What Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Arguments Avoid.

This year marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and its lesser-known cousin, Doe v. Bolton (both were pseudonyms, lest you think it’s crazy that two women named Doe and Roe were at the Supreme Court at the same time.)

The arguments on whether or not abortion should be legal have taken a backseat in recent years to the arguments over whether gay marriage should be legal, but it occupies the same public/private, secular/religious zones of argument in American society. And before gay marriage, Iraq, and the domestic economy became the issues du jour, Roe v. Wade made headlines because it seemed poised to take its most significant blow yet: a South Dakota law that outlawed all abortion that may likely be argued all the way to a newly conservative Supreme Court.

It’s the tenuous nature of ruling’s constitutional basis that has allowed other rules and courts to chip away at it over the years. I would be remiss to no disclose here that, as a proper feminist, I am avidly in favor of abortion rights. That doesn’t mean I think that people should go about having abortions every day, which of course no one does. I’ve also never found comfort with the “protect our bodies” rhetoric that most mainstream feminists and pro-choice activists retreat to. I think abortions are quite bad, and no one should have them. Wait, make that, no one should have to have them.

I grew up in the Bible Belt, in Arkansas, and the main component to the most vociferous anti-abortion argument is the Bible for which the belt is named. I have nothing against the Bible or those who adhere to it, literally or not. But do I think the Bible has a place in public policy? No, and there are many esteemed officials from our country’s past who agree. Using the Bible for justification also necessarily dislodges an argument’s logical base: if you believe abortion is wrong because of something the Bible (and through it, God) tells you, I would have very little success in using any terrestrially-based sentiments or data to convince you otherwise.

I mention the Bible because I think it’s key to what’s going on here. Not only are some of the loudest opponents of abortion from the Christian Right, but also they use the Bible’s words about when life begins to argue that fetuses are alive and abortion is tantamount to murder.

More than that, however, is that the miracle of life is still seen as that — a miracle. If God has a role in implanting a seed in your womb, who are you to stop it? In Arkansas, which has the second-lowest personal per capita incomes in the nation, the idea of fate has always been rather fatalistic. If God controls our lives to such a degree, why would we exercise any agency in anything that we do?

To that end, planning pregnancies, scheduling the number of children you have and how far apart you have them, givens for a young married couple in the middle class, would be rather pointless for the very poor but faithful. You’re just going to have kids, and life is hard and they’ll do what they can. The idea that you can improve your child’s chances by actively changing the way you parent hasn’t quite trickled down to the poorest people in American society, and who knows if it ever will.

Which brings us to another morally sticky situation, and that’s that not all the pregnancies you and I might assume are unwanted are really so. For girls in Arkansas, having babies remains the most important thing they will do in their lives. It’s not necessarily a given that the father will play a roll in a child’s life. It’s not a given that every young woman can go to college and have a meaningful career. So why not get on with it? Many young women, in Arkansas and I suspect elsewhere, want babies even when they’re “too young,” though they may not say so in so many words. It’s something to love. It’s something meaningful to do. And it’s something they can do, unlike so many of the things they can’t: milestones like graduating from college, to which few around them ascribe as much value as they do to crossing over the motherhood threshold.

There is also an encoded language of morality for people on the extreme right who oppose abortion. Anyone who is amoral enough, in some eyes, to have sex before marriage deserves whatever hardships come to them. This is still a world where abstinence only education is the norm (I received none at all.) Despite high teen pregnancy rates no one’s passing out condoms and counseling teenagers on effective birth control. In fact, most parents I still know there are adamantly against it, arguing that it would promote sexual promiscuity while obviously ignoring the fact that teenagers are already having sex and seemingly believing that carrying an umbrella will cause rain. (Incidentally, the information about the “pores” in condoms that do not protect against AIDS is something that my health teacher, who was also a coach, told us.) There is a big line in the dirt in this part of the South, dividing the “good” from the “bad,” and everyone knows what side they’re on. One social transgression isn’t going to damn you if you’re already damned, and, likewise, no one can save you.

All of these are reasons why I think no one’s talking about preventing unwanted pregnancies, or speaking realistically about teen pregnancies. And all of it goes back to why the focus should be shifted back to sex education and birth control, instead of chipping away Roe v. Wade or defending the right to abortion without admitting that the idea of having one might always make people feel like they’re killing babies. Despite the prevalence of birth control, it’s not always available to the very poor or the morally outcast. But most people who believe it should be available have ready access to it, and may not realize there are some who don’t. And there are some who refuse to acknowledge that an unwanted pregnancy can exist, because every pregnancy must be wanted if God made it happen.

