October 10, 2006 8:50 PM
Pro-Life Leftists
No, that's not an oxymoron. Although pro-life Democrat politicians are few and far between, there are liberal thinkers out there who from the beginning have been anti-abortion.
You can find their voices at Abortion and the American Left.
In her 1980 article "Abortion: The Left Has Betrayed the Sanctity of Life" Mary Meehan writes:
The abortion issue, more than most, illustrates the occasional tendency of the Left to become so enthusiastic over what is called a “reform” that it forgets to think the issue through. It is ironic that so many on the Left have done on abortion what the conservatives and Cold War liberals did on Vietnam: They marched off in the wrong direction, to fight the wrong war, against the wrong people.
She argues that:
-the Left has always defended the weak and helpless
-the right to life “underlies and sustains every other right we have”
-abortion is a civil rights issue
-abortion exploits women
-abortion “is an escape from an obligation owed to another”
-abortion “brutalizes those who perform it, undergo it, pay for it, profit from it, and allow it to happen
She concludes:
And the “slippery slope” argument is right: people really do go from accepting abortion to accepting euthanasia. . . . We slip down the slope back to the jungle.
I know my readers run the gamut politically, but I want to take this opportunity to ask those of you who consider yourself pro-choice if you've revisited the issue since becoming older, wiser and more experienced vis a vis motherhood. I think when people get locked into a position and begin to define themselves, they often stop thinking.
To have a truly open mind means that you're always willing to consider new information or new ways of understanding. As one of the founding mothers of the Second Wave of feminism, I know that when we originally set out to secure abortion rights none of us could have imagined that we would end up killing a million and a half babies a year.
What boggles my mind is that feminists have not responded to this terrible situation in any way other than defending their position. Since 1973 when abortion was legalized, we have killed over one quarter of all babies conceived in the United States. One day my son came home from high school and said he'd all of a sudden been struck by the realization that one fourth of his class was not there.
When you think about it, the situation is really terrible: the selfish Baby Boomers - who were already a demographic bulge - demanded the right to abort when pregnancy was not convenient for them. Now they are living longer than previous generations and demanding more medical services - can anyone say Viagra? - and programs which will be paid for by guess who? The generation of whom they killed one quarter.
Unbelievable selfishness! Why the younger generations are putting up with this - by voting in Democrats who will always expand government programs which calls for more taxes - I do not know. Although there are signs that the younger generations are becoming more conservative - and definitely more pro-life.
It can't be a good feeling to know that you exist only at the pleasure of your parents - that they had the right to get rid of you if they wanted.
That's why Jack Nicholson says he's not pro-choice - he was conceived illegitimately at a time when that was rare and yet his mother carried him to term. He has said: "I'm very contra my constituency in terms of abortion because I'm positively against it. I don't have the right to any other view. My only emotion is gratitude, literally, for my life".
Hooray for him for his courage to go against the tremendous pressure of his leftist peers!
Posted in Pro-Life Issues | Permalink
Comments
What an excellent post, Barbara. "programs which will be paid for by guess who? The generation of whom they killed one quarter." What an profound way to express an important truth.
I was pro-choice in my college days. I got very wrapped up in the hype surrounding Clinton during his first campaign and I bought in to the liberal mindset hook, line and sinker (for a time). Thankfully, about the time I met the man who would someday be my husband, I went through a time of spiritual growth that caused me to rethink those earlier positions.
God does change hearts, indeed.
Posted by: Shannon @ Rocks in my Dryer | October 10, 2006 10:56 PM
I'm a lucky mama. My kids, the oldest of which is ten, are already vying with each other for the privilege of caring for me when I'm old. It's good to be loved.
I was sort of pro-choice before I had children. Sort of in that I knew I couldn't have an abortion but I wouldn't take the choice away from another. But then, I fell in love with my baby long before she was born, and I was head-over-heels when I got to hold her for the first time, and I wondered how anyone could say that this little person who'd been kicking and squirming inside of me all these months wasn't really alive, wasn't really a person. We'd even played together! I still don't understand, but I think it's true that people stop thinking.
Posted by: Jennie C. | October 11, 2006 6:40 AM
There's a lot of us pro-life democrats and we're not very happy about our party being taken over by the pro-choice camp!
