One of my earliest childhood memories was going up to strangers at our local polling place in 1972 and trying to convince them to vote for Richard Nixon. My family was always staunchly conservative, and the notion of voting for a Democrat was anathema; my six-year-old self went along enthusiastically. (Nixon vs. McGovern was not a close election, so I doubt that my efforts made a difference in the ultimate outcome.)
Myself excluded, my family’s allegiance to Republicans has never waned. The only exception (that I know of) was in the 1990’s when my Mom confessed the possibility that she might vote for Bill Clinton. When I asked why, she gave a simple answer: he was in favor of abortion rights, and she thought that was really important. Now, my Mom was certainly not in a position where she would worry about the prospect of getting an abortion for her own sake, and she has long been the kind of person who uses “feminist” as a slightly disreputable epithet. But this one issue was important enough to her to call into question a lifelong loyalty to Republicans. The reason is simple enough: as a woman, she understood the potentially life-altering consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, and felt that it was crucial to protect other women’s right to avoid that possibility, even if it wasn’t relevant to her own situation.
I bring this up not to explain why abortion rights are important (although they are), but to make a more narrowly political point: fighting to protect such rights is not a losing move for the Democratic party. (To a large extent I don’t care about the political ramifications, as I am happy to support wildly unpopular positions when I think they are important, but sometimes what is right actually aligns with what is popular, and why not take advantage?) Guys tend to not quite appreciate how important the right to choose really is to women, and they also tend to forget that women are a large fraction of the voting public, including a lot of Republican voters. As the Alito nomination moves us just a little closer to eroding the right to choose, this issue is going to loom increasingly larger in voters’ minds. Rather than validating centrist bona fides by prevaricating on the issue of abortion, Democrats should be proudly emphasizing that they are the party of choice — a lot of suburban swing voters might actually move their way.
This is also Blog for Choice month. More details here.
The Democrats are anatomical marvels – gutless and spineless. This enables them to speak from both ends of their anatomy. They will not protect our rights. I don’t have an alternative, however. 🙁
Goodness, you have grown! When the stone is about to fall into your garden, you start thinking of how to react under different scenarios of impact. Once it has been in your garden you have some idea of how to handle it. When the stone hits you directly you are just more sensitive to the impact than the one whom the stone missed. This is why all women, the ones who have experienced pregnancy and the ones who haven’t, the republicans and the democrats, are sensitive to the topic of their right to make decisions regarding their own physiology. I wonder how often males think of what it would feel like to be pregnant. In general, how often is it that we support a concept only after having examined it from all possible view points. Rarely. This is the reason there is a “controversy”. In this fashion, are we not the ones who revoke our own right to choose by limiting our right to examine with scrutiny?
Hmmm, I haven’t done any research on it or anything, but from my experience I don’t see much correlation between someone’s position on abortion and their gender. Some of the staunchest “pro-lifers” I know of are female.
“…Guys tend to not quite appreciate how important the right to choose really is to women…”
Can we get something straight? “Pro-choice” and “pro-life” are both horridly misleading phrases, as are all derivative terms such as “right to choose” and “right to life.” With reference to abortion, the two sides are necessarily split into “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion;” sanitising your terms serves only to muddy the (already murky) waters and does a disservice to everyone, including those women who find themselves faced by such an agonising prospect.
I really wish that someone in the Democratic party would have the courage to come out and deconstruct this argument fully. As it currently stands, both right and left in the US will have you believe that you are either pro- or anti-abortion. When will someone have the mettle to say that there is a third way which is better: recognise that abortion is a terrible, but real, occurrence and that the reasons which lead someone to choose abortion are the fundamental problems which need to be addressed, not the act itself.
Gosh, Sean, I never knew we had so much in common – I have the same experience. One of my earliest childhood memories was going with my Mother to vote for Goldwater (ack!) in 1964. At least I had the presence of mind to stay in the car and not canvass for votes! But I remember the incident well as we left the polls and went straight to Goldwaters Department Store in downtown Phoenix. I thought my Mother voted for Goldwater because she liked to shop. (Actually, since I’m only 29, it’s amazing that I remember this incident at all – must be an artifact of warped extra dimensions!)
