Neal Gets Real, So Deal
Preamble
The other day, after reading a news article re: prez-candidate Mitt, I penned the following thoughts, unsure of where I might consider airing them. I figured this was a “national” issue (warning: it’s about abortion) and maybe didn’t fit in with the local thrust of Citizen Wausau content. Then pal Dino encouraged me to “localize” it and post on CW. Well, how’s this for local: do you have a daughter, sister, wife, aunt, female friend? Do you own her? Are you her ruler? Or do you think she has the right to make her own decisions regarding her body and health care? Do you think she should be able to access care she wants here where she lives? Do you think your daughter or other female close to you deserves privileges that other females don’t?
If you think the only “right” worth talking about is the right to life, then the following article is not apt to sway you, but hey, read on and I expect you’ll send me the same old comments along the cliché lines I’ve heard and read for decades. But really, read this with honest attention; think about the “what ifs”, as in: “what if this happened to your daughter?” or “what if this happened to the daughter of one of our great leaders?” or “what if this happened to you?” Let me add here my pitch for Family Planning Health Services in Wausau and your own trusted physician.
Article
Again, the question of abortion is injected into a presidential campaign to make our dividing lines more visible, opposing camps more polarized and cohesive, our choices more narrow and irrelevant. Now Mitt Romney is out there saying he’s the only candidate truly dedicated to the Republican platform’s goal to pass a constitutional amendment to ban abortion nationwide. Sure, outlaw abortion and then when the precious daughter with great expectations (or wife for that matter) of a senator, representative, governor, CEO, lawyer, surgeon, or other wealthy person “gets herself in trouble,” she’ll be quietly treated to a “weekend at the spa” with her loyal and well-paid family doctor or an impromptu little vacation in a nice foreign country where she can have her “problem taken care of” and return home with nobody the wiser, and a sweet tan, souvenirs and some duty-free items to boot.
Alternately, on the other side of the tracks, the scared, desperate woman of no financial means will seek her solution on the seedy side of the medical “industry” or at the hands of amateurs with possibly ghastly consequences. At worst, the rich daughter or wife might be the subject of juicy rumors. The poor woman might end up maimed or dead — a victim of her own despair and the pro-life agenda. This is how it always was before Roe/Wade (I remember) and it’s how it will shake down again when the pro-lifers have their way.
For me, a man by the way, this is what the abortion debate really boils down to: equality. Not fetuses or little souls or when the spark of life ignites. I understand and sympathize with anyone who has a personal or religious objection to abortion. I respect their choice to never pursue an abortion. I recognize and defend their right to promote alternative choices from the pulpit or in media. At best, abortion is an unhappy and disturbing choice, and an irreversible one at that. But how can we even consider legislating such a lopsided, inherently pro-wealthy, pro-privileged and obviously politically motivated law? Because it makes some people feel good? Because it helps some conservative politicians win their elections?
What about these related questions — will we institute criminal actions against any woman we find has returned from an international abortion vacation? Will she go to jail here for her actions abroad that are deemed legal in another country but considered immoral here? Will we ban travel for females to countries where abortion is legal? Will there be mandatory pregnancy tests for international travelers? For all these questions, the answer is, “Of course not!” But, will we take legal action against a woman who seeks or secures an illicit underworld abortion here within the borders of the U.S.A.? I’ll bet some of these pro-lifers would say that’s a good and just idea — after all, murderers must be punished, unborn Americans must be protected.
All this pro-life agenda will accomplish is to remove access to quality medical care for those too poor to travel to Sweden or wherever — it will not end abortion. Oh, but it would make the pro-lifers feel so good about themselves, so shiny, so pure. What blind, self-serving, damnable hypocrisy! What blatant disregard for any measure of equality or sense of reality! Any pro-lifer who denies the plausibility (heck, the inevitability) of the “sudden vacation” scenario, the quick little trip to take care of a problem described above is one of three things: 1) a shortsighted fool, 2) a damn liar or 3) a travel agent without scruples. And our president should be none of these!
Post-amble
So, now you’ve read it. If you’re a pro-lifer who’s disposed to confront me on this, go ahead. But please, deal with the questions and scenarios I’ve submitted. Don’t strangle me with comments on morality and compassion for the unborn — I don’t dispute your beliefs. But I can’t be swayed from my determination to ensure that every woman has equal access to care, not just the rich and privileged. Think of that NRA bumper sticker: “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.” Then revise it accordingly: “When abortions are outlawed, only rich Americans will have access to safe ones.” Is that how you want it? Face it: reality can’t be ideal; it will always be real.
