From the perspective of a woman who had an out of wedlock pregnancy and faced an almost overwhelming assumption from my friends and social circle that I would abort (not, thankfully, from my now-husband, my family, or my closest friends), I don’t know what it will take to turn the cultural tide on abortion. I was not your “typical” unwed mother - I was older, very professionally established, and in a great financial position. From my perspective (raised in the “safe, legal, and rare” era by parents who considered abortion acceptable only in dire circumstances), it was never on the table - indeed, I quickly realized that having my son was a God-given opportunity to reorder my life around something other than myself and my selfish desires. But it became apparent almost immediately, once I was in that position, that essentially the entire edifice of female professional-managerial class life was built on abortion. At least for women of my social class, the post-sexual revolution world is one in which success is possible only if you make yourself a worker first - a creature that can be dedicated, above all else, to first the pursuit of educational achievement and then the pursuit of career achievement, with all other demands (children, husband, family, friends, community) deprioritized.
Louise Perry has noted that this world makes many (if not most) women unhappy, and I do think that’s true - virtually every mother I know that works full-time wishes that she didn’t, because she wants to prioritize caretaking (of her children, aging parents, and the family as a whole). There are broad social classes where unwed mothers typically do not choose abortion, but so long as the class that sits at the top of the economic hierarchy, that controls policy and sets the terms of employment for most of the country, and that exerts overwhelming cultural power is built upon abortion, I do not think we will see a broader shift toward a culture of life. It angers me, honestly, that we act as if my ability to be a fully realized human being requires legalized killing, but that is the approach we’ve taken rather than remaking our professional-class world to reflect inherent difference between men and women.
As a pro-life woman, I don’t want to go *back* to a pre-Roe, pre-sexual revolution world. I want to go forward to a different world that accommodates a broader vision of success, fulfillment, and happiness - one that reflects what most women want, rather than trying to force women to want, and strive for, lives that look just like men’s.
I don't really much the difference between our culture and the Romans other than the fact that we pretend to care about the weak. We valorize the strong and the wealthy, and we marginalize the weak. The heresy that God rewards the virtuous with material blessings is pernicious in our culture---and let's all be honest--the idea that people who have cancer or heart disease or other chronic diseases somehow made lifestyle choices that "caused" the disease is common too.
Unless we change our ways and put some real financial and logistical support behind family formation, I would expect that it's going to be really tough to convince women to have babies. I look at what my kids are going through--do you know how much it costs just for deductibles and out of pocket co pays for prenatal care and for a hospital delivery? No young family should start out thousands of dollars in the hole just to PAY for childbirth! That is barbaric!
I don't think anybody "wants" an abortion or views it as a good thing. Women just can't see how they can raise a child. There are animals that kill their young if they feel under threat--rabbits are the best known example, but I've seen birds do it too. If you want to prevent abortions then make prenatal and maternity care free. Mandate paid parental leave for at least 6 months. Provide a cash stipend for each child under 12 or so--the age at which kids are old enough to spend an afternoon without adult supervision. Create economic conditions that will allow one full time wage earner to support a family.
If the government won't do those things, the government has no business forcing women to bear children.
I suspect that many women have conflicted feelings about abortion but are not willing to admit it due to having to join one side or the other. I know that in my social circle it is taboo to admit to any reservations about "choice". Personally I have more sympathy for late term abortions which are about severe fetal anomalies or risk to the mother than for elective abortions which are all about social reasons having to do with lack of options for a supported pregnancy. As for the idea that the decision is between a woman and her doctor I think that is largely untrue. Women seeking elective abortions do not consult their doctor as it is not a matter of health but a social/economic decision and I dare say a moral decision. When we say as a society that elective abortions are okay we are also saying that we would rather do that than do the hard task of supporting pregnant women and their children both short term and long term. Like it or not, that is a moral choice.
I say extremism because, as a pro-choice democrat (and mom of 2), albeit raised by very pro-life family, with friends who identify as both -I can say I have yet to meet a Democrat woman who supports abortion without any limits. Most progressives I know endorse a European-type model (1st trimester, after that for medical indications; plus a strong social welfare state that reduces the demand for abortion in the first place). Compromise is possible when you actually speak with human beings - politicians are another story.
I think it's probably impossible to be pluralistic about who is and isn't a person, except perhaps in the very most extreme, marginal situations. I think there are two directions in which the USA could cease to be divided: the first would be a continuing dwindling of religion until those in the pro-life camp are simply so small a minority that they cannot influence law or culture. The second, one that I'm much less sure of the real path towards, would be prefaced by a collective re-orientation of our attitudes towards sex, and particularly casual sex. This could happen on a religious basis, or potentially even on a non-religious one a la Louise Perry, who argues that even secular women should not have sex with men who they don't think would be good fathers to their children.
