Rethinking Abortion

In college I was pro-choice. After reading Francis Schaefer and Everett Koop (Whatever Happened to the Human Race?) and Bernard Nathanson (Aborting America), I became pro-life and have been ever since. Why the change? New information I wasn't aware of. For example, Nathanson exposes some of the lies of the pre-Roe v Wade prochoice legal arguments and explains his transformation from being a co-founder of NARAL and a leading abortionist to recognizing the humaness of "alpha" (the fetus) and becoming a pro-life advocate. (I challenge everyone to read this book, whatever your side. Nathanson doesn't write as a right-winger but as an abortion movement insider). Koop brought his perspective as a pediatric surgeon and the value of human life. In 1989 I was arrested along with 800 others in Los Angeles at an Operation Rescue (OR) in front of a clinic and spent 3 days in jail. That was an eye-opening experience.

Although I'm still strongly prolife, my stance has shifted over the years as I continue to learn new information. I no longer believe that abortion should be in the same category as murder, except perhaps in some extreme late-term circumstances. I now have no issue with allowing exceptions for abortion for rape or incest. I no longer think that we should have a nationwide ban on abortion, but instead we should allow the States to decide through the legislative process. Although my experience with OR was positive (the media and pro-choice counter demonstrators revealed extreme bias against us), I have found later statements by an OR founder to be divisive and out-of-line.

Today, my main peeve with more traditional pro-life stance is the all-or-nothing and black-and-white attitude. It is our way or the highway and no room for compromise. My main peeve with the common pro-choice position is its disingenousness and unwillingness to face facts. If they were truly pro-choice, they would welcome the nationwide network of pregnancy help centers and encourage women to consider their services. They would admit the lies of their past (e.g. the exagerated claims on the number of deaths from backalley abortions, that "Roe" was not raped as was claimed in the case, and that she is now pro-life), and the fact that the Roe v Wade decision is based on flawed legal logic which is increasingly being conceded by pro-choice analysts. For example, see Cohen and Kinsley, (Kinsley: "Although I'm pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning... and judicial overreaching.")

It's interesting that Cohen has shifted within a pro-choice position and is now closer to mine. Perhaps this is a one way to solve the abortion dilemma. Each side get honest and take steps toward each other.

Beware of Group Think

My favorite feminist is the former Director of the L.A. chapter of NOW, Tammy Bruce, because she breaks the mold. She is openly gay, pro-choice, gun-owning, pro-death penalty, and voted for President Bush! I may not always agree with her but I love her spunk. You can't type someone like that in stereo.

Recently I heard her speak at Florida State University about some of her experiences as a NOW Director and progressive feminist with a conservative bent. One of the things she noticed was how colleagues in the pro-choice movement would react win she or someone else within the ranks would question or consider a new perspective outside the party-line. There were a lot of black-and-white thinkers who could not handle alternate perspectives and would question a member's loyalty if they deviated. A kind of group-think mentality developed where one was afraid to differ or disagree.

I have seen this same attitude in many churches and in evangelicalism. There is a general understanding that one must hold to certain views, beliefs, doctrines, perspectives, and political thought. I'm not saying a group shouldn't have core values and beliefs they share. But the black-and-white mentality can take over a group so that the gray areas are forced to go black or white. If it goes too far it becomes very unhealthy. A person can lose their individualism as they are consumed with fitting into a fellowship, avoiding conflict (which is not always unhealthy), and sacrifice their own personhood on the alter of group-think. Independent thinkers can't handle this, which is probably why Ms. Bruce left NOW and is who she is today.

The key I suppose is striking a balance between sharing a broad set of core values or principles and welcoming independent thought--not always an easy thing to do but well worth the effort.