I re-wrote the January 21st New York Times Editorial, “The One-State Solution” by Muammar Qaddafi on the Israel/Palestine conflict to address the Abortion War. To read Qaddafi’s and compare: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/opinion/22qaddafi.html
Here’s my re-write:
In one day and with only a web page, President Obama reversed eights years of the White House’s pro-life agenda and replaced it with a new pro-choice one. The cycle of war – victory and retribution, triumph and payback – continues, reminding us why a final resolution to the so-called abortion war is so important. It is vital not just to break this cycle, but also to deny the leaders who feed on the conflict an excuse to grow their fight and further the divisions.
But everywhere one looks, among the speeches and the advocacy there is no real way forward. A just and lasting peace between pro-choice and pro-life people is possible, but it lies in the history of those who have fought over this conflicted issue, and not in the tired rhetoric of “common ground.”
Although it’s hard to realize, the cycle of war between the pro-life and pro-choice people has not always existed. In fact, many of the divisions between pro-life and pro-choice are recent ones. People on both sides of the abortion issue worked alongside each other for years delivering babies, helping families in need and opening up the adoption process to make it more supportive and respectful of women, adopted children and their families.
Pro-choice and pro-life people can be members in the same family. Throughout the decades both faced hostility and judgment from others for their views and they often found solace in each other when they talked, and learned about their different perspectives. Pro-life people can support the legal right to have an abortion and pro-choice people can hope for a world free of the need for abortion.
The history of abortion is not remarkable by human standards — over the course of history, people have found – and continue to find – ways to manipulate and control nature to make our lives easier, healthier, and longer. But it is our cultures – our values, beliefs, morals and norms – that help us make sense of our power and give us codes and direction for how to relate with nature. Yet, across the world and throughout history, there is great diversity in how cultures value women, the unborn, children and abortion. That is why it gets complicated when members of either side proclaim the moral high ground.
The basis for the legal right to abortion is the historic inequality of women, which is undeniable. Women used to be the property of their husbands, unable to own their own land, not to mention left legally unprotected when raped or abused. Women want and deserve their equal rights, especially to their own body.
But the value and treatment of human life is of great importance to cultures throughout the human race and the growing life inside a woman is viewed by many as sacred, including by the woman herself.
Thus pro-life people believe that protecting the growing life within a woman is paramount, even if the woman herself does not want to carry the child. And pro-choice people believe that her right to do as she chooses with her own body is more important than the value of what’s growing inside of her. Now, as a pro-choice agenda has been re-established in the White House, calls for “common ground” persist. But neither will work.
A “common ground” solution will create unacceptable conditions for pro-life and pro-choice people. A country where abortion is legal, but abused teens have to get permission from their violent parents and dying women late in pregnancy are refused abortions no matter their circumstance, is a country that has written off entire segments of women as undeserving of equal rights and protection, an unacceptable concession for pro-choice people.
For the same reasons, a country that only seeks to reduce abortions, rather than eliminate them, with free contraception and comprehensive sex education does not take the strong, moral stand against the practice of abortion and only slows the loss of life, a weak-kneed attempt at appeasement that pro-life people will reject in the face of their higher calling.
In absolute terms, the two movements must remain in perpetual conflict or a compromise must be reached. The compromise is “a life choice” for all, a pro-voice agenda that would allow the people on each side to feel that their values are respected throughout the country and they are not deprived of practicing any part of their beliefs.
A key prerequisite for peace is safety for every woman who has had an abortion and the right to speak the full truth of her experience – the good, the bad, and the ugly – and be heard from all sides. It is an injustice that these women who have not done anything illegal have been marginalized, stigmatized and silenced from all sides despite their experiences being at the center of this conflict.
It is a fact that when abortion is made illegal, abortions don’t end, instead numbers of abortions go up as do deaths of women. It is important to note that pro-life people do not hate women, nor are they advocating for women to die. Yet, they must understand that this is a consequence of their political actions and the onus is on them to figure out how to uphold and promote their value of life for both women and unborn children. Only a pro-voice solution can accommodate all the voices on this issue and bring about the justice that is key to peace.
Integration of pro-choice and pro-life values is already a fact of life in the United States. Most Americans want fewer abortions, are against making it always illegal, and value the human life that grows within a pregnant women. This successful integration can be a model for “a life choice.”
If the present interdependence and the historical fact of Pro-choice/Pro-life coexistence guide their leaders, and if they can see beyond the horizon of their own recent wins or losses and thirst for revenge toward a long-term solution, then these two peoples will come to realize, I hope sooner rather than later, that living under pro-voice is the only option for a lasting peace.
