|
dcnovice -> RE: Abortion (10/7/2007 9:21:07 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: MySweetSubmssive
dc, you mentioned that you haven't always been pro-choice. What motivated your initial stance, and what made you change?
MSS
MSS ---
My initial stance grew out of my intensely Catholic childhood: parochial school, prep seminary, yearly bus trips to the March for Life on January 22nd. I was taught to see abortion as a civil rights issue, with pro-lifers staunchly defending those who could not defend themselves.
My views starting shifting (to the muddle that they are now) in high school. A teacher who thought I ought to know what I was opposing gave me a copy of Roe v. Wade. I was particularly struck by the part of the decision that sketched how abortion has been viewed in different times and places. It was a revelation to learn that abortions, particularly before "quickening," had been accepted at points throughout history. Clearly there wasn't the unanimity of moral opposition to it that I'd been led to believe existed.
In college, friendships with women and a fabulous women's studies class gave me my first real opportunity to hear female perspectives on the issue. I came to realize that the issue was far more complex than I'd ever realized, that women bring to the decision a mix of deep emotions and anguish that belied my mental caricature of them as thoughtless murderers bent only on their own convenience. This realization was deepened by learning that a very dear friend, who is far from a murderer, had had an abortion during her troubled youth. I really came to identify with a woman's perspective when the priest at the Episcopal church I used to attend asked me to create a ritual she might use with a parishioner who'd had an abortion and felt lingering guilt about it.
Coming out as a gay man influenced me too. I began to see that the political forces opposing abortion tended, by and large, to be fiercely homophobic as well. This had two effects. First, I began questioning: "If they're wrong about homosexuality, might they be wrong about abortion too?" Second, I came to feel a sense of kinship with my fellow targets, i.e., women who supported abortion rights. I also noticed that antiabortion forces seemed not to be particularly concerned about children once they were born. Blend, for instance, the Reagan Administration's pro-life rhetoric with its cutting of programs that actually help poor mothers and children.
Then there was that Bernard Shaw question I keep trying to get people to answer. In all my time at pro-life meetings and rallies, I'd never heard anyone suggest that doctors who perform abortions or women who have them should be punished. That seemed to suggest that,in their hearts of hearts, even pro-lifers realized that ending a pregnancy was not truly the same as, say, gunning someone down on the street. If we're honest, I think we all know that the question is far tougher and more nuanced than the slogans on either side would have us believe.
Two readings influenced me a lot. One was the Barbara Ehrenreich essay that I quoted earlier in the thread. I was particularly struck by her point that having abortion as a safety net allows women to use safer birth-control options. The other reading was Marge Piercy's poem Right to Life, which I found very moving.
I still don't know exactly what I make of abortion. But I increasingly doubt that the crude machinery of law and punishment is the best tool for addressing this complex issue.
Shalom,
DC
|
|
|
|
