an After abortion

REAL, CONFIDENTIAL, FREE, NON-JUDGMENTAL HELP TO AVOID ABORTION, FROM MANY PLACES:
3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

Trend-spotting.

On MSNBC/Newsweek: Anxiety over abortion: pro-choice Democrats eye a more restrictive approach to abortion as one way to gain ground at the polls.

I'd give myself a pat on the back for picking up on a trend except that I'm sure I'm only one of thousands who has noticed this.

This is what the Newsweek article says in part about a meeting after the election:

When Ellen Malcolm, president of the pro-choice political network EMILY's List, asked about the future direction of the party, Kerry tackled one of the Democrats' core tenets: abortion rights. He told the group they needed new ways to make people understand they didn't like abortion. Democrats also needed to welcome more pro-life candidates into the party, he said. "There was a gasp in the room," says Nancy Keenan, the new president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.
A gasp? What was the surprise about? Is it because the political ground shifted or because of the attack on abortion itself?

And:

Democratic lawmakers have found themselves boxed in by a pro-choice orthodoxy that fears the slippery slope—the idea that allowing even the smallest limitation on abortion only paves the way for outlawing it altogether.
I'm not so sure that abortion rights advocates are primarily concerned about the political consequences. My sense is that those abortion rights advocates who are post-abortive are primarily upset because of the implicit moral judgment on their past choices. 43% of American women have had one or more abortions by the time their reproductive years end. I would guess that the percentage is higher among abortion rights activists. If I were in those shoes, and I heard a leading Democrat say "we don't like abortion", I'd take this personally.

If "we don't like abortion", that's probably because of an implicit sense that abortion is morally unsavory, and a woman who chose an abortion has, therefore, participated in a morally unsavory act.

Furthermore, if abortion is morally unsavory, it's morally unsavory because of something to do with ending/terminating the life of one's own child. If it, indeed, is morally unsavory. If "we don't like it."

Lots of the energy behind hardline abortion rights political activism comes from the impossible wish to make it the case that one's own abortion was a moral act.

I wrote about this phenomenon here with respect to Kate Michelman. She experienced Roe v. Wade as "a benediction", as she says, with respect to her own earlier choice to abort.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME