Common Hopes
(Originally posted on Daily Kos.)
"We may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction — towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren."
— then-Senator Barack Obama, Speech on Race, March 18, 2008
On this, the 36th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we celebrate a moment of great hope and opportunity. We stand at an extraordinary historical moment for our nation: for the first time, we have elected an African American president in an election that inspired young and old, people of all races and faiths, men and women, rich and poor. Many were moved by candidate Obama's call for a new conversation about race, a renewed commitment to our democracy, and an agenda that aspires to reach a greater good for all. Today, we focus on the piece of that agenda that holds great promise for reproductive rights.
In the wake of President Obama's inauguration, it is tempting to use this Roe anniversary to recite a litany of policies we want our new administration to enact: from rescinding the global gag rule to restoring affordable birth control at college health centers to reversing the Bush administration's midnight rule allowing a broad range of health care providers to refuse basic reproductive health services. While these policy changes are important, they will remain vulnerable to the ebb and flow of politics if we do not also do our part to change the public conversation about abortion.
We know that women have abortions for many reasons. Even if we disagree on the issue of abortion, we can agree that these are private personal decisions we all must be able to make based on our own circumstances, beliefs, and values. We should respect and support a woman and her family as they face the life-altering decision of whether to have a child. It is neither my place nor our government's place to make such an important life decision for someone else.
Through my work, I am privileged to hear the personal stories of many women who have had to make difficult decisions in their lives. Each woman has her own story, her own life circumstances, her own health issues, her own dreams and desires, her own vision of how she may make the world a better place. Many care for children, elderly parents, or other loved ones in need. While each woman's life is different, I am most struck by what we have in common. We all care about life and about doing our best for the people we love. When we bring children into the world we want them to have the opportunity to live a good life. And we want to build a better future for our children and our grandchildren.
Abortion and reproductive freedom more broadly defined are important pieces of ensuring this common dream. To obtain a better future, we each must be free to make profoundly personal decisions about our reproductive lives without unwarranted government intrusion. As with all freedoms, there are limits. But a government that respects the personal integrity of its people both interferes in these essentially private decisions as little as possible and helps ensure that everyone has the opportunity to make these decisions responsibly.
We can continue with the politics of abortion we have known for a generation, one that has exploited our ambivalences and fear for political gain. Or we can learn from this past year and take this moment of opportunity and hope to start a new conversation, one that begins with the understanding that both the decision to have a child and the decision to have an abortion come from a place of profound respect for the value of life and a strong commitment to ensuring a better life for all.
Jan 23rd, 2009 at 12:52pm
Why is it that the ACLU does not work just as hard for unborn rights?? It used to be that the "fetus" had to be "viable" which means "it can live outside the womb" another farce. This was the way that the baby killers dressed the pig. Now that there have been advances in science, I don't hear that anymore. HMMM, isn't it interesting that Obama voted to let abortionists do "late term" abortions and if they "failed" meaning that the BABY LIVED, they could just stick it in a closet and let it DIE. strange that there is all this talk about death row and the death penalty but NOTHING ABOUT THE DEATH OF 80 MILLION CHILDEREN SINCE ROWE vs WADE. Isn't it interesting that they have "no rights and me, who fights for them, have none either.
Why is it that you are not going to print THIS? Only from the daily KOZ? hahaha, you and Chris Mathews are really non partisan aren’t you
Jan 28th, 2009 at 3:59pm
There's a profound fallacy in your final statement. The decision to have an abortion is, prima facie, a decision to end a child's life. Thus, it is not rooted in a respect for the value of life. Any intelligent person must concede this basic fact regardles of one's side on this particular issue. Perhaps, one may argue that it is a decision rooted in the respect for a lifestyle (i.e. that of the mother), but certainly not in the value of life itself.
For the sake of your own journalistic integrity, Ms. Melling, please reword this statement in such a way that this irony is removed.
Jan 29th, 2009 at 8:00pm
This is just another way for men to exert control over women...it's not about value of life.
The thinking is that women can't possibly make responsible decisions, so the government must make the laws to control the women.
Sounds like sharia. It's all about control.
Feb 3rd, 2009 at 5:17pm
#3, it's about the 42 million completely defenseless people slain by modern genocide every year. About which laws are you complaining? Abortion is legal! I speak for the vast majority of pro-life people when I say that the controlling of women is by no stretch of the sane, intelligent imagination in any way, shape, form, interpretation, or implication, or what have you a reason behind our being pro-life. You could not possibly be any farther from the rationale behind pro-life beliefs. Rather, rescuing babies is our purpose.
Those involved in abortions are the ones consumed with control; control so outrageous that it is thought to supercede a child's right to life; the very same right you enjoy right now.
Of course women can make responsible decisions. Do you honestly think that being pro-life inherently entails harboring a low view of women? If your neighbor were about to stab his child, would you grab the knife? Afterward, how would you respond to accusations of sexism and bigotry toward your neighbor? The accusers would be completely missing the point as are you now. For that matter, what of your neighbor's complaints that you infringed upon his rights? (You mentioned Sharia.) Furthermore, babies could not logically be analogous to the predator because babies do not simply show up within a woman: they are the direct result of the mother's decision to have sex excluding 1% of all cases that involves rape/incest.
This is the pro-life rationale:
-The unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community; differing from you only in the criteria of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency.
-It is prima facie morally wrong to kill any member of that human community.