This is something I have struggled with. Associating myself with a party where the majority is prochoice.
I have chosen to stay and fight for it. I am saddened by the number of Dems who left the party soley on this issue. If we all stayed, maybe we'd have the numbers to get some changes made.
Wouldn't it be great to have people on both sides of the aisle fighting for life?
Here in Missouri we have that at the state level. I'm looking forward to seeing it nation wide.
Posted by: whimsy | October 11, 2006 8:56 AM
I was prochoice all the way through the 23rd week of my pregnancy when my water broke. I was taken to the NICU and was shown the children of similar gestational age to my own to get a feel of what he might look like if he was born at that stage.
All of the sudden my "not for me, but it has to be a right!" attitude went flying out the window. It made me evaluate why I would support something that I considered murder. Once I realized the absurdity of my opinon I went flying to the pro-life side.
Posted by: Lauren | October 11, 2006 9:50 AM
I never talk about abortion, but I surfed into this website and felt moved to write. I have two young children and consider myself to be morally and ethically against abortion in most cases but overall "pro-choice". My reasoning is that the pure pro-life position at first blush doesn't make you squirm or feel awful, but it's essentially unworkable from a legal and administrative point of view--IF you ascribe to the notion that there should be certain exceptions when abortions should be allowed. Most pro-lifers believe in exceptions, right? Unfortunately, if you believe in exceptions to the rule, I don't see how you could be pro-life--at least as the political parties and the Christian right have defined it. If there were a law that made abortions illegal, except for certain situations, women who wanted to have abortions would have to prove administratively or in court that they fell into those exceptions. I cannot imagine any scenario in which a determination of "exception" would take shorter than a few weeks or months--and the law now is that abortions can't take place after the first trimester, except under doctor's orders to preserve the life of the mother (very limited). So a mother finds out she is pregnant with a child who has a neurological or chromosomal disease that makes him or her not able to live except on life support--or only live for a few days or weeks after birth. I, for one, feel very uncomfortable about telling this woman she can't have an abortion and must raise this child herself or give him to the state to raise on life support for the duration. If this mother wishes to terminate her pregnancy, she would have to "apply" to fall into one of the exceptions to the abortion ban law--she would have to "prove" she is eligible for the abortion. My sense is that this determination would in most cases be approved after the first trimester is over--the law as it is now allows abortions only until the first trimester, so nearly all abortions that take place in this country happen then. The danger to the mother of having an abortion is increased the farther along the child is--imagine all the rigamarole and numbers of people trying to get evaluated and "prove" they fall into the exception! If they manage to prove "exception", can they have the abortion, even if it's after the first trimester? Could any determination be made in the first trimester, when most mothers don't have diagnoses of problems until well into the first trimester, if that! This "exception" problem is the one I can't get over--if I can think of some real scenarios in which I would feel very uncomfortable telling another woman she should not have an abortion, then I am pro-choice. I think the better approach is to keep our laws as they are now and strengthen services, media, and information campaigns designed to discourage abortion and provide easily accessible options to the pregnant mother to take the child to term. I know the mainstream pro-choice position does not advocate discouraging abortion--rather, it seems to encourage it. This is horrible and wrong, in my view. I want to see pro-choice advocates who discourage abortion generally but want to keep it available for extreme and unfortunate circumstances--that kind of spin on the issue is just not possible the way the camps are polarized now--abortion is just black and white, pro-choice or pro-life. Both sides are simplifying the issue too much--one side errs on the side of hurting women, and the other side errs on the side of hurting babies--we need a more moderate approach to the issue, if you ask me. My two cents!
Posted by: Erika | October 13, 2006 5:39 PM
I think the "exception rule" is what is generally in use now. Women just blame their financial situation or career, or whatever, to try and justify what they're doing. As far as chromosomal abnormalities and other defects, I don't think its fair to deny those babies life either. No parent knows how difficult it will be to raise their child. How severe do the problems with the fetus have to be before it is labeled expendable? To consider how horrible abortion is, I couldn't imagine worrying about any "rigamarole" or frenzy limitations might create. It's wrong, in any situation. Murder doesn't have an "exception rule." It's illegal, simple as that.
Posted by: curious | November 7, 2009 5:43 AM
