily’s List and NARAL under the bus and work with us on abortion. Do we have a deal?” I can imagine even the late Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy being tempted by such an offer.
But here’s the thing: let’s say that, tomorrow, the Supreme Court, in a surprise ruling, actually overturned Roe v. Wade and reverted the country to a pre-Roe reality. I think there is this idea among many pro-lifers that that would represent “mission accomplished” and then its activists could spend their energy doing mop-up operations.
I think they need to rethink this. Firstly, overturning Roe would return the issue to the states, and some would outlaw abortion, and others would keep it legal.
Secondly, I move enough in lefty circles to have a pretty good sense of what the reaction from pro-choicers would be, and trust me, it would be absolutely massive. There would be a huge, concerted and continuous effort to move a substantial portion of the general public to actively support the goals of the pro-choice movement. There’d be TV ads showing some wholesome-looking teenaged girl: “Jenny’s parents took this video at her 16th birthday party. She died two weeks later because of a botched back-alley abortion. No one likes abortion, but should Jenny’s penalty for a mistake be bleeding to death in some dirty underground clinic?”
On the other hand, I have no sense that the pro-life movement has any equivalent planning in place to counter that response. No counter-protests in the streets, no mass mobilization of public opinion. Just the vague hope that the opposition would simply throw in the towel.
It is worth remembering that the Civil and Voting Rights acts happened only after a decades-long struggle that challenged some of the core power structures in the country. Segregation was deeply entrenched in the South, and it took nearly a century of effort to change the culture there. But change it did: by the 1950s, most of the folks agitating against racial integration were in the older generations, and Southern youth had already come a long way toward accepting equality for blacks.
Even those kids’ parents were further along than their parents had — lynchings were rare by the 1950s, at least in comparison with the early part of the 20th century.
I firmly believe that any truly effective pro-life movement must be grounded in love — not demonization of an opponent, but lovingly appealing to his or her conscience. Right now I don’t see that manifested in the ranks of the so-called “pro-life” movement.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
Matt:
Always good to hear from you. Where-when do we get to hear/see some of your.poetry?
Mine’s at http://www.peterbray.org/pedro
pb
I find it interesting that if someone kills a woman who is carrying a baby and the baby dies, it is considered a double homicide. How is it then that it is not killing when an abortion procedure is performed? Is it some how justified because of who the killer is? It is ok for mommy to kill you but no one else? The majority of the country agrees that abortion after a certain point is not right. Some argue that there should be a stopping point where the baby is known to be able to feel pain.
As the father of two adopted kids I know of and have seen a lot of people waiting for children to be born that they can adopt. And there are plenty of people who are even willing to take children with disorders and birth defects. I believe we should advocate for life. I know it is difficult to separate from a child after birth. I have been through it twice with two brave young ladies who chose life for my children and I am so thankful for them, their choice and the fact that they loved the babies enough to give them life.
It is an emotionally painful process but I would argue that it is a lot less painful than looking back on a life that could have been. I have yet to meet a woman that talks about her abortion and brags that it was the best decision they ever made.
We are fortunate and have a good story to tell about two families that supported their daughters through the process, worked with us to bring them to completion and now we have open relationships with them and our kids have extra sets of grandparents. You can never have too many grandparents. Interesting too, both of the birth families embrace the other adopted child as their own and it is all a beautiful thing.
I shutter to think that my kids could have just as easily been chopped into bits or had their brains sucked out at the decision of lesser women. It is time for us to, at the very least, put some reasonable restrictions on this heinous act.
Matt –
I’ve read, re-read and re-re-read your article. I’m confused. What’s your point? My Cliff’s Note version of your article is included below. What am I missing? What’s your point?
Paragraph one: Ghandi thought Western Civilization would be a good idea. Matt thinks that the “pro-life” movement would be a good idea.
Paragraph two: Abortion right boils down to a women’s right to self-determination and autonomy.
Paragraph three: Denying a woman’s right to abortion is akin to torturing and raping a woman.
Paragraph four: Neither party is holistically pro-life.
Paragraph five: Republicans profess opposition to current abortions laws but won’t agree to pay for anything that would prevent it.
Paragraph six: Republicans have bought the silence of anti-torture, anti-war and anti-wealth-redistribution advocates by opposing abortion.
Paragraph seven: Democrats support abortion rights advocates but are inclusive by supporting others who do not support the current abortion laws.
Paragraph eight: You think that Republicans are not serious about their anti-abortion stance since, when in power, they do not treat this as their number one legislative priority. Republicans’ focus on free market economic approaches hurt workers. Those approaches do not actually create more jobs. They only reduce wages and make the rich richer. And so forth…
Paragraph nine: Democrats would have agreed to overturn Roe v. Wade if Republicans agreed to the abortion known as ObamaCare.
Paragraph ten: If Roe v. Wade is overturned a huge amount of money would be dedicated to changing public opinion and reinstating Roe v. Wade.
Paragraph eleven: Republicans aren’t ready for paragraph ten.
Paragraph twelve: Prejudice against blacks, including lynching, is synonymous with anti-abortion supporters. Southerners had accepted equality for blacks by the 1950’s.
Paragraph thirteen: Proof that paragraph twelve is true is the fact that by the 1950’s fewer people were being murdered simply because they were black.
Paragraph fourteen: You believe that the pro-life movement is not grounded in love because they demonize their opponent.
Tom
Do you regularly read Matt’s articles? This is normal. A whole lot of mumbo jumbo rarely ever coming to any particular point and almost never offering or suggesting any solutions.
Welcome to the blog!
JLB –
I have been reading Matt’s articles from the beginning. In fact, he used to actually respond to my responses and engage in a dialogue.
http://beniciaheraldonline.com/bowling-alley-america/#comments
I respect Matt’s intellect and writing ability. I love to read his stories about growing up in Richmond and the human side of his experiences. I couldn’t disagree more with his political and economic conclusions. But I will probably always enjoy his writings. They are from the heart.
Tom:
I agree with you. I enjoy his writings when he is reflecting and remembering, however (as you noted) when it comes to politics, I think he is confused. He should stick to what he does well.
Thank you Tom.
Both left and right are guilty of demonizing the debate. Civil debate is a lost art.
There is no clear moral standing on abortion. The wisdom of Solomon is required. Modern science proves that human life starts early in the womb. The law does protect and defend that life prior to birth. The life resides inside of a woman. Her life and comfort cannot be ignored. How does one choose?
I believe the GOP understands that Roe v. Wade is law and that will not change, so abortion is not a top issue. Democrats are not entirely comfortable with abortion as they value human life as does most of humanity. The issue of abortion is elevated by