The possibility of collaboration between people on both sides of the abortion debate

[kris97]

At the risk of starting yet another controversial abortion thread, I wanted to pose this question, which has interested me for some time. We've all heard the debates between pro-life and pro-choice sides of the debate. (I'm using these terms in the interest of equanimity here, because they're what each side chooses to call itself.) My question is: is there any possibility of collaboration between the different camps? Do you think that this is desirable?

Here's my take: I don't think there's anyone, on any "side", in favor of high abortion rates. Therefore, a common goal would seem to be the reduction in the number of abortions. Instead of the vitriolic rhetoric, wouldn't it be more productive to devote more resources to devising strategies to prevent unplanned pregnancies, encourage adoption, and make it easier for women and their partners to raise families? One of the most heartening things I've ever seen come out of the abortion debate was a collaborative effort between the pro life and pro choice societies of my college to create a pamphlet informing women students of their options while pregnant -- I don't recall the exact contents, but it included information re: adoption and prenatal care (like Planned Parenthood). I thought that an incredible achievement -- to see the two sides come together and accomplish something rather than just yelling at each other.

So, do you think that pursuing collaboration is possible or worthwhile? For those pro-choice, do you think that it would distract from defending the legal challenges to abortion rights? For those on both sides, do you think that the differing beliefs re: the morality of contraceptives would stymie any collaborative efforts to reduce unplanned pregnancies?

[Asha]

yes, i think that some colloboration could occur.

i would be a lot more respectful of a person's decision to support the pro life movement if they intended to adopt children from unwanted pregnancies. it is sad to say but many of those people would not want to do that, and that really bothers me. someone has to take care of these children if you are going to force women to have babies. also, people will have to be willing to adopt older children. i have a feeling that the rate of children being put into the foster care system would go up bc many women who were completely uncapable of raising a child would have them and try to raise them. since they were uncapable, it is highly likely the children would be removed from their homes.

[laurenc]

i would be a lot more respectful of a person's decision to support the pro life movement if they intended to adopt children from unwanted pregnancies. it is sad to say but many of those people would not want to do that, and that really bothers me. someone has to take care of these children if you are going to force women to have babies. also, people will have to be willing to adopt older children. i have a feeling that the rate of children being put into the foster care system would go up bc many women who were completely uncapable of raising a child would have them and try to raise them. since they were uncapable, it is highly likely the children would be removed from their homes.

ITA.

no matter what the issue, there are many folks who talk the talk but can't walk the walk. in this situation, for people supporting the pro-life movement, walking the walk is a little bit more involved than people supporting the pro-choice movement. if they can put their money where their mouths are, i may find myself able to meet that camp halfway. but until i see that happening, i am going to continue to walk the walk on my side of the matter and take the side of the issue that i do.

[Asha]

yes, it's really disturbing to me that many pro life people seem to be so concerned about a potential life in the womb yet do little to nothing to help children (other than their own) once they are outside the womb.

[msnicolea]

This hypocrisy extends beyond just the abortion debate. There are many people who are anti stem-cell research (and in my experience, these same people are often anti-choice), for example, but who would still undergo IVF. Because, as long as their getting what they want out of the deal, other people can suck it. How about if you're anti stem-cell research we make it against the law for you to undergo IVF and instead you have to adopt the unwanted babies who are being saved from abortions?

[Asha]

/hijack/ i love your quote msnicolea. he is a classic example of living what he preached. i just saw that movie for the first time a few months ago. he is so inspiring. /hijack/

[kedzieb]

At the risk of starting yet another controversial abortion thread, I wanted to pose this question, which has interested me for some time. We've all heard the debates between pro-life and pro-choice sides of the debate. (I'm using these terms in the interest of equanimity here, because they're what each side chooses to call itself.) My question is: is there any possibility of collaboration between the different camps? Do you think that this is desirable?