What do you anticipate the abortion landscape will look like in ten years, twenty years in America?What would it take for it to “cease to be divided”? (in either direction)
I think the path forward will be informed by how people perceive our present.
Wearing my leftist goggles, I see a world where greed for money and an obsession with power has distorted our country and our politics. People fall prey to consumerism, are worked literally to death by mega corporations and lack even basic healthcare for themselves and their children. A single trip to the hospital can lead to bankruptcy and we reward our elderly with a choice of dying before their time (usually, these days, through alcohol or drug dependency) and maybe leaving their children a little financial cushion or spending their golden years in noxious facilities where care borders on (or is) abuse and which deplete their and their family's resources.
Wearing these goggles, I see a path forward where incredible grassroots organizations informed by Audre Lorde and bell hooks achieve political victories (like those won here in Minnesota in the past legislative session). We enact real safety nets and ensure that no one feels economically or socially coerced into having an abortion because families (of all sorts!) are fully embraced by our government and our society. We enact these policies federally and ensure that support goes directly to families, not to parasitic church/nonprofit organizations. And we also enact federal laws to keep the government out of women's wombs, and keep discussions of what happens in women's bodies between them and their doctors.
Wearing the googles of the FOX news right, I see a world where doctors murder babies and rampant 'immorality' like drag shows and friendly neighborhood lesbians present a direct threat to me and my children's well being. I don't trust the government, I don't trust doctors, I don't trust public schools, and I don't trust 'liberal' news sources. I actively fear my neighbor unless they hold my same beliefs.
When people wear those goggles, they dream of eliminating the threats and living in an idyllic and homogenous world. They might stockpile weapons, join militias and plot to overturn elections to make that world a reality. By many counts roughy 30-35% of Republicans live with this worldview. That's more than enough people, with some organization and key people in the judiciary and pentagon, to stage a coup. It's also potentially enough people, with some organization and a strong campaign infrastructure, to openly win the 2024 election and impose an autocratic state.
Most people aren't leftists and most people don't support a Christian autocratic surveillance state. But what the next 10-20 years hold won't be decided by a majority. You're right that the center won't hold with a nation so divided. And that very polarization has been artfully manufactured.
"What do you anticipate the abortion landscape will look like in ten years, twenty years in America?"
Not much different, I think. The pendulum does swing in these things, and the current leftward swing may have reached its apogee with gender theory, but there is a lot of mass to reverse there and I doubt it will swing back sufficiently to substantially change things in the next ten or twenty years. Not that such swings are really predictable.
"What would it take for it to “cease to be divided”? (in either direction)"
A massive Christian revival or utter collapse. Our morals are either sentimental, tribal, or principled. Most people are sentimentally pro life but tribally pro abortion. Sentimental morality cannot stand against tribal morality. Only principled morality can stand against tribal or sentimental morality and only religion provides sufficient ground to build a principle upon. And Christianity seems the only religion with even a theoretical chance of a revival on the required scale. On the other hand, unless religion is utterly obliterated, and it usually grows stronger under active persecution, then the divide will remain.
"Do the suffering have a claim on the strong because their suffering is ennobling, or for some other reason?"
The suffering have a claim on the strong because they are equally beloved of God. And Dives and Lazarus tells us what God thinks of the strong who take no pity on the weak. I wish I thought there was an adequate pagan answer to this question as well, but I don't think there is. Paganism tends all in the opposite direction.
"Can the vulnerable survive a merely egalitarian world, or do they require equity?"
They require charity, and charity in the full sense of the word.
I read Louise Perry's piece in First Things when it arrived, and my initial thought was that if original paganism was male driven then this "repaganizing" is female driven. It is now women who refuse to give up their sexual licentiousness and, because babies are a result of the sexual act, they want legally recognized options of not being "burdened" with them. At least by those on the top who set the drive for policy. Perry herself says she is hesitant to fully restrict abortion as she would like the option in certain circumstances.
I agreed with her assessment that feminism is the descendant of Christianity, but I've always thought it's specifically a descendant of Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity is so prone to weird interpretations of the human person because it's almost entirely subjective. And the things often given weight as "objective" in various sects, especially for women, were also subjective, i.e.: hair length, wearing skirts, behaviors, etc... no wonder there was a backlash in addition to a gradual abandoning of actual faith at large. Again, Perry herself confesses she is influenced by a general Christian worldview but does not truly believe.