Barry Liss said:
Heavy Neal. On the other hand, abortions can’t merely be birth control. People (young people) need access to birth control and they need to understand their sexuality and their options. But Neal, this dilemma that you want to create between the rich and the poor doesn’t negotiate the guilt that arises from such a consequential decision. Rich people feel bad too.
I don’t know. I need to pick up my daughter.
take it easy,
Barry
December 6th, 2007 at 11:15 am #
Neal Gets Real, So Deal said:
[…] Original post by Tom Neal […]
December 6th, 2007 at 11:44 am #
Dino Corvino said:
But Barry, the simple fact is those with mean have access to things that those without means do not have access to. So, should these services be made unavailable, or do we want a society that provides access?
December 6th, 2007 at 12:42 pm #
lisastahl said:
It was my experience that those who wanted to make abortion illegal also wanted to limit access to birth control, educaton, etc. through various tactics such as intimidation/moral superiority while offering no practical solutions for preventing abortions - only ways to make it harder for women to receive the medical care that they need i.e. pap tests, breast exams and so on.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:23 pm #
Dino Corvino said:
Lisa, I think that is a very good observation. We see now a move to make campus pricing prohibitive for college students.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:45 pm #
Tom Neal said:
Barry … abortion as birth control? That sounds like a deflection statement. Has virtually nothing to do with my point. Birth control is needed, yes. As are prudence, caution, common sense, education, etc. But my post has a single focus: access to abortion (an admittedly unhappy subject) as an equality question. I don’t “want to create” a dilemma between rich and poor … it already exists. We don’t live in a classless society, far from it. It’s not up to me to negotiate guilt (don’t really fully understand that reference) and I don’t debate that it’s a consequential decision, matter of fact, I mentioned its disturbing and irreversible aspects. The one, single, salient point I’m making is this: making abortion illegal in the U.S. will only meaningfully impact those who can’t afford to go elsewhere if they want one. Whether they feel guilty or guilt-free has nothing to do with it. We should not legislate on the basis of protecting our own selective sense of guilt or to otherwise pander to our own sensibilities by subjecting others (a specific segment of the population) to live according to them. Actually, your comment (and I hope to read your expanded reply) comes very close to supporting my conclusion that people make decisions that make them feel good. For some, the idea of abortion is so abhorrent that they seek its abolition, thus gaining relief from their own emotional discomfort. But in their fervor to attain that ideal, they’re willing to accept the innate inequality and tyranny of that position; in other words, they’ll turn a blind eye to the globe-trotting abortion seekers or just say, “tut-tut” and feel real good about themselves for their homeland efforts that really only inhibit the poor. Funny … I’m neither particularly poor nor a woman, but I feel pretty strongly about this issue that can profoundly impact poor females.
December 6th, 2007 at 2:47 pm #
timothyp said:
Legal abortions being the way they are now decreases the population of us “lower class citizens”.
Dump legal abortions and you:
Increase the population… no explanation should be needed for this topic but if you’d like me to elaborate I can.
Make underpriviledged families poorer. I happen to hate the term underpriviledged….. call it what it is…poor. No priviledges have been taken from them, they choose not to strive.
Make “The Chosen Ones” feel better about themselves. Religous fanatics are not generally going to have abortions because of their beliefs anyways, who should give them the right to tell anybody what to do in the first place? What and who gives them any right ot tell a woman what she can do with her body?
Increase crime ….selling drugs, robberies or burglaries aren’t usually committed by people with means. They have to get money somewhere don’t they?
Overburden the taxpayers whom are being pulled down by women that cannot fend for themselves, are in a bad spot or plainly do nor care how many kids they plop out of their bodies… “Why not…. what’s another one when I already have more than I can handle now”?
December 6th, 2007 at 8:22 pm #
erik said:
I usually like to bring a thought experiment of a Buddhist moral majority when there’s talk of legislating one’s religious believes on to the masses. According to Buddhist Precepts one must refrain from all intoxicants. Imagine if this Buddhist moral majority elected officials to make it law such that alcohol cannot be consumed. All those in the traditional Christian faiths which require alcohol to be consumed so as to receive the blood of Christ would see their very religious actions outlawed. Not to mention the numerous social repercussions we saw during the prohibition era.
