A War on Abortion · Friday January 27, 2006
Jason Kottke linked to this New York Times article by William Saletan. It’s a well-written piece on how the pro-choice movement can be “pro-life” without capitulating to the religious conservatives.
“Once you agree that the goal is fewer abortions, the only thing left to debate is how to get there. As a politician might put it: ‘My opponent and I are both pro-life. We want to avoid as many abortions as we can. The difference is, I trust women to work with me toward that objective, and he doesn’t.’
Isn’t that better than anything you heard from John Kerry?”
It’s sort of reiterating what Bill Clinton said a few years back: Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. But when “pro-lifers” refuse to look at anything other than abstinence as a tool for avoiding unwanted pregnancies, they are most likely INCREASING the number of abortions performed, because people will still have sex, no matter what sort of special ring or wristband they wear or promise they make. And overturning Roe Vs. Wade would only increase the number of unsafe, illegal abortions.
I’ve had far more Christian friends involved in accidental pregnancies than secular friends. And although the children have largely been born into loving and healthy families and communities, I believe it still points toward a bigger problem: Religious conservatives undermine sex education by focussing solely on abstinence as a form of birth control. When you are taught nothing but abstinence, you are unprepared for the myriad complexities of sexual interaction. And thus, while many of my Christian friends and acquaintances (including myself) were either ignoring sex ed or not taught much about it, my secular friends (at least in Canada) were learning about sex in a mature and balanced fashion.
And this is why the religious right should accept that teaching about family planning and contraception in public school is not a bad thing. It will reduce the number of unwanted pregancies, abortions, and GASP, it might even increase the number of people waiting longer to have sex.
But this is the eternal split between left and right: the religious right will never accept this possibility, because it’s “against God’s law” to even mention the subject of sex before marriage–which, by the way, started off as an economic/social institution, not necessarily a religious one.
Still, I agree with Mr Saletan: the pro-choice movement on the left should declare war on abortion. Except rather than attempting to legislate a reduction in abortions, they should position themselves as “pro-life” by reducing the number of abortions through widespread educational programs and easy access to contraceptives. If Democrats can somehow figure out a way to reposition themselves as pro-life without being anti-choice, then they might be able to prevent abortions and gain votes while continuing to respect the right of women to choose.
Of course, with Republicans dominating Federal politics right now and the government running a massive deficit, it’s hard to imagine that a push for additional sex ed/family planning dollars would pass. Well, we can dream.
← Previous entry: PANDA BEARS ARE CUTE
→ Next entry: STUPID.
flint writes:
Frat Boy Voice: “Dude, that movie ‘Saved’ is AWESOME!”
posted Jan 27, 05:26 PM ~ #
Suzanne writes:
Alex, this is a really thoughtful, inspiring post. I ponder this topic a lot because both sides drive me nuts. I really like what you have to say here. The concept of it being a simply a ‘choice’ still bothers me, though. It is staggering how utterly selfish that perspective is. So many of my female friends over the years have casually mentioned that they would either keep a child or abort it, that it would be ‘too hard’ for them to put a child up for adoption. And I always wonder, “Can’t you think of the well-being of any other person than yourself?”
What I want to see is a huge campaign to make adoption, for lack of a better word, cool. Women need to be more educated about the option, especially for open adoption’ where you can have a relationship with the child and their adoptive family, while the child is still a minor. Today’s adoption is not your 1950’s adoption. Dan Savage goes into it in detail in his book, “The Kid”, when he and his gay partner adopt a child. But this is really not discussed in a public forum; and where are the public service announcements? I think commercials putting a human face to would-be adoptive parents, and to happily adopted kids, would be an important addition to the debate. It would be a very intelligent pro-life move to something as indirect as to thoughtfully and sympathetically market abortion to women with unwanted pregnancies. Just my 2 cents.
posted Feb 9, 12:33 AM ~ #