Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Another attempt has been made by my Pro-Life friend to draw me into an argument. For the sake of our friendship, I asked that we retire this subject, as it is clear we will never change each other's minds, but it was hard not to take the bait and get back into another bloody debate. Since I value the friendship more, I let it pass.

And therein lies the paradox - does my Pro-Life friend not care about the living, breathing friend as much as s/he cares about proving s/he's right? What is so all-fired Pro-Life about that? What it boils down to is whether a woman should be allowed by law to be the autonomous agent of decision-making regarding what happens with her own body. I and my Pro-Choice friends say yes. Are Pro-Life people really stuck back in the days of "Father Knows Best," or does it just seem that way to me?

PATRIARCHY!!! It's everywhere. How long, O Lord, how long? Maybe President Obama should send Hillary as a judge to the Supreme Court.


Zoilus said...

According to Thom Hartmann, the Catholic Church didn't consider a baby to be "viable" until it had drawn its first breath. Now, I am much more conservative than that (I always said that I am Pro-Life, and if I ever get pregnant then I will keep the child), but I cannot understand people who insist they know what's right for everybody else in all circumstances. What's also wrong is the fact that the wealthy will always have access to clean, safe abortions (no matter how frequent or how rare), but the poor will not unless we protect EVERY woman's right to choose. Finally, does it not concern your friend that the children of many who are already living and breathing in this world are being killed by the war in Iraq?

C J Garrett said...

From the kinder, gentler side of Pro-Life:

Please don't judge the whole pro-life movement (if you can call it that) by the recents actions of your friend. Not all pro-lifers are vitriol-spewing Bible-thumpers. Some of us are even liberal. In fact, liberals have always tried to protect the voiceless, the disenfranchised, the powerless-- and that's how we think of the unborn.

I'm not trying to engage you in a debate, and since I was vehemently pro-choice for some 20 years, I completely understand your position. I also deplore the war in Iraq, the unfathomable social injustice that is going on all over the globe, the fact that people are dying of hunger all over the place... The fact that I believe the unborn should be protected doesn't mean that I don't think the post-birth people should be, as well. And I don't consider ketchup a vegetable in terms of school lunches.

I have a "Choose Life" tag on my car, but I would never "get in somebody's face" about this issue. (I get a few nasty looks here and there, but what on earth is offensive about "choose life?" It doesn't even suggest taking away choice.) I would pray the rosary in front of a clinic, but I would never approach a woman coming in for an abortion. I guess you could call me a coward; I prefer to think of myself as an introvert.

For me, it is simply a question of when life begins. If it doesn't begin at conception, who can say when it begins? (The concept of "quickening" used to be relevant, but we now know that babies move in the womb long before their mothers feel the movement.) But since I'm not an activist by any stretch of the imagination, I don't suppose my beliefs do anybody much good.

That said, if you and I were to have lunch together, we would simply agree not to discuss the issue. I say all this to say (and I'm sorry for rambling) that I hope you don't put us all in the same basket. (And I'm sure you know, pro-choicers can be equally rabid. When a fine film such as "Juno" is criticized for being "too pro-life," simply because the teenage girl decided to stay pregnant and give the baby up for adoption, that is sad.)

I am sorry you have had to endure these attacks as opposed to reasonable, calm debate.