The sad slide into abortion society

Here I'm responding to a post on the Right Reason blog, that invites people to speculate as to Presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's unclear position on abortion. While I use philosophy and logic a bit in my reply, I think that putting it in perspective of the times and inviting fresh and radical alternatives to abortion is valuable for the thought process.

I'm "of an age" so that I've been able to observe the whole sad slide into the current situation of millions of abortions from the 1960's to now. I think Giuliani is a good example of someone who has traveled that path where now the entire argument is, unfortunately, a binary tree. Things were more complex in the 60's-80's and attitudes/ laws/ social services evolved in a way that reduced this complexity into only two contentious positions. For example, a recent study shows that positive attitudes toward adoption have plummeted. This is an incredible statistic. Nowadays, people are actually responding more positively to killing a baby in an abortion that giving up that baby for adoption. I can remember in my lifetime the exact opposite being true. So as attitudes changed, the social network to provide that alternative dried up. So this branch of what should have been a three alternative decision tree/ argument died away:

o Abortion is legal but so repugnant that it is rarely used and alternatives flourish.

I believe that a confluence of social and anarchy forces created the artificial situation of the binary argument of:

o Abortion legal, or

o Abortion illegal

Those who advocate the overturning of Roe v. Wade are seeking a third alternative, but rather than addressing the social moires and practical ways to support unplanned births, the third "alternative" becomes:

o Abortion legal or illegal on a state by state basis

People under 40 years old will not really remember a time when nearly every family knew a family who "helped someone out" by adopting a baby. This was especially common as a result of inevitable unplanned pregnancies during and after World War II. In the 1970's adoption was still such a desirable activity that the hotbed argument of the time was "Which is best for the baby, adopting within race or is adopting a different race baby better than the child having only foster parents?" I remember the heated arguments, but all of them assumed a living baby being given up for adoption! Now society has devolved so that this argument barely exists, because millions are aborted.

Like so many things, the technology and the trend toward liberated morals overcame society's ability to develop a richness of alternatives. It's like the Internet, where access to vile material is a problem because the pace of the technology outstripped the stewardship role of society and family.

Now, many who were uncomfortable with the "abortion: yes or no" absoluteness of argument bought into the "let's not have any unwanted babies by promoting birth control" argument. Understanding human sexuality and moral trends? Not so much! But this is the slippery slope that many got onto in the 1980's with donations to Planned Parenthood, NOW and other organizations. People who donated in the 1980's and 1990's believed that their donations were primarily going to the "family planning" (ha ha ha, excuse me for laughing but that is what it was called) side of the organization, rather than the abortion side. My ex husband, who was extremely liberal and from the "Workman's Circle" tradition, was proud of his donations (as a cool man) to NOW and Planned Parenthood on "our" behalf. I, as a lifelong Catholic, oppose abortion. But I found that because of this incredibly fast downward spiral of the family, of social moires, and the incredible mainstreaming of abortion, few people could even follow my argument of, "Let's not worry about putting women in jail or back alley abortions, but let's make so many lovely alternatives that the vast majority of women will have even their unplanned babies, even if it means an enormous adoption effort." So I donated on "our" behalf to foster family types of organizations, and I focused on communities where there was still the desire to have a baby rather than abort (such as Native American communities). I've contributed financially to the upbringing of at least 20 children. I'm not bragging, but I'm explaining the logic of those times. There is so little of the way that I chose that it's not even statistically significant, although I applaud and praise every mission for unwed mothers and every effort to save a baby. Legally I opposed rancorous and insulting protests outside of abortion mills, because no woman needs that type of pressure. However, I believe mightily in prayerful demonstrations outside of abortion mills, where the faithful can provide a safe and loving alternative so that a woman might, even at the last minute, choose life.

So Giuliani is like everyone else, stuck in that reductionist cleft stick of argument: abortion legal or abortion illegal. Attempts to drown society in birth control so "no unwanted babies" not only fell by the wayside, but the AIDS crisis further shifted the focus from families/adoption to safe sexual freedom. The most broad minded anyone seems to be able to be now is to postulate that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, that a state by state preference can be expressed, and that indeed would be better than the horror show that exists now. And things like donations to organizations that support abortion are very common from the generation who thought, well, at least subsidizing birth control will solve the problem. And of course, 42 million abortions later, it has not. Abortion has become "birth control."

I wish with all my heart that the legal but repugnant and extremely rare approach had "won" but it never had a chance to develop because point-counterpoint, yes-no, protest, and litigate became the only tools that the majority of people learned to use, overlaying the demise of the family. So even though I oppose abortion and believe that people simply cannot seem to do the right thing and help a woman out who becomes pregnant in a life giving way, I can understand very well how Giuliani's position developed, and I also understand how the stem cell discussion could well have been an eye opener for Mitt Romney. And with pictures of babies in the womb, and the improved viability of preemies, for once technology is helping to re cultivate a social context for the legal fight. But because people can't seem to do the right thing, while I understand "choice" people, I believe that to save society in the long run, abortion should be illegal except in rare exceptions. I've become very disillusioned with people's lack of social charity, in that few followed my example of subsidizing unplanned pregnancies so that babies are carried to term and live. The fact that this approach has completely fallen off the social map, and that people actually "prefer" abortion over adoption should be a wake up call beyond the legal ramifications.