First of all, Aspen, I so admire your courage and commitment to thinking outside the box when it comes to how abortion is talked about, fought over, lived, etc. This piece was really interesting for me and challenged me. I thought it was really thought-provoking, and I am wondering what does the “pro-voice lens” look like? Just like there is an RJ lens that shows the shifts in culture, politics, etc. how differently does the world look through the “pro-voice” lens? I think I see where you’re going, but what other tools do you/we need to make it clearer to others what a pro-voice world looks like? Is it just what we’re living in now, with a cool new name? You know I don’t mean that, but we’ve also been doing this long enough to know that to meet people where they are, we need all kinds of tools to reach them. How can people internalize what pro-voice means? How different does the world look like through that lens? Does that even make sense?
Thanks Aimee! The Pro-Voice lens is the lens of each woman’s unique experience with abortion – it is through their eyes that we must look at abortion and all the issues that surround it. When we can all speak our truths – about what we would have done differently or the same, what kinds of resources would have helped us become parents or not get pregnant in the first place, or the kinds of information and counseling we need from our health care providers, and we accept the fact that this information could lead to more restrictions or less, or to different kinds of policies and practices – then we are actually responding to real life needs and addressing abortion by those who know it the best, the womoen who have had one. I don’t know what the world will look like at the end of the day, because there is so much we don’t know about women’s experiences – but I know that it will be based in reality and understanding, not dogma and old ideas.
I agree with you, Aspen. So here’s where I’m at. I get what pro-voice looks like in terms of service provision and/or shifting culture. And I see what pro-voice looks like in terms of organizing and movement-building. Where I get stuck is what does pro-voice look like in terms of legislation and policy?
Exactly. That is the unknown at this point. I don’t know what legislation and policy will look like once we hear from women – we have to listen first.
[…] This piece is also posted on Aspen Baker’s personal blog. […]
Hmm, interesting. Unfortuantly women may not only face stigma from the anti-abortion side, but many women face the cold shoulder and indifference from the pro-choice side when they share their experience if they have any feelings of conflict surrounding their abortion.
Or have had a less than ideal abortion experience. Indeed we need to let go of our pre-conceived notions of what is the right abortion experience is, as every women’s situation and experience may be different, and let women be true to themselves and their experience and be able to share uncensored and to respected and accepted.
Thanks for your comments Rachael. Absolutely – women who have abortions face problems from both sides. I’m often in the position of helping pro-life people understand that not every woman feels regret and helping pro-choice people understand that not every woman feels relief. I’ve definiately seen some real changes in the pro-choice community on this issue and hope to have the same impact within pro-life communities. What do you think are the best ways to increase understanding about the full range of diverse and unique experiences and reactions people can have after an abortion?
For my prior comment, a good example of the perceived stigma from both sides is given in Naomi’s story (featured at the Feminist Women’s Health Clinic)
I have been a peer to peer counselor for 8 years now and have heard many situations and many stories, as well as having been a member of the PASS Support Boards for 4 years now. I agree, while some women have no regret or negative feelings about their abortions, there are others who may feel a loss but still feel they made a good decision; there are also women who experience a more profound loss and grief and/or depression, and everything imbetween. Every individual women’s contributing factors into her experience (socio-economic situation, support from others,
inner beliefs, etc) are different and complex, we need to move away from framing it in the sense of political rights and wrongs to seeing individual situations.
I would like to see women be able to have a safe space in which to share their abortion experience with others, positive or negative, in which politics is set aside. Just where she can be who she is.
On my blog, I have featured an entry, entitled, “The Voices of Men and Women Who’ve Experienced Abortion” which shares the individual blogs where women and men have written their personal experience with abortion, positive or negative. I have read the “Our Truths” zine online, however I noticed it doesn’t appear to feature many voices of women who’ve felt affected by their abortion in negative ways and seems to mainly feature happy, positive stories. Why is this? Do those women not deserve a voice too?
I imagine you’ve probably followed the link to my blog by now and know I consider myself pro-life. However, from my experiences, I’m motivated to acknowledge a woman’s feelings – whatever they are – after her abortion. I’m not in favor of pro-life legislation, but rather I’m motivated to contribute towards creating a society that is supportive of pregnant and parenting women – especially in our education system and in our workforce – and I’m in favor of honest discussions about adoption and adequite counseling for women so that women truly have the freedom choice. It’s been said many times before, and it’s very true – the woman at highest risk of responding negatively to an abortion is the woman who feels forced into it either by lack of options or lack of support. We need to make society truly woman-friendly and only then will women have any meaningful freedom of choice.
Just to clearify on my thoughts on the “Our Truths” zine, I saw that you featured a meditation for releasing the spirit on the unborn and the abortion garden story, a positive move towards healing and closure for many women, including those grieving a loss. I’m thinking, for women expriencing a loss, they need to be heard too and to have their feelings validated, to know what they’re experiencing is also normal, and to be able to talk about the stigma and shame they too may feel.
