A Chance To Be Born vs A Chance To Live
A couple of days ago, I wrote a post about Michele Bachmann’s latest crazy claim — this time that the health care reform legislation favored by Pres. Obama would allow 13-year-old girls to get abortions authorized by school health clinics and go home afterward with “mom and dad none the wiser.”
A lively conversation started up in the Comments section about the larger issue of public support for abortion rights and whether or not abortion should remain legal. One reader pointed to a recent article at CNN.com titled “Abortion Support Falls Sharply, New Research Finds,” and said he was a bit surprised that no one at TMV had blogged about this poll yet. I think his implied point — that this shift in public opinion regarding abortion rights is significant and should be noted — is well-taken. Hence, my decision to do this post.
First, let me quote from the CNN piece:
Support for abortion rights has fallen sharply in the past year, with Americans now split roughly 50-50 between those who back legal access to abortion and those who oppose it, according to a new survey.
The findings mark a dramatic shift in public opinion, supporters of abortion rights have outnumbered opponents for many years, with one brief exception, studies have shown.
But only 47 percent of Americans now feel abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a drop from 54 percent a year ago, according to the poll.
Meanwhile, 45 percent say it should be illegal in all or most cases. That’s up from 41 percent a year ago.
Given the survey’s margin of error, the two camps are statistically tied.
“These data suggest that a number of people have changed their minds in the past year,” said Gregory Smith of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, one of the survey’s authors.
If you look at the actual poll results, there appears to be a rather simple explanation for this shift: We have a pro-choice Democratic President in the White House now. The effect of this is to make liberals and Democrats relax a bit about abortion rights, feeling perhaps that nothing really bad can happen as long as Obama is in office. (I think this attitude is wrong-headed, but that’s another post.) The flip side of the coin, of course, is that Republicans who want to make abortion illegal in all or most cases, and/or even more difficult to get than it is now, feel the urgency of their concern more strongly because they no longer have an ideological friend in the Oval Office.
No single reason for the shift in opinions is apparent, but the pattern of
changes suggests that the election of a pro-choice Democrat for president may be a contributing factor. Among Republicans, there has been a seven point decline in support for legal abortion and a corresponding six point increase in opposition to abortion. But the change is smaller among Democrats, whose support for legal abortion is down four points with no corresponding increase in pro-life opinion. Indeed, three groups of President Obama’s strongest supporters – African Americans, young people and those unaffiliated with a religion – have not changed their views on abortion at all. At the same time, fully half of conservative Republicans (52%) – the political group most opposed to abortion – say they worry Obama will go too far in supporting abortion rights.
So this may be not so much about more Americans turning against abortion rights as it is about one demographic considering it a relatively low priority given who’s in power, whereas the other demographic feels a greater sense of urgency.
All of which is not to say that there is no significance to a poll that appears to show Americans turning against abortion rights. And obviously, anti-choice activists are pleased with the poll’s results. What grabs my interest about the CNN piece, though, is the way some of these activists frame their opposition to abortion. There are the usual heartfelt declarations of absolute certainty about God’s existence, what God wants and demands, and why all women everywhere should be governed by their religious beliefs. And then there is this:
“This is great news. This poll shows that the pro-life movement is winning hearts and minds. Pro-lifers are making an effective case that all women deserve better than abortion and that every child deserves a chance to be born,” said Cathy Ruse, the senior fellow for legal studies at the anti-abortion Family Research Council in Washington.
Skip past the stomach-turning, patriarchal infantilization disguised as concern for what women “deserve.” Focus on the phrase I have bolded: “Every child deserves a chance to be born.”
I suppose I should be impressed, because it’s rare that opponents of legal abortion express their true motivations so openly. Usually, this sentiment is couched in fuzzier language about the “right to life.” Well, life, of course, encompasses much more than birth. In my experience, most proponents of criminalizing abortion (note that this does not include people who are against abortions but do not support making it illegal) are not all that interested in a child’s life — only its birth. This woman, at least, is being honest.
Nevertheless, I can’t help feeling a little testy. “Every child deserves a chance to be born.”
Not “Every child deserves to be wanted and loved.”
Not “Every child deserves to have a healthy start in life.”
Not “Every child deserves a chance — not a guarantee, a chance — to make it to adulthood.”
Not “Every child deserves to at least start life having a mother.
Not “Every child deserves to have a mother who is not herself a child.”
Not “Every child deserves a chance — again, not a guarantee, a chance — to be independent, to learn, to play a part, to have choices.
Not any one of hundreds of rights that we owe children because of the simple fact that they did not choose or ask to be here.
No, the right that Ruse sees as supreme is the right to have a chance to be born. If the baby is stillborn, justice has been done because the baby still had a chance to be born. If the baby dies hours after birth, and the mother’s health is destroyed by a pregnancy that was doomed from the outset, justice has been served because the baby had “a chance to be born.” If the baby never gets to eat solid foods, sit up, crawl, or walk; can’t eliminate on her own, can’t move a single muscle, can’t talk, laugh, or even smile; can’t show recognition of anything around her; has to be on medication to prevent devastating seizures that turn her face blue; has to be fed intravenously almost from birth; cannot cough or sneeze and so has to be aspirated regularly so the fluids that build up in her lungs don’t choke her to death; and if that child dies at the age of 3 never having actually lived in any meaningful sense of that word — by golly, justice has been served, because that child had the chance to be born.
CODA: A small portion of this post is slightly modified from a comment I posted in the “Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire” thread.
63 Responses to “A Chance To Be Born vs A Chance To Live”
Thank you, roro. I needed that just about now.