Here's my take: I don't think there's anyone, on any "side", in favor of high abortion rates. Therefore, a common goal would seem to be the reduction in the number of abortions. Instead of the vitriolic rhetoric, wouldn't it be more productive to devote more resources to devising strategies to prevent unplanned pregnancies, encourage adoption, and make it easier for women and their partners to raise families? One of the most heartening things I've ever seen come out of the abortion debate was a collaborative effort between the pro life and pro choice societies of my college to create a pamphlet informing women students of their options while pregnant -- I don't recall the exact contents, but it included information re: adoption and prenatal care (like Planned Parenthood). I thought that an incredible achievement -- to see the two sides come together and accomplish something rather than just yelling at each other.

So, do you think that pursuing collaboration is possible or worthwhile? For those pro-choice, do you think that it would distract from defending the legal challenges to abortion rights? For those on both sides, do you think that the differing beliefs re: the morality of contraceptives would stymie any collaborative efforts to reduce unplanned pregnancies?

I have to say, everything you hope to accomplish is already supported on the pro-choice side. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Ideally there'd be no need for abortion at all and every child would be a wanted child. As long as that pamphlet also included information on where to get and abortion if needed, that's a pro-choice goal. Choice means a reall option of having the child if you want one - real health care for the woman and child, fair laws to protect abused women, economic help for struggling families.

I don't see any conflict here with the current pro-choice position.

[dionysia]

X-posted from an LJ entry I made last year:

Of course I want the number of abortions that take place to decrease. I want abortion to be a rare occurrence; a last resort.

But I not only want fewer abortions, I want more wanted children. I want the children born because their mothers chose to have them to be wanted. I want less unwanted pregnancies. I want women and men to have full access to healthcare and birth control methods. I want ignorance and lack of resources to not be an excuse any more.

I want young men and young women to have more education about sex and birth control. I don't want "wait until marriage" sex ed, I want "wait until you are emotionally and physically ready" sex ed. I want "even if you are not having sex, it's still important to know about birth control and how to use it." I want comprehensive education about other means of sexual activity and their consequences. I want more young people waiting to lose their virginity, sure, but I also want more young people to realize that "anything but" isn't necessarily a good idea either. I want young people to not feel like they have to engage in any sexual activity if they do not want to, despite peer pressure and raging hormones. I want them to understand that there are other ways to fulfill needs. That masturbation is OK.

I want to be frank and honest with my future children, like my parents were. My parents were very open about sex. They answered all my questions: the ones raised when I read "Where Do I Come From?" as a child (~6) to the ones raised when I saw part of "Midnight Cowboy" on TV to questions I had about masturbation. They recognized that I was becoming sexually active when I started dating my first serious boyfriend (at 17) and even before I had sex, we were off to Planned Parenthood to find out info about various BC methods.

Did all this make me have sex or engage in sexual relations 'early?' I don't think so.

I lost my virginity 3 months shy of my 18th birthday, with my serious boyfriend (also a virgin at the time), who I had dated for 6 months and with whom I had been friends for 3 years prior to dating. We had done some serious 'anything but' stuff previous to having intercourse, but again, I was 17 1/2 and I had known him for a long time.

I had sex with him for the first time in December 1992 and in January 1993 I went on the pill. Similarly to many people's first times, it was over quickly and wasn't particularly satisfying. But it was a good first time experience and I don't regret it one bit.

Since we were both each others' only sexual partner, we did not use condoms as well. With subsequent partners, unless we were monogamous and serious (and had been tested recently), we used condoms even though I was always on the pill.

Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

But abortion rates do not fluctuate in a vacuum. And we (all of us) need to come up with a comprehensive plan to decrease the number of abortions, not by using the tactics of fear or rhetoric, but by being realistic about human behaviors.

Di

[BTB]

wouldn't it be more productive to devote more resources to devising strategies to prevent unplanned pregnancies, encourage adoption, and make it easier for women and their partners to raise families?

I honestly can't imagine anybody objecting to that, regardless of their feelings on abortion.

