Letters to the Editor
-
Try to think objectively
"There is a reason people feel strongly about abortion, and it isn't arbitrary (like deciding that eating peanut butter is wrong)."
On the contrary, I think the reason most people (not all, but most) oppose abortion is because of their religion. If their religions stressed that eating peanut butter is a sin, I absolutely think that people would feel as strongly about it as they do about abortion. If that's not arbitrary, I don't know what is. Look at the way Muslims feel about pork, if you should doubt me.
But for those of us who are able to think independently of religious dogma, a fetus is exactly that-- a fetus. Not a soul in urgent need of protection, but an unthinking clump of cells which could potentially become a person one day but by no means necessarily must. Hence, abortion becomes amoral. Like peanut butter.
I don't think any less of a woman who has multiple abortions, except possibly concern for her welfare since they a) cost a lot of money, and b) may damage the body in the long-term. Eating too much peanut butter and cheeseburgers may make you fat. But in both cases, it's her body and up to her to decide.
To bring it back to my point, you are jumping to huge conclusions in assuming that the reason a woman might not want to admit to an abortion is because of shame. It used to be the case that people didn't want to admit to being gay, for much the same reasons. Luckily, we're maturing and gradually working our way out of that. Let's hope the same can happen for abortion.
-
My Body, My Name
Ms. Magazine seems to imply that women have a moral obligation or imperative to abdicate their anonimity for the greater cause. This is at odds with the legal basis of Roe v. Wade, namely the right to privacy. Keep the government out of my womb and keep my name out of Ms. Magazine. My body, my name, my professional reputation, my choice to remain anonymous. (Yes, I have had an abortion.)
This type of hypocrisy, i.e. the selective application of a woman's right to privacy, doesn't surprise me one bit coming from Steinhem's Ms. Magazine. Marriage is an oppressive institution, unless Steinhem is the bride, right? I stopped listening to her a long time ago. Thanks for paving the way Gloria, but please step aside now.
-
A little extreme, aren't we?
As a proud four-time murderess you are the perfect spokeswoman for this procedure. The reason abortion should not be legal is because women like you are incapable of being responsible, choosing instead to kill baby after baby rather than face the consequences of any of your actions
So, because Liz had four abortions, you want to take that ability away from:
-- Women who were raped.
-- Women who are victims of incest
-- Women whose lives are put at risk due to the pregnancy
-- Women whose pregnancies are wanted, but have found out that their baby has Tay-Sachs, or some other fatal condition which will only result in a very short life of extreme pain and suffering for the child.
-- Women whose contraceptives failed, and who weren't able to obtain Plan B (another pet project of the pro-life movement.)
ANY right is going to have those who might be seen as abusing it. You cannot take the right away from the rest of us because of that.
I don't like the idea of abortion. I don't think I would ever have one. But I've never been in a situation like those mentioned above, and so would never presume to judge another woman who HAS been in one of those situations, and who has had to make a difficult choice. I don't know Liz's situation, so I won't presume to judge her. Perhaps she's been through some things that she does not feel comfortable expressing. I would only hope that if those four abortions WERE due to lack of contraception, or contraceptive failure, that she has since discussed options with her physician so as to help prevent another unwanted pregnancy.
-
There is a middle ground
I find myself in partial agreement with many of the letters I've read, and I've only managed to get through a third of them. Here's the thing:
As with any issue that involves financial, health, moral, and religious choices (and moral and religious are NOT the same thing, especially for those of us who aren't religious in the slightest), abortion and the choice whether or not to have one is complicated. Gray. Not black and white.
I support the right to choose. In fact, I believe that sometimes, abortion is the morally correct choice - I would never choose to bring a child with a neural tube defect, Tay-Sachs, or cystic fibrosis into the world. I also feel that a developing infant IS a human life - just not one with the same value as that of a human whose life experiences have transformed her into a person. I know that distinction seems immoral to those who think all human life is the same. But you must remember, we don't all share your views, and those differences don't make us wrong and you right.
This is where it gets sticky, though. As that potential child's mother, it's still my decision whether it's appropriate to add a new life to my own, or to add a new life to the world for someone else to raise. No one else should be allowed to make that choice. Up to now, I've been making that choice by way of birth control, which, when used correctly (she said, sounding like a pharmaceuticals commercial), is very effective. Should birth control fail - when I was younger, less stable, and less financially secure, I would have had an abortion. Without hesitation, and, I think, without much regret. Now, at 33, I'd most likely continue an unexpected pregnancy and raise a child. My point? Even the same person can have different opinions on abortion at different times in her life.
However (and now I finally get to the point of the entire article) - I wouldn't proclaim to the world that I had an abortion. I'd answer honestly if asked, and my friends and family would of course know. But it's a private choice, not one that I'd wear a t-shirt proclaiming to the world. NOT out of shame, but because it's nobody's business but my own. Which is the point of being pro-choice in the first place, isn't it?
Finally, I have to agree on one specific count; I find having four abortions to be morally reprehensible, even as a non-religious, pro-choice feminist. Why, exactly, do you find it impossible to master the art of birth control? It's serial abortions like this that give the right fuel for the "abortion as birth control" part of their rhetoric.