Abortion Debate Calls For Reflection

A pro-choicer who believes in freedom of the individual on reproductive matters, at the same time I also want more individual responsibility regarding the behavior that triggers pregnancy and more respect offered by society in general to all forms of life. I guess that rather split opinion calls me moderate. The majority of Americans are probably in the same lane. Yet abortion continues igniting furious debate between the extremist factions in both camps, one insisting individual freedom trumps all other concerns; the other advocating abortion is murder and should be as illegal in society as any other homicide.

I can tell you from personal experience that what enrages feminists most about the issue of abortion: men who would deny women the right of abortion, is just that, men denying women anything. Many feminists can't get beyond that mentality. But here's one feminist who thinks it's sad when any one group becomes so entrenched in itself and its own rights and desires that it cannot respect anything else. It's tragic when a nation is divided so rancorously over the issue of its unborn children.

I'm a feminist who supports more reflection on the issue of abortion. I support Virginia's latest legislation establishing a 24 hour waiting period. We have a waiting time before we can purchase a gun, get married or adopt a dog from the pound. Why can't we have a waiting time before we abort human life? The passing of time encourages wisdom. Many times I have gone to bed thoroughly confident in a decision I have made only to arise the next morning with a different view. A little time for reflection is good.

Recent George W. Bush actions have inflamed pro-choicers who believe they see a "chipping away" of a woman's right to choose. The election of an attorney general who "fiercely opposes abortion," John Ashcroft, for example, has triggered negative outcry. As if anyone with religious convictions that do not approve abortion is somehow unfit for a government post. This argument seems ludicrous to me. I am delighted if any politician or government official is concerned with religious or moral issues. So few seem to care in the least about human behavior beyond getting and keeping power.
Can't we tolerate those in the workforce who have different viewpoints? Must we elect, appoint or hire only those who lock- step with our ideas on every issue?

The secretary of health and human services is considering ending the RU-486 which has also upset the pro-choice group. I support RU-486 as the best procedure for ending unwanted pregnancy. But I also support the act of reflection as an essential function in democracy.

A withdrawing of federal funding to international family planning groups that support abortion has also triggered anger from feminist forces. Population growth concerns aside, this is probably a correct decision as if government should take no action to restrict a person's freedom to obtain an abortion, than government probably should not promote, aid and abet abortion either.

Finally, George W. Bush has publicly stated he opposes federal funding for stem cells from human embryos and this too has caused outrage within pro-choice groups. I admire the president for his initial horror of new scientific trends. Let us continue to elect leaders who have the sensitivity to feel horror and are slow to pull the plugs or feast on the helpless and weak. Government should reflect again and again on such moral questions in the quest for eternal life lest we become a nation no better than Nazis who respected no life beyond themselves.

On abortion, like so many issues that jar our thoughts, I'm looking for ways to compromise between the forces for individual freedom and the forces for enforcing individual responsibility. Maybe there is no compromise. Perhaps one creed always runs stampede and tramples over the other. Maybe democracy can tolerate only one dogma and must always eradicate the other in an ideology war similar to Darwin's survival of the fittest.

But I think not. Civilization whispers another most delicate, moving message. Tolerance, understanding, moderation, the ability to see and hear others points of view which must prevail if a free society is to survive. Man used to be able to cut down a tree anytime he wished. Laws now protect some trees and man has lost the freedom to follow his every whim in the forest. If we can limit freedom regarding the destruction of a tree, than surely we can discuss some limitations on the destruction of a human life.

Here's one feminist who is willing to listen. When it comes to life and death issues we should reflect with every breath that we take.