Sarah Palin's Choice

You could see this coming from a mile away... When Sarah Palin disclosed in a speech for a pro-life group how she struggled with the knowledge that her youngest child had Down syndrome -- you just knew what the headlines and the response from the mainstream media would be.

Palin explained how she was on a business trip and the thought crossed her mind that she could sneak off and have an abortion without her husband's knowledge. She described the thought as "fleeting." She then said she found the courage to have her son and is so glad she did because Trig is the joy of her entire family's life.

Predictably, the headlines ran the ilk of "Palin Considered Abortion" totally ignoring the thrust of Palin's entire speech and once again bowing before the altar of "choice." And today the Washington Post ran an editorial by Ruth Marcus that reverently toed the pro-abortion line.

Marcus says that if Palin and prolifers had their way, women "would have no thought process to go through" -- (Because you know, those who cherish all life would be thought police. Women wouldn't even be allowed to think!) -- that we would in essence be making the decision for all women.

Every once in a while the Post will trot out an editorial by some wishy-washy liberal who actually realized the value of the imperfect life within her, and brought her child with Down syndrome into the world (unlike more than 80% of women like her in America). Even though the writer recognizes the potential of her child and the joy that has come from their appearance in the world, she hails the fact that there is still "choice" for women. In other words, the women who pen these editorials know that imperfect people deserve life just as much as anyone else -- but if another woman thinks they don't, it's ok for that other woman to kill her child. Because it's her "choice."

Ah, yes. The "women need to think for themselves" and "the government shouldn't be making private decisions" canards.

Of course the whole point of championing life -- and the whole point of Palin's  speech -- is treated by the MSM as if prolifers are simply bossy cows. In actuality we're declaring the value of every human life, and the ability for women to overcome any obstacle.

Sure there are moments of weakness in which someone may look for what seems to be an easier way out of a situation -- a way no one will have to know about -- with the mistaken belief that it will somehow be a better option. Forgetting that she will know about it. For the rest of her life.

If a woman struggling to feed her children considered shop-lifting, we would understand. If an overwhelmed mother considered abandoning her children, we would see it was out of desperation. If a beaten women considered murdering her abuser, we would recognize the sense of self-preservation.

But we wouldn't legalize theft, child abuse, and murder in order to preserve those women's ability to "control their own decisions." We would steer these women to a food bank, a childcare relief service, and a women's shelter. Because we know that there is always a better way that a woman can see when not feeling despondent and alone in the world -- when she feels supported by her family, friends, and community.

Sarah Palin recognized her vulnerability, one that many women may know at some point in their lives. But she also recognized the dignity of all humanity. Thoughts may cross our minds, even unexpectedly, but the actions we take are deliberate.

What will we as a nation -- as a part of that humanity -- decide the fate of the imperfect will be?

Comments

[Pat]

This is the great hypocrisy of the pro-life movement. By its reasoning:

1. Once a woman has conceived, she's carrying a human being inside her, because a fetus is as human and is as much a person as my two-year-old child.

2. If I choose abortion, then to pro-lifers it would be as if I'd killed my two-year-old.

By this reasoning, Sarah Palin confessed to the equivalent of wanting to smother her daughter Piper with a pillow one day for being a difficult girl, but she decided it wasn't OK. But Palin's supporters have told her, in essence, it's OK, since she didn't go ahead and do it.

I've never thought about killing my babies, and yet because I think women should be allowed access to safe abortions, then in the anti-choice movement's eyes, I'm villified.

go figure...

[Colette Moran]

This is the great hypocrisy of the pro-abortion movement. By its reasoning:

1. No matter what age of gestation -- no matter if they are able to live outside the womb or not -- as long as a pre-born person has even just a finger still in the womb, the mother can choose to look upon her child as a thing not worthy of existing and can kill her child. (And our president and others like him have even argued that the child would have no rights to care -- a basic human right -- if they somehow manage to survive an abortion.)

2. If this is not even a person, a thing that can be disposed of -- there should be no problem choosing an abortion. It is the equivalent of having a tumor removed.