William Saletan made the smart argument two years ago that we should shift the debate to unwanted pregnancies, and no one has taken him up on it. As he pointed out, banning abortion will do nothing to stop unwanted pregnancies or, for that matter, abortions. Neither will it stop middle class and wealthy women with large support groups and a number of resources from getting what they need. It will disproportionately punish poor women. And that’s what this should be about. Reaching out to poor women and men, young or old, who still don’t know enough about their bodies all these years after the second wave to know that they need protecting. Women and men who don’t have access to birth control, or who still refuse to use it, whatever their reasons. Women for whom having a baby at any cost is still the only fulfilling thing they believe they will ever do. Women who have children but cannot afford another because they work minimum wage jobs and have very little support. Helping the poor women who would be punished by draconian laws is what both pro-life and pro-choice movements should be about, giving them choices for their lives.

  • LH

    I don’t know that talking about preventing unwanted pregnancies or speaking realistically about them would necessarily stop the pregnancies or abortion, either.

    I would like for the author to have given some specifics about how to help poor women who would be punished (for what, exactly?) by draconian laws.

  • womantowomancbe

    You may be interested in this file which discusses abortion without once mentioning the Bible or religion, and only tangentially discussing morals: http://www.voteyesforlife.com/docs/Task_Force_Report.pdf

    Instead, it talks about the risks and downsides of abortion for the women who undergo it.

    Kathy
    katsyfga.wordpress.com

  • LH: Prventing unwanted pregnancies wouldn’t stop unwanted pregnancies? Uh, what?

    poor women would be punished by an outright ban on abortions because they don’t have access to the kind of prenatal health care that wealthier woman would have; wealthier woman would still be able to end unwanted pregnancies because they would have the resources — economic and otherwise — to do so.

  • LH

    G.D., here’s what I wrote–verbatim: I don’t know that talking about preventing unwanted pregnancies or speaking realistically about them would necessarily stop the pregnancies or abortion, either.

    Where did I state that prventing [sic] unwanted pregnancies wouldn’t stop unwanted pregnancies? Uh, what? The operative word in *my* statement is “talking.”

    Saying that talking would help is great but unless there are some stats attached to that assertion –and there aren’t– it’s hardly unreasonable to say that *I don’t know* that talking would help. Do you have something upon which to base the idea that it would? If so, instead of being cute how about stating as much?

    Of course you would instead boil this down to wealth. That’s what you do. To hear you tell it, those who were not to the manor born might as well be born in jail for all the chance they have to make it. Let’s ignore the fact that outside of rape, no one is forcing poor (or wealthy) women to have unprotected sex. Oh, and not just once or even twice, by the way. ‘Oh, yeah, I’m poor. I couldn’t afford the first child I had so I’m going to have another one. And another one. And another one. It’s not me. It’s my lack of choices and options. I keep having kids I can’t afford because I’m poor.’

    Yeah, okay.

  • LH: Ah, yes. Reduce my statement to caricature instead — ‘manor born’. Really, fam? (Sounds like GVG’s rant).

    The original poster’s point was that banning abortion would disproportionately affect poor women. Can you really disagree with the substance of that, or do you want to go the easy indignation/ad hominem route?

    (I mean, it’s your world, fam. Do how you feel.)

    To bring class into this discussion doesn’t take my alleged monomaniacal focus on economic disparity — Monica made that point in her post.

    It will disproportionately punish poor women. And that’s what this should be about. Reaching out to poor women and men, young or old, who still don’t know enough about their bodies all these years after the second wave to know that they need protecting. Women and men who don’t have access to birth control, or who still refuse to use it, whatever their reasons. Women for whom having a baby at any cost is still the only fulfilling thing they believe they will ever do. Women who have children but cannot afford another because they work minimum wage jobs and have very little support.

    I’d add that poor women begin having children at younger ages than women who are middle class and rich. They also have more children over the courses of their lifetimes. The stats back that up.

    Why, though? Those kind of life choices are inextricable from economics — unless you’re suggesting that poor women are just ‘looser’ and ‘immoral’ and that’s why they have more babies.

    And to your point that poor women keep popping out babies they can’t afford: what do you say to Monica’s suggestion that it has has everything to do with getting on with ‘the inevitable’?

    So why not get on with it? Many young women, in Arkansas and I suspect elsewhere, want babies even when they’re “too young,” though they may not say so in so many words. It’s something to love. It’s something meaningful to do. And it’s something they can do, unlike so many of the things they can’t.

    Hmmm, sounds pretty damn economic to me.

    Also, finally, those stats you said didn’t exist do actually exist, though they were tucked away in an obscure little publication called The New York Times.

