Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The Rhetoric of Abortion: Reflections from a Former Pro-life Activist

By Elizabeth Wardle, PhD, AlterNet. Posted October 14, 2006.


As a sheltered Christian teenager, I thought I knew what was right for all women. But as I gained more life experience and education, I learned the hardest questions don't have easy answers.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Elizabeth Wardle, PhD

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice, edited by Krista Jacob.

In the house and church I grew up in, there was no question about where I would stand on abortion. A fetus was a life. We opposed taking life. Case closed.

What conversation can be had when only one question is considered pertinent? I was a chaste, Christian, small-town, pro-life teenager from a happy home with two parents. My most exciting experiences were church camping trips. At sixteen, I had never even kissed a boy. Nothing had ever happened to me to suggest other questions were relevant in the abortion debate. I was sure of my views and sure my experiences provided enough information with which to make an informed decision about what was right for all women everywhere.

Thus, I goaded my girlfriends into attending protests and meetings and starting teenage pro-life groups. No one questioned me. Where we came from, my girlfriends were wrong not to have thought of going to the meetings before I did. They admired my staunch, unquestioning sense of what was right and wrong. Looking back, it's clear I was pompous, self-righteous, and unbearably certain of myself. But I had the total peace of mind that only comes from a worldview with no shades of gray.

My certainty and peace of mind were not to last, however. College showed me that life is full of gray.

In college I discovered that some people have sex without feeling they have done something dirty, that women get pregnant who are in no position to take care of a child, and that one of the most frightening things in the world for an eighteen-year-old from a pro-life, Christian fundamentalist family would be telling her parents she was pregnant. If I had become pregnant and informed my parents, I knew exactly where I would have gone: straight to a home for pregnant teenage mothers, to be physically well-cared for and proselytized to for nine months, after which time my child would have been adopted by a good, white fundamentalist family dying for a healthy new (white) baby. I would have been shamed. My parents' biggest concern would have been how to hide my pregnancy from their friends.

Problematic as this response would have been, it pales in comparison to what has actually happened to other Christian teenagers, who have been disowned, thrown out of their homes, and even physically harmed. It later came as no surprise that, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, one in five women seeking abortions is a born-again or an Evangelical Christian. Had I become pregnant as a teenager, I would have done all in my power--including consider an abortion--to avoid the shame I would have felt in the eyes of my Christian community.

I began to understand why parental consent laws might be a bad idea: they can raise the number of late-term abortions, as young women from conservative homes put off a decision or wait for parental or judicial consent. Some pregnant teens would even choose illegal abortions rather than face their parents' wrath.

In my women's studies classes I learned about poverty and racism, about misogyny, about the history of birth control (or rather, control of birth control). I learned that for many women there are several important questions that come before whether or not a fetus is a life--questions such as, "Will this pregnancy cost me my life? Who will feed this child? Where is one person who will provide me with some support if I have this child?" I learned that two out of three women who have abortions say they cannot afford a child and half do not have a dependable partner with earning potential. In one study, Glen Stassen and Lewis B. Smedes, Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, found a clear correlation between unemployment rates, healthcare costs, and abortion rates.

The more I learned the more I began to let go of my carefully held certainties. After my worldview took on a few more shades of gray, my friends started telling me about their abortions. I had to come to terms with the fact that the women against whom I had so emphatically protested in high school were good people, people I knew, people I would want for my friends. What to do with that? Love the sinner, hate the sin? Fairly easy to say in Christian theory, but my friends didn't seem like sinners. They seemed like girls who had fallen in love, or been taken advantage of, or even raped.

I started to wonder about sin, and why so much sin in the Christian tradition falls on women, centers around women's bodies.

By the end of college, my former certainty about abortion had completely deserted me. I had arrived at a place where I couldn't identify myself as pro-life any longer. I now believed in choice, but without advocating abortion. I still believed a fetus was a life--but I had come to understand there were other issues at stake, too. Was mine a pro-choice position? None of the pro-choice rhetoric with which I was familiar led me to believe it was; having once been a true believer in the pro-life movement, I found nothing in the rhetoric of the pro-choice movement that appealed to me or adequately stated my position.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: feminism, abortion, choice, personal, voices, issues, essay, pro-choice, women

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
So many good points
Posted by: zipper696 on Oct 14, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How refreshing to see what happens when education and life experience broaden the mind of cloistered people.
Would that more of these misled teens signing up to the Total Abstinence programs and being told that sex = sin could have a similar experience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: you mischaraterize Posted by: Lauren
» Abortion/breast cancer Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Abortion/breast cancer Posted by: morticia
Religion is a serious threat to American democracy
Posted by: Moonray on Oct 14, 2006 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In many U.S. school districts, including mine, children are not taught real sex education because local churches have intimidated and infiltrated the local school board. And that's just one small example of religion's harmful effects on our nation.

Notice I make make no distinction between conservative and "progressive" religious groups. That's because I firmly believe there is no real difference. So-called progressive groups merely act as enablers of their right-wing cousins. Those who decide to abandon logic and common sense in favor of believing in an invisible sky-god left over from the Bronze Age cannot claim to be progressive in any sense of the word. I have found that most of these folks are simply to intellectually timid to stand up to religion, and thus flock together in these little "progressive" churches to appear socially respectable.

