Tuesday, January 23, 2007

22 January

Blog for Choice Day - January 22, 2007

I just heard about "Blog for Choice Day," thanks to Brian. I am happy and proud to post the above graphic. I fully support a woman's right to choose, and I am against any and all restrictions on that right.

The site that provides the above image, Bush v. Choice, challenges bloggers to "tell us, and your readers, why you're pro-choice."

I did notice, when reading the NY Times newsletter this morning, that today is the 34th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I thought about mentioning this then, but I couldn't think of anything new to say. Reflecting upon the BvC challenge, I have decided that writer's block, and my egotistical desire to coin a pithy new phrase, will have to be set aside. This is an issue where it is of paramount importance to stand up and be counted. I will therefore explain my thinking for being pro-choice, and ask your indulgence for the lack of originality.

When I was back in college for the second time, I was hanging out in a bar with my roommate, his friend, and his friend's fiancée. We were all older students who had returned to school in our late 20s, and we were finally nearing completion of our undergraduate degrees. The woman, whom I'll call Phyllis, was telling us about her roommate, whom I'll call Jane. Phyllis told us that Jane had been aware that Phyllis was going to the drugstore.

"And then Jane asked me to pick up her birth control pills! Can you imagine?"

I was puzzled. "So you didn't do it?"

"Of course not!"

"Why? Didn't she have the money? Or didn't you?"

"No, no! I didn't care about the money! But, I mean, these were her birth control pills!" She leaned back as thought she had just played the ace of trumps.

I still didn't get it. "Why wouldn't you do this, if you were already going?"

Phyllis went on at some length, saying that it wasn't her job to cover for her roommate's irresponsible and immoral behavior. I guess, being engaged, she felt she had some exclusive right to have sex. She finished by clapping her hands and said, in a mocking tone of voice, "Oh, look! It's a baby!"

I said, "So, you think it would be better if she had to get an abortion?"

She looked aghast at me. "Of course not! That would be a sin!"

The conversation quickly devolved. My roommate's friend began featuring a pained look. I read it as agreement with my point of view, and a wish to be anywhere but caught in the middle of this. His fiancée was looking to him for support. I was on the verge of asking him how he could be planning to marry such a wingnut. My roommate, recognizing the wisps of steam, went proactively diplomatic and dragged me out of the bar.

I don't mean to equate birth control with abortion. I don't think they're the same thing at all. But this was the first time that I had encountered the intolerance of the vehemently religious in anyone my own age. Every time I hear the rantings of some anti-choice loudmouth, I am reminded of Phyllis's smug self-appointedness.

I do not view a fetus as a human being. I view it as a potentiality. Until the fetus exits the womb, I see it as part of the woman's body. As such, she is the only one who is entitled to make decisions about it.

I recognize that others may view this dividing line as arbitrary, or as drawn at the wrong place in time. I can occasionally summon up some abstract appreciation for those who are morally convinced that a late-term fetus is already a distinct life. I suppose I could be more charitable to these people, were so many of them not also in favor of the death penalty and invading other countries.

At the moment, there is no clear answer about when a sperm cell and an egg become a baby. Maybe my split point will ultimately be proven wrong. For now, I am comfortable with my own definition. Until I hear a distinction that is based on something more substantial than religious leanings, especially when they are not shared by everyone, I believe that the best policy as a society is to leave it to the individual to decide.

No comments:

ShareThis