I don't know how we can "cease to be divided" without some agreement on proper regulation of the behavior that leads to the begetting of children. And that's a cultural thing. Either we live what we believe, or we believe what we live. And if much of the culture believes sexual licentiousness is a good, then it follows that abortion is a necessary component, even if it makes us "uneasy."
I think both sides can start with a respect for the rule of law. Otherwise, why bother to make a political argument and even win the day if the other side will ignore the law.
That said, we should not ignore that we have substantial common ground. Let's work to support women who are otherwise coerced to abort so that they have the resources necessary to make choosing life seem like a reasonable and even attractive choice. This is something we have in common with the vast majority of pro abortion rights people. Generally speaking, they want to be sure women have a genuine choice, including the choice not to have an abortion. If we are truly interested in saving babies’ lives, then we can collaborate with pro abortion rights people to make sure women have the best chance possible to choose life.
We should be happy to engage our pro abortion rights interlocutors with a Consistent Life Ethic and work with them to shine light on pro life voices who are indiffernt to life beyond the womb while also drawing their attention to pro abortion rights voices who are indifferent to protecting the voiceless and vulnerable in the name of women's rights.
Where I live, there is a basic assumption of abortion on demand and I don’t see that changing. I think this will remain an area of tension. Living out fully supporting women, babies and families seems like the best most positive way to search for common ground. This can include cash allowances, health care and emotional support - solidarity and caring. This already happens in many places - on both sides - and prioritizing the vulnerable seems like a way forward. A way to live out Christs call and build a movement. Alternatives to abortion are a part of this as well. Sharing stories, honoring infant death and miscarriage … walking alongside people in tough circumstances humbly.
Also, on your second-to-last questions, I don’t think suffering is ennobling. Suffering is a human constant (as that great sage The Dread Pirate Roberts said, “Life is pain, Highness”) and plenty of people suffer horribly and gain nothing positive by it. To me, interdependence is inherent in my Christian faith, and it’s an obligation that doesn’t depend on the qualities of the person in need.
While I have no hope that our culture will survive, and it is certainly the case the euthanasia has turned into a grey cloud over us all, yes, there is a compromise on abortion, which most still accept.
Abortion can only be contemplated in the cases of:
--rape and incest
--the life of the mother is at sure risk
--the child has already died in utero or will die going through birth
And even in those cases, the mother has the absolute right to continue the pregnancy if that is her desire.
From the perspective of a woman who had an out of wedlock pregnancy and faced an almost overwhelming assumption from my friends and social circle that I would abort (not, thankfully, from my now-husband, my family, or my closest friends), I don’t know what it will take to turn the cultural tide on abortion. I was not your “typical” unwed mother - I was older, very professionally established, and in a great financial position. From my perspective (raised in the “safe, legal, and rare” era by parents who considered abortion acceptable only in dire circumstances), it was never on the table - indeed, I quickly realized that having my son was a God-given opportunity to reorder my life around something other than myself and my selfish desires. But it became apparent almost immediately, once I was in that position, that essentially the entire edifice of female professional-managerial class life was built on abortion. At least for women of my social class, the post-sexual revolution world is one in which success is possible only if you make yourself a worker first - a creature that can be dedicated, above all else, to first the pursuit of educational achievement and then the pursuit of career achievement, with all other demands (children, husband, family, friends, community) deprioritized.
Louise Perry has noted that this world makes many (if not most) women unhappy, and I do think that’s true - virtually every mother I know that works full-time wishes that she didn’t, because she wants to prioritize caretaking (of her children, aging parents, and the family as a whole). There are broad social classes where unwed mothers typically do not choose abortion, but so long as the class that sits at the top of the economic hierarchy, that controls policy and sets the terms of employment for most of the country, and that exerts overwhelming cultural power is built upon abortion, I do not think we will see a broader shift toward a culture of life. It angers me, honestly, that we act as if my ability to be a fully realized human being requires legalized killing, but that is the approach we’ve taken rather than remaking our professional-class world to reflect inherent difference between men and women.
As a pro-life woman, I don’t want to go *back* to a pre-Roe, pre-sexual revolution world. I want to go forward to a different world that accommodates a broader vision of success, fulfillment, and happiness - one that reflects what most women want, rather than trying to force women to want, and strive for, lives that look just like men’s.
I don't really much the difference between our culture and the Romans other than the fact that we pretend to care about the weak. We valorize the strong and the wealthy, and we marginalize the weak. The heresy that God rewards the virtuous with material blessings is pernicious in our culture---and let's all be honest--the idea that people who have cancer or heart disease or other chronic diseases somehow made lifestyle choices that "caused" the disease is common too.