It's all very sad, because the forces of ignorance and stupidity are winning this battle. If you don't believe me, just watch and see how many Bible-thumping Republicans are elected to Congress next month despite all that's happened in the past six years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

TV
Posted by: vincen13 on Oct 14, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a beautiful piece of writing. I admire you and understand your journey. Mine is very similar. I grew up in certainty abortion was unacceptable and in time and experience changed my thinking to staunch pro-choice.

Your thinking is very elegant and powerful. I agree with you 300% about the social issues that need to be addressed to make it safe for each woman to choose as she needs to.

When I am feeling angry and bitter about this issue I suggest that rather than outlawing abortion we should enact laws that make it a crime to impregnate a woman when she is not able to carry the child to term. We could shift our legal focus from punishing terrified, pregnant, young women to punishing the men who impregnated her. Do paternity testing right away, find the offending male, and imprison him for 2 years, all of his earnings banked for the mother and make it a felony not to pay child support. In my dreams, I know, and it is an angry, punitive fantasy but that is how I feel when I see the "right-to-lifers" lined up a mile long with their children in the cold trying to foist their view of the world onto me as I drive by.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And I can't help but notice Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» RE: TV Posted by: tofurella
Still missing a major point
Posted by: TonyGottlieb on Oct 14, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The abortion issue must progress beyond a woman's rights aspect. Made illegal, courts and justice systems confronted with abortion penalties and punishments could not contain the result. Pro and anti-Abortion advocates alike ignore the two parent involvement issue. They are called fathers not partners. They are seeking their rights. Therein may be the common ground, and perhaps the answer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Still missing a major point Posted by: MartianBachelor
Finally - the refreshing truth!
Posted by: ggmurray on Oct 14, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this wonderful article that shines a light on the whole abortion debate. No one WANTS an abortion: it is the choice of last resort. I think healing around this issue will come as we have the courage to speak the truth about our experiences.

I had an abortion many years ago, a hard choice, but the right one at that time in my life. From it I learned that life itself is more than a body, and that on the soul level we are loved unconditionally, and so is the departed one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

POINT 'A' TO POINT ' B'
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 14, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Opposing views are interesting and make for good arguments. But a running account of how a young woman came to her decision is enlightening. Life is alot of gray. Trying to make it black and white doesn't work. Thanks for sharing this and I hope that lots of young women and even girls get to read it. A sane and sensible approach to a complicated matter. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"I was once a she-bot programmed by Patriarchy, but now I'm cured"
Posted by: H_H on Oct 14, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my women's studies classes I learned about poverty and racism, about misogyny, about the history of birth control

I also learned that white, comfortably middle-class women on college campuses were the most disadvantaged, oppressed group on planet Earth. And that men stink.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you
Posted by: WyrdSister on Oct 14, 2006 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thank you, thank you for this article. It is relieving to see the things I have been trying to articulate all in one article.

People need to know that there are alot of things that feed into the Choice position rather than just the one that anti-choicers spew: abortion = murder.

Independant thought is a difficult concept for the anti-choicers, it's really easy to repeat one montra over and over again. But complex thoughts and ideas need to be brought to the table and acknowledged before any real changes can be made.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But after all that is said, she is still not pro-choice
Posted by: Envi on Oct 14, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I find it good to hear that exposure to the world and education has made this author very thoughtful on this issue, when it comes right down to it, she is still against a woman's right to choose. A wonderfully idealistic piece- don't we all wish the world could be as she wishes? But, come down to earth, life is not that way in America, and won't be for a long time to come under a our present presiding political/religious wingnut party. They are patently against every improvement she cites, such as teaching birth control, living wages, etc. The fact still remains that when put to the test, she will be yet another fundamentalist trying to punish women for having sex by supporting the archaic right wing. Don't get me wrong, excellent article, but read between the lines and you will see that nothing has truly changed in her mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

welcome to life, Dr. Wardle
Posted by: hannah on Oct 14, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, amazing how one's thinking can change when one comes out of their narrow little world and begins to see life from all points. And you are so right, Dr. Wardle; your new view is indeed pro-life. Basically just a matter of putting yourself in another's shoes for just a moment, to see how and why they have come to a life-changing decision. Isn't it more "Christian", anyway, to not be judgmental of others and the choices they make? Isn't that God's job anyway? It apalls me to see and hear so many so-called "Christians", who are actually the biggest hypocrites and bigots in the world, passing judgement, and attempting to pass along their view of everyone who doesn't or can't live life according to the "Christian's" idea of how everything should be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rhetoric
Posted by: fork on Oct 14, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Was mine a pro-choice position? None of the pro-choice rhetoric with which I was familiar led me to believe it was; having once been a true believer in the pro-life movement, I found nothing in the rhetoric of the pro-choice movement that appealed to me or adequately stated my position."

But all the italicized points following this, such as " Birth control, sex education, and factually correct abstinence-only programs are abortion issues" or "Raising the minimum wage is an abortion issue" have long been part of pro-choice rhetoric. The problem is that you didn't get to hear them; instead you were fed strawman arguments. What is to be done about this when the flow of information is controlled by conservatives, either in the context of parents and churches inculcating children, or with biased MSM sources?

The message has been out there a long time. Your article says nothing new about how to get the message across.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Rhetoric Posted by: WyrdSister
Misguided
Posted by: dkm on Oct 14, 2006 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is based on the supposition that what gets the antiabortionists all excited is abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality they demand that women subject themselves to the domination of men. Afterall, why is the antiabortion movement so predominantly male?

For this reason there is no possibility that any of the italicized factors will be allowed to come to pass since they allow women to have control of their own lives. It is a nice dream, but it is based on a false assumption.

