Let’s talk about the people who reject a woman’s right to choose.
First of all, it is incorrect to call them anti-abortion. Under current law they are anti-choice because you can be against abortion and also support choice. It’s a matter of who gets to choose, a woman or the state.
Anti-choice advocates believe there is only one choice…carry the pregnancy to term, and for many of them that means even in the case of rape, incest, or a threat to the mother’s life.
Conservative Christians make up the majority of those who are anti-choice, and they will never accept any compromise on this issue.
The reason is because of their legalistic beliefs about God that in turn are rooted in the way they read the Bible.
The believe the Bible lays out a plan of salvation marked by things to do and things not to do.
Do the right things and don’t do the wrong things and you’re in. Fail and you’re out.
Abortion, of course, is a “don’t” so choosing to have one risks bringing down the judgment of God. For them it is as simple as that.
But here’s the thing. Conservative Christians don’t believe that what they believe is a belief. Instead they believe that what they believe was given to them by God in the Bible.
From their perspective a righteous nation must follow God’s laws or face God’s judgment, which is why they want what they believe about choice to become the law of the land.
They sincerely believe they are trying to save our nation from itself, or at least from the Satanic influence of secularism.
Their strategy is to use their power as the religious base of the Republican Party to coerce Republican controlled state legislatures into passing anti-choice laws. They have been successful in many states.
But state laws are subject to judicial review to weigh whether or not they are consistent with the Constitution. So far many of the laws Republicans have enacted have been struck down.
That is why conservative Christians oppose the courts. They claim a “few” people are deciding for everyone.
They are exactly right in that view, but they don’t understand why.
The courts, or the “few,” must in fact decide cases for the rest of us in order to protect the Constitution for all of us.
A majority of voters can easily and in fact have many times voted for laws that were clearly unconstitutional. “Separate but equal” is one of them. Poll tax laws are another. And so on.
The reality is that our nation’s democracy does not depend solely on majority rule. It also depends on judges and Supreme Court Justices holding all laws to the highest constitutional standards.
Therein is the rub for conservative Christians.
They prefer a theocracy to a democracy because in a democracy views other than theirs have an influence because the Constitution says they do. That is why they want to turn America into a theocracy they control.
Republican politicians are doing all they can to help them, limited only by judges and justices who refuse to allow federal or state laws to subvert the Constitution.
So the way I see it the issue of a woman’s right to choose transcends abortion in that it was and is a flash point in regard to whether or not we continue to be a secular democracy or become a theocracy.
Because I know church history well I can say unequivocally that I am far more fearful of any theocracy conservative Christians want us to become than I am of the imperfect democracy we are.
linnposts.com 
Re your last paragraph: And well you should be!
How are the 46% of all women who are pro-life, chauvinists?
Is it possible for a man to be pro-life for any reason other than chauvinism?
Is it possible for a believer to be pro-life, yet for reasons beyond the individual’s particular religious beliefs? If so, are those reasons wrong too?
Should there be any limits on abortion whatsoever? If so, what would they be? How would these limits still make someone pro-choice? How would these limits not also be legislating morality? How would these limits be any different from a pro-life view, but just disagreeing on the starting point for life being significant enough to protect over the view of the woman who knows best?
If abortion is the woman’s choice, why should abortion be rare?
Anthony, chauvinism literally means an attitude of superiority toward members of the opposite sex, which means women can be chauvinists like men. But I used the word in the general sense of an attitude of superiority to another. Pro-life is a misnomer. Choice advocates can be pro-life, too. I never said people of faith who are pro-life are wrong in what they believe. I said it is anti-democracy to want to eliminate freedom of choice because of religious beliefs. That would hold true for whatever reason they may have for enacting such laws. Roe v. Wade already placed limits on choice and that still stands. Choice is unlimited for the first trimester because the Court did not accept the belief that life begins at conception. It did agree that it is possible that a fetus could survive outside the womb in the second and third trimesters. For that reason choice is limited after the first trimester to extraordinary circumstances under the advice and consent of a physician. Unlimited freedom of choice was not the Court ruling.
Hope this answers your many questions in a brief space.
It doesn’t, but they are not all easy questions to answer, especially in written form! 🙂
When I say pro-life, I’m referring to the group commonly known as being against abortion. I’m not having a semantical discussion on what those exact words really mean. This is how most people commonly divide the groups, regardless of anything else, pro-life, pro-choice and we understand the general groups being referred to. Given that we all know what is really meant by the names of both groups, it seems tangential to be concerned with their names being technically accurate during the discussion.
I didn’t ask if women can be chauvinists because I wondered if in regards to any particular topic could a woman possibly be chauvinistic. I asked how the pro-life women can be chauvinists? (Because you state earlier that what is really behind the pro-life position is chauvinism) How can the pro-life woman be chauvinistic in regards to this issue? It’s her own sex after all. Because…
If they can’t, then how can as you write, “Any argument for not accepting that right comes down to this…chauvinism.” when roughly 50% of that group not accepting that right are women? I agree, chauvinism plays a part, but I don’t see how it does for more than half that group at best; hense the question. Which then makes me think that there has to be more, and that by stopping too soon, you make it too easy for pro-lifers to dismiss your other statements because you may miss the target for the reasons behind their belief to begin with.