Take into consideration a letter by Celia Ryan, a social worker and specialized grief counselor in response to an Canadian Medical Association article relating abortion to increased risks of psychiatric hospitalization May 13 (2006)
This part of her letter really spoke to me:
“I am not a researcher, and the hurting men and women who come to my office for counseling, or to my groups, are not interested in statistics or expectable outcomes. They are interested in having a language, structure and a framework for their abortion experience and an opportunity to use that information in a helfpul and healing way. They are grateful and relieved to finally be able to name and explore an issue that society says does not exist. They are no longer disenfranchised from their appropriate grief.”
Thanks again Rachael.
A few thoughts on the zine: we are always working to increase the distribution of the zine and include more and diverse stories, a constant challenge, no doubt. We have received very few submissions for “negative” stories, so we print the best written/most poignant of what we receive. We welcome your help in reaching more women and inviting their submissions.
Secondly, I think we have to be really careful when we use words like negative and positive. I know its a short-hand that many of us throw around in different situations, but I don’t think they’re fully accurate. I don’t know that the voices of women in our zine are necessarily “positive” stories so much as they are by people who have come to some kind of resolution and healing from what could be “negative” experiences. We do think its incredibly important to show the various ways people have come through their experiences into whole, healthy people – that this sense of well-being is possible for everyone. It is part of our strength-based, empowerment model for emotional support.
A few thoughts on the zine: we are always working to increase the distribution of the zine and include more and diverse stories, a constant challenge, no doubt. We have received very few submissions for “negative” stories, so we print the best written/most poignant of what we receive. We welcome your help in reaching more women and inviting their submissions.
I understand. I think maybe some women would be hesitant, and weary to share her story, unsure of whether or not her story would be used for a political agenda, and understandably so as there are so many sites out there claiming to be non-political or neutral, but are hardly so.
Secondly, I think we have to be really careful when we use words like negative and positive. I know its a short-hand that many of us throw around in different situations, but I don’t think they’re fully accurate.
Indeed, it was shorthand and a mistake, however it was better explained when I later wrote in the same paragraph, “Every individual women’s contributing factors into her experience (socio-economic situation, support from others,
inner beliefs, etc) are different and complex, we need to move away from framing it in the sense of political rights (positives) and wrongs (negatives) to seeing individual situations.
I don’t know that the voices of women in our zine are necessarily “positive” stories so much as they are by people who have come to some kind of resolution and healing from what could be “negative” experiences. We do think its incredibly important to show the various ways people have come through their experiences into whole, healthy people – that this sense of well-being is possible for everyone. It is part of our strength-based, empowerment model for emotional support.
I see and that is great, but what of sharing of the journey towards healing and closure, for those who may not be at that point of closure to healing yet. I don’t say this to be difficult, but rather my concerns and sympathies lie with those who’re are working towards a place of closure or resolution, as much as with those who are at a more healed point.
I do appreciate your allowing me here and listening to my views, despite our differing political views.
Yep! Journey and closure very important: agreed. Mostly, I just feel that much more excited to keep publishing the zine because there are so many stories, and so many different kinds of stories, to be told. 32 printed pages twice a year is nowhere near penetrating the surface. Love to hear any ideas for themes and topics for future issues, as well as additional places to seek stories.
Indeed, I do not have any theme ideas at this time, but will dwell on this. Also, I have some other thoughts which will have to come at a later time as I do not have the time right now. BTW, did yot watch the Super Bowl, any thoughts on that?
Indeed, I do not have any theme ideas at this time, but will dwell on this. Also, I have some other thoughts which will have to come at a later time as I do not have the time right now. BTW, did you watch the Super Bowl, any thoughts on that?
I watched the second half of the superbowl. So exciting!!!
Just to follow up on your question about seeking submissions for the Zine…You can try the PASS Support Site Message Boards, which features a diverse collection of women with just as diverse experiences and complex feelings surrounding their abortion. I have been a memember there for 4 years, and requests for projects, articles, movies, videos, thesis papers, school projects, and so on are typically well received. Once you’d register, you can place a request on the Volunteering, Outreach, and Research Requests board.
Hey, just wanted to say thanks for a really great and thoughtful article.
All too often the pro-life opinion gets reduced to a minority of moral abolutists (most likely because they are the most vocal section of the movement), and people tend to forget that some pro-life people are merely interested in seeing an end to the necessity for abortion. And this is ultimately where the paths cross – pro-choice people are not “pro-abortion”, they largely don’t see it as a preferable option in any case, however they merely recognise the point you have made above, that outlawing abortion just makes the situation worse. Abortion itself is not the problem. The problem is that people have compelling reasons to seek abortions.
I would love to see a pro-life movement dominated by people who are working their backsides off to ensure that all pregnant women are able to give birth in a safe, happy environment and providde adequately for their children. Unfortunately, the discourse we hear most from the pro-lifers is condemnation of abortion doctors, and condemnation of those who support women who need a choice.
[…] excellent article on AspenBaker’s Blog puts an interesting perspective on the debate, adapted as it is from a New York Times editorial […]