Unless we change our ways and put some real financial and logistical support behind family formation, I would expect that it's going to be really tough to convince women to have babies. I look at what my kids are going through--do you know how much it costs just for deductibles and out of pocket co pays for prenatal care and for a hospital delivery? No young family should start out thousands of dollars in the hole just to PAY for childbirth! That is barbaric!
I don't think anybody "wants" an abortion or views it as a good thing. Women just can't see how they can raise a child. There are animals that kill their young if they feel under threat--rabbits are the best known example, but I've seen birds do it too. If you want to prevent abortions then make prenatal and maternity care free. Mandate paid parental leave for at least 6 months. Provide a cash stipend for each child under 12 or so--the age at which kids are old enough to spend an afternoon without adult supervision. Create economic conditions that will allow one full time wage earner to support a family.
If the government won't do those things, the government has no business forcing women to bear children.
I suspect that many women have conflicted feelings about abortion but are not willing to admit it due to having to join one side or the other. I know that in my social circle it is taboo to admit to any reservations about "choice". Personally I have more sympathy for late term abortions which are about severe fetal anomalies or risk to the mother than for elective abortions which are all about social reasons having to do with lack of options for a supported pregnancy. As for the idea that the decision is between a woman and her doctor I think that is largely untrue. Women seeking elective abortions do not consult their doctor as it is not a matter of health but a social/economic decision and I dare say a moral decision. When we say as a society that elective abortions are okay we are also saying that we would rather do that than do the hard task of supporting pregnant women and their children both short term and long term. Like it or not, that is a moral choice.
I think you are conflating political extremism with the will, desire, and sentiment of the American people. https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
I say extremism because, as a pro-choice democrat (and mom of 2), albeit raised by very pro-life family, with friends who identify as both -I can say I have yet to meet a Democrat woman who supports abortion without any limits. Most progressives I know endorse a European-type model (1st trimester, after that for medical indications; plus a strong social welfare state that reduces the demand for abortion in the first place). Compromise is possible when you actually speak with human beings - politicians are another story.
I think it's probably impossible to be pluralistic about who is and isn't a person, except perhaps in the very most extreme, marginal situations. I think there are two directions in which the USA could cease to be divided: the first would be a continuing dwindling of religion until those in the pro-life camp are simply so small a minority that they cannot influence law or culture. The second, one that I'm much less sure of the real path towards, would be prefaced by a collective re-orientation of our attitudes towards sex, and particularly casual sex. This could happen on a religious basis, or potentially even on a non-religious one a la Louise Perry, who argues that even secular women should not have sex with men who they don't think would be good fathers to their children.
What do you anticipate the abortion landscape will look like in ten years, twenty years in America?What would it take for it to “cease to be divided”? (in either direction)
I think the path forward will be informed by how people perceive our present.
Wearing my leftist goggles, I see a world where greed for money and an obsession with power has distorted our country and our politics. People fall prey to consumerism, are worked literally to death by mega corporations and lack even basic healthcare for themselves and their children. A single trip to the hospital can lead to bankruptcy and we reward our elderly with a choice of dying before their time (usually, these days, through alcohol or drug dependency) and maybe leaving their children a little financial cushion or spending their golden years in noxious facilities where care borders on (or is) abuse and which deplete their and their family's resources.
Wearing these goggles, I see a path forward where incredible grassroots organizations informed by Audre Lorde and bell hooks achieve political victories (like those won here in Minnesota in the past legislative session). We enact real safety nets and ensure that no one feels economically or socially coerced into having an abortion because families (of all sorts!) are fully embraced by our government and our society. We enact these policies federally and ensure that support goes directly to families, not to parasitic church/nonprofit organizations. And we also enact federal laws to keep the government out of women's wombs, and keep discussions of what happens in women's bodies between them and their doctors.
Wearing the googles of the FOX news right, I see a world where doctors murder babies and rampant 'immorality' like drag shows and friendly neighborhood lesbians present a direct threat to me and my children's well being. I don't trust the government, I don't trust doctors, I don't trust public schools, and I don't trust 'liberal' news sources. I actively fear my neighbor unless they hold my same beliefs.
When people wear those goggles, they dream of eliminating the threats and living in an idyllic and homogenous world. They might stockpile weapons, join militias and plot to overturn elections to make that world a reality. By many counts roughy 30-35% of Republicans live with this worldview. That's more than enough people, with some organization and key people in the judiciary and pentagon, to stage a coup. It's also potentially enough people, with some organization and a strong campaign infrastructure, to openly win the 2024 election and impose an autocratic state.
Most people aren't leftists and most people don't support a Christian autocratic surveillance state. But what the next 10-20 years hold won't be decided by a majority. You're right that the center won't hold with a nation so divided. And that very polarization has been artfully manufactured.