I also was not asking for what the legal allowances of abortion are, I was asking what they should be. You write all the time about things where the legal allowances are already clearly defined, where the courts have spoken, and yet you disagree with them and think they are wrong and should be different, and then you state what they should be, not falling back to what the legal allowances stated by laws and/or the courts are. Surely you aren’t saying that if the Supreme Court had said, “no abortions, period” you would just accept that as well and good and how things should be?
So, given a position that as you state you believe where a, “woman knows her life, her circumstances, her physical and mental state. and everything else she needs to know to choose what path she will follow rather than the state choosing for her”, how can you then default to the Supreme Court limitations? Even then, accepting those limits, or even being okay with even lesser limits, but still some limits, personally or by the state, how is this not still the “state” deciding over the woman who knows best and how is this still not legislating or attempting to legislate morality, which you state is “a very, very bad basis”?
Which then also leaves all the subsequent questions I asked as well.
And at the end of your 2nd blog of the 3 most recent, you stated, “But I am confident anti-abortion individuals and groups will not agree. Next time I will explain why they won’t and why I believe they are wrong.”
You go on in your 3rd blog to say the majority of the anti-abortion group are Christian Conservatives.
Putting one & one together, how is this not essentially saying people of faith who are pro-life are wrong?
Gotta run, hopefully my proof reading isn’t too bad. Hope you’re getting some golf in!
Since I am here instead on the golf course I will give it my last best effort to answer your questions.
First, semantics matter regarding this issue precisely because you can be pro-choice and also pro-life or anti-abortion. Popular usage of misleading terms convolutes the issue and makes reasonable compromises more difficult.
The word “chauvinist” does not have to refer to genders. It can refer to “the belief that your country, race, etc., is better than any other.” My use is that men and women who oppose freedom of choice believe they know better than a woman herself what she should and should not do with her body. I am not invested in the word chauvinism as much as I am disturbed by the belief that someone can tell a woman what she must do with her own body without her having any choice at all about it. I fail to see how that being a man or woman, or whether chauvinism is the right word, makes any substantive difference to my argument. Ultimately I don’t care what their reasons are for wanting to eliminate choice. I care about the fact that that is what they want to do.
Regarding what limits, if any, there should be, legal or not, I think Roe v. Wade was the right decision. It puts no limits on choice for the first trimester. Thereafter it puts conditions on choice, such the need to show there is a threat to the mother’s life, or rape or incest were involved, or there are medical problems that have been detected only after the first trimester. I don’t think any of that places an undue burden on a woman, nor do I think it compromises her right to choose. It simply acknowledges that the chance for a fetus to be viable outside the womb after the first trimester. At that point another life should now be factored into that decision. That does not mean the “state” chooses over a woman, only that at a certain point freedom of choice must be balanced by other legitimate concerns. No freedom in this country is absolute, even speech, but those limits don’t constitute “state” control or trying to legislate morality.
Re conservative Christians, I say again, their view of abortion being wrong is not the issue. Their desire to make their view the law of the land is because it is a faith claim (life begins at inception) they want to impose on everyone else that eliminates freedom of choice at any level. That is all I said.
This is the best I can do, inadequate as it may be.
That works quite nicely. Thanks for taking the time to answer!
Personally I’d like to see a no limits cutoff pushed out until at least week 20, but I’d not want anything too specifically tied to viability because I think technology is only going to make that timeframe smaller and smaller. For me, the significance of whatever might be there at that point, even if technology is able to preserve it outside the womb, doesn’t outweigh the decision and desire to terminate.
I’d also add to the reasons beyond chauvinism and misguided religion for why the anti-choice group believes as it does, lack of education; they just aren’t a very educated group overall. Not just as an opinion to how dismissive I am of their intelligence, it’s backed up statistically too. Too susceptible to brain-washing and/or simply unable to think critically and evolve beyond what’s been handed down for generations from even less educated ancestors & role models. Claim to know science, until it contadicts their views, then their magic God knows better and it must be the science that is wrong. Comprised of both the actually not all that smart and those unexplainables who actually have something in the head beyond 10th grade biology, the, as Maher would say, smart-stupid.
Anthony, I think you make a good case for no limits. And your last point about education or the failure to think or be able to think is one too many of us avoid, but one I believe does, as you do, play a central role among the anti-choice movement. That is why they have been politically exploited so easily.
I, too am very fearful of any kind of theocracy. It doesn’t seem to be hard to look around the world (beginning in the US) to see the reasons for my fear.
No argument there, Wally.
I think overbearing and controlling experiences with old world religion in England and other parts of Europe are why, wisely, the founders expressly separated church and state here. Religious “passions” have a way of generating highly repressive and un-religious acts! The “pro-life” movement (more correctly called “pro-birth” because once born most such believers wash their hands of the infant to the “personal responsibility” of the mother regardless of her real life circumstances), as with other groups who interpret life non holistically, as pro and con or as stratified, here also choose to be selective about democracy. Democracy is truly troubling to the conservative, black and white thinking, mind and must be continually challenged to maintain social balance. Thank you for another thoughtful analysis in the spirit of such a challenge.