[kris97]

I have to say, everything you hope to accomplish is already supported on the pro-choice side. It's pro-choice, not pro-abortion. Ideally there'd be no need for abortion at all and every child would be a wanted child. As long as that pamphlet also included information on where to get and abortion if needed, that's a pro-choice goal. Choice means a reall option of having the child if you want one - real health care for the woman and child, fair laws to protect abused women, economic help for struggling families.

I don't see any conflict here with the current pro-choice position.


I understand that it's consistent -- in fact, I'm pro choice as well. What I'm trying to get at -- why isn't more collaboration attempted? Why isn't more effort made, by both sides, to put aside the debate and work - together - to reduce unwanted pregnancy? I'm not sure if it's because people don't think that collaboration wouldn't work, or because they're too caught up in the fight for or against abortion to try.

On another note, I agree with absolutely everything dionysia posted. I just wonder why there aren't more attempts to work together toward the common goal of reducing the number of abortions.

[msnicolea]

I honestly can't imagine anybody objecting to that, regardless of their feelings on abortion.

Why then are there so many pro-lifers resistant to comprehensive sexuality education? Who don't support access to birth control? You can't have it both ways. If you (general you) say your commitment is to preventing unwanted pregnancies, then you have to do actual work towards that goal. Pretending underage or unprotected sex doesn't happen, demonzing sexual behaviors, and shoving abstinence down everyone's throats does NOTHING to address the problem.

As it stands, the message is more like: "We don't want anyone to have abortions, we don't want people to get pregnant out of wedlock or while underage, but we also don't want to educate people."

[msnicolea]

I understand that it's consistent -- in fact, I'm pro choice as well. What I'm trying to get at -- why isn't more collaboration attempted? Why isn't more effort made, by both sides, to put aside the debate and work - together - to reduce unwanted pregnancy? I'm not sure if it's because people don't think that collaboration wouldn't work, or because they're too caught up in the fight for or against abortion to try.

On another note, I agree with absolutely everything dionysia posted. I just wonder why there aren't more attempts to work together toward the common goal of reducing the number of abortions.


I would venture to say that the pro-choice side does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than the other side. Pro-choice agencies fight for comprehensive sexuality education and fight for access to birth control and promote sexual responsibility. The "other" side often condemns, judges, and protests the sharing of information.

[dionysia]

Kris,
I think that some of the reasons why more is not done are:
- I am afraid pro-lifers cannot respect me for my beliefs (admittedly, a potentially irrational fear, but I sometimes cannot help but think "that person thinks I support murder!")
- I am very pro-all kinds of birth control and there are many pro-lifers who are not (for whatever reason, including the abortifacient one)
- I am very pro-sexuality and want both abstinence AND 'sex and sexual feelings are normal and healthy' taught. (Not that I want kids encouraged to be banging whoever they want, of course.)

Di

[kris97]

Is there anyone from the pro-life side who'd like to weigh in?

I understand the possible barriers re: beliefs, (especially your post, Di- that makes alot of sense) but it would seem, at least to me, that it would be worth trying to find common ground between sides, and channeling the efforts into prevention of unwanted pregnzncies, rather than just repeating reasons why one side is good or bad.

[dionysia]

I understand the possible barriers re: beliefs, (especially your post, Di- that makes alot of sense) but it would seem, at least to me, that it would be worth trying to find common ground between sides, and channeling the efforts into prevention of unwanted pregnancies, rather than just repeating reasons why one side is good or bad.I'd certainly be willing to try, if I were in that position.

To be honest, the only pro-lifers that I judge are those who are probably on the more extreme side of the movement. And I fear that same courtesy (not judging the rest over their beliefs) would not be extended to me.

Also, I think stalemates between the sides would arise very quickly. "Nope, sorry, I am not comfortable calling the fetus a baby." "Nope, sorry, I am not comfortable calling an abortion a 'simple medical procedure.'" See what I mean?

Di

[JamBray]

yes, it's really disturbing to me that many pro life people seem to be so concerned about a potential life in the womb yet do little to nothing to help children (other than their own) once they are outside the womb.

