Column: The abortion discussion needs to change
Published Feb. 19, 2010
Last week during what Sen. Matt Bartle, R-Lee's Summit, dubbed "abortion night," Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, thought it was appropriate to ask a lobbyist from Planned Parenthood if she had ever had an abortion.
I know. Like it was any of her business. Like there isn't a fundamental right to privacy regarding abortion enacted with Roe v. Wade. Like it was even pertinent to the discussion.
In a legislative discussion regarding informed consent and a potential requirement for women to inform her abortion doctor her reasoning for seeking an abortion (as if a difficult decision can be boiled down to a brief statement), actually having an abortion is not necessary to participating in this debate. Realizing that these laws would severely limit a woman's right to choose and opposing is all that would be required of a potential lobbyist.
Politically, it was an astute question.
It's the kind that shocks you with its ridiculousness. The kind that is hard to answer if only for the fact that to your opposition, every answer will be wrong.
If you're a quick thinker, you'd segue way into a speech on the right to privacy and inform Cunningham it's none of her business. If you're not you might sputter — if you say no too quickly, it looks like you view it as shameful (which it's not) and if you say yes too slowly, you'll also be seen to view it as shameful.
And this sort of political impasse is where we have arrived in the abortion debate. Let's be honest here, the debate was never civil. It has always been a hot mess of highway signage, mudsling and unfortunately, far too many deaths of people, such as abortion doctor George Tiller.
It's an incredibly private decision that has been made into a public spectacle. And though it's obvious that I clearly fall on the abortion rights side of the spectrum, it's not as if either side is innocent. Not every person who is anti-abortion rights is Scott Roeder and not every person who is pro-abortion rights has had an abortion.
The debate is more complicated than that.
We are cheapening ourselves if we argue it's merely a matter of morality. Morality does not allow a woman to feed a child she might not even want in the first place. The trifecta of politics: low-or-impossible-to-obtain welfare benefits, abstinence-only or otherwise incomplete sex education and restricted abortions, is hurtful to women, and, by extension, the nation as a whole.
We should be allowed to argue, instead of spending time mourning abortion providers and arguing about the Tebow ad.
It's great that Pam Tebow's reality worked out for her in a way in which neither she nor her son was harmed, but that is not every woman's reality. Everyone is not made up of that rare mixture of privilege and luck to make this a universal story. Morality does not play into those things.
Writing about abortion is hard.
I have gotten enough bullshit letters in my brief tenure as a Maneater columnist to not have an urge to court controversy. And this piece isn't even really about politics.
I am unconcerned with your personal politics surrounding abortion. This is about the fact the discussion around abortion has to change.
It's never going to be a dinner-table topic; it's too heated for that. If the debate could become respectful, wouldn't that be something?
Everyone is never going to agree on abortion, but shouldn't we agree on prevention and work together toward that?
Comments (2)
6:46 p.m., Feb. 25, 2010
Peter said:
If i get into an accident with a pregnant girl and she and the unborn child die i get charged with taking away two lives. Yet if I dont get into an accident with her, she goes on her way and gets a nice legal abortion, thus ending one of the lives i would have been charged for. I sense a double standard
12:38 p.m., Feb. 24, 2010
Anthony said:
First of all, morality is the system by which we evaluate our options and make a decision. You can't separate abortion from morality. Second of all, the only thing that matters in this discussion is whether the fetus is a human being. If the husband of a woman with a small (but already born) child runs away and leaves the family with nothing, does the woman have the right to end that child's life? Almost everyone would say no, because we view this young child as a human being with rights. The same logic applies to a fetus. If it's a human, then it deserves rights just like the baby, but if it isn't, it doesn't matter. I'm not pushing for either side of the debate, but it is a fundamentally moral decision, and YOU cheapen the discussion by using pity techniques like a woman's difficult circumstances as a distraction.