"What do you anticipate the abortion landscape will look like in ten years, twenty years in America?"
Not much different, I think. The pendulum does swing in these things, and the current leftward swing may have reached its apogee with gender theory, but there is a lot of mass to reverse there and I doubt it will swing back sufficiently to substantially change things in the next ten or twenty years. Not that such swings are really predictable.
"What would it take for it to “cease to be divided”? (in either direction)"
A massive Christian revival or utter collapse. Our morals are either sentimental, tribal, or principled. Most people are sentimentally pro life but tribally pro abortion. Sentimental morality cannot stand against tribal morality. Only principled morality can stand against tribal or sentimental morality and only religion provides sufficient ground to build a principle upon. And Christianity seems the only religion with even a theoretical chance of a revival on the required scale. On the other hand, unless religion is utterly obliterated, and it usually grows stronger under active persecution, then the divide will remain.
"Do the suffering have a claim on the strong because their suffering is ennobling, or for some other reason?"
The suffering have a claim on the strong because they are equally beloved of God. And Dives and Lazarus tells us what God thinks of the strong who take no pity on the weak. I wish I thought there was an adequate pagan answer to this question as well, but I don't think there is. Paganism tends all in the opposite direction.
"Can the vulnerable survive a merely egalitarian world, or do they require equity?"
They require charity, and charity in the full sense of the word.
I read Louise Perry's piece in First Things when it arrived, and my initial thought was that if original paganism was male driven then this "repaganizing" is female driven. It is now women who refuse to give up their sexual licentiousness and, because babies are a result of the sexual act, they want legally recognized options of not being "burdened" with them. At least by those on the top who set the drive for policy. Perry herself says she is hesitant to fully restrict abortion as she would like the option in certain circumstances.
I agreed with her assessment that feminism is the descendant of Christianity, but I've always thought it's specifically a descendant of Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity is so prone to weird interpretations of the human person because it's almost entirely subjective. And the things often given weight as "objective" in various sects, especially for women, were also subjective, i.e.: hair length, wearing skirts, behaviors, etc... no wonder there was a backlash in addition to a gradual abandoning of actual faith at large. Again, Perry herself confesses she is influenced by a general Christian worldview but does not truly believe.
I don't know how we can "cease to be divided" without some agreement on proper regulation of the behavior that leads to the begetting of children. And that's a cultural thing. Either we live what we believe, or we believe what we live. And if much of the culture believes sexual licentiousness is a good, then it follows that abortion is a necessary component, even if it makes us "uneasy."
I think both sides can start with a respect for the rule of law. Otherwise, why bother to make a political argument and even win the day if the other side will ignore the law.
That said, we should not ignore that we have substantial common ground. Let's work to support women who are otherwise coerced to abort so that they have the resources necessary to make choosing life seem like a reasonable and even attractive choice. This is something we have in common with the vast majority of pro abortion rights people. Generally speaking, they want to be sure women have a genuine choice, including the choice not to have an abortion. If we are truly interested in saving babies’ lives, then we can collaborate with pro abortion rights people to make sure women have the best chance possible to choose life.
We should be happy to engage our pro abortion rights interlocutors with a Consistent Life Ethic and work with them to shine light on pro life voices who are indiffernt to life beyond the womb while also drawing their attention to pro abortion rights voices who are indifferent to protecting the voiceless and vulnerable in the name of women's rights.
Where I live, there is a basic assumption of abortion on demand and I don’t see that changing. I think this will remain an area of tension. Living out fully supporting women, babies and families seems like the best most positive way to search for common ground. This can include cash allowances, health care and emotional support - solidarity and caring. This already happens in many places - on both sides - and prioritizing the vulnerable seems like a way forward. A way to live out Christs call and build a movement. Alternatives to abortion are a part of this as well. Sharing stories, honoring infant death and miscarriage … walking alongside people in tough circumstances humbly.
Also, on your second-to-last questions, I don’t think suffering is ennobling. Suffering is a human constant (as that great sage The Dread Pirate Roberts said, “Life is pain, Highness”) and plenty of people suffer horribly and gain nothing positive by it. To me, interdependence is inherent in my Christian faith, and it’s an obligation that doesn’t depend on the qualities of the person in need.
While I have no hope that our culture will survive, and it is certainly the case the euthanasia has turned into a grey cloud over us all, yes, there is a compromise on abortion, which most still accept.
Abortion can only be contemplated in the cases of:
--rape and incest
--the life of the mother is at sure risk
--the child has already died in utero or will die going through birth
And even in those cases, the mother has the absolute right to continue the pregnancy if that is her desire.