Harrogate is going to write a lot about this issue in the coming weeks. He hopes Media with big audiences will do the same, but if they insist on continuing to shield Independents from thinking about the Abortion Issue, then little bloggers like us must do the work.
So here's something interesting. Yesterday Harrogate and Roof Almighty met a self-described "Right Wing Christian" who considers Abortion to be murder, and a very fruitful conversation about abortion followed. This person said something to Harrogate that very rarely makes it past the shouting or enforced silence, when the subject is broached.
In the most affluent society on the face of the Earth, he told Harrogate. It is offensive that so many women who get pregnant feel that they have no choice but to get an abortion. That it is offensive that in America 2008, world-class health care is not available to such women not only during pregnancy, but in the years before and in the years that follow; that financial assistance is not always and immediately accessible to those who need it.
If the country was really interested in lessening abortions, he argued, it would put its money where its mouth is.
He followed up this argument by insisting that the thing he hated most about his own Republican Party, on the issue of Abortion, was its implicit and explicit opposition to contraceptives (Witness Sarah Palin). One does not have to give up on Appealing to Abstinence as a Value, simply by acknowledging that Abstinence Education doesn't cast a wide enough net.
This man candily told Harrogate he doesn't yet know who he will vote for, but he is pretty pissed at the Palin selection, and he is tired of his demographic being used by the Wall Street Republicans (his words).
Everything he said was great, and how shameful that the points he raised almost never make it into the Big Media discourse. Because the Abortion Issue is controlling our politics to an extent that we are unwilling to admit. We all know that not every abortion comes down to economics or to a lack of sex education, but isn't it reasonable to say that many abortions are tethered to these problems, and isn't that something we can all agree is sad?
Well, say what you want about him, and Lord knows Harrogate has said his share (and will continue to do so), Obama knows it is sad. Obama made the same damned argument on his Thursday night acceptance speech before some 38 million viewers, even though McCain (did you know he was a POW) snuffed it all out with the Palin pick. And that is why when you look at the options presented to you, Harrogate argues that if you care about lessening abortion rates, Obama is the right choice for President.
5 comments:
Our good friend (and very, very occasional poster and commenter) Southpaw makes a very similar argument about most Pro-lifer's views on abortion: they only care about the baby before it is born.
I also think you should check out Anastasia's recent post on why she is anti-abortion but not a Republican. She makes a compelling argument that the "sweeping social programs" that Democrats tend to favor and Republicans decry as big government could lower the abortion rate by providing women who feel they have no other choice but to have an abortion with much needed services to raise the children they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant with.
But, I also want to point out, Harrogate, that abortions are on the decline while teen pregnancies are on the rise. Blame this on greater limitations on abortion and the focus on abstinence education.
Good points all, m. The abstinence only movement has hurt the United States deeply. And will continue to, until pols and media types force the discussion to go deeper than a soundbite or two.
Ah Southpaw, however so long your absence lingers, you, and the possibilities of you, always remain wedded to this Blog!
And, Harrogate did read anastasia's post yesterday, in fact. It is a good one. It is too bad that irreconciliable differences have emerged betwixt she and some members of this Board, very much including Harrogate.
But there you have it.
In the interest in offering a very different opinion, I will say that in my experience, the social programs mentioned do not give people in difficult situations what they principally need: hope (not in the Obama sense) and options. And I am deeply skeptical of the ability of social programs to solve the problems that they are being saddled with solving, in part because of access to services, willingness to partake of the services. There is also the fact that one of the services that will be provided is funding of abortions, which is not unproblematic for those who wish to see a reduction in abortion rates. Given a choice between a one-time use of government services or lifelong dependency on them, the abortion option may in fact seem more attractive to many people (not necessarily women exclusively) who wish to maintain personal dignity. It is an unpleasant thing to be subjected to the scrutiny of those who think that you are worthless because you depend on charity or social services for basic necessities. You choices are to internalize the scorn, or to avoid the "help."
Another factor: when I was pregnant at 19, my husband's friend from socialized-medicine Spain thought for sure that we were delaying marriage until after the birth so that the government would pay for my healthcare through pregnancy... Hmmm...
Another factor for many who oppose abortion is that Obama represents an overarching cultural validation of abortion--the kind of rhetoric that diminishes its gravity (and whatever one's position on abortion, its gravity should be acknowledged) and elevates it to the same level as the need for food and shelter. THIS, for some, is the danger of Obama.
I should have said:
THIS, for some, is the danger of Obama: That abortion should increasingly come to be considered not "a" choice, or a grave or reluctant choice, but "the" choice when faced with a difficult or unplanned pregnancy.
Post a Comment