"Don't Kill Babies"

Yesterday my country chose a new President, one who I consider to offer at least the hope that he is much his predecessor has not been. He appears to be thoughtful, inclusive, steady, outstanding qualities for anyone who not only carries the title and the duties of President of the United States, but is also around the Globe considered to be Leader of the Free World. These qualities stand, in my view, in sharp and desirable counterpoint to much of the past eight years of leadership that has often appeared to be more about bravura, rash nationalism, and almost juvenile ego-driven reaction to insults, real or perceived.

I watched the mounting election results for hours leading up to what for me was the joyful announcement that Barack Obama had achieved a resounding and insurmountable count of electoral votes, and enough to secure the election for him despite whatever changes the still uncounted ballots might produce in the overall numbers. The election was peaceful in spite of, and in part because of, record voter turnout, without high-profile legal wrangling or acrimonious charges of deception and fraud or other immoral or illegal activity by either (or any) party. John McCain's concession speech was a credit to himself, and I found myself admiring him for its tone and apparent genuineness. And Barack Obama's acceptance speech was both celebratory and conciliatory, expressive of clear vision for his political party but in the larger context of the good of the whole country, inclusive and principled, exultant for the achievement and a realistic acknowledgment of the challenges still to be surmounted for the good of all citizens of this country.

I confess to tears in my eyes as I listened again to an orator who touched me again with the soaring language of inspiration and hope without sending me flying free from the realities of our very real and indeed sometimes dark challenges, as he has before. I knew or suspected members of my family were not supporters of this candidate, but I was still jarred when one family elder responded this morning to my excitement, saying he was certainly charismatic, but "...he kills babies."

My reaction shows perhaps my own need for growth in attitudes of inclusiveness, as it was almost vehemently that I replied that there is so much more to a candidate than the position on a single issue, and that supporting freedom of choice is not even close to the same thing as killing babies. But I had been awake all night and was too tired to attempt a steady debate at that point.

But now, after a few hours of sleep, I am earnest to put down in writing my thoughts about this viewpoint. How is it that one single idea like this is able to outweigh so many good attributes and positions? Does holding an anti-abortion position really trump views that include acknowledgment that we as a country are involved in at least one war in which we have no honest justification for engagement, that too many Iraqis have died at the hands of our war machine, that we have a responsibility to affect our (global) environment in a way that does not do harm to the rest of, or even some of, the world we all live in? Does holding an anti-abortion position trump profession of the conviction that it is obscene and destructive to our country that something like 90% of the wealth in the nation is held by a mere 10% of its citizens? (Even this is misleading, as the more telling number is that something like 70% of the wealth of this nation is held by only 1% of its citizens, which makes the other 9%--90% of that first 10%--seem almost poor themselves by comparison.)

I think not.

And I think the idea that someone who supports the right of women to choose abortion if they want it is as immoral as someone who actually "kills babies" is obscene. Life might indeed begin at conception, but personhood is something that requires, in my opinion, more that mere successful fertilization of an egg. I know women who've had abortions. I know of none who are actually happy to admit it. Yes, this is anecdotal information, not scientific evidence. But the fact remains that merely allowing the possibility for something does not guarantee that the option will be chosen in all or even many of the cases where it is allowed, while actively prohibiting something that many citizens want to reserve to their own selves to chose creates the conditions for rebellion, strife, violence and serious danger in some cases.

If my daughter were ever in the situation to have to make the choice for or against an abortion, I want her to have the legal freedom to make that choice on the basis of what she perceives to be best in that situation. If women have the freedom to chose, that means they have the freedom to chose to keep the baby as well. And even at their own peril, I believe women usually will chose that option rather than its alternative (yes, in this case there is no either-or fallacy).

I agree with the enjoinder "Don't Kill Babies." But "killing babies" is not nearly the same thing as permitting women the freedom to exercise their own conscience and choice in their own particular set of circumstances.