So yesterday I saw a flurry of activity on my Facebook news feed which I thought was unusual. The usually heavily loved and supported Susan G. Komen for the Cure was being lambasted by many people after news spread that it was pulling grant funds from Planned Parenthood that had been targeted towards cancer screenings. Many people were sad about the development, and saying, “shame, shame on you” Komen, intimating that this was grievously putting women’s health at risk. And not only that they were putting women’s health at risk, but they were doing it on implied orders from the VRW (vast right wing) and religious right as a means to try and defund PP – them being the largest providers of abortions in the U.S.
I proceeded to post an inquiry on my wall about whether PP was the only entity that offered cancer screening – and that this backlash against Komen seemed to be more people angry at a pro-life agenda than anger at reduced cancer screenings. A civil discussion (seriously) ensued from both sides.
But this whole episode served to highlight a couple things that I think can be learned about people’s feelings on these related matters.
- Many thoughts are illogical — One of the commenters was outraged at how this affects women’s health and that it was hypocritical of a women’s health organization to remove funding. She then proceeded to imply that she would be removing her support from Komen —- thus removing funding for women’s health. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that Komen put women’s health, specifically breast cancer awareness, on the map. According to trusted resources (wink wink, wiki!!), since its inception in 1982 Komen has raised and invested $2 billion towards research, education, and health services. The amount of funding they pulled was $700,000, and PP’s revenue last year was over $1 billion. So it seems illogical, and disingenuous to try and state that 1) Planned Parenthood is really going to suffer, and 2) that Komen has hurt women’s health.
- Abortion infects everything — Whether you are pro-abortion (I refuse to use the word choice, I consider myself being reserved for not saying pro-death) or pro-life it is impossible to deny that anytime this subject comes up it causes emotions to boil and inflated feelings to emerge from both sides. As I said in the post above, many people want to paint this as a critique of Komen’s irresponsibility towards breast cancer screening. But that is false I think. In addition to the reasons above, there hasn’t even been enough time to determine if Komen reapportions that money to another organization that performs screening as well. Let’s even suppose that Komen had simultaneously (and now I wish they had) announced just such an organization as the recipient of the money. Do you think there would still be no uproar? I believe there still would have been. Because at the core of this is the fact that Komen’s actions do seem to stem from internal affiliation with the pro-life movement, or at least succumbing to pressure of pro-life groups (though I still haven’t heard what that pressure was). So while this is ostensibly about cancer – it is actually about abortion. The issue that infects everything.
- Finances don’t really matter only agendas — There are a lot of dollars floating around this story. Grant money de-funded, annual revenue for the different organizations, money that Komen will lose from potential donor loss, and $650,000 raised by PP in the hours following the news. But what remains true is that neither organization is going to stop doing the work they are doing. We’ve already identified that $700,000 won’t hurt the billion-dollar Planned Parenthood, and though Komen may in fact lose some support, they will not stop trying to follow a mission of ending breast cancer. So what has all this hoopla done? Just added a news story for people to get worked up about, and to attack each other. What if the pro-life gang had said, “dang, it’s just $700,000 let’s just let them have it but we won’t renew in the future”? And what if pro-abortion folks had just shrugged and said, “stupid pro-lifers – I’m going to go donate some money to Planned Parenthood now”? We could have avoided this – but no, agendas must be met.
- Both sides have idiots — As is obvious I am rabidly pro-life, but when I hear and read about people protesting at abortion clinics and telling the girls and women they are going to hell I want to punch them in the face. No – I want to hurt them. Not very Christian of me, I know. But when I hear people rage against the horrible religious right, when they proclaim this is a woman’s choice and my opinion does not matter, or when Planned Parenthood staff are caught covering abuse, or encouraging teen abortions I want to punch them too. No – I want to hurt them.
Those are my thoughts.
Oh wait – one more. If this is not a life, then why does it need to be removed?