Another false assumption is the term, "pro-life." If they were really prolife they would be protesting against Bush's wars of conquest, but instead they are among his staunchest supporters. It takes a unique ability of self-deception to be in favor of a life before it exists and then in favor of ending after it exists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Misguided Posted by: Ocean tides
Who's choice is it?
Posted by: DinTN on Oct 14, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Loved your article!
Personally I don't think anyone who has never been or will ever be in the position of being pregnant, or being a father-to-be, should have any say whatsoever in this issue. How can someone who will never be effected by whether or not abortion is legal or illegal think that it is in any way their business!
It amazes me how so many so called "activists" get involved in issues that will in now way effect their own personal lives. It seems to me that most are just so bored in their own lives that they think they have a right to sway everyone elso over to their way of thinking knowing that a particular issue never has and never will be a choice they personally will have to face.
Let only the people, male and female, who will possibly someday have to such a decision have the final say, and all others should mind their own business!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You still dont get it do ya? Posted by: may261989
» RE: You still dont get it do ya? Posted by: dangerouslysane
» Your confused Posted by: Patriot50
Blaming men is not the solution
Posted by: jackyb on Oct 14, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the reason more men are pro-life is because more men are closer to God. They have to be, because for men there is no government lifeline. If women used not men for reference but God, instead, perhaps the blame game would diminish enough to focus on the real problem: survival in an undignified world where unfairness grows exponentially. This author will never advance her ideas when her agenda is all about woman, the hell with men in the process. As the fertility rate of third-world countries eclipses the West, simple math tells us that Western-style woman across the globe are doomed for extinction. Surviving means forming a partnership with men -- not war. It is ironic how so many choice woman blame men for the world's wars, but in the same breath they fan the flames of war against men.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blaming men is not the solution Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Blaming men is not the solution Posted by: MartianBachelor
» P.S. to MartianBachelor Posted by: morticia
» RE: Blaming men is not the solution Posted by: dangerouslysane
» forgotten victims Posted by: LDavistrueblue
» RE: forgotten victims Posted by: morticia
» P.S. Posted by: morticia
Feminism at Work
Posted by: jenniferm on Oct 14, 2006 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm disheartened to see the know-it-all responses from what I imagine are some self-identified feminists. This thoughtfully written piece is a window into the way that many people experience, or experienced, what it means to be "pro-life." Perhaps the "no-duh" responses and mis-readings of this text (e.g., the author as currently a fundamentalist) are ample evidence of why the pro-choice movement too often fails to get its message to those who might benefit from it most--young women who identify as "pro-life." Being a feminist means practicing feminist ideals and to do so means not being an ass when given the opportunity to dialogue with those who do not share your exact views, an opportunity that does in fact always exist as the author's piece evidences.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Feminism at Work Posted by: may261989
» RE: Feminism at Work Posted by: danielle
Thanks
Posted by: leftcoasttransplant on Oct 14, 2006 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just wanted to say thank you for this article -- I've been saying for years that abortion is not the sole issue, and that by working on related issues of reproductive health, family planning, sex education, gender-based violence, etcetera, that we could decrease the need for abortion. I am firmly pro-choice, but recognize abortion as one symptom of a multi-faceted issue. I've gone to pro-choice rallies with signs that say "comprehensive sex ed prevents abortion" and "support family planning," and other feminists have been surprised and impressed by the thought behind those simple statements. While I appreciate their positive response, it confounds me that even within the pro-choice movement, so few people advocate for the bigger picture. Hopefully, articles like yours will help to remind and educate people! :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thanks Posted by: dangerouslysane
Pro-Choice?!? Gimme a break.
Posted by: LeslieGem on Oct 14, 2006 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the most disturbing articles I've read on Alternet -- both for the content and the comments afterwards.

Wake up folks. Abortion won't be eliminated once you eliminate the social problems mentioned in the article. Do you know how many middle-class, married women have abortions? How many single, well-off women with partners or other support systems in place have abortions? There are women who either don't want children period or don't want anymore children. Do you support their right to an abortion? Or do you only support abortion rights for women that YOU DECIDE are worthy enough for this right? Anyone else that you deem unworthy better suck it up and have a child against their will.

Give me a break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we could be twins
Posted by: ladyoracle on Oct 14, 2006 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your awakening to the complexity of the aboriton issue is much like mine. It's refreshing to know I'm not the only girl who was raised as a fundamentalist, but then changed my mind. You are also dead-right about how comforting it is to think one knows what's absolutely right and wrong.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

she gives a useful rhetorical position for arguing with pro-lifers
Posted by: ladyoracle on Oct 14, 2006 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes, any woman who is pregnant and wishes not to bring a child into the world should be able to make that choice without censure.

but, this is a useful argument to make to someone who is pro-life, but who is also (likely) against social programs that would help the woman after the precious fetus is born.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro Life? It's Really Pro BIRTH
Posted by: Cherieerwin on Oct 14, 2006 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RE: the labeling and importance of it: "pro-choice" is an OK label, but in my opinion what the group attitude really promotes IS "pro (quality of) life". But this "pro-life" group as you point out isn't an accurate description at all: they are pro-BIRTH. In many instances it results in another unwanted baby destined to misery. How can anyone consider the cheap "life" that results from a quantity of more babies that no one wants as compared to the quality life offered that baby who is truly loved, wanted and can be financially supported?
If we can get people to envision the quality not quantity aspect, i.e. that quality of life is more important than just breeding babies regardless of the circumstances they'll have to live under when they arrive maybe they can think about what "life" really means, and if we as a society prefer quality to quantity when considering our offspring.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ms. Wardle, I beg to differ....
Posted by: morticia on Oct 14, 2006 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....that the pro-choice side lacks powerful visual images supporting safe, legal abortion:

