Gather ’round, Folks, the Meandering Matriarch is about to climb on her soapbox again. Not everyone will agree with me, but that’s just the point. We are all free to differ. Indeed, sometimes we even agree to differ. And that is as it should be. Those of us who live in countries where freedom is a core value are blessed, but isn’t it axiomatic that as we enjoy our own freedom, we are obliged to not trample the freedom of others? So how does it happen that in America–the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave–we are seeing a dangerous proliferation of bullying, vilifying, and menacing of people who are merely trying to live their lives as best they can, making the decisions they have to make, exercising their right to free choice. I’m talking about women who–for whatever reason–find themselves pregnant when they seriously do not want to be. Women who must make a choice from amongst three bitter options:
- they can have the baby and raise it in whatever circumstances they are in–circumstances which have already established the pregnancy as ‘unwanted;’
- they can have the pregnancy terminated, and get on with their lives;
- or they can continue the pregnancy, give birth to the baby, then give it away.
That’s it. Those are the only options, and not one of them is desirable or easy. And none is intrinsically right or wrong.
I know that there are many people who believe that is abortion is wrong, and who would never choose it for themselves, but who also are offended by the hateful tactics of the militant so-called right-to-lifers. My argument is not with those people who believe differently than I do. My beef is with those who think they have a right to prevent others from choosing their own course. The ones shouting “But what about the baby? What about his/her rights? It’s wrong to kill a baby just for the mother’s convenience. ..yada yada yada” We’ve heard all those cries ad nauseum. What we don’t hear them saying is, “I don’t agree with your decision, but it is your choice to make.” I have no problem with people holding a different view from mine. I have a BIG problem with people thinking their view entitles them to bully, threaten, intimidate, or menace women who are pregnant and in distress, or the workers trying to assist and support them.
I understand the moral conviction that values even the earliest stage of life as sacrosanct, and I respect it. I believe no one holding that belief should ever be made to take action which offends that belief. I also happen to believe that the well-being of the living pregnant woman is important, and should be protected. If so-called Christian love, and concern for innocent and helpless children were genuinely the issue, then I should think we would be seeing a great deal more time, energy, money–and placards!–addressing the plight of the millions of starving, abused, and dying children rather than so damn much attention on the comparatively small number of aborted foetuses.
If the ugly bullying tactics of the militant right-to-lifers weren’t enough to strip away any credibility, the weakness of their argument defeats them. Forget any so-called “Christian love,” folks. That went out the door when the hateful behaviour came in. Forget the protestations about the rights of the “child”–and let’s call it what it is: an embryo, or a fetus;–there are no such ‘rights.’
But that isn’t what this is really about. This is about Judgement and Punishment, dished out by people who think that if a woman is pregnant and “shouldn’t be,” then she should have to suffer the consequences. The old “She made her bed, and now she has to lie in it” argument. She–and anyone who might try to help her–is fair game. The aim is to humiliate and intimidate her into paying the price for her “sin” by not being allowed to ‘take the easy way out.’ By taking away her right to choose.
Who really believes all the nastiness and abusive behaviour is really about love for unborn foetuses?
Starving, sick, dying children — or not-yet-sentient embryos? Which cries out to you loudest? MM
The Meandering Matriarch 
Okay, I’m am beginning to wonder if you have a way of viewing over my shoulder as it seems we share more than ex-pat status.
As a private therapist who also worked in Child Protection, another soap box… if the religious reich (yes I said reich) gets there way the results will be catastrophic! If someone doesn’t believe in abortion don’t have one! This is not rocket science.The only vote is the woman who will live with whatever she chooses. Or perhaps the child/ren who had no voice but must try to survive knowing they were not wanted.
Exactly. It’s never really about the children, is it? It’s about judging, and wanting to see punishment meted out to women who do the unthinkable–get pregnant when they don’t want to…
Yes!
I know a woman who had an abortion and I know how painful that decision was. But, an abortion gave her the opportunity to finish her education, get a job, and then have two children with her loving husband.
I know a woman who had a child out of wedlock. She gave the child up for adoption, and I know it was a painful decision. She was reunited with the child many years later. The child grew up in a loving family that couldn’t have children themselves.
I know a young woman who had a child out of wedlock. She kept the child. This wasn’t a painful decision for her. She hoped the child would give her the love she craves. The child has developmental problems due to the woman’s substance abuse. The woman has no job, and depends on her grandma and a rotating group of boyfriends to support her. Her mother is dead – an alcoholic.
Yes, there are three options, and I personally think the first two are ones that all woman should feel they have the right to choose. The third option – this is the option that some women are unfit to make…
Seems you are not alone in your opinion on this issue.
British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has encouraged women to stock up on the emergency contraceptive (Morning After” pill this Christmas and will provide these free for the first time, they announced last week.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8935425/Morning-after-pill-given-out-free-over-the-phone.html
Some 189,574 abortions were performed in 2010, 3718 to girls under 16 yrs.
BPAS will the try the Pygmalionesq (Little Flower Girl) approach with a ‘buy me and stop one’ Christmas special offer. Or ‘buy two and stay one jump ahead’ for those for whom Christmas is a particularly emotional event.
The US economy is falling apart, millions are living below the ‘poverty line’ and what do they do to tackle these issues? Why, pick on the most vulnerable citizens, of course. Choose a volatile issue, give the populace a circus and they’ll forget how badly you’ve f**ked up everything else … standard dying empire tactics.
well said! MM
“In the 1970s more than 10,000 children were adopted, mostly because of the social stigma towards single mothers. But even in 1990-91 more than 1100 children were adopted, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports in Adoptions Australia 2010-11.ONLY 384 children were adopted last year in Australia, the lowest number on record, new official data show.” (SMH 14/12/11)
In Australia (in recent years) I no longer see the lines of anti abortion protesters outside clinics telling pregnant singles/couples how to live their lives.
To me this suggests fewer “unwanted” pregnancies go full term.
Some religious people (christian and non christian) feel they hold the moral high ground on many issues, but I still see them as people without power wanting to gain/steal power, to exert influence by bullying.
To me, that is what (all) religion is (all) about.
Thanks for that, Jeff. Strong words, and remarkable statistics! The very fact that those who oppose abortion feel adoption is a jolly good option makes me crazy. There seems to be a perception that women who have abortions will have enormous emotional problems requiring counselling, while adoption is a simple transaction, benefitting everyone. The opposite is much closer to the truth. MM
Would anyone care to speculate on the lives of these children… physical, emotional abuse… and it doesn’t stop there as this is usually multi-generational. Once the child is born, the do-gooder/right-to-lifer has done all they ever set out to do. Do they offer this child a loving home? protection? I can tell you NO!
No. The evidence of is in the constant struggle of mothers spending their life trying to find their child, and the desperate quests of the children wanting to find their ‘real parents’ and seeking to know “Why?”
The self-righteous, who call themselves ” pro-lifers” are not really concerned about life for the millions of starving, abandoned, or abused children whose lives could be saved… They get more satisfaction from being seen to be concerned about the lives of the relatively small number of embryos…
As soon as it becomes a child these hypocrites are on to rendering judgement on both child and mother…
True.