Thursday, November 3, 2005 at 07:23AM
the upcoming confirmation hearings of judge alito are, in reality, the
larger culture war played out on the political stage. if this man is
confirmed, there stands more than a fair chance that historic and long
standing rulings regarding discrimination, worker and work-place
rights, and, of course, abortion, will be overturned.
with regard to the last item, for a long, long time, those of us on the
left have been afraid to debate the subject of abortion rights with the
venom and tenacity of those on the right. it makes sense. to them, an
unborn fetus is the same as a living, breathing person. and, frankly,
while scientifically, and most likely, philosophically false, i do
understand the belief. to care for children is the most natural of
human traits.
in defending their position of being against abortion, and in seeking
to make the action illegal, most, if not all of these persons, vilify
those who perform and seek abortions. in their eyes, the providers are
akin to concentration camp workers, extracting joy from the taking of a
life. the person seeking the abortion -- a harlot completely given to
self-indulgence and wanton excess.
but, in painting their opposition in such stark, and grossly false
terms, and in holding the belief that abortion is same thing to the
murder of a 3 year old child, they keep their argument in the black and
white, and end their internal discussion with the self-satisfying
belief that abortion is evil. period. no more needs to be contemplated.
but to those on this side of the debate, i offer the following: very,
very few of those who are for the right of a woman to choose whether or
not to seek an abortion believe that abortion is a great thing. and
those who receive abortions, 99.99999% of them, anyway, see both sides
of the issue. their choice in the matter, whatever the result, is
tinged with doubt, soul searching, and feelings of helplessness. what
prompts these feelings? finances, logistics, future education, familial
support. yet, you who draw your stark lines in the sand, who seek only
to end abortion, fail to account for the full spectrum that abortion
encompasses, and fail to offer any, let alone rational and reasonable,
solutions as to what to do if your side succeeds in outlawing the
practice.
apart from the horrors of incest, rape, and the terminal condition of
the unborn child, which probably don't account for many abortions, I
suspect that the most common reason for seeking an abortion is that the
woman is not ready, mentally or financially, to support a child.
moreover and as alluded to previously, she, more often than not, finds
herself alone in this decision making process -- despite the obvious
fact that the pregnancy was not achieved by individual means. 'then
seek adoption' anti-abortionists say. and, to be fair, that is a
reasonable option to consider. however, because pregnancy is, again,
not the result of an individual act, neither outlawing abortion nor
proffering adoption as the only solution is reasonable.
this is because, in both cases, only the female, in a legal, societal,
and philosophical sense, is left to carry all of the burdens associated
with pregnancy. i'll come back to adoption in a moment, but let me get
to the heart of where i want to be: if the right to life's main
argument is/was merely about preserving life, because life is precious,
why does their plan for ending abortion not go beyond said act? for, to
be certain, at least three lives are now involved: the baby, the
mother, and the father of the child. to put it more directly, what i
have never seen from any of these groups is the plan for how to handle
mother, father, and child once abortions are rendered illegal. even the
most puritanical of the religious right must understand that undesired
pregnancies will still occur. And, until they can outlaw premarital sex
(perhaps the ultimate taliban-ish goal of the christian right), it
seems that we need to at least level the playing field and make all
persons responsible for the pregnancy culpable. In addition, as we (our
society) have restricted these persons' right to choose whether or not
to remain pregnant, and we place value on human life, we must insure
that the life in question is protected not just before birth, but after
the pangs of labor as well. therefore, in addition to seeking an end to
abortion, anti-abortionists should be morally compelled to
simultaneously pass laws that, at a minimum, insure the following:
1. any woman who becomes pregnant may seek as many
paternity tests as necessary to determine the identity of the father.
2. once the father is determined, he shall have his
wages garnished through pregnancy and until the child is 18.
3. since the state has mandated that abortion is
illegal, adequate childcare and health care coverage shall be
provided by the state.
3. no institution, corporate, academic or otherwise, may discriminate on the basis of pregnancy.
Anything less would reveal the anti-abortion movement is more than just
about preserving life. if the movement removes the ability to obtain an
abortion and places most/all responsibilities for raising the child on
the shoulders of the female, then they have revealed themselves to be
just as concerned with limiting the rights of women as they are with
protecting the life of an unborn child.
