Features

PRO-ACTIVE, PRO-CHOICE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

In a democracy it is always healthy to have an honest debate on issues of moment. In that spirit we welcome the article by Monika Rodman, et al (“Coming Out on Abortion,” Daily Planet, Feb.15-17). Let us begin by conceding that 1) no one, including pro-choice adherents, have a monopoly on truth; 2) our opponents’ views are as strongly held as ours; 3) they are as moral humans as we are. In fact, we applaud their social justice record of defending immigrants, supporting health care, opposing war, fighting apartheid and opposing the death penalty. Unlike some of their cohorts, these are consistent, moral people. We therefore welcome a dialogue to see if we can find common ground in addition to our strong differences. 

But there are indeed great differences between what many of us pro-choice folks believe and the assertions of many of those in the anti-choice movement.  

Does human life begin at conception? We say no (which is why we can oppose the death penalty but support choice); they say yes. It is this difference that prevents us from adopting their own term, “pro-life,” as if we believe we are against life! And it is that difference that invalidates Ms. Rodman’s analogy between slavery and choice. One involves a human being; the other does not.  

The march on Jan. 22 by Ms. Rodman and her cohorts used as one of its themes “Women Deserve Better.” But better than what? They believe that abortions harm women and should be prohibited. We have seen no proof that abortion harms women more than it helps them.  

Legal abortion, after all, prevents death or sterility from back alley abortions or unsanitary coat hangers, a teenager from being ostracized (or worse) by her parents for getting pregnant, the never-ending cycle of poverty for many poor families, a woman (often a teenager) from carrying or raising an unwanted child born of rape or incest, etc. Before Roe v. Wade rich and middle class women could get abortions that were relatively safe; poor women could not.  

We know no one who think that abortions are fun, or that it is cool to have one. But, in the spirit of finding common ground to minimize abortions, to make them less necessary for the women that seek them now, could we not agree on certain obvious public policy objectives to reduce the need for abortions? We refer to such things as age appropriate sex education not limited to abstinence only, free family planning for people without health insurance or means, and access to emergency contraceptives. Equally importantly, we have to work to remove the financial pressures that lead women to choose an abortion. If women had free prenatal and post-partum care, subsidized day care, and free health insurance for their children, they would feel less financial pressure to have an abortion.  

All these strategies would reduce the need for abortions, and thus make choice unnecessary for many women and anti-choice irrelevant. Both sides could cooperate to make a better world for women and families by working to achieve these programs, yet no one would be forced to abandon strongly held beliefs. How about it? 

Catherine Trimbur  

and Mal Burnstein 

• 

NOT SO ALONE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

After reading the commentary “Coming Out on Abortion” I feel less strange and alone living in the Berkeley area. 

Abortion is the “ultimate exploitation of women.” I witnessed it close up when I was 13 and learned my mother was pregnant. The prospect of a sibling thrilled me. But my older sister and my father insisted that mother have an abortion. Mother wept at the idea. She did not want to be “dismembered.” She thought that defying the designs of nature would bring harm to her body. To keep harmony in the family, she acquiesced to their wishes and made an appointment with a doctor to discuss ending her pregnancy. 

The appointment never came. Shortly before the consultation was to occur, this respected and beloved doctor, wrapped his head in a wet towel and fatally shot himself. His tragic suicide strengthened my mother’s resolve to protect her own body and to follow her convictions. 

Each time my fun, interesting and wonderfully unique 36-year-old little brother calls on the phone, and I hear his voice, happy and full of life, I am sadly reminded of the disturbing events surrounding his birth. 

I hope you let the writers know how much I appreciate them. 

Regina Pettus 

Albany 

• 

PRE-BORN, PRE-DEAD 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

The guest commentary by Monika Rodman et al. was sad and funny. The question at the foundation of every argument on the issue of abortion (but which is usually skirted) is: “When does human life begin?” But the question behind that particular gorilla-in-the-room is a much more complicated one that is avoided altogether: “What is life?” Fetuses are clearly sentient. So are amoebas. Rodman et al., sadly, cannot bring themselves to break new ground in their presentation, preferring the usual approach of abortion foes—tugging at heartstrings, this time with the addition of trying to establish some kind of social justice credentials for themselves in a vain attempt to sway the local progressive crowd. 

The only thing readers know for certain is that Rodman et al. believe that human life begins significantly sooner than birth, hence the deliberately misleading and accidentally hilarious term “pre-born children” in place of the more accurate and descriptive “fetus.” Obfuscating terminology is the evil twin of Politically Correct Speech, which has also resulted in (mostly unintentionally) confusing language. As an exercise in clarity, I suggest that the absurd phrase “pre-born children” be replaced with “fetuses,” yielding the meaningless sentence: “None of us are outsiders in the cause of justice toward fetuses.” Justice toward fetuses must certainly have to do with making sure that pre-mothers have access to the best pre-natal medical care possible, since the health of the fetus is completely dependent on the health of the mother. 

Not all fetuses are born. Not all newborns survive. But all life ends. Compassionate people focus on the life that already exists around them, and for good reason; the puzzle and wonder of actual existing life is where compassion lies because we all will die eventually. Compassionate people don’t refer to life as “pre-death” regardless of the inevitability of death. Fetuses are no more “pre-born children” than living breathing people are “pre-dead humans.”  

C. Boles 

• 

LEARNING VIOLENCE 

Editors, Daily Planet: 

Thank you so much for printing Monika Rodman et. al.’s article on pro-lifers in the Bay Area. She hit the nail on the head: Simply because a pre-born child is not wanted at the moment is no excuse for destroying him/her. Having witnessed my birth mother’s horrific mental illness that was a direct result of her two abortions, I can honestly say that abortion, the violent ending to an unwanted pregnancy, is no more a solution than the death penalty is to our burgeoning crime rate in America. Destroying life isn’t the answer. The next time that people become aghast at the American violence in Iraq, they should ask themselves where such violence was learned. Well, it was learned right here at home, where we are “taught” that abortion is simply the removal of a few unwanted cells, that human life doesn’t count, and that if someone is in your way, destroy him/her! 

Martin Bickerstaff 

Alameda