The Bad Old Days

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ms. Wardle, I beg to differ.... Posted by: dangerouslysane
Thank you LeslieGem
Posted by: munchkinpup on Oct 14, 2006 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for being one of the few to "get it." Your comments are right on target. The author has experienced the LUXURY to have been able to attend college, learn about the abuse (historical and current) of women and presto she changes her mind. I too attended college and studied women's history, however I was from an upper middle class fairly liberal family. Girls in my high school class were getting abortions before they even attended college. They did not want to have a child- yet. I have also known economically advantaged happily married women who have had abortions for various reasons.
No, abortion will not be eliminated even if all of the opportunities and benefits from pro women/family programs ever came to fruition, which is extremely unlikely. Here is the point where this article and the author lost her way:

"But part of the loss of the rhetorical war is the fault of pro-choice feminists; for decades they have reacted to the terms set by anti-choice conservatives, simultaneously alienating women like me, who are for choice but not for abortion. I'd like to see us engage in a new discussion, employing new terms, contexts, and standards; being pro-active instead of reactive."

Huh?! Pro choice feminists are not at fault for anything. Let's cut the "pro-active and reactive" doublespeak and speak the truth. It is difficult to say the least, to battle with a religious movement that only wants to see women shackled by male domination of women's sexuality forever. The author states she wants to "engage in a new discussion," but her very words belie the same old anti choice agenda, just a "new" refrain.
Otherwise, WHAT IS REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE?? IF WE ARE FOR CHOICE, THEN WE ARE FOR ABORTION RIGHTS. PERIOD.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank you LeslieGem Posted by: crashgrab
Come on, ladies.
Posted by: emsimm on Oct 14, 2006 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, this is well written . . . as a result of your Ph.D. in Rhet and Comp. The use of a conversion narrative is a clever device, and the comments that people have left you are a testament to its effectiveness. Despite the fact that is well-crafted, I question your sincerity. Is this an assumed, fictional narrative voice? Are you really advocating that we beware of this particular argument?

I take exception to it for two reasons: a) its just too damn soft, and b)the 'woman' is conspicously absent. I'm glad that at least one commentator sent in a picture to remind us of the 'coat hanger' days. Do we really need to be as mushy as your piece to win over the hearts and consciences of the conservative right? Are they really so hardened or willing to close their eyes to images like this?

Why do we reject all rhetoric associated with 2nd Wave feminism? Despite what's going on in South Dakota, things seem pretty quiet on the Western Front. Is the 'in your face' approach over the-top? A bit. But the women's movement worked for us and the fact that we have dispensed with all of its politics and protest tactics looks like we have turned our back on our past and spat in the faces of all the women who led us to our current lives.

Taken as a 'stand alone', your argument might not be the smartest approach to retaining access to abortion in the future/present. If we want to retain our current rights (I live in MA, so I'm luckier than some) we need to combine your rhetorical approach with 2nd wave activism.

Your argument isn't falling on deaf ears here on alternet, but beyond? Loving the optimism, but its not motivating anyone to get out and picket, or donate to planned parenthood, or knock on the doors of their legislators, or revolutionize their school districts' health curricula. Want to know what the real problem is? The real impediment to access to abortion? We've become lazy. We're resting on the laurels of 2nd wave feminists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Clarifications--Part I
Posted by: EWardle on Oct 14, 2006 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always tell my students that we read in any text what we bring to it, and that truism is clearly evident in the responses to my article. The responses suggest I am a thoughtful feminist *and* and fundamentalist right wing nutjob *and* a manhating "feminazi." How can all these be true? And how can my text support all of these readings? They can't--and it doesn't.

I wrote at the urging of my friend and editor Krista. I did not want to write for publication. It took years for her to convince me to do so. I didn't imagine I had much new to say, but I did imagine the personal cost of saying whatever I said could be high. The abortion debate is so polemical, so divisive. There is absolutely no dialogue, no room on either end for a view that strays from the core, fundamental beliefs of the movement (whichever movement that might be). Krista urged me to try to say something that might encourage an actual dialogue, that might lead us all to focus on potential areas of agreement. That's what I tried to do, by illustrating to feminists that it is possible for a right-wing fundamentalist to change (over a long period of time, by the way--there was no "presto" about it) and by illustrating to the "pro-life" movement that perhaps there is room for more than one position while still maintaining one's core values for ones' own choices.

I am grateful for the many thoughtful responses I've read here. I'm also disappointed by some mean-spirited misreadings. There is nothing in my article to suggest that I am "yet another fundamentalist trying to punish women for having sex." Unless you think the fact that I hold a personal belief that a fetus is a life makes me a fundamentalist. I disagree; what would make me a fundamentalist is if I thought a fetus was a life *and* that I then had the right to push my belief into law and onto the bodies of all women everywhere. I do not. My choice is just that--my choice. What other women do must be their choice--and thus, I will always vote for pro-choice (not pro-abortion or anti-abortion) candidates.