By this reasoning, all women are supposed to view the preborn child as a thing that will only gain personhood after birth. The airwaves are bombarded with this argument -- it pervades our society. Women are steered toward believing that there is not a person inside them, just a thing. A woman in a moment of weakness could easily buy into this argument, if she felt desperate.

Sarah's thought of having an abortion was not the equivalent of smothering her child, it was that -- for a moment -- she was buying into the pro-abortion idea that all she would be doing was returning to "normal" -- that nothing -- no *one* -- would be lost or gained.

Pro-abortion activists want the decision to abort to be tough and thoughtful when it serves their purpose of gaining empathy for it remaining a "private" decision. But when you call them on that argument -- when you point out "Well *why* is it a difficult decision?" they refuse to acknowledge that we all know it is more than a clump of cells, and that there is definitely something *very wrong* about it.

Despite the sonograms that reveal a whole person who could survive on her own outside her mother's womb -- a woman, who could be under duress and decides that her child is in any way a burden, can just dispose of her child.

You are vilified because you are not advocating a euphemism -- i.e. a "safe procedure" -- you are advocating the taking of an innocent life.

Pro-lifers are not insensitive to the issues pregnant women may face -- many of us (myself included) have been there. We choose to champion both mother *and* child. No one needs to be de-humanized and destroyed to reach a solution that works for everyone.

[jessica johnson]

Maybe the problem with both sides of this argument is in the social and political label each gives the other. I haven't researched the history of the women's rights movement and how or where abortion comes into play, but I bet the divide between the two groups started there.

As I see it, the problem is that if you're pro-life, then you can't be pro-choice because pro-lifers believe a fetus' right to life outweighs a woman's right to choose what is best for her body. By inference, pro-lifers hinder the advancement of women's rights. Conversely, if you're pro-choice, then you can't be pro-life because you advocate abortion as an option. By inference, pro-choicers more staunchly support woman's rights, including her ability to control her life and body, even if it means aborting.

This has to be the most divisive political, religious, social, legal, and moral issue humans face. As a woman, when I become pregnant does a fetus' right to life outweigh my right to choose what is best for me, my life and my body? What if, by giving birth, my own life is endangered? What takes precedent: legal rights or moral obligation? Making abortion illegal brings on a host of other problematic issues, too. It's naive to think we can educate and convince every pregnant woman to go through with the birth, then consider alternatives to keeping the baby. In this world, that's just too utopia-thinking. Can you save a few lives? Sure. Do you solve the problem? Not a chance.

In the end, I think the stigma pro-choicers and pro-lifers give each other is wrong. In my book, Sarah Palin weighed her choices, no matter how fleeting, and that makes her "pro-choice". However, my takeaway from her speech is that out of fear, she weighed those options, but in the end would have chosen to keep her baby anyway; that is, she would never abort, and that makes her "pro-life." I don't think that makes her wishy-washy, and I don't think she hinders any advancements women are making in society today. I also don't agree that the writers of the editorials Collette mentions are wishy-washy either. I've read both sides of the issue, including Post editorials, and I think most are thoughtfully written. The angry banter and inability to consider both sides will only continue the divide.

[Mushy Middle]

Wow, Jessica. Very well stated. I believe that abortion should remain legal because we know that, legal or not, there are women who will seek one. We know that women sought them before they were legal and were mutilated at the hands of butchers looking to make a buck. Also, who's to say that every woman who has an abortion will regret it? That's between her and God. It is a sad choice that some women make. It's sad to know that women feel they have to make that choice. Some feminists say it's a tragedy that women feel they have no choice, and yet they'll spit vitriol in the face of anyone claiming to be pro-choice. There's vitriol spewed from both sides.

There are pro-choice women who would not have an abortion. As we see by Palin's example, there are pro-lifers who will weigh the option. Maybe we shouldn't lump everyone into one category or the other. And maybe we should consider women like Sarah Palin "pro giving birth."

[Mushy Middle]

P.S. Another impasse: Some women will not be convinced that at the moment of conception a person exists. I don't. Even the Catholic church has, over the centuries, amended its definition of a person.

[Colette Moran]

Ok -- I started to write a response, and it just got too long, so I made it into a new post.

What I will write only here is -- just what amendment has the Catholic Church made? That's a new one to me that I'd be very interested in knowing more about.