    Almost two-thirds of the decline in the total number of abortions can be traced to eight jurisdictions with few or no abortion restrictions — New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington State and the District of Columbia. These are places, notes the Guttmacher Institute’s president, Sharon Camp, that have shown a commitment to real sex education, largely departing from the Bush administration’s abstinence-only approach. These jurisdictions also help women avoid unintended pregnancies by making contraception widely available.

    The lesson: prevention works. Restrictions on abortion serve mainly to hurt poor women by postponing abortions until later in pregnancy. While shifting social mores may change some people’s behavior, the best practical strategy for reducing abortions is to focus on helping women avoid unwanted pregnancies.

    So yeah. I be on that economic bullshit, right?

  • LH

    Economic and preachy bullshit. And it was you who lead with the “Uh, what?” after cold mangling what I actually said so don’t call foul now.

    I’m supposed to do homework to have a conversation here? The stats that you put forth in your response … you should have lead with those instead of getting cute. But you didn’t. And it bares mentioning that the column written by Potts was absent *any* stats. So, yeah … I said that I don’t know that talking would work. And I don’t.

    Oh, and guess what? In Chicago, where contraceptives are freely avaialable (literally and figuratively) fully 60 percent of the kids who are born within the city limits are born to unwed mothers, many of whom will tell you their pregnancies were ‘unwanted.’ An unwanted pregnancy with no contraception, huh?

    Fam, I took sex education courses in ‘high school,’ so I know from experience that to kids who are bent on having sex it’s like water off a duck’s back. I was never even sure that the idea was to prevent us from having sex but rather, to educate us about the male and female reproductive systems and process.

    In any case, I assure you that my peers and I weren’t lying around thinking, ‘Our parents are affluent, so if we do slip up it’s nothin’. We can afford to get it taken care of without them even knowing.’ We were careful and, admittedly, very lucky.

    That said, if the ‘we ain’t gettin’ no younger’ approach to the “inevitable” is itself inevitable, it seems to me like we need more than sex education and legal abortion as a remedy.

  • quadmoniker

    I wasn’t going to enter the fray, but I do have to say, the post wasn’t absent *any* stats, It links to several published articles that include them. My point here was to bring up the things no one is talking about, so stats on those things would be necessarily hard to come by. I speak a great deal from personal experience. I don’t expect everyone to agree but I was hoping for a reasoned conversation that was critical and enlightening. That’s why I posted.

    To that end, Chicago is awash with poverty, which kind of proves the point. Just because condoms are sitting in a basket in some Planned Parenthood office doesn’t mean that contraceptives are freely available. The assumption that you make assumes that men and women approach sex there with equal power, that all are knowledgeable about the use of contraceptives and ways to prevent pregnancies, and that people feel freely capable of exercising their knowledge because they can move easily physically and culturally in society. Those are some middle class assumptions.

    About you and your peers not thinking about your privilege on a daily basis: Of course you weren’t. That’s the point. You didn’t think, “Gee, I can act without consequences.” Chances were, the fear of something bad happening and derailing your life barely touched you. That’s the point. Children who grow up poor don’t have that privilege, and that’s the real difference here.

    And about needing more than sex education and legal abortion: Why don’t we try ensuring those two things first, and then we’ll see what else we need? It’s the basics we are lacking here.

  • LH: Me, preachy? (This is what psychologists like to call ‘projecting.’) And while you want to take economics off the table, the differences in marriage patterns and birth rates between the poor and middle class necessarily means discussing economic disparities and their role in life choices. What good does it do to have the conversation and leave that part of it out? Or are you just annoyed that I said it? (Because, you know, Monica did, too.)

    And no, you don’t have to do homework. But before you say a stat doesn’t exist, why not look for it?

    In any case, I assure you that my peers and I weren’t lying around thinking, ‘Our parents are affluent, so if we do slip up it’s nothin’. We can afford to get it taken care of without them even knowing.’ We were careful and, admittedly, very lucky.

    Stop being indignant and think about what you’re saying for a hot second. The reason affluent/middle class kids have get pregnant less is because there are different consequences for them if that does happen. If your vague life plans include college/travel/internships/extra degrees etc., you make different choices than if those options aren’t on the table. Like, you know, deciding to delay having kids. Your expectations and people’s expectations for you would necessarily be very different. Is there any evidence that poor kids have more sex than kids who aren’t poor? No. The difference is in the likelihood that they use protection and, as Monica pointed out, the availability of that protection in the first place.

    If having a kid @ 18 doesn’t take anything off the table that you felt wasn’t already off the table to begin with, what exactly would you be putting off having kids for? A rainy day? Just because?

    (Or do you wanna reflexively disagree with that, too?)

    That said, if the ‘we ain’t gettin’ no younger’ approach to the “inevitable” is itself inevitable, it seems to me like we need more than sex education and legal abortion as a remedy.