As I grew up I realized that my family is also heavily Republican. My Grandfather was a State Senator for 18 years and President Pro Tem for a his last 2 terms. He had an elephant on his TV – took me years to understand the significance of that. My parents wouldn’t dream of supporting a Democrat. They stay up at night wondering what they did wrong in raising me. But my Mother is a staunch supporter of legalized abortion and is willing to base her vote on this issue – IF she is convinced that legalized abortion is in real danger. And that’s the catch, she doesn’t sense the danger. Politicians are expert at using rhetoric to cover up what they are really doing and Republicans are good at trying to preserve their moderate base while still pandering to the radical right.
Dampt,
Very few people would characterize themselves as “pro-abortion”. That’s why I believe the common ground on this issue is to reduce demand for abortion rather than focus on the supply side (restricting/permitting abortions).
The stark reality is that most abortions are chosen for economic reasons. When someone from the GOP is prepared to discuss a living wage for all Americans as a baseline to reduce the economic pressure on the underclass to chose abortion as an economic decision then I think we can have a meaningful discussion. But the same folks who don’t wan’t to permit abortions are encouraging them by their union busting globalization efforts.
If we can get closer to economic parity, the number of abortions will go down.
I fully support the fundamental right of a woman to decide what to do with her own body. I also hope that we can live in a world where as Bill Clinton so eloquently put it.. “Abortions are safe, legal, and rare.”
Elliot
That’s a great story, Sean. I’m from Massachusetts. I remember in the schoolyard of St. Agatha’s, during an informal vote just before the election, the exact opposite happened: classmates went around bullying the rest of us to vote for George McGovern.
Elliot,
I agree entirely. My point, however, is that I dislike greatly any attempt to sugar-coat abortion by referring to it in inoffensive terms. “Pro-choice” is almost an oxymoron in the context in which it is used, just as “pro-life” is. The truth of the matter is that we are all pro-life and pro-choice; the difference comes down to whether or not you support abortion. If you believe in a woman’s right to choose, you must accept that, ultimately, you support the practice of abortion, tacitly or otherwise. Similarly, if you believe that a woman shouldn’t be able to choose to have an abortion you are guilty of supporting the invariably bad consequences which she will have to suffer.
The debate is not really about abortion itself; it’s a practice which is as old as the hills and will probably continue forever. The crucial point which needs to be addressed are the underlying problems which drive women to consider abortion to be a valid choice. If these are economic problems they must have an economic solution; if they are social problems they must be solved within a social context. But these are the true issues, not abortion itself.
Apologies for the errant italics in the above.
Dampt,
Agreed. I don’t think pro-choice or pro-life are useful or meaningful ways to phrase the debate and lead to red-herring arguments. I also agree that abortion itself is not the true issue but the underlying economic-social milieu in which abortion arises as a “solution” to the underlying problem.
Elliot
damtp_dweller,
How can “pro-choice” be a misleading term? The issue is precisely one of choice – whether a woman should have the right to choose to abort or whether she should be forced to have a baby she doesn’t want. “Pro-abortion” sounds like the position that one _should_ have abortions, or that abortions are an explicitly good thing. “Pro-choice” on the other hand is consistent with the position of many people who believe that while abortion isn’t a good thing (not something to be aimed for) the right to be able to choose is a good thing.
michaeld,
The problem is that when the issue is characterized that way, it is easy for those opposed to choice to characterize themselves as pro-life and we get caught up in this whole talking past each other issue.
There is nothing incorrect about what you say however the public debate on this issue has gotten mired down in “labels” and I think what dampt and I are both trying to suggest is that these labels become code words that allow people to dig in their heels and not seek common ground.
As I said I am 100% pro-choice but that does not mean that I feel this issue is best discussed with that terminology.
Elliot