-Every successful abortion kills an unborn entity, a full-fledged member of the human community.
-Therefore, every successful abortion is prima facie morally wrong.
How's that for real? It is absolutely about the value of life.
Feb 9th, 2009 at 4:14pm
David - shame on you for trotting out the old, debunked attack on our President.
Jesse - thank you for the bullet points on pro-life rationale. I do not agree with your first premise, however, negating the remainder of the argument.
How would you deal with a fetus that places the mother's life at significant risk? What if the fetus were the result of rape? What is the fetus were known to have a condition that would cause a short, painful life when it became a child? What if the resources expended to care for that child cause 100 others to suffer for lack of care? Does the failure of many embryos to "take" mean that god is a murderer? Is a woman who drinks, smokes, or otherwise takes risks with her fetus guilty of child endangerment (perhaps so) and what will you do to prevent that?
Feb 15th, 2009 at 7:32pm
Are there laws against serving your minor children alcohol?
Are there laws against intoxicating your minor children with alcohol?
Would these laws also apply to pre born?
Feb 17th, 2009 at 10:46am
I can "trot" out the same "old" Do you understand the small significance of abortions done to save the life of the mother? Abortion is done to save the sex life of a people who do not want to make the decision at the right time, which is before they create a life. To have life and then kill it, is an abomination and stench in the nostrils of anyone decent.
Feb 18th, 2009 at 11:42am
When do people “create a life” that society should recognize?
Feb 23rd, 2009 at 1:03pm
What about the rights of the unborn? A human being at 18-21 days from conception their heart begins to beat. Most women don't know they are pregnant. They have just missed their period. Why is it that when a person's heart stops beating are they called "dead" and when a person's heart begins beating they are not called "alive/viable"?
Feb 24th, 2009 at 10:38am
If abortion stops the unborn beating heart, is this killing?
Mar 2nd, 2009 at 11:46am
A beating heart is still "life". Taking the life of someone born or unborn is still killing. Like the Peterson case, he was convicted of killing his wife (Lacey) and his UNBORN son.
Mar 2nd, 2009 at 5:56pm
Roald,
"How would you deal with a fetus that places the mother’s life at significant risk? What if the fetus were the result of rape?"
Such cases comprise one percent of all abortions. I have a dear friend who is the result of his mother's being raped. My whole community and I are incredibly grateful that she did not have an abortion performed as he is an incredible and influential person. I do not even support abortion in the case of rape. Neither does my friend.
"What is the fetus were known to have a condition that would cause a short, painful life when it became a child? "
Nonetheless, a chance at life is better than the stripping of one's chance at life. It is worth the risk to give the child a chance.
"What if the resources expended to care for that child cause 100 others to suffer for lack of care? "
The only instance in which I can see such a scenario becoming a reality is that of a family with 101 children. It is not realistic. Can you provide a more specific scenario, please?
"Does the failure of many embryos to 'take' mean that God is a murderer? "
God is sovereign and His ways are beyond our understanding. I protest abortion because it is within our understanding and it is fully within our means to prevent. (be that through diplomatic and/or charitable means, etc.) There is nothing we can do about embryo's which do not implant. There is absolutely something we can do about those who do.
"Is a woman who drinks, smokes, or otherwise takes risks with her fetus guilty of child endangerment (perhaps so) and what will you do to prevent that?"
You inadvertently concede that the unborn is, in fact a human entitled to legal protection.
Mar 3rd, 2009 at 10:45am
Should society criminalize killing the unborn?
Mar 3rd, 2009 at 3:46pm
It is strange how the ACLU and liberals forget about THEIR morals, faith and family values. Most of the people in the position to consider an abortion do not have faith.
Look at what is going on with Obama now. He is picking the Abortion Queen for the Secretary of Health. Obama wants to FORCE doctors to perform abortions and possibly senior killings.
My slogan is "Save a Baby, Abort a Liberal (or ACLU Member)!"
Life is a heart-beat a way.
Mar 3rd, 2009 at 8:17pm
Besides President Obama, has many churches also forgotten morals?
Mar 27th, 2009 at 7:14pm
FOR A BABY TO BE CONCEIVED IT TAKES TWO PEOPLE. SO WITH EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT THE WOMANS RIGHTS TO HER BODY AND THAT IT IS ANOTHER PERSON IN HER, WHAT ABOUT THE DECISION OF THE OTHER PARENT (THE DAD) WHO IS ALSO GETTING THEIR CHILD KILLED. IF THE FATHER WANTS THAT CHILD SHOULD IT BE LEGAL FOR THE MOTHER TO HAVE THE ABORTION BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T WANT IT OR SHOULD SHE HAVE TO HAVE IT IF ONE OF THE PARENTS WOULD KEEP THE CHILD AND RAISE IT.
Apr 14th, 2009 at 11:44am
Should abortion be decided on if the victim is wanted (by the mother, father, or other) or by if the victim is a unique living human?
Jun 6th, 2009 at 12:51am
If you don"t want an abortion than don"t have one. Put this much time effort and "emotion" into world hunger and starvation.
Jun 6th, 2009 at 1:01am
One more thing- At least the ACLU is an organization that stands bold and firm on this position and does not try to tip toe around it, like many who only respond when asked.!
Jun 21st, 2009 at 8:46pm
Does the ALCU boldly take a firm position that life includes unique living humans?
Post new comment