Exactly. I remember when I was going in for my abortion, a protestor came up to me and said something along the lines of "Don't do this" or "What you're doing is wrong." and my BF at the time got in his face and yelled "Are you going to give us money, or help us in any way?!" This shut the guy up real fast, and he just walked away.

So, I don't know if there could be a collaboration between both sides. I'd most certainly be willing to try and work with the other side to lower the number of abortions, so long as that included informing women of all of their choices, and not preaching this "abstinence only" BS. However I don't know if that could really happen.

BTW dionysia, that was a great LJ post.

[BTB]

I would venture to say that the pro-choice side does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than the other side. Pro-choice agencies fight for comprehnsive sexuality eduction and fight for access to birth control and promote sexual responsibility. The "other" side condemns, judges, and protests the sharing of information.

Wow, that's painting with an awfully wide brush. So pro-choice = good people, pro-life = bad people? How nice it's so easy to tell.

Is there anyone from the pro-life side who'd like to weigh in?

This board would have a lot more balanced discussion if "both" sides made an attempt to be respectful. Both in quotes for whatever reason "other" needs quotes.

[kris97]

Thank you for your post BTB. I agree that at this point, the rhetoric does no good. I just don't see the point in reiterating that you think the other side is wrong or terrible.

I have to say, I wish debate on CC were more respectful and balanced. I know the issues make people very passionate, but I just see thread after thread descend into a 100 liberals vs. the two conservatives ballsy enough to speak up. I'm hopeful that the thoughtful debate that's happened so far in this thread will continue, and maybe catch on in others.

[msnicolea]

Wow, that's painting with an awfully wide brush. So pro-choice = good people, pro-life = bad people? How nice it's so easy to tell.


I didn't say anything remotely implying that. I am talking about the issue of choice, specifically, and tapping into my personal experience as a Planned Parenthood volunteer, health educator, and legislative "watch-dog." And I am also talking about those people that act on this issue, not that simply have beliefs. And IN MY EXPERIENCE, anti-abortion activists are quite conservative and are the same people pressuring their legislators to support, for example, a bill that denies access to contraceptives for COLLEGE STUDENTS at University health clinics (this is actually happeining right now in Wisconsin), among other issues. And to these people, I say, "you can't have it both ways."

[BTB]

I was a part-time health educator in your current hometown with a focus on the college population and contraceptive education. I put my efforts where my mouth is whenever possible. Many people who "have beliefs" also act on them, not just those on this or that side of a debate.

As for implying those pro-life are bad people, looking at the action verbs used for pro-choice (prevent, fight, promote) and comparing to the verbs used for pro-life (condemn, judge, protest) does give that impression.

I join Kris in her hope for more balanced, respectful conversations. The current tenor of many political threads turns people off - that's come up repeatedly. It's really a loss to the community as a whole.

[dionysia]

Please let's not degenerate this into yet another 'big bad bully liberals vs persecuted conservatives' discussion. Threads would be more 'balanced' if more people posted.

Di

[msnicolea]

Many people who "have beliefs" also act on them, not just those on this or that side of a debate.

Again, I never suggested otherwise. I said I am talking about people who ACT, politically and socially, in a manner that aims to affect change, on both sides of this issue. I never said people with beliefs don't act on them. Give me a break. If you want to purposefully misrepresent what I write, go on with your bad self.

And I agree with Di. The fact is, there are about 10 posters who believe in choice for every one that doesn't (within this thread, I mean), so obviously it's going to seem a bit skewed.

[BTB]

Please let's not degenerate this into yet another 'big bad bully liberals vs persecuted conservatives' discussion. Threads would be more 'balanced' if more people posted.

That's the whole point - the tenor of the threads leads people to not want to bother.

And please, let's not let an issue that's been raised multiple times over the past few weeks by a variety of posters be turned into "she's picking on me" as a means of shutting up a reasonable request for mutual respect.

