Thank you, Barack, for the new ad addressing the issue of choice. There was a diary on Daily Kos earlier this week asking if those who oppose choice should be "pro-life" or "anti-choice." They are really neither; they are "forced birthers."
Forced-birthers want to legislate whether a woman has to give birth to a child, but they disappear figuratively and legislatively when it comes to caring for any child that results from that birth or for the mother/parents who is first pregnant and then the mother/parents of an infant.
They interpret morality as forcing a heart beat and respiration into the world, without regard for quality of life for the new person or the family into whose life this human being is born. But this issue is so much larger than that and I want to talk about the immorality of forcing birth on anyone without regard to the consequences.
I didn't give birth the first time until age 37. My first pregnancy ended in miscarriage because of severe birth defects. What if I hadn't miscarried? Under the Republican view of the world the way it should be, I would have been forced to carry a daughter to term that would have died immediately following birth. At least probably. If she wouldn't have died, my husband and I would be caring for a child who would never know who she is, who we are and who would never have had any quality of life. Is that moral?
I did have a healthy child in my second pregancy. What if my healthy child was born first? Then the second pregnancy was a medically-compromised. If we didn't have the right to terminate the pregnancy, my healthy child would by necessity get less attention, time and energy from parents than the very debilitated sister. I know because I know a family living this way. Our lives would be torn apart trying to keep our daughter "alive" while inadvertently neglecting our other child because we only have so much energy.
To deny women the right to use the medical technology available and forcing them to give birth to any child conceived no matter what the medical condition is forced birth. It really harkens back to male domination of women in the dark ages of a man spilling his seed. I thought modern medicine has taught us that not everything comes out as planned.
While I would never force anyone to obtain an abortion to save the finite medical resources from being invested in someone whose highest quality of life is heartbeat and respiration, my own personal view is that it is immoral to bring this human being into the world. In Biblical times, these babies were placed outside the Red Tent and allowed to die--today medical technology doesnt' make this possible.
Also because I live in a state that is in the bottom 5 in the nation to support people with disabilities, forcing birth in my state is the equivalent of taxation without representation. The state makes the decision that my family and I will pay for, financially and emotionally, forever.
I am a born again Christian, but my God is not as judgemental as these modern day pharisees. The Bible says, "Judge not, lest ye be judged," but these rightwing, fundamentalists have no trouble judging. Forcing birth without providing resources to deal with the consequences of these decisions is, IMO, more immoral than many abortions.
I agree with Barack. Let's do everything we can to limit abortions, but this right of families to make the decision is a foundation of civil and women's rights. This election is for the soul of America, and I hope we see more ads about choice, about the importance of the Supreme Court's next nominees, about the world in which our children will grow up.