Part 3: Pro-Families

I read a blog post a while back that put forth a sensible point about the topic of abortion, which was: I don't discuss this. And I won't discuss it until we make birth control more accessible to women. That's right. Offer it over the counter. Until then, this argument is dead to me.

I'm paraphrasing there, but her point was that she didn't think either side was right and that our society needed to support women before they got pregnant, because people have sex and nobody wants to have abortions. Warning, she's a Dem. ;) Just linking here to give credit where credit is due. https://stylebyemilyhenderson.com/blog/voted-trump-comments-helped-grow

Also, I like how the only two sites I've linked for this discussion have been lds.org, and... Style by Emily Henderson. So random. I love a good Ex-Mo/designer/reality star. And she's adorable. I'm getting sidetracked.

Recently my good friend posited that anyone's views on abortion notwithstanding, American society is not very "Pro-Life," in the sense that we don't cherish mothers and children as much as some other cultures do, or value motherhood enough as a career, or offer substantial enough maternity leave, or appreciate snotty-nosed kids running around or babies crying on airplanes, or champion assistance for poor kids from dysfunctional families. If we want to decrease abortions, how do we increase support for all families? In her very apt words, we need a "Culture of Life" in order to successfully be "Pro-Life."

I'm not sure how that happens. Somehow we need more of the woman behind me in the grocery checkout line who fawns over my baby even though the baby has a smelly diaper and is tired and crying. Or the man in the library who gives me a knowing look of solidarity when my 10-year-old has a ridiculous public tantrum. Or the smiley teenager at church who makes origami frogs for my restless kindergartener. There are people like this all over the place. So how does that pro-families attitude permeate the rest of our world? Our corporations, our government? 

And just to throw another issue into the ring, my family is white, educated, middle-class, two parents. In that sense my kids are at the top of the chain as far as what they can get away with in public without judgment. And though in our day-to-day we meet lots of sympathetic citizens, we also find ourselves in situations where my kids and their "kid-ness" are very much NOT welcome. How does the poor single mother, then, become in our minds not a "welfare queen" but a brave and faithful person who "chose life"?

Finally: What about "wanted babies." These stories are not as easy to put in a box as the "unwanted ones" are (the "surprise" ones coming to single mothers, for example). But what about the babies who were invited, welcomed, begged for: and then viewed on an ultrasound or in an amniocentesis or blood test and determined to be so deformed that a typical life would not be possible.

Look: my own personal answer is easy. I say yes to that baby, please come anyway, my family and I have a place for you. Full stop. I have had an indirect personal experience with a child who was "incompatible with life": my nephew Jonah, whom I got to meet before he passed away at home from trisomy 13 at 11 days old. His parents found out early in his pregnancy that he would not live long, and that he might not even make it to term. They never considered abortion. I think for them that particular choice was easy. And then: the reality was hard. There was nothing you could say or do about it, that would have made it any easier for them. 

But they did choose life, and they worked and planned and wept and prepared to welcome him. And you know what, Jonah was not incompatible with life. His short life left an indelible impression on us. I believe that he deserved his life, and he struggled through it and he lived it with amazing strength and endurance, and there's no refuting that Jonah was a person with a job to do in the world.

So how do I reconcile that with any sympathy for someone else in a similar situation who might choose abortion? Well, because I just do. Welcoming Jonah to the world and helping him through it was a watershed experience for my family. But no one is promised a spiritual communion, or warm times together at home before the inevitable. No one can predict whether this special life will be an intense days-long affair, or whether it will last months or years and cost endless money and patience.

I guess what I mean is that I know what I would choose regardless, and I have had some limited experience with that, and I believe life comes with suffering no matter what, and I believe that consecrating that suffering to a greater purpose is vital to growth. However, every expectant mother who receives that type of devastating news will not have the same experience, or perspective, or most of all the same resources or support, that my brother and sister-in-law did.

And so that's where my friend's "culture of life" idea comes in, which is that maybe someday we could make it possible for more people to "choose life" in those most shattering moments, the ones where we separate the essential--love and family--from all other distractions. The ones where we can turn suffering or heartbreak or regret into something beautiful and life-affirming.

