By Edwin Cooney
I’ve changed my mind on what has become an emotional political issue. It isn’t easy to change one’s mind, and I’m not even sure exactly when my change of mind (or if you prefer, change of heart) occurred. It’s really possible that I haven’t changed either mind or heart — more about that later!
The issue is pro-choice. The truth is that I’ve never been all that excited about the “freedom of choice” alternative (whether or not a woman should have an abortion). I’ve leaned in that direction primarily because I’m sympathetic to the crucible many women go through when faced with the physical, social, emotional, and certainly spiritual uncertainties of an unplanned pregnancy. That crucible intensifies two or three fold depending on the circumstances at conception. Sadly, that often heartrending crucible has become distorted by politics.
The most compelling argument in favor of the “pro-choice” option is the argument that a woman owns her own body, that no man ever faces pregnancy issues and the complications in as an intensely personal way as women. “How dare any man,” women righteously demand, “assume he is qualified to judge an experience he can never face?” The answer is that he ultimately does qualify to face a woman’s plight if he is truly a responsible human being! As for the true ownership of her “own body,” with ownership comes the responsibility of maximum control of that vital vessel, for every woman’s body is a potential home to a new human body that possesses its own physical and moral sovereignty. If my right to control my own well being within the letter and spirit of the law ends where my fist and your nose meet, it seems reasonable to me to assert that a woman’s personal sovereignty ends where and when a new life begins growing.
Several times since I’ve been writing these musings, including last week, I’ve waxed as eloquent as I am capable on the subject of capital punishment arguing that the circumstances of life are far more powerful than any threat or message of death. The same is true on this issue. Women, and their responsible lovers, face the pressures of living conditions as they struggle over what to do about an unexpected pregnancy. Economic, physical, social and emotional living circumstances come into play at a time like that. Our problem in 21st Century America is that we seem to prefer to litigate and politicize important moral questions rather than take them where they ought to go, primarily into our minds for assessment by our consciences.
Roe v. Wade was decided in January 1973. By 1976, both Republicans and Democrats were tugging at each other to get control of the issue. Hence, they divided the moral and the practical. Republicans who want government out of your pocket decided they want government in your bed. Democrats who are usually suspicious of private forces and motives believe a woman’s right to privacy is more legitimate than a public corporation’s right to decision-making and privacy. So, Republicans preach conservative principles and Democrats preach liberal doctrine and neither touches the heart of the matter. There is nothing either liberal or conservative about this issue. Perhaps soon, I will offer a little more history on that topic.
My change of mind is from “pro-choice” to “pro-life” on the abortion vs. the anti-abortion option. With the exception of a few very lucky people, we all face agonizing moral dilemmas from time to time! They may include, for example, whether or not to remove a loved one’s life support system; whether one to offer a home to a struggling relative; whether to send a child away to boarding school; whether to report a child’s uncontrollable activities to juvenile authorities; or whether to have a child given life altering circumstances.
I never knew my biological mother. I’m reasonably sure that she would have aborted me had I been conceived in the 1970s rather than the 1940s. My mother, whom I’m sure is a fine human being and who has been kind to and supportive of others including four half sisters I’ve never met, chose to remain separate from me throughout her life. That’s been painful for me to effectively grasp on occasion, but that decision doesn’t make her an unworthy human being.
Until recently, I have categorized myself politically and socially as a pro-choice advocate. Most of those with whom I am philosophically and ideologically oriented are pro-choice. Rather than “pro-choice,” I’ve decided to be “pro-obligation.”
“Ah!” you may well ask, “what does “pro-obligation” mean?” It means the task of combining my knowledge of circumstances and my best assessment of resources and morals to make the most responsibly humane life-affecting decisions as possible.
The truth is that I am still more tolerant of a woman’s choice to have an abortion than I am of a societal decision to allow capital punishment. That’s primarily because individual choices are just that — individual choices. As for whether society ought to declare abortions illegal, I might vote for that if society was actually eager to vote for the funds and establish the support systems and, at the same time, obliterate the shame of awkward pregnancies. These conditions are, as I see them, both practical and moral in nature. Unfortunately, no society appears to be even close to taking the necessary steps I just named to bring about such an act on my part!
Hence the question, have I changed my mind or my heart?
You tell me, please!
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY
No comments:
Post a Comment