What disturbs me most about the ongoing abortion "debate" is that fundamentalism is alive and well on both sides. To be a fundamentalist is to believe certain things are true and everyone else must believe those things, too, in exactly the same way. I expect this of Evangelicals; I was one, after all. I am disappointed to see fundamentalism rear its ugly head on AlterNet, among self-proclaimed progressives. We will never make headway on this issue until we can listen and *hear* and respond thoughtfully and respectfully to people with whom we do not exactly agree. Attacks and name-calling might make us feel better about ourselves and our view, but they won't change people's minds, which is, after all, the point of a dialogue (isn't it?). Being condescending and sarcastic are also very poor rhetorical tools if change is what we are after. They, again, might make you feel like the superior person (i.e., the "she-bot programmed by Patriarchy" comment was really clever and Wardle's article wasn't funny or clever at all, so H_H gets to feel smarter), but they alienate any person who might consider a pro-choice position. Who will be influenced by a group that acts nasty, spiteful, and superior--whether that group is pro- or anti-choice?

[More below...too long]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clarifications--Part I Posted by: txjill
» RE: a theological argument Posted by: Ripcord
Clarifications--Part II
Posted by: EWardle on Oct 14, 2006 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, I want to adress the patriarchy comments. I agree there are so many more factors involved in the abortion issue than those I have stated, one being that a patriarchal society encourages women to pro-create and is solidified when women cannot control their own bodies and that women are forced into patriarchy-approved roles when access to abortion is limited. Believe me, as a professional woman who chooses not to be a mother, I am well aware of the pressure to pro-create and fulfill my "proper role." But my article was about something else--it was about why I used to be against laws that allowed for choice and what events encouraged me to see shades of gray. When I was against choice laws, any mention of patriarchy and controlling women's bodies would have immediately shut down a conversation with me. I didn't understand it and couldn't see it at that point in my personal journey. I needed other sorts of information in order to change. The patriarchy-controlling-women's-lives conversation can be productive among those who are already at a place where they can understand it, but it has limited usefulness for helping open dialogue and change the minds of "pro-lifers" who typically see the very concept of "patriarchy" as another piece of "liberal propaganda." That's why it's left out in this article.

What I'd like to do as a feminist and a rhetorician is seek out ways to stop talking *about* the "others" and instead start talking *with* them in order to change minds and improve the lives of women and children and--yes--men everywhere. My story is an attempt to demonstrate how I think that could happen. I'm sure many of you have other ideas about how to make this happen. I look forward to reading them. There are those of you reading, however, who clearly do not think the goal is to change minds of opponents but rather "battle" and "conquer" them. To those readers, I can only say we do not share the same goals or methods. Yours is the rhetoric of the closed fist; mine is the rhetoric of the open hand.

Peace and Choice,
Elizabeth

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: kablooie
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: MEL810
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: xennonette
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: morticia
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: Madam Hatter
Coddled daughters of the religious right eventually learn.
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Oct 14, 2006 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They usually just keep their mouths shut.

At least ONE had the guts to admit she DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

And maybe she's got it all worked out intellectually, but this might just move her closer to the point of getting it worked out practically. Any move to interfere in the medical decisions of an individual and that individuals physician are highly suspect. If I decide that I don't want wealthy old men to have penile implants...I, by the absurd logic of the anti-choice movement, should be allowed to prevent it by law. Then, I might gather a group that decides there should be no access to certain medications. (How many insurance programs of all sort refuse to pay for birth control, but shell out regularly for Viagra?)

A society controlled for the benefit of the wealthy, powerful and usually male will have these problems. How about the US backs off the backwards fundamentalist turn that the Bush Administration has dragged us down with? Then the currently outraged 'betrayed' religious fundamentalists can pull away form the political fundamentalists that have used them, and suddenly, the anti-choice movemont goes back to being the province of the uneducated, the narrowminded and the brainwashed.

Give the woman credit. She learned over a number of years what so many of us learned very rapidly while standing by the deathbed (or floor, or bathtub, or alley or cartrunk) of our desperate sisters and friends who paid with their lives for something they were only half (or less) responsible for.

There's currently a young person with a CafePress site with the South Dakota restrictions and a wire hanger on t-shirts. I would hope (and as a Christian, also pray) that this never becomes needed nationwide, and that the restrictions are lifted. It's been 20 years since I watched a child die in an overcrowded Emergency Room from a self-administered "old wives tale/urban rumor" pregnancy termination of cola and Drano. I don't want to ever have to think of it again, but it comes back to haunt me regularly. Pro-life? Like her adoptive father who was also the father of the fetus that the 12 year old was trying to get rid of? AND of the baby his 16 year old half sister bore a few months later? He got 16 months. And she got to be dead.

If it's not your body, it's not your call. If you don't have a uterus, don't interfere with those that do. If you're wanting to exercize 'father's rights' you BETTER be ready for the responsibilities, too.