In my experience, this "beauty for ashes" is available through faith, although I don't think it's exclusive to faith, and I'm not sure how it fits into abortion law. Maybe between providing better access to birth control, and also welcoming ALL children and families and mothers into our society and culture--no matter their background, their abilities, their race, or their needs--maybe then we could truly call ourselves pro-life, and pro-choice, and pro-families.

Until then: our society and our government have still not come to a consensus on abortion, 40 years after Roe v. Wade. Pregnancy, and by extension the two available options of abortion and birth, involves humans and sex and hormones and emotions and money and bare, ugly need. We have a flawed government and we live in a flawed world. So as much as I want to feel settled in my heart on one side or another, I still call abortion a gray area. I still say it's complicated. And I hope that we do find that "culture of life."

Part 2: Pro-Choice

I have to roll my eyes whenever I hear a pro-choice person exaggeratedly refer to a pro-life person as "anti-choice," which I specifically heard on a radio interview the other day and it was so obnoxious to me. (Also... Pardon my irreverence but my favorite abortion joke... Really the only abortion joke I know... is "I'm only NOT pro-life when I want the pro-life people to go jump off a cliff." Hey, I didn't make it up, I just laughed at it.) Anyway, there's a high level of sanctimony going on with EVERY vocal person in this debate. Including me. "Anti-choice" though. It bugs me and it is not productive to the conversation.

Anywho, the pro-choice stance might include the argument or belief that abortion should be legal no matter what--the pregnant woman ultimately decides and does not have to provide any reason. It might also include the argument or belief that abortion should be legal AND covered by insurance AND available at federally funded clinics. It might also include the argument or belief that a fetus is not a person. Or it might include the argument or belief that a fetus is a person but that while it is dependent on its mother, it does not have the same rights as a person who can breathe and live out in the open air without its mother's lungs or placenta.

Some pro-choice arguments I am familiar with:

-A woman should have all autonomy in her own pregnancy, which she along with her partner has made possible: she may choose where she delivers (at which hospital or perhaps at which home); how she delivers (i.e., vaginally or by C-section); who will attend her birth; what drugs or medical apparatus she will or will not use. She may accept or reject advice from her doctor but ultimately makes and is responsible for all decisions. This autonomy extends to whether she decides to terminate the pregnancy at any point (or perhaps only in the first trimester or before viability).

-The "slippery slope" argument where if you restrict abortions, you may also someday restrict emergency contraception, may also restrict all contraception, may also restrict access to ob-gyn health care. And/or if you involve the state at all in monitoring abortions, you may risk the slope in a different direction where government could conceivably mandate an abortion, a la China's (now phasing-out) one-child policy.

-The feminist argument--male justices, congress, lobbyists etc. are deciding what women may do with their bodies, which is unacceptable.

-The "case by case" argument: say the law provides for abortion but only under predetermined circumstances. Health of the mother, fetus, rape, etc. How are these proven? In a court of law? Does the pregnant woman sign a legal document affirming that "X" is the reason for her chosen abortion? Where does it end? Who draws the line?

-And who decides whether the fetus's medical conditions are severe enough to warrant an abortion? How is that calculated? Won't some mothers have a higher or lower threshold for any given birth defects? What about the physician looking at the ultrasound or delivering the blood test results? Are these particular waters too gray to wade into?

-Adoption is not always an option. Foster children or permanent wards of the state who need homes are already in every city and town. Besides, new mothers swamped with hormones (the ones that are meant to attach them to their biological baby) are not always able to go through with an adoption, despite prior intentions.

-The institution of Planned Parenthood belongs in the category of Medicare and Medicaid: services for a needy population. Abortion is only one part of that. Rape kits, contraception, routine gyn care, all needed too in an affordable clinical setting.

Again, I don't agree with all of this, I'm just putting out there what I think represents the movement. What am I missing? I hope that if you have rebuttals to these (rather than something similar to add in the pro-choice vein) you'll put them with the pro-life post. I'm really trying to look at both arguments with open and honest eyes. Clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose... Except if you're trying to come to a consensus on abortion in America. Then you always lose.

Tomorrow: Pro-Families. Go ahead, roll your eyes at me. But it's not Anti-Choice. It's not Anti-Life. It's Pro-Families. You'll see...