Michele Bachmann is a disgrace to the USA, MN, and the 6th. If you're interested in getting rid of Bachmann, support democratic candidate Dr. Maureen Reed! You can learn more about Maureen, and donate, at:
http://maureenreedforcongress.com/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Reed
Green Dreams. . .i can so hear your arguments concerning Choice, and am 100% in agreement. . . as much as i am pro-life that is also how much i am pro-choice. . .but the needle continues to settle with Choice for the same reasons you brought up and also for families that tragically find themselves needing the services of a late term abortion physician such as Dr. Tiller . . . I believe it was Kathy that posted a link about the families of late term abortion. In the website families that had the procedure wrote of medical reasons for the need of late term abortion and reading that website strengthened support for late term abortions for me. . . Dr. E. also wrote an article on the issue awhile back in NCR that i think is one of the best discussions i have heard that shows a path of wholeness and true compassion that Pro-Life folks would do well to open into. . .
Nowadays i think if more people on the Pro-Life side would hold the compassion as spoken in Dr. E.'s article and would learn to hold a civil debate such as the one that occurred above, without the venom, the hell,and brimstone such as” “murderers” and “baby-killers” and the ugliness of protesting near clinics, there would be a ground swell to prohibit abortion. . .imo. . .
On both side of the debate there is too much at stake, i do not know how to face one without reaching back and extending a hand to the other. . .for me sanity would be for both groups to drop the irreconcilable differences and move into action with the creation of services and programs to assist women that want to keep or place their babies up for adoption, and to drop the craziness of demonizing the opposition and drop the opposition to contraceptives.
I am biased when it comes to Choice, years ago i made the Choice to abort. I was physically ill from being chemically over-exposed from my employment. . .i knew in a two week period after conception that something was wrong. . .never in my life had made such a difficult decision, and spent lot of time in prayer and listening deep within, and every time consistently heard the still small voice that said; ” This is not to be.”. . . Based on the external situation i could of easily nurtured and supported a child with a loving long term partner. . . But i kept hearing; “This is not to be.”. . . I received the abortion and was told the fetus was non-viable. . .As i trusted my own choice i too trust the choice of other women and men that face the choice of life or termination of life. . . That choice and that listening was so very much about the deepest need and calling in the relationship with the Sacred source. . . If the Sacred can tell one such as i, “This Is Not To Be.” then cannot the sacred source also tell a woman, ” This Needs To Be.”. . .Of course Green Dreams i have moved into the spiritual/religious arena. . .but have often thought for those on the far pro-life side due to religious fervor; why not teach the children to claim the answer from their own sacred relationship and trust the personal relationship of God with each being? I see Choice to be just as potentially sacred as Pro-life. . .
I might come back and delete this, but have come to the place of what is is and so many women that have made the Choice have been brutalized by all the stereotypes of loose, wanton women that just use abortion as another form of birth control, i wish more women would tell their stories and dispel so many of the hateful stereotypes. . .
Thank you so much for sharing your story. If you decide to delete it, I'm glad I got the chance to read it.
I just read your post, roro, and the article by Dr. E at NCR. Both are so beautifully expressed, and come from the heart, from a very pure and real place.
I thank you.
Hi Kathy — It's always lovely to hear, but perhaps you were talking about ordinarysparrow's post and not mine?
Yep. LOL. Three strikes, I'm out!
Hi, ordinarysparrow. I hope you saw my post to roro complimenting her on her post which was really your post and I knew it was your post and meant to compliment you not roro but I typed roro's name by accident and clicked on the Reply button underneath her post also by accident.
And I just want to add this. I was particularly struck by your sentence: “If the Sacred can tell one such as i, 'This Is Not To Be.' then cannot the sacred source also tell a woman, 'This Needs To Be.' “. .
Sure can. But it becomes much harder to hear the still, small voice of that Sacred Source when loud voices external to yourself are screaming at you, “Baby killer!” “Don't kill your baby!” “How can you sleep at night?” “You're a mother now!”
Which, I think, if I understand you correctly, is part of what you were trying to say. I think it's part of what Dr e. was trying to say, as well.
Thank you Kathy and roro. . . Yes, what i was trying to convey is that i listened deep and was given an answer with little time delay. . .Afterwards i heard all the blame, judgments, and toxicity and even i flinch after all these years knowing that life was non-viable even before i made the choice to have an abortion.. . . But i cannot even imagine what women have endured in the deep places living in the landscape of Pro-Life advocacy as it has too often been carried out, the ones that KNEW it was right but did not have the instant validation as i did. I wrote the above hoping to convey to women and men that have made the difficult choice, the ones that did reach down to their soul, where some found a “yes” and some found a “no”. . .I hope none remain buried under the toxic cultural debris of the debate to bruised and ashamed to feel they are not even worthy to do the work as Dr. E. pointed out in her article, Children She Got But Did Not Get. . .
Green,
I appreciate all that you wrote concerning circumstances where abortion may be needed. I truly do.
Those reasons still remain as the exception and not the rule. Those instances make up only 7% of all abortions. The remaining 93% are because “I just don't want a baby”. For those who don't want babies, it stands to logically reason, that A) they shouldn't have sex, or B) they should take contraception a bit more seriously (heck….wear five condoms, take the pill, AND use a diaphram).
Abortion should be the last resort, not a reliable stand-by.
And with the continued use of “fetus” instead of “child”, it lessens the impact a bit. One feels less guilty removing a fetus than killing a child. Symantics do have an impact. Which brings me to my first point above which you did not address:
If visiting non-citizens are entitled to life (event though they are not under the Constitution), how can you eliminate a “fetus” because they are not yet citizens?
That is argument is not logical.
[...] Moderate Voice: A Chance To Be Born vs A Chance To Live [...]
[...] Moderate Voice: A Chance To Be Born vs A Chance To Live [...]