Anti-Choice. Brought to you by the people that also oppose financial help for the poor, healthcare for ANYBODY that can't pay, lots of big wars and plenty of capital punishment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

growing up with a mind
Posted by: Gregor on Oct 14, 2006 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we insist on regulating women's bodies, why not do what the Nazi's did with their pregnant teen moms. Just create an insititution where they can have their babies and then the babies who are most Aryan or gee, in this case "Most American" (however we could define that) and raise them as Hitler Youth--oh excuse me, "Christian Youth" or "American Youth" or whatever. I am sure that institution is coming, after all even the Right Wingers know you can't totally control humans, life is messy after all. If it could have been done it would have been done. Hitler was real close though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: growing up with a mind Posted by: dangerouslysane
Never put your opponent in a corner
Posted by: jackyb on Oct 14, 2006 7:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author posted: "There are those of you reading, however, who clearly do not think the goal is to change minds of opponents but rather "battle" and "conquer" them." Can we assume the author wants action to follow her statement? Enemies are created when you mistreat someone. A good place to win hearts and minds is to begin with throwing out sexist laws that are unfair to men. When a woman's choice affects men financially, it's not just about women. You might modify your thoughts to consider how unfairness is what is making pro-lifers dig in -- you made them mad. Whoever whined about the Right being in control for 12 years, have you forgotten the Left controlled the House for 40 years -- non-stop from 1954 to 1994? Maybe the take-no-prisoners mentality that reigned for 40 years created too many enemies (fighting for late-term abortion -- you must've been nuts). Had you not been so selfish and toned things down a bit, given in a little, perhaps the old Chinese proverb might not've bit your behind (never back your opponent into a corner -- he will fight harder and beat you). Ever thought of that? You should've. The problem is not those in power. The problem is in how you made your bed. Don't be so piggish. Stand down and wait your turn. Most people in any abortion debate know little about "give". For them it's all about "take". Well, we know from history what happens to takers. They don't survive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

off-the-radar 2
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on Oct 14, 2006 7:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thanks Ms Wardle for your thoughtful and very well written piece encouraging dialogue on a very difficult topic. (And I too am still surprised by some of the virulent and patronizing fundamentalism of the left.)

My journey was the other way. In my teens I supported the concept of late-term abortions. In my twenties, as the result of a political ethics course at university and a wonderful non-ideological professor, I concluded that only abortions as late as five months should generally be allowed (with exceptions such as the mother's life and well-being). And then, after a long-sought pregnancy in my 30s, I decided against amniocentesis as abortion wasn't a personal option for me. It was so profoundly surprising to have my emotions trump my intellect.

And yet, like you, I would not want to make that choice for someone else. I could not presume to judge others' reasons. Years ago, I tried to provoke my grandmother into a debate about abortion. I was pro-choice then (still am actually) and assumed she would be reactively opposed. Instead she shared a story about her married cousin, a poor Londoner in the 1920s with three children. who bled to death after an abortion for her fourth pregnancy. And lips firmly sealed about the identity of the person who had performed the abortion . . .

Thank you again for your piece and your very thoughful clarifications, I so much appreciated having the opportunity to read and reflect.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Handmaid's Tale
Posted by: justAnEgg on Oct 14, 2006 8:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I came from a country where women had all the rights and benefits asked for by the author here: general health care, mandatory child support by fathers - wedlock or otherwise, 3 years motherhood leave, sex education at junior high, no religious pressure whatsoever, free pill, and more. Yet, abortion was a part of an everyday life and no one made a fuss about it. It was as simple as that: only the pregnant woman could make the choice, there was absolutely no one in the world to make that decision in her stead. I could have tried to influence my wife's opinion, but I knew that the final choice was undeniably her. My point being: from my perspective, it's beyond me that anyone should even try to DARE to make such a decision in anybody else's name. Simply put - it's outrageous! Dropping bombs on abortion clinics sounds like science fiction antiutopia to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Handmaid's Tale Posted by: TheNamelessCity
wrong.
Posted by: barbtries on Oct 15, 2006 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have NEVER called religious fundamentalists who crusade against my right to handle issues that are my issues "pro-life" - to my mind they are "anti-abortion," and usually reactionary self satisfied preachers. when i didn't ask for religion. Your coming to be aware of religion's tendency to cause us human beings to hate ourselves and our bodies - because we ARE human - is one reason i don't do religion. On the question of abortion, I describe myself as "pro-choice," always have. The thing about the issue at this point is the way the same people don't blink an eye while all over the globe wars are massacring people who already made it through the womb and into life.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An important question for Dr. Wardle
Posted by: morticia on Oct 15, 2006 11:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dr. Wardle, I ask this respectfully and in utter seriousness: what do we do about the rampant historical revisionism occurring on the anti-choice side? When abortion is illegal, women have illegal abortions and often die hideously. But the fiction is extant among anti-choicers that all those stories you hear from the "bad old days"-- women being blindfolded and driven somewhere by strange men, poked with a knitting needle or an umbrella spine by a prostitute, a mortician or a seedy old drunken doctor with nothing left to lose, dying of septic shock or hemorrhage or a perforated uterus--all those stories, say the anti-choicers, are mere propaganda, urban legend, never happened. How is it possible to have a "dialogue" with people who deny what's really the most urgent aspect of the so-called "abortion war"--that when abortion is illegal, women die crude, dirty, savage barbaric deaths, and if they don't die, suffer near-death illness and grave injury, and at the very least, terror and sexual humiliation? I'm fifty-something and was "there." I got my Purple Heart, believe me. And I don't know a single person born in the 50s or earlier who didn't either have an illegal abortion, know someone who had an illegal abortion, or know someone who died from an illegal abortion. What do I do when 19-year-olds, male and female, look me in the eye and say it never happened?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you, Ian, Posted by: morticia
A storytelling project
Posted by: ggmurray on Oct 15, 2006 4:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd like to see a project where women get to share their abortion stories, have them documented and put into a book so that the whole nation can have the benefit of real life truth telling.
And also, for those men who started those pregnancies and are willing to share their truth, print their stories too.
What's missing from this whole debate is real people, real lives, and the difficult choice for both partners.
And further, given the diverse cultural and religious population of America, how did each person's decision evolve in the light of their beliefs? We are not all the same. The emotional, spiritual, physical, economic, and cultural context in which each pregnancy occurs is a vast geography of heart and mind that awaits our understanding.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A storytelling project Posted by: morticia
» RE: A storytelling project Posted by: EWardle
» RE: A storytelling project Posted by: morticia
» RE: A storytelling project Posted by: tofurella
Without advocating abortion?
Posted by: n_saneone on Oct 15, 2006 9:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I now believed in choice, but without advocating abortion." This quotation clearly illustrates one of the central issues within the debate at hand. I challenge anyone to show me someone who genuinely advocates abortion. Nobobdy is pro-abortion. The pro-choice position clearly advocates choice implicitly. No where in the world are there people telling all new mothers to terminate their pregnancies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about the morning-after pill?
Posted by: kwalls on Oct 16, 2006 6:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing I find incredibly ironic, hypocritical and outright mad is the pro-lifers/fundamentalists being AGAINST the morning-after pill, a method that prevents abortions by preventing conception. It is so clear that these folks really don't care about fetuses, they simply want to control women and want to punish women for having and perhaps--horrors!--enjoying sex. If they could do it, they'd have cameras in our bedrooms making sure women were suitably subservient and showed no pleasure. We're just supposed to be vessels to turn out good little Christian soldiers to be fodder for the capitalist war, profit and religion machine.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Do The Math
Posted by: Christian Southern Liberal on Oct 16, 2006 7:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your perspective (almost identical to mine btw) will not be heard. Why? Because if those of us who make logical sense were given a voice in mainstream media there would not be a serious divide between the pro-choice and pro-life groups.

Media (especially TV) is paid for by corporatists, who benefit by Republicans being in office. The "abortion debate" was invented and strengthened by these corporatist Republicans in order to get themselves elected. It worked and pro-life is the Republican claim to fame. Without this issue the Republicans could never get elected because by voting Republican people are actually voting against their best interests.

FYI: When confronted by pro-lifers ask if it is OK to kill the baby in the case of a tubal pregnancy. If they agree then tell them they are "for" abortion and the rest is just degrees. If they say no and would allow both the mother and baby die then tell them they are not pro-"life".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This courageous article illuminates why the "religious right" is also anti-intellectual!
Posted by: fool-on-the-hill on Oct 16, 2006 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Where women are EDUCATED, they are likely to become responsible adults --- rather than things (e.g., sex-objects, "trophies", baby-makers)!

Responsible adults are far less likely to "accidentally" become pregnant, or to need an abortion. However, thay are also far less likely to be exploited in a variety of other ways near-and-dear to the status quo! Educated women are profoundly threatening to men who derive their self-esteem from their "male superiority." By extension, educated women are the greatest imaginable threat to a patriarchal culture!

Moreover, the "new" racism, rampant in our society, is "anti-abortion" because white supramacists are particularly alarmed by another consequence of educating women. Wherever women become educated (i.e., responsible and informed adults) the birth rate falls. (Take note, those of you interested in over-population!)

Educated women, who become responsible adults, are likely to only bear the number of children they can nurture and educate to also become responsible adults. The largest percentage of educated women are in the developed nations of North America and Europe, predominantly "white" societies. The white supremacists are upset that in these "white" societies, the birth rate is falling. As a result of that falling birth rate, "whites" are (globally speaking) becoming more and more of a "minority." (It never occurs to these morons that "white" minority status is a compelling reason to eradicate racism, before "whites" really get bitten in the ass by it!)

Rational discussion of the abortion issue can never take place when so many (often unspoken) emotional and cultural biases are a part of it!

That so many men (and women!) in our country feel threatened by rational discourse and condemn others for wanting to be educated (rather than indoctrinated at a "bible" college) is an alarming indictment of our current American culture!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank you for your article
Posted by: hanelse on Oct 17, 2006 11:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I don't agree with your belief that abortion is wrong, I do appreciate your sharing your views and their evolution. I have always been a feminist, and it is enlightening to me to see the issue of abortion from a completely different perspective. Your article helps me to understand a little bit more the concept of using a theology to make important life decisions, something I could not even conceive of doing. But then that is a big part of the problem. Pro-choicers don't understand pro-birthers, and vice verse. Most of all, though, I respect your courage in writing this article. Whether or not your readers agree or disagree with your views in my opinion is unimportant. It took guts to lay your personal journey out for all to see, and I hope you focus more on the satisfaction of that than on what others are saying about it.

I hope that the dialog does change in future. I hope it turns to something that the general public can understand on both sides, but that would take a lot more people being introspective and sharing than are now. It's a shame that you are an exception and not the rule.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Look no further...... Posted by: morticia
A zygote is a child. fool-on-the-hill is not kidding
Posted by: jackyb on Oct 18, 2006 7:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
fool-on-the-hill is not kidding about pro-lifers believing a zygote is a child. I'm not kidding when choicers believe a late-term fetus is not a baby. There's a lot more to Socrates than knowing thyself. Of course, fool-on-the-hill missed it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Live and let live
Posted by: *** on Oct 18, 2006 9:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are many reasons for a pro-choice position and some convince some people and others different ones. Some people believe that the principle of a person controlling their body is a key human right which trumps any the foetus has, obviously the author doesn’t value it as highly , but the belief is no more extreme than those who believe that the right to liberty is a key human right, or that of free speech, or that abortion is murder, or war is murder. It was pretty arrogant of the author to tell those women who support abortion on this principle that their principles are wrong, not give any reason except that if they lie about their principles they will have the support of women such as herself and then proceed to lecture them on being fundamentalists.