Part 1: Pro-Life

As promised... Some thoughts. Many of them. I have divided this heady topic into three parts: post 1 - Pro-Life; post 2 - Pro-Choice; and post 3 - Pro-Families

I want to start with the pro-life stance. This stance may or may not include the belief/argument that all abortions should be illegal. Or it may include the belief/argument that abortions should be illegal after a certain point (first trimester? fetal viability?) or that they should only be legal under certain circumstances like risks to health of the mother, fetal incompatibility with life, or extreme circumstances of conception--i.e., rape or incest. (Those three possibilities are listed in the handbook of my church as the three church-sanctioned reasons for seeking an abortion, with the caveat that every situation differs and abortion should never be the default option for church members.) https://www.lds.org/topics/abortion

Other views that I feel like can conceivably fall into the pro-life camp could include the notion that abortion rights should be left to the states, and/or that only private clinics should provide abortions--i.e., not Planned Parenthood or any clinic that receives taxpayer funding.

Here are some specific pro-life thoughts/arguments as I understand them. By listing these here I am not saying that I believe they are correct or right, although I do agree with some (not all). 

I'm using the word "fetus" with both pro-life and pro-choice arguments, although pro-life arguments sometimes prefer "baby," and most pregnant women I know who are not contemplating abortion, including myself whenever I was pregnant, call their fetus "the baby," not "the fetus." You might argue that I'm letting myself off the hook too easily and that I should look the gritty details of abortion in the eyes. You might be right.

-From a purely philosophical standpoint (leaving religion out of it), if a fetus is a person, then the practice of abortion threatens the first of the famous trifecta of "inalienable rights" granted to all American people: "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," as stated in the Declaration of Independence.

-The above-mentioned gift of life has been bestowed on all humans specifically by God and, irrespective of any laws, cannot rightfully be taken away from an innocent person by man (or woman).

-Late-term or partial-birth abortion, which requires dismantling a fetus's body, is tantamount to murder, even more so than drug-induced abortion, which is possible during the first trimester.

-Adoption is a valid option for mothers who do not wish to or cannot raise a child. Couples or single women suffering from infertility or who otherwise want to open their home are in every city and town.

-Abortion may be a valid option as long as the mother consents to an ultrasound and counseling prior to the abortion, and/or burial services for the fetus's remains after the abortion.

-A pregnant woman's right to a certain lifestyle does not take precedence over her fetus's right to birth and life on earth. In other words, a fetus's right not to be killed takes precedence over a pregnant woman's right not to be pregnant.

-Planned Parenthood specifically (or other state-run clinics) has been proven to use taxpayer money to fund abortions as well as wading into murky ethical waters with the disposal of fetal tissue and/or selling or donating of fetal tissue for medical research.

What am I missing? In terms of pro-life arguments. Can I just say that after many years of thought and discussion, and four pregnancies of my own, and many pregnancies of loved ones including those that ended in miscarriage, stillbirth, or death soon after birth, or that ended in preterm birth and extended NICU stays for 20-something-week little guys, I oppose abortion personally, I'm horrified by it, I cannot imagine ever choosing it for myself or wishing it on anyone. Yet when it comes to the law, I still consider myself generally pro-choice with several caveats, which I will explain in a later post. Why is that? Why am I not instead "pro-life with several caveats"? I haven't decided that yet. Maybe it's just semantics. Maybe it's a question of political identity or deeply held feminism. Maybe it's my desire to keep the state away from women's bodies. (Matt's libertarian leanings have rubbed off on me when it comes to how I parent as well as my own medical decisions.) Maybe there's a piece I'm missing.

I accept some pro-life and some pro-choice arguments as being completely valid. I'm also interested in learning about stances I might not agree with or may not have thought about.

So I'm hoping that the comments on this post (if anyone even comments here, which it's very possible that no one will do! #crickets) will only be examining, or contributing to, pro-life arguments--not rebutting or refuting them. These could be arguments that you make yourself, or that you've heard other people make, but they're arguments that support pro-life. That's why I am trying to write separate posts for the different sides, so that I really think about each stance instead of reacting to it. Sorry if that's a bit English-teacher-y. It's really an exercise for myself, and you're welcome to join in if you'd like.