It’s well and fine that Buddhist choose not to partake of intoxicates, but should they have the right to legislate that belief onto the rest of the nation?
(Buddhists also believe that people must refrain from sexual activity. Imagine that being brought into law. It’d be the exact opposite of recent acts in Russia to increase sexual activity in its citizens! :D )
December 6th, 2007 at 8:38 pm #
Barry Liss said:
The materialist approach that is being advocated here is true to an extent but far too limited. Saying wealthy people have advantages poor people don’t isn’t much different than saying 2+2=4…it’s true but don’t expect a pat on the back.
No my friends, the dramatic tropes of heroism and cowardice transcend the material realm. So does sin, guilt and expiation. Poor people are not bereft of heroic opportunities. Rich people are not absolved from the guilt they usurp by wrong-doing.
The question that I would ask in such a situation - were it my wife or daughter would be this: why is the nascent life unwelcome?
Barry
December 7th, 2007 at 8:35 am #
Jim Carlson said:
Debate on the subject of abortion is always interesting. Unless you are a woman dealing with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy, the debate usually boils down to two camps that will never see eye to eye.
We can go back and forth over the morality of abortion, but in general, I take issue with the politicians who fuel public policy on ‘moral issues’.
This is nothing new, in fact, one could argue that this mentality finds roots in the ‘colonial contradiction’: The same people who felt prosecuted for their religious beliefs decided that witch’s should drown. Ironic. Passion on mortality runs deep, and there are those who feel it is the government’s job to protect us from what we can do, see, hear and write.
In New York, Rudy Giuliani and New York’s Catholic hierarchy attempted to shut down an exhibit that they felt was offensive to the Virgin Mary (many would argue the exhibit was in poor taste). That’s right, a mayor and a church worked together. Where is the separation of Church and State? When is it a mayor’s job to censor ‘art’? I sincerely hope he tries to censor my next CD, sales would skyrocket.
We talk about our freedoms, but how free are we? Spend an afternoon in London or Paris:
* The Janet Jackson ‘nipple-gate’ fiasco was laughed at. Nudity, even during prime time is prevalent on European television. Their attitude: If you don’t want to see it, turn the channel. Our mantra: Protect us from nudity on TV. This also pertains to violence. Don’t like it? Turn it off. It is your choice, not the government’s.
* Go to a newspaper stand. You can buy a paper, hard core porn, a health magazine along with a coloring book and crayons for the children. All in one spot. Our policy, keep porn to certain shops in governed areas of the city. Oh and ‘Real Men Don’t Use Porn’ (but it is ok for politicians to solicit prostitutes).
* When Michael Richards uttered the “N” word, the American press reacted with horror. In London, they were asking why Michael was being singled out, after all the black (they don’t say African American or African European over there) audience members called him a ‘honky’ and a ‘cracker’. Isn’t a racial slur a racial slur?
* In Paris, protests are common. And they run over into large thoroughfares. With out a permit. The police interaction is to ‘protect the protesters’. Silly, in America we tear gas the protesters to restore ‘order’.
Where am I going with this? I admit I was off on a rant. My point is that we are a nation of legislation based on personal moral beliefs and protecting people from what one group feels is offensive at the expense of everyone else’s liberty.
I can see both sides of the abortion issue. Is it moral, or is it a crime? As a man, I have no choice. If my partner wants an abortion, I can not stop it. If she would like to have the child, I will legally be responsible for support (whether I wanted the child or not). Currently it is legal for a female to terminate a pregnancy, yet a man is facing murder charges for giving his partner the abortion pill without her consent. Trust me, I am not in any defending this guy, just presenting facts.
Sure, statistically someone will use abortion as birth control, but the average person will not. The same argument lead to prohibition; to stop abuse, we have to stop consumption. The same argument is applied to marijuana. (Funny how alcohol makes some people violent, but most people on marijuana either build stuff get the munchies…).
The passion involved with abortion creates great debate. At the end of the day, is it the government’s job to decide, or is it a moral decision of the woman who is dealing with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy? It is safe to say, we will never reach consensus.
December 7th, 2007 at 11:25 am #
Dino Corvino said:
I do not think that Neals post had anything to do with this at all. I think that he was not speaking of the morality of the act, you could just as easily discuss the morality of going to the dentist.