    What do you suggest?

  • GVG

    quadmoniker~

    “About you and your peers not thinking about your privilege on a daily basis: Of course you weren’t. That’s the point. You didn’t think, “Gee, I can act without consequences.” Chances were, the fear of something bad happening and derailing your life barely touched you. That’s the point. Children who grow up poor don’t have that privilege, and that’s the real difference here.”

    Ok, I’m confused about the assertions you attempt to make in your above statement. Wouldn’t your statement actually mean the opposite – that people of less means would be more cautious in their actions because they understood better than anyone that any mistake could derail their life? This in turn would mean that there would be lower numbers of teen pregnancy in those poor communities because all these poor conscious kids would take all the necessary steps to avoid such “insurmountable” added burdens.

    G.D. Rant?! Really?! OK.

  • LH

    To my way of thinking –something you seem to take issue with– your argument turns on the answer to this question: Are the choices people make the reason they’re poor or does being poor leave people with no (good) choices?

    If the latter is so, stressing prevention is at best a stop-gap measure to treat just one symptom of a systemic and chronic problem.

    I’m not a sociologist and I’m not in the business of prescribing fixes to the problems we’re discussing. What I do is go in places where the problem is and try to help. I don’t want your suggestions about fixing the problem. I want you (and anyone else who feels so inclined) to tell me what you’re doing about it.

  • LH

    quadmoniker, you said: “About you and your peers not thinking about your privilege on a daily basis: Of course you weren’t. That’s the point. You didn’t think, “Gee, I can act without consequences.” Chances were, the fear of something bad happening and derailing your life barely touched you. That’s the point. Children who grow up poor don’t have that privilege, and that’s the real difference here.”

    I’m not following what you’re saying. You said I didn’t think I could act with no consequences but that the fear of something bad happening and derailing my life barely touched me. Those ideas seem contradictory.

    Getting a girl pregnant would have been bad and would have derailed my life, but one needn’t be affluent to think as such. And to be sure, I know people who weren’t who felt the same way. To this day –and I’m in my mid-30s– we sit around and talk about how different our lives would be if we’d made a mistake half a lifetime ago.

  • TDhof20

    The umbrella-causing-rain analogy to condom usage and how it allows more teenagers to have sex is simply garbage. People decide when they have sex. No one decides when it rains…

  • Kathy

    My last comment said it was “discarded” which I guess was because I included a link, and it thought it was spam, so I’ll try again (if it double-posts, that’s why, and I’m sorry for the confusion).

    TDhof20,

    You’re right that “people decide when they have sex”; but when they believe that wearing a condom will protect them from everything or most things that may happen because of sex (whether that’s STDs or pregnancy), then they will be more likely to engage in that behavior than if they think that condoms may not protect them all the time. If you want to read the analogy, go to RealChoice dot blogspot dot com and go to the October posts, and look for the post titled, “So much for that idea, right?” But I will quote from it, since I can’t link to it.

    The use of a contraceptive method will decrease the odds that any given act of sexual intercourse will result in pregnancy. However, ready access to contraception increases the frequency of sexual intercourse.

    If the increase in frequency of sexual intercourse is enough to offset the reduction in risk of pregnancy, you’ll get more pregnancies.

    Let’s say that you have invented the Bounce Safe. It’s to prevent fatal construction site accidents. You have extensively tested the Bounce Safe. If it’s maintained properly and worn properly, it will prevent death in 99% of construction site falls. So you figure that introducing Bounce Safe will reduce fatal construction site falls by 99%, right?

    But it turns out that you didn’t consider the human factor.

    People don’t take such good care of Bounce Safe. They don’t always clean it after wearing it. They don’t always return it properly to its case between wearings. These two factors alone significantly reduce the efficacy of the Bounce Safe. Also, many people don’t put the Bounce Safe on properly. They don’t fasten it properly. They don’t make the proper adjustments to the fitting. They just put it on and go. This also reduces the efficacy of Bounce Safe.

    And, worst of all, having the Bounce Safe eliminates the fear of falling. Construction workers stop putting up proper safety guards. They walk onto unstable surfaces. They take all manner of risks, confident that their Bounce Safe gear will protect them. Worst of all, they develop these bad habits — and they practice the bad habits even when they’ve forgotten to put the Bounce Safe on at all.

    So, in actual practice, construction sites that make the Bounce Safe readily available actually wind up having a higher rate of fatal falls than sites that don’t have the Bounce Safe.

    So, your intentions in creating and distributing Bounce Safe don’t play out into the real world. Human factors end up making sites with Bounce Safe gear more deadly than sites that reject Bounce Safe.