[kris97]

okay, another attempt:

to those pro-life, would you be interested in working with a pro-choice group or individual on a pamphlet like I described above? or on other initiatives intended to reduce unwanted pregnancies, encourage adoption, or assist women in raising children? what kinds of conditions, if any, would you place on such a collaboration? (for instance, would you object to providing information in a pamphlet re: seeking care at planned parenthood if you knew that pp also performed abortions)?

(while i'm interested in both sides, i thought maybe a more targeted question could spur participation from those who don't consider themselves pro choice).

[BTB]

to those pro-life, would you be interested in working with a pro-choice group or individual on a pamphlet like I described above? or on other initiatives intended to reduce unwanted pregnancies, encourage adoption, or assist women in raising children? what kinds of conditions, if any, would you place on such a collaboration?

1) yes
2) yes
3) none from the outset.

[mamahammer]

okay, another attempt:

to those pro-life, would you be interested in working with a pro-choice group or individual on a pamphlet like I described above? or on other initiatives intended to reduce unwanted pregnancies, encourage adoption, or assist women in raising children? what kinds of conditions, if any, would you place on such a collaboration? (for instance, would you object to providing information in a pamphlet re: seeking care at planned parenthood if you knew that pp also performed abortions)?

(while i'm interested in both sides, i thought maybe a more targeted question could spur participation from those who don't consider themselves pro choice).

I have, and would again, worked on such projects. Having worked on these types of projects from both sides of the abortion coin, I will say that it is easier to be on the pro-choice side and join these types of groups. My experience has been that if you are pro-life, you are automatically seen as anti-poor, anti-woman, judgemental and religiously fanatical. As is seen by msnicolea's recent post re: judgement and condemnation from the pro-life side.

I gladly work with groups that collaborate to provide comprehensive sex education to middle and senior high school students. In fact, our church hsa two representatives on such a council - a council that consists of members from many different Christian denominations, Jewish rabbis, teachers, and parents who have no religious affiliation at all. Our focus is on presenting all aspects of sexuality - physical, emotional, social. And all aspects of birth control - both the pros and cons of all types of birth control, including emergency contraception. The idea that some consider certain methods abortifacients is presented, but so is the idea that others do not see it as such. We present the various reasons people have for viewing when life begins, and condense the reasons as to make them presentable to these age groups. We present all sexually transmitted diseases, how they are contracted, their long-term and short-term effects, and their prevention. As far as prevention, we do emphasize that abstinence is the only way to prevent std's and pregnancy 100%. Abortion is obviously a topic of interest, and the way we have seen fit to make that issue not become a sticking point is by providing information on websites and groups (like Planned Parenthood and Feminists for Life) that, when combined, represent a fair look at both sides of the issue. So, we provide information on how to find information :p

We try very hard to stay away from terminology such as "slaughter" and "simple medical procedure." There are ways, when discussing this with sane, rational people, to have this discussion without tyring to push the other sides figurative buttons :)

I also work very closely with one of the adoption centers in the area, very close to one of our state universities. While it might surprise some, there are actually a few pro-choicers who volunteer there. They know that the adoption center doesn't recognize abortion as a legitimate, fair option to women or children, they also know that we work hard to provide counseling about sex and birth control to men and women prior to needing the services of an abortion or adoption provider. And they are interested in working with us to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and in opening up the minds of society so that adoption is seen as the "better" option, regardless of whether they believe abortion to be right/wrong.

[mamahammer]

I would venture to say that the pro-choice side does more to prevent unwanted pregnancies than the other side. Pro-choice agencies fight for comprehnsive sexuality eduction and fight for access to birth control and promote sexual responsibility. The "other" side often condemns, judges, and protests the sharing of information.
And, thus the reason it is hard to get both sides together. For goodness sake.

Pro-choices fight!! We fight for education! And access! And responsibility! And prevention! Those "others" are all about judgement! Boo. And condemnation! Boo. And!! And! They are anti-information!

How is one supposed to have a two-way conversation when this is the rhetoric that is thrown about??