This issue is about people having access to health care, regardless of what health care it is.
Your question on whether it is the governments place is exactly the right one, is it the governments place to tell me I cannot clean my teeth or have my appendix out?
The removal of the static morality play, allows one to discuss the true issue, and that is whether or not we should be having this government intervention.
The government is there to protect my rights, to allow me access to health care, to provide a safe country. Not to decide what a doctor should or should not do.
to engage this as a moral discussion is a mistake
December 7th, 2007 at 11:52 am #
anonemoose said:
Thanks, Dino, for attempting to refocus the topic here. I appreciate the effort and reference to having one’s teeth cleaned or one’s appendix out. However, both those procedures are gender neutral. Abortion is gender specific. Is there any parallel that can be drawn with males to even come close to what a woman deals with if faced with an unintended pregnancy?
moose
December 7th, 2007 at 8:29 pm #
Emily Nelson said:
Let’s make Jim’s post an actual article instead of a comment. Much too good of a discussion, if you ask me…. ;)
December 8th, 2007 at 8:27 am #
lisastahl said:
A single sperm, given the right conditions, can potentially become a person. Are we then to outlaw vasectomies or vasectomy education?
Erik - Buddhism monks and nuns do live a celibate life. The basic moral guideline with sexual activity is that if it brings harm to oneself and/or others then it is to be avoided - for example, sex with animals, minors, prostitutes, casual sex and sexual assault. Lay Buddhists have the freedom to have/enjoy sexual relationships. In the context of partnerships/marriage, the Buddha encourages mutual respect and fidelity.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:36 am #
deepintheheart said:
As a moral bankrupt, I do not fear placing my toe in the values pond. Standing to be counted as one of the rougher sex, I want to suggest that there is no equivalent to the situation a female faces when dealing with an unwanted pregnancy.
Wether she be a “globetrotting abortion seeker”–probably not flying Virgin airlines–or someone living in poverty, the fear, shame, guilt or whatever the emotion is likely the same.
A personal religious roadmap may not indicate the direction to Abortionville. But if such a place exists, it should be on every map. When asked for directions by a passing motorist, we should be able to choose the help we offer.
December 8th, 2007 at 11:40 am #
Dino Corvino said:
The government imposing a sense of morality is gender nuetral Moose.
I find this form of tyranny to be amazingly painful, and this discussion has little to do with abortion.
December 8th, 2007 at 12:35 pm #
erik said:
Lisa - I was overly simplifying the difference between monastic Buddhism and Lay Buddhism for a joke, but thanks for making it clear for those that would otherwise be unaware :)
December 8th, 2007 at 3:54 pm #
anonemoose said:
Clearly this issue is too “hot-button” for me. I come in contact with people daily who are dealing with the effects of unintended pregnancy. I can’t detach myself emotionally from that reality and make any meaningful comments about government or tyranny or legislating morality or monastic Buddhism or gender equality within our health care system or fill in the blank. I’m giving myself a cyber time-out.
moose
December 8th, 2007 at 5:02 pm #
Tom Neal said:
Hey Barry … you posit: “the dramatic tropes of heroism and cowardice transcend the material realm. So does sin, guilt and expiation. Poor people are not bereft of heroic opportunities. Rich people are not absolved from the guilt they usurp by wrong-doing. The question that I would ask in such a situation - were it my wife or daughter would be this: why is the nascent life unwelcome?”
The points you make are probably not debatable on moral grounds (or, they are endlessly, circularly debatable). But the question I orginated this thread with was civic, don’t you think? A straight-up question re: legislating a point of view that in practice will burden a certain class segment without unduly affecting another. You seem to be championing a position that would enforce heroism and guilt, while outlawing cowardice and unwelcomeness. This is moral high ground, but it’s not based in civic terms. Think: sociology, not philosophy.
December 10th, 2007 at 2:13 pm #
Tom Neal said:
This comment of Barry’s sort of raised my hackles, got my dander up, but more important, it strikes me as disturbingly Marie Antoinette-ish: “Saying wealthy people have advantages poor people don’t isn’t much different than saying 2+2=4…it’s true but don’t expect a pat on the back.” I think this sounds like a wave-of-the-hand dismissal of a fundamental, critical and relevant point.
