Barbara Ehrenreich apparently reads my blog ... after all, her column today begins with a citation of the Degrassi abortion plot line that I wrote about a few days ago. It is true the article I responded to was in the same paper in which she is now a guest columnist, but let's not be too rational now. I, after all mentioned her by name as well, though in a somewhat disparaging way.
Okay, back on the Planet Earth, her concern is related to mine: "The trouble is, not all of the women who are exercising their right to choose in these cases are willing to admit that that's what they are doing." Or, they are wary about firmly supporting the right, wary about something they still on some level feel uneasy about. Barbara Ehrenreich finds this conflicted type of view somewhat troubling.
It is fine, really, that many are somewhat conflicted about abortions. For instance, some almost don't consider it an abortion, if they "really wanted the baby," but felt the time wasn't right. The choice is a deeply complex one, one in which each act is unique in its own way. And, it is one that few would gladly do, if it was not deemed necessary in a particular case. Sometimes we have to do things we don't want to do, which does not mean it should not have been done.
The failure to accept the moral complexity involved in the act is sometimes the core problem. For instance, the choice of whom to marry is generally deemed a fundamental one in which the state should not get involved in, except in limited circumstances. This leads to some bad marriages, but does not imply marriage per se should be considered wrong. And, sometimes marriages are not perfect, but marriage is a rational choice, a good choice, for the situation at hand.
Again, recognizing the problems and looking toward an ideal world in which such a choice may not be necessary is fine. As long as we remember that we do not live in such a world. We ignore the complexities of the situation at our peril, especially as our own experiences about marriage in the real world suggest the ideal version put out by our culture and even by our politicians is often a fake one.
Ehrenreich also puts forth an argument that I also tend to agree with -- the idea that it is okay to abort if the child will have some sort of disability (not just severe ones) is patently obvious, but not if s/he will grow up in a troubled environment per se, is morally dubious. I, shocking as it might be to some, understand why people oppose abortion in cases of rape and incest.
A principled opposition to abortion, the belief that the unborn is a person worthy of protection and respect, doesn't necessarily stop if the pregnancy was the result of a horrible crime. It works both ways in my view -- rape, abortion okay, any number of times when pregnancy is a result of legal, but emotionally stressed situations, surely not. Don't think so. The legitimacy of choosing abortion rarely rises and falls on such often fine lines. The emotional and psychologically harms involved in bringing the pregnancy to term often will be comparable.
The right to choose whether or not to have a child is a complex emotional choice that should be a personal matter for the mother. We diminish the importance of this matter by ignoring that it includes each one of those aspects. We threaten its integrity by not truly defending such a right, a defense that must be done in a forthright and honest way. This is hard because of the very private concerns involved, but unfortunately, that is how it must be.