Has she even considered that her views that abortion is necessary murder is OK is just as alienating to some women as she finds theirs that no murder has taken place? And that there are people who know that better social provision only makes abortion less likely it doesn’t eradicate it.

PS I live in a country with free contraception and abortion and mandated sexual education and reasonable welfare provision. You still can’t change the fact that people make mistakes especially when young, that there are sudden life changes such as job loss or relationship breakdowns or existing family having problems that the parents need to concentrate on or just plain stupidity.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We can thank the Internet: Long live the family, children and real spouses.
Posted by: jackyb on Oct 18, 2006 12:34 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In response to the previous post: Live and let live, I wonder if this person has ever thought beyond the end of the nose and considered the millions of unfortunate men, worldwide, who are drafted into compulsory military service every year, the right to control their bodies lost -- far too often their lives, too. If you want to campaign for your own freedom, you might consider forming an alliance with all who are oppressed, not just your selfish selves. While globalization enslaves 100s of thousands of new woman annually (mostly domestic workers employed by lazy, selfish Western affluent women), under the guise of -- what else -- feminism, too many have their eye on the wrong ball: continued posturing for the murder of unborn babies. Of course, too many are too stupid to see this bigger picture, perfectly content to blame men, Republicans and Christians for their wrongly, selfishly perceived plight. Unfortunately, most woman in the world did not ask to be exploited. It was forced down their throats by a small, esoteric cadre of left-thinking, short-sighted woman, who wrongly believed and campaigned for a new, self-absorbed lifestyle -- the hell with family, kids, and men. This same cadre can blame the Internet for their demise, for in this new age of the free exchange of information, their lies have not stood the test of truth. Ever since the mid 90s when the Internet began to blossom, this evil cadre of women has been on a path of doom. Nature is never kind to those on a wrong course. Long live the Internet. And long live the family, children and real spouses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unbelievably Awesome
Posted by: Whatareyouthinking on Oct 18, 2006 4:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even though I have always been pro-choice I absolutely agree with everything you say. Education truly is power and giving that power to all young people will prevent more people from having to make that choice.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Unless you know everything, what you need is thinking
Posted by: jackyb on Oct 19, 2006 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In response to this post: "You could obviously do with a little genuine education. In the words of Malcolm Forbes: Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one."

Forbes obviously has never heard: "Unless you know everything, what you need is thinking." Neither have you. Abortionist's arguments are all trite, because none are creative enough to "think" of something new and original, relying lazily on education to substitute for genuine "thinking". It's not rocket science to conclude abortion is murder. Ask 100 little girls if killing a baby is okay. Every last one will hate you. Yet some of these same little girls will become abortionists after their mind is "trained" in educational institutions, which substitute thinking for flawed groupthink. Forbes obviously got it wrong. Education's purpose is to replace a thinking mind with groupthink.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pro-choice, not pro-abortion
Posted by: aebartle on Oct 19, 2006 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, thank you, thank you for an article that articulates the views I have held for a long time, but have been unable to vocalize. I am also a Christian who is staunchly pro-choice, while also convinced that I would not have an abortion myself. Being involved with religious organizations while in college, I was often the odd-woman-out when it came to pro-choice/anti-choice discussions. I was informed that my pro-choice stance actually meant that I would automatically want to abort any pregnancy I may accidentally or otherwise achieve. Clearly untrue, and a ridiculous statement in any case. Thank you for articulating that it is possible to be pro-choice and not pro-abortion. Abortion is a last resort, and would be made much more rare by accurate sex education and access to birth control. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Women have had abortions in some form or another for millennia, and will continue to do so if abortion is made illegal again. The only difference is that more women will die.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wouldn't kill my baby, but it's okay to kill yours?
Posted by: jackyb on Oct 20, 2006 8:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
aebartle posted: "I am also a Christian who is staunchly pro-choice, while also convinced that I would not have an abortion myself."

This is just more of the hypocrisy that infests the pro-choice mouthpieces. Where there's paradox, there's always a common denominator. In this case, aebartle is staunchly pro-choice because it provides her with pro-life foes to feed her combatant nature. Too much of a sheep, she's lost her creative youth that otherwise entertains without street-fighting. How do you explain that it's okay to kill your baby, but not hers? How do you explain killing an aborted baby born live?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fetuses grow up too
Posted by: Urstrly on Oct 20, 2006 8:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story is a testiment to the power of education and its capacity to engender empathy. Many people who fight abortion seem not all that concerned with the life of the fetuses they save. A case in point: some years ago, friends adopted a white baby boy whose young biological parents were unmarried. This baby grew into a young man with many problems (drugs, alcohol, jail) as he has struggled for maturity, and recently, he was able to contact his birth parents, who were furious to be discovered. Seems they had married and had other children who were unaware of his existence. Had the pregnancy been detected, the father would have lost his Catholic college scholarship. Now, the father is very successful, and it would have meant the world to the troubled young man if he had been accepted. Shortly after this rejection, he was contacted by another young man who turned about to be his brother! Seems the young couple had given birth to a second baby boy they put up for adoption. This young man, too, has had many identity issues. The religion that dictates that abortion is immoral turns a blind eye toward the consequences of sex without birth control and the creation of two human beings who will forever bear the sting of being unwanted by their biological parents.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]