Thoughtful comment, Bob. Thanks.
Robert, you are making some gratuitous assumptions there.
It’s not about theocracy. It’s not about “God’s Law or “faith claim.” It’s not about out-voting the opposition. It’s not about a “right to choose.” It’s about SCIENCE. It’s about DNA. No woman ever gave birth to a cranberry bush. Nor a ground squirrel. Give that some thought — what exactly does a woman give birth to? That’s what it’s about! Supreme Court allowed early birth termination because of the OPPOSITE CHOICE that too many women were making — the do-it-yourself abortion with coat hangers as I recall. Allowing abortion was there to forstall that horrible “choice” until perhaps a time when more sane thinking on the part of the masses would conclude that giving life is a privilege that not everyone has. And there ARE agencies and programs in place to assist new mothers with care for their child, some private agencies and some public. There are early childhood education programs that assist both children and parents with learning techniques to raising a child. Parents are NOT being sent adrift to fend for themselves when they have issues of poverty or lack of education.
In the first place, if you had read the Supreme Court ruling you would know that the “wrong choice” you say was the reason for it actually had nothing to do with it. It was not even mentioned in it. Second, you write as a white man enjoying the privilege of being middle class or better. The world you describe is not at all the world a large segment of our population experiences. And as far as what a woman gives birth to, I doubt if any of them need to be told by you, me, or anyone else about what pregnancy means. Moreover, unless you support more funding for the help you say is available rather than supporting the cuts to them Republicans have made and continue to make, especially at the state level, you should refrain from preaching about them.
Well, then, there IS choice, per Supreme Court ruling! So where’s the argument about no choice? Your opening statement about who gets to chose: the woman or the state gives us the woman gets to choose abortion, legally, under some time-limit conditions. And, yes, the Supreme Court ruling did not mention do-it-yourself-at-home abortions, regardless of the fact that everyone knew it was happening at that time, and women were dying because of botched abortions. Argument that Supreme Court didn’t address it in their ruling doesn’t conclude that it wasn’t discussed in chambers. Abortion was never mentioned in the Constitution in the first place, so their arguments had to be addressed from the “freedom” point of view. So now we have legal abortions.
I’ve worked eight years under a federal/state employment program and am familiar with how funding is done (or at least during the time I was there). There was an umbrella of funds given to cover a number of areas to service. And expenses like paper, lights, office help were not deliniated as to each particular service provided. Therefore, only direct-client services were identified specifically: the “general” areas were simply under the total umbrella. So, using this same “government rule for services” we might assume that at P.P. the exam rooms for everyone, the secretarial help in the office, the utilities were government funded. But the direct abortion services were not covered. It may just be the Same Shell Game. Also known in my government service job, at the end of the year if all our funding received had not been used, we could not return it to the government: any leftover monies meant that our following year would mean LESS funding because we didn’t use up everything we had received in the year just ending. So find ways to use it up–buy surgical supplies or gowns or whatever. Ask any whistle-blowing government worker about the accuracy of this statement: how do you think that coffee pots and toilets and hammers get to cost so much in the Defense Department? Using up end-of-the-year funding. Government funding is a joke, no matter where you look for it. Also, private charities have done wonders for hurricanes, earthquakes and other natural disasters: they can do wonders for abortions, and don’t tell me that charity funding is demeaning to the poor! It’s done in private in the first place. And anyone needing privately-funded abortions are possibly on government programs already.
I am neither white nor “privileged.” Please don’t categorize with false assumptions; nor argue that all abortions require federal funding. If that’s the case, then ALL the poor (children) are being systematically “eliminated,” and that’s class warfare. Since abortion is legal, then a charity can be created to pay for ALL abortions; government need not do it. That would be a “choice” for pro-abortion people to consider. Also, if “choice” is so vital, then why can’t we have “choice” in education; allow ALL families to choose the school they want their children in. Currently only public schools are funded by taxpayers. So only privileged (or poor on reduced=rate or scholarship-funded) students can attend private schools. How about we let tax monies go back to students who attend private schools or home schools? Private school families pay twice: first for government funded public schools and then for their choice of private school. We can throw the word “choice” around in different ways.
You seem to be very misinformed about this issue. Government does not pay for abortion. The Hyde Amendment of several years ago makes it illegal for federal funds to do so. No state funds pay for abortion either.
The “charity fund” you suggest would be demeaning to women who are poor, but even more it would not work. If it would we would not need any of the poverty programs that we have. They became necessary precisely because private charity was unable to such massive needs. But it’s beside the point anyway since no public funds pay for abortions.
One other point. Your use of the term “pro-abortion” is intentionally misleading. Just as anti-choice people are not necessarily “pro-life,” neither are pro-choice people necessarily pro-abortion. The issue is choice, not one’s view of life or abortion.
I did not write about public and private funded education so I do not choose to respond to what you wrote about either.