Josh
Elijah
Greg
Michael
Mark
Dude Man
I too am offended by the phrase, “pro-choice.” The matter is way too gravely serious to use the word, choice. I also, though, am not fond of the phrase, “pro-life.” This phrase is way too general to characterize this agenda. It should be pro-Roe Vs. Wade and Anti Roe Vs. Wade.
From an opposing viewpoint … I’m offended by your use of the term “pro-abortion.” I like Michael’s suggestion of Pro/Anti Roe vs. Wade, actually. I hate that abortions happen, would never ever ever in a million years consider myself pro-abortion. HOWEVER, I believe they have to be legal (pro-RvW) because the root causes of abortion – extreme poverty, drug addiction, domestic violence – are so common in the United States today. Pregnant women, faced with the agonizing decision of having an abortion or bringing a child into those situations … I can’t imagine how painful that is. And I would never agree with our government sending already damaged women back to the days of deadly back-alley illegal abortions. Instead of fighting to defund an agency like Planned Parenthood that strives to help women, join the fight to rid the world of situations where a woman would resort to an abortion because in her mind it is kinder than introducing a fetus into the world where she lives.
Hmm Brenda, Maybe you have a point. Crime has gone down since Roe vs. Wade. Some have suggested a link, and you reference “extreme poverty, drug addiction, domestic violence – are so common in the United States today. Pregnant women, faced with the agonizing decision of having an abortion or bringing a child into those situations”. Certainly many of those children would have been born into bad situations and likely could have ended up repeating those patterns. Abortion also disproportionately eliminates the children of the poor…..and minorities for that matter, especially blacks. Actually the numbers suggest that abortion has also reduced the number of developmentally disabled children especially those determined by testing to have down syndrome. Huh….interesting. Roe vs. Wade was supposedly about privacy but whenever I hear people talk about it, eugenics seems to be the real issue. How do we get rid of undesirable populations before we see their cute little faces and sprout some compassion? And you found the term “pro abortion” offensive? Wow….what a moral compass.
There is one real question when it comes to the abortion debate and that is: When does life begin? If it is at conception, then abortion is murder, if at some other point, then I am interested to hear where the line is. I haven’t heard a compelling argument yet. But be of good cheer. Your Pro Roe friends have bullied Komen into continuing to support Planned Parenthood, and this in spite of several studies that also show a link between abortion and women developing breast cancer. Amazing.
I think that idea is tantamount to saying that instead of saying you are anti-rape, you are “anti-infringement of personal liberties as protected in the constitution”.
Sorry, abortion is taking life – I’m not going to sugarcoat it for people.
And it seems that your view is simply framed around a false dichotomy. Either abortion – or a life of enforced poverty. I’m am well aware of about a million people that can’t have children that are in a 12-year waiting period to adopt, or who will sell life and limb to adopt some child from another country.
If poverty is such a concern then why don’t people like yourself propose that these women get connected with these families and they could receive that money that instead gets sent to some Russian orphanage slumlord. Wouldn’t that provide them some financial support (that they certainly don’t receive by simply getting an abortion) while at the same time eliminating the abortion that you “hate”? Or does that bring it too much into a gray area where women may start selling children. While it does get into gray area, the reason people don’t propose it, is because their main focus is trying to convince people that abortion is okay. That it’s just a life choice – not anything that needs to be “handled”.
Unless I am mistaken, I believe the majority of abortions are matters of convenience, and the instances of domestic abuse or drug-addiction is much smaller. But it’s an easier argument to try and make by offering up the poor stricken woman who’s violent boyfriend impregnated her – rather than acknowledging that for 99%+ of pregnancy’s it was entirely avoidable by making a simple decision.
Mark, I’m curious what research lead you to the statistic that 99% of abortions are a matter of convenience as opposed to a genuinely bad situation, and what exactly what your criteria for a bad situation are. I’m going to go out a limb and assume that you yourself have never experienced pregnancy, so you’re basing your assessment primarily on opinion or religious beliefs.