If pointing out the inherent social-strata inequity of the pro-life position is so basic (i.e. “2+2″), why does it not emerge in the public/political rhetoric more often? Point is, it doesn’t. Read the back and forth. The pro-choicers talk about a woman’s right to govern her own body. The pro-lifers talk about a fetus’s right to live. In the ramp-up to the establishment of the Roe v. Wade decision, probably the key argument that led to its passing was the very one I’ve referenced — people were incensed at the ease of senators’ wives and daughters obtaining abortions from qualified medical professionals in foreign countries, while poor women here died or were maimed at their local illicit provider’s storefront. In the ensuing years, the two camps have argued about such lofty topics as “when viability of the fetus is established” and “when life begins” and “after how many days is it not okay to abort” and “government funding of services that support pro-choice” etc. etc. To me, it’s all secondary to the basic social issue of access (who do we effectively bar from access and for whom do we just make it a little more inconvenient).
Barry … in this case, should we blithely ignore a pertinent social issue in favor of our own moral view? I agree with you on the personal aspects of this issue, the need for prevention and exploration of options, but traditionally, even the most fervent “father confessor” knew to keep his cassock out of the courthouse. Appealing to responsibility, guilt and a sense of wrong-doing are valid, worthy advice points on the personal level. But can we seriously consider sewing such religio-philosophical views into the legal fabric? Are we willing to accept the results of that action (i.e. the de-facto segregation of access)? And, I’m sure you are aware of the next inevitable question: What will be the next polarizing moral taboo we tackle with a constitutional amendment?
December 11th, 2007 at 8:16 am #
Barry Liss said:
Neal, take it easy = you’ll give yourself a coronary. I’m coming up on finals week so I can’t respond so quickly. My point is not that you are wrong, but that you stated something obvious. Of course there is fiscal disenfranchisement - savage inequities between those who have and those who don’t. The material realm is there. Money creates possibilities for collusion and monopoly and hording. It’s staggering and terrifying. I fully appreciate this line of reasoning. I’m ceding this “fundamental, critical and relevant point.”
What I found problematic in your post was this phrase:
NEAL: “Sure, outlaw abortion and then when the precious daughter with great expectations (or wife for that matter) of a senator, representative, governor, CEO, lawyer, surgeon, or other wealthy person “gets herself in trouble,” she’ll be quietly treated to a “weekend at the spa” with her loyal and well-paid family doctor or an impromptu little vacation in a nice foreign country where she can have her “problem taken care of” and return home with nobody the wiser, and a sweet tan, souvenirs and some duty-free items to boot.”
I think it misses the point. My contention is that there is another realm of self that transcends the material within 5 minutes of dialogue with another. You can call this the phenomenological approach or the dramaturgical perspective. It has to do with authenticity as the primary criterion of success or failure in performance.
Have you not noticed bro that so many wealthy people are neurotic lunatics lately? You have things…but they are not your being, your essence, or identity and to place things as primary confuses the setting for the actors and confounds the drama. This causes cynicism. What kind of hell would it be to live in a family that would disown you because of an unintended pregnancy?
take it easy,
Barry
December 11th, 2007 at 2:11 pm #
Tom Neal said:
Barry … (God love ya) my quote you’ve pulled doesn’t miss the point; it is the point, you rascal. And, you’ll not snow me with your fancy jargon, either. Could be, owing to my blue collar background, I stubbornly resist the higher forms of intellectual discourse if I feel the nitty-gritty of real life is being glossed over in the process.
Daughters of senators and single moms from bluecollarville, alike, when they find themselves in an extreme cognitively and emotionally dissonant state, are conceivably apt to be bereft of the capacity or ready resources to soundly evaluate their situation from a phenomenological or dramaturgical perspective. Inevitably, a choice will be made, based on whatever prime criteria they employ. Ultimately, that should be their right, and yes, their burden. Question: would you or should you legislate to deprive them of that self-responsibility? And are you willing to do so, knowing that you are adding to the imbalance of social inequity that you appear to agree exists? That’s the nitty-gritty, where we all live (not just the philosophers and pundits).
Pleasure crossing social swords with you, Barry. You’re a real card and a challenge to boot. What are you doing Saturday night?
December 12th, 2007 at 7:39 am #
erik said:
Phenomenology, Barry? And you give me a hard time for following post-modernism :P
December 12th, 2007 at 9:14 am #