QUOTE
May 01, 2006
Pro-choice is not a synonym for pro-abortion
Beth Quinn
I've had two unplanned pregnancies in my lifetime, one when I was a junior in college, another when I was packing my bags to leave my first marriage.
Their names are Sean and Brendan.
Abortion was illegal when I got pregnant the first time, in 1968. It was legal the second time, in 1973.
In neither case did I consider having an abortion. It never occurred to me to end either pregnancy. Didn't do it then. Wouldn't do it now.
There are those who might presume from this that - surprise, surprise - I'm anti-abortion.
Not true.
I'm pro-choice. I chose against abortion. There are circumstances in which my choice might have gone the other way - a badly damaged fetus, perhaps, or a threat to my own health. Legal or illegal, I would have found a way if I'd wanted to.
But what many people fail to realize is that there is plenty of room in the pro-choice movement for those who are personally opposed to abortion for themselves. That's the whole point. Pro-choice is not a synonym for pro-abortion. It's a synonym for pro-reality.
One of the great tragedies of the abortion debate is that we have allowed the pro-life extremists to define the argument. Either you're pro-life or you're a baby killer, according to them.
In truth, good, sensible people on both sides see that there is a great, gray middle where real life happens and real women struggle with a most difficult decision. Every woman's situation is her own, and none of us can possibly presume to know what's best for her.
Also in truth, good, sensible people in that great, gray middle are in agreement on one fundamental issue, whether they know it or not: There are too damn many abortions in this country.
A million abortions annually is not a happy statistic. Not for anyone. We can all agree on this.
Where we get into a muddle is, what we should do about it? On one side, there are those who would outlaw the procedure. Ban it. Pass punitive laws. Criminalize pregnant women and their doctors.
On the other side are those of us who want to lower the number of abortions by making contraception more easily available; by acknowledging that experience is not the best teacher and that kids need realistic sex education; by changing the culture of young men, who feel that protection is the girl's problem.
But the extremists, with their evangelical president in the White House, are winning. They've successfully removed common sense from this debate and are poised to throw the baby killers in jail.
As you read in yesterday's Record, all of their weapons have been rolled into place: a conservative Supreme Court; an abortion ban in South Dakota set to challenge Roe v. Wade; and dozens of states ready to topple a woman's right to choose if Roe goes down.
What we will be left with is a patchwork of abortion laws, differing state by state. For resourceful women who want an abortion, this will mean travel and inconvenience. But for poor women, it will mean an unwanted pregnancy becomes an unwanted child.
My conservative colleague, Douglas Cunningham, takes a different view on abortion in his column today. I respect Douglas. He's a smart man.
But I would argue that the words "smart" and "man" don't carry quite the same legitimacy as "pregnant" and "woman." Men are not the stakeholders here, not unless they've been pregnant college students; or pregnant and broke; or - you know what? - pregnant and just plain can't do it.
That's when the rubber meets the road - perhaps because the rubber failed to do its job in the first place.
We women are perfectly capable of deciding this for ourselves, woman by woman. I'm happy with my own choices, but they were just that. My choices.
No woman should be even mildly interested in letting lawmakers and judges make the choice for her - no matter what her choice might be.
There are 995 days 'til Inauguration 2009.
Pro-choice is not a synonym for pro-abortion
Beth Quinn
I've had two unplanned pregnancies in my lifetime, one when I was a junior in college, another when I was packing my bags to leave my first marriage.
Their names are Sean and Brendan.
Abortion was illegal when I got pregnant the first time, in 1968. It was legal the second time, in 1973.
In neither case did I consider having an abortion. It never occurred to me to end either pregnancy. Didn't do it then. Wouldn't do it now.
There are those who might presume from this that - surprise, surprise - I'm anti-abortion.
Not true.
I'm pro-choice. I chose against abortion. There are circumstances in which my choice might have gone the other way - a badly damaged fetus, perhaps, or a threat to my own health. Legal or illegal, I would have found a way if I'd wanted to.
But what many people fail to realize is that there is plenty of room in the pro-choice movement for those who are personally opposed to abortion for themselves. That's the whole point. Pro-choice is not a synonym for pro-abortion. It's a synonym for pro-reality.
One of the great tragedies of the abortion debate is that we have allowed the pro-life extremists to define the argument. Either you're pro-life or you're a baby killer, according to them.
In truth, good, sensible people on both sides see that there is a great, gray middle where real life happens and real women struggle with a most difficult decision. Every woman's situation is her own, and none of us can possibly presume to know what's best for her.
Also in truth, good, sensible people in that great, gray middle are in agreement on one fundamental issue, whether they know it or not: There are too damn many abortions in this country.
A million abortions annually is not a happy statistic. Not for anyone. We can all agree on this.
Where we get into a muddle is, what we should do about it? On one side, there are those who would outlaw the procedure. Ban it. Pass punitive laws. Criminalize pregnant women and their doctors.
On the other side are those of us who want to lower the number of abortions by making contraception more easily available; by acknowledging that experience is not the best teacher and that kids need realistic sex education; by changing the culture of young men, who feel that protection is the girl's problem.
But the extremists, with their evangelical president in the White House, are winning. They've successfully removed common sense from this debate and are poised to throw the baby killers in jail.
As you read in yesterday's Record, all of their weapons have been rolled into place: a conservative Supreme Court; an abortion ban in South Dakota set to challenge Roe v. Wade; and dozens of states ready to topple a woman's right to choose if Roe goes down.
What we will be left with is a patchwork of abortion laws, differing state by state. For resourceful women who want an abortion, this will mean travel and inconvenience. But for poor women, it will mean an unwanted pregnancy becomes an unwanted child.
My conservative colleague, Douglas Cunningham, takes a different view on abortion in his column today. I respect Douglas. He's a smart man.
But I would argue that the words "smart" and "man" don't carry quite the same legitimacy as "pregnant" and "woman." Men are not the stakeholders here, not unless they've been pregnant college students; or pregnant and broke; or - you know what? - pregnant and just plain can't do it.
That's when the rubber meets the road - perhaps because the rubber failed to do its job in the first place.
We women are perfectly capable of deciding this for ourselves, woman by woman. I'm happy with my own choices, but they were just that. My choices.
No woman should be even mildly interested in letting lawmakers and judges make the choice for her - no matter what her choice might be.
There are 995 days 'til Inauguration 2009.