For the record, I have two children. Both pregnancies were high risk and very scary, and the second time I experienced severe post-partum depression, so I feel I have some room to speak about the physical, emotional and mental toll pregnancy can have on a woman. Thankfully, those pregnancies were also in the context of a loving marriage, a supportive family, health insurance that allowed me access to great doctors and hospitals, financial stability, and a flexible employer who allowed me to take time off when I needed it. It was because of that context that I was able to carry both pregnancies to term without ramifications for both me and my kids.
Not every woman gets pregnant in that context. As I said, I am not in favor of abortion. I am in favor of abortion remaining a legal option for women whose situations or conditions render them unable to physically, emotionally or mentally carry a pregnancy to term without destroying their own lives and the lives of the children.
I agree that there are far too many instances where abortion is tragically misused, when it is a despicably selfish choice on the part of the mother. My prayer is that proper counseling will lead those women to adoption, in fact I pray that every pregnant woman can extracate herself from a bad situation for the sake of the child she carries. But until that day happens, which I believe can only happen through agencies such as Planned Parenthood or the many outreach programs, as well as government safety nets, I will not throw under the bus the woman for whom that is an impossible feat.
Hi Brenda
I said I believe a majority of abortions are of convenience. I said 99% of pregnancies are avoidable – meaning, don’t have sex and you won’t get pregnant. Simplistic thinking, I know – but it is undeniable that pregnancy is a choice. The 1% would be for the unfortunate pregnancies from rape (and I have no idea if that percentage is correct – I imagine 1% is actually too high).
And I do have a child – and she was born 5 weeks premature with complications and spent a couple weeks in nicu and was a “forced” c-section due to the complications, and we didn’t have good insurance, and my wife’s employer wasn’t flexible and she lost her job. And we ended up having to pay around $30,000+ in hospital bills. We didn’t have the money, we had to make arrangements with doctors and hospitals. We also, because of her job loss and other financial burdens had to sell our home at a great loss. But you survive and make payments, and get help from grandparents and friends, and make it work. There is always a way that a baby and family (or even single mom) can make it work in this world. It’s fallacious to say that carrying to term is guaranteed to lead to situations you described.
But you are side-stepping the question we are really discussing – is this taking a life? Which most of us classify as murder. So, though you are not in “favor” of it, you like to have it as an option for certain situations. But if you believe it is murder, as I and other pro-lifers do, then that is the same as saying I am against people randomly being shot dead in the street… however, if they really really need the money found in that persons wallet to make their life not so tough, then it’s ok. That may seem outlandish of a comparison, but that is the moral equivalent. So while I may agree that pregnancies CAN lead to physical, emotional and great financial pain – I won’t protect against that possibility by sacrificing an innocent life.
If you however don’t believe abortion is taking a life, and just happen to not favor it for other reasons, then my argument will be uncompelling to you. But then I would be interested to see what the reasoning is behind you not being in favor of them.
Thanks for engaging in the discussion. While I am obviously strongly opinionated I appreciate your thoughts – even if I disagree.
-Mark
Mark,
Likewise I appreciate the civil conversation about this very important topic. I get so frustrated with people who, once they find out your opinion differs from theirs, go instantly to demonizing instead of listening to the opposing viewpoint. It’s a bad problem in this country, on both sides of every issue. But that’s another soapbox entirely …
To answer your fundamental question – is abortion taking a life. In a word, yes. But I disagree with your assertion that it is therefore murder. I also disagree with the moral equivalencies you draw to criminal acts, and in both disagreements my reasoning is that abortion is a unique issue, and it can’t be compared or grouped with other actions, including murder. It has to be considered separately, in and of itself.
A fetus in the early stage of embryonic development is inextricably linked to the health of the mother. Its ability to thrive is based 100% on the mother. Hard core Pro-Choice people (there are varying degrees, as there are in the Pro-Life movement) would callously and wrongfully compare the relationship to a parasite and its host. I don’t agree with that assessment, because as I said, it cannot be compared to any other act or relationship, and because a parasite can never live without its host and obviously a child will have that ability after 9 months.
That said, the mother’s well being must be included in the equation when considering the morality and legality of abortion (which are two very different arguments!) thus her ability to carry the pregnancy to term is an important factor. As is the human factor of her willingness to do so. If she’s not willing to do what it takes to nurture the child by not doing drugs, taking in the proper nutrition, proper medical care, etc., and legally you can’t force her to do those things, that baby’s chances aren’t good anyway. It’s not an excuse or a rationalization – it’s a statement of fact. By the way, the unwillingness isn’t always a choice – mental illness and addiction are epidemics in this country right now, and play a very large role in a mother’s ability to carry a child. Of all of the physical ailments I suffered when I was pregnant, the one that most endangered my life and my daughter’s was the depression that came afterwards.
A final thought to consider: if abortion is murder, is a miscarriage therefore an act of negligent homicide? What if it’s caused by poor nutrition, or drug use, or overexertion?
I look forward to your response.
Brenda
You are correct that I should not compare to a criminal act, since in fact it is legal in this country. I feel comfortable making that comparison because I would make it illegal so it comes naturally.
You are unfortunately right about our inability to force anything upon mothers. The sad fact is that while we can legislate a drinking, voting, and working age – we are unable to control who has children in this country (as a libertarian I wouldn’t change that if I could, but it’s still a sad state) and so women who are addicts or immature are still able to get pregnant as soon as they are biologically ready. I think the unwillingness you speak of in part stems from the lack of respect for this act of nature that has partly been brought on by the spread of abortion and the removing of consequence from action.
As for your final question, I would answer that yes it is – if it’s intentional. In my defense of life if abortion was recognized as murder, then a women who abused drugs and caused the death of that child would be guilty in my mind. I imagine it would be near impossible to prove for poor nutrition and exertion so it would remain to see how a law could define what that would look like – but yes.
I’ll leave this discussion by stating that you sound like someone who would be willing to allow legislation given certain allowances for abortion as you’ve stated in your comments here. And that really is what I can appeal to now for our country. I am most dismayed by pro-abortion supporters that oppose eliminating late-term abortions or partial-birth abortions, or even parental consent and are not willing to concede anything in legislation. These are the folks that I believe are more committed to some blind devotion to women’s rights than what is intrinsically and morally obvious.
Thanks again for the talk.
-Mark
I’m generally not all that gung-ho on the abortion issue, but I can become pretty adamant pretty fast when I see a picture like that…wow, it made me want to cry to think of that life ending before it begins.
Well, on the other hand, if pro-life people are truly pro-life, then why aren’t they also as adamantly against war, especially unwarranted ones like the Iraq war? Why aren’t they also the most vocal about getting health care to all Americans? Why aren’t they also against the death penalty? Why aren’t they members of PITA? And why do they sometimes bomb abortion clinics?
The moral equivalence is not equal for most of these I think. The killing of a defenseless life is not the same as waging a just war, punishment of death to someone who has killed, raped, etc., and insuring that Americans can all get their arms bandaged. Not the same.
The PETA connection assumes animals are inherently the same as humans – I don’t believe they are – but I also do believe in treating animals well if we can.
Bombing abortion clinics (if you know someone is inside) is reprehensible and I would not support – and that would be a closer equivalent. I think the debate of unjust wars is beyond us (or at least myself). I certainly don’t believe that we chose Iraq out of a hat and went and had the direct purpose of killing innocent people – so to compare to abortion is, again, not equal.
If you’re question was more pedantic and wanting to get into the semantics of the term “life” like I did choice, then I’m fine to call myself pro-“not killing innocent and defenseless un-born children” to make distinction against your other points more clear.