Surely you recognize, [b]msnicolea[/i], that the pro-life camp and the pro-choice camp are not nearly as black and white as you have painted them? That, just as it is quite possible for pro-choicers to not be "pro" abortion, it is also quite possible for pro-lifers to not be anti-poor, anti-information, pro-condemnation?

[msnicolea]

mamhammer--I am heartened to hear of the work you are doing. I assure you, I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with anyone, regardless of their political affilitation, re: helping our young people be healthier and safer. The sexual health of adolescents was the primary focus of my master's thesis and an ongoing and major part of my work. In my experience, and I do recognize that I may be a "target" (or seen as extreme) since I often represent PP publically, this type of collaboration/cooperation has not happened.

[mamahammer]

mamhammer--I am heartened to hear of the work you are doing. I assure you, I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with anyone, regardless of their political affilitation, re: helping our young people be healthier and safer. The sexual health of adolescents was the primary focus of my master's thesis and an ongoing and major part of my work. In my experience, and I do recognize that I may be a "target" (or seen as extreme) since I often represent PP publically, this type of collaboration/cooperation has not happened.
Thank you :) It is a unique, wonderful experience to work with so many from different backgrounds with a common goal in mind.

[msnicolea]

And, thus the reason it is hard to get both sides together. For goodness sake.

Pro-choices fight!! We fight for education! And access! And responsibility! And prevention! Those "others" are all about judgement! Boo. And condemnation! Boo. And!! And! They are anti-information!

How is one supposed to have a two-way conversation when this is the rhetoric that is thrown about??

Surely you recognize, [b]msnicolea[/i], that the pro-life camp and the pro-choice camp are not nearly as black and white as you have painted them? That, just as it is quite possible for pro-choicers to not be "pro" abortion, it is also quite possible for pro-lifers to not be anti-poor, anti-information, pro-condemnation?


Again, I was referring to people at the far end of the spectrum, NOT everyone who is anti-choice/pro-life. I should have mede that clearer in my post. And I have never suggested that pro-lifers were, by definition, "anti-poor." Like I said in my previous post, I think the work you are doing is admirable. But I have been an active member of the pro-choice community for MANY years and I can tell you, my experiences have not been the same.

And I'll say it again--I truly admire the work you are doing--keep it up!

[pocket]

I completely understand, how one would have to be opposed to all forms of abortion if one believes that life begins at conception. And since pro-life liberals like mamahammer say that they also support programs that help the poor, that’s consistent. I don’t have a problem with this, and anyone who wants to work to end abortion by making every child a wanted child is ok in my book. There is a ton of common ground with pro-life liberals because they aren’t hypocrites. For the most part, pro-life liberals walk the walk. I am totally in favor of programs that work specifically to reduce the number of safe legal abortions performed in this country. What I think is hypocritical is working to ban abortion without thinking about how we can help women with family planning, poverty, violence, and all the other things that go along with the actual women who need the abortions. And even worse – actively working AGAINST the poor. I think that as long as someone is willing to look at the real reasons women get abortions, there can be lots of collaboration about how we can make them rare.

[mamahammer]

I completely understand, how one would have to be opposed to all forms of abortion if one believes that life begins at conception. And since pro-life liberals like mamahammer say that they also support programs that help the poor, that’s consistent. I don’t have a problem with this, and anyone who wants to work to end abortion by making every child a wanted child is ok in my book. There is a ton of common ground with pro-life liberals because they aren’t hypocrites. For the most part, pro-life liberals walk the walk. I am totally in favor of programs that work specifically to reduce the number of safe legal abortions performed in this country. What I think is hypocritical is working to ban abortion without thinking about how we can help women with family planning, poverty, violence, and all the other things that go along with the actual women who need the abortions. And even worse – actively working AGAINST the poor. I think that as long as someone is willing to look at the real reasons women get abortions, there can be lots of collaboration about how we can make them rare.

ITA. And, thank you.

[pocket]

FYI - South Dakota just banned abortion.