There are at least two brands of anti-choice ideology out there. One is the belief that the government should make forced pregnancy the law of the land. There is another belief system which teaches the notion that abortion is somehow a "problem" that needs to be solved. There are two basic problems with this notion. The first is that it is a very patronizing belief system which offers to "help" women to choose not to end their pregnancies. The second is that it is not supported by either the Constitution or sound science. Unplanned pregnancies, of course, are a problem by definition. But abortion is a necessary safety net for unplanned pregnancies and circumstances that happen outside of peoples' control. And it is a necessary tool in creating a society in which all children who come into this world are wanted and loved.
The comments of True Centrist in this diary are representative of the notion that abortion is somehow a problem. Many "pro-life" Democrats do not think that we should eliminate Roe, but they somehow see abortion as a problem, rather than simply a medical procedure, as those of us who are pro-choice. "Pro-life" in this case is more accurate for these people as at least there is some intellectual consistency -- True Centrist, like many pro-life Democrats, believes in universal healthcare, contraception, and the social safety net, unlike most in the Republican Party. He also opposes capital punishment.
But he operates under the faulty premise that abortion is somehow a problem in the first place. Such people frequently approach it from a religious perspective, that it is a problem from a moral standpoint. But we come at it from a political perspective. And the Constitution states that it is not the business of the government to establish one's religious beliefs.
In fact, there is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution that supports his belief that life somehow begins at conception or that abortion is somehow a problem to be prevented. The Equal Protection Clause 14th Amendment applies to all persons "born in the United States." That means that the Constitution clearly recognizes that full humanity only begins at birth. The teachings of the Supreme Court in Roe govern what the government and states can and can't do before birth. And furthermore, the teachings of the Supreme Court in Griswold show us that there is a right to privacy contained in the Constitution. Therefore, True Centrist's notion that somehow abortion is a problem cannot be a matter of public policy cannot be backed up because we cannot impose his personal beliefs into the equation under the Establishment Clause. If he can show that there is a sound scientific basis for believing that abortion is somehow a problem, that would be totally different -- there is sound scientific evidence, for instance, that global warming is a threat. But in that particular thread, he did not.
But in fact, there is possible evidence that Roe actually helped society. For instance, the murder rate is lower now than it was back in 1972. Was that an accident? This is a question that deserves further investigation. It is totally reasonable to ask if there is a link -- it is logical to assume that wanted children are much more likely to contribute to society in a positive way than unwanted children and that there will be a lot less acting out and drama. Intellectually, a mother may love a child that they did not plan on having. But emotionally, children are not fooled -- they can tell the difference between a parent who really loves them and one who does not. There are scars and personal demons that are much more difficult for an unwanted child to overcome throughout their lifetime.
When life begins is a matter of subjectivity. So, when you try to inject your personal beliefs or personal choices into the debate, then that means that you are injecting your personal religious views into the debate even if you think you aren't. Religious fundamentalism is like a virus -- its memes spread like a worm even in people who think that they have been totally cured of it. Even though most of us here are not, we still live in a culture in which the cultural trappings of religious fundamentalism are everywhere. Since it is subjective, it therefore follows that given the fact that all humans are unique, every person will approach it from a different perspective. It therefore follows from the Establishment Clause that we should not try to establish one set of personal beliefs to guide our policymaking, but should allow for a broad freedom of choice without trying to establish one set of beliefs over another. And that applies to the notion of abortion as a "problem" or any other religious or subjective question.
Science comes closer to resolving this problem because it is based on observation and not some set of subjective religious of philosophical beliefs. From science, we know that the Cerebral Cortex, which makes us who we are, comes into existence around the 22nd week of pregnancy. But there are still many subjective considerations to consider, such as the question of forcing one person to care for another against their wishes. We would not, for instance, force someone against their wishes to physically hook themselves up to some great pianist who was dying of cancer, for instance. So, why should it be any different for a mother carrying her fetus in the last few weeks of pregnancy? Pregnancy is inherently life-threatening for women -- women frequently died in pregnancy or in giving childbirth before the rise of modern medicine. Many still do, especially in third world countries in which there is little or no access to modern medicine.
And since when did it become acceptable all of a sudden to apologize for one's positions on the issue? The problem with True Centrist's whole line of reasoning is that it amounts to an apology for being pro-choice. Starting out by defining abortion as a problem implies that the other side has been right all along. Just ask Daschle, Carnahan, and Clelland how apologizing for being Democrats affected their reelection chances in 2002 and 2004. We should not have to apologize for being who we are -- we are pro-choice and proud of it. Abortion should be a medical issue, not a public policy issue. It is really interesting that opponents of universal healthcare like Ben Nelson, supporters of forced pregnancy, and "pro-life" Democrats have something in common -- they would all bring outside interests that have little or no medical knowledge or training into the picture and interfere in what should be a private medical decision that is between a patient and their doctor. It serves to enable the Republicans because they can turn around and say, "See, even the Democrats admit that it's a problem." Just like the right loved to point to Joe Lieberman to claim "bipartisan" support for Bush's policy of perpetual warfare in Iraq.
And True Centrist's notion that abortion is somehow a problem is based on the faulty premise that it is somehow a problem of poverty. But bushondrugs pointed to several situations in their personal experience which had nothing to do with poverty:
I have had 2 personal friends who had to abort because of serious medical difficulties with the baby. Another friend was a mother of 3 who was unexpectedly getting divorced and who felt she wouldn't have had enough emotional resources to raise child #4 without affecting children #1-3, so she chose an early abortion. Another was a 19-year-old (she's 40 now) who was pregnant due to birth-contol failure, and who didn't want to go through a pregnancy (especially the physical toll of it) while in college. Another was a 15-year-old who had poor judgement.
Yes, this is anecdotal evidence, but it's evidence nonetheless.
When I challenged True Centrist to second-guess any of these situations, he failed to do so. So, while economics is a partial reason for abortions, it is hardly the only reason and True Centrist oversimplifies the question when he claims that it is most of the problem. He also grossly understates the problem of rape in abortions when claiming that only 1% of all women have abortions due to rape or incest. But I submit that these numbers are grossly underreported -- first of all, we know from other statistics that 20% of all women have been raped at some point during their lifetime. Secondly of all, in most circumstances, when women walk into a clinic to have an abortion, they don't have to give a reason why they are having one. So, I submit that the quoted number that True Centrist gave is exponentially lower than the actual number.
And True Centrist set up a straw man when he said it was about population control. It's not a question of population control. We have one of the lowest population densities in the world. It's a quality of life question. And every child who is born should be wanted and loved. And if a pregnant woman decides that she can't raise a child in a nurturing and caring environment and she can't devote all her resources to caring for that child, then she should be able to end her pregnancy in a safe and nonjudgmental environment. True Centrist, on the other hand, would create an environment where a woman who decided to end their pregnancy is pre-judged and labeled as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. And he claims that he would prefer life over quality of life. But what is the point of creating life if we don't have the resources to take care of the children? What is better -- 10 children and not enough money to feed them, or 2 children and enough resources to ensure them a bright future?