Hmm…how to put this.
I am pro-choice. Very pro-choice. I know, intuitively, why I am so…but I find it difficult to argue. I guess the reason why is because your stance on abortion is so closely tied with your personal philosophies, and it is sometimes nearly impossible to come even close to seeing eye to eye with someone if you don’t even agree on what life, the universe, and everything means to you.
Also…I really think that pro-life people have been fed a lot of nonsense that some won’t critically and sensibly review. That’s frustrating.
I don’t know who Caitlin Flanagan is, but she wrote this and it was posted over at Pandagon.
…the practical has always had a stronger pull on my emotions than the theoretical. Those old debates about the nature of the human soul have never moved me; surely a soul is no more valuable to God if it exists in this world rather than the next. And a thousand arguments about the beginning of human life will never appeal to me as powerfully as a terrified pregnant girl desperate for a bit of compassion.
I”m not a good enough writer nor have I properly put in the time to do enough research to back up my position on this issue. Let me rephrase that…I do know why I am pro-choice, as mentioned before, but I don’t know how to say it. Maybe this will be the first of many posts to help me figure it out.
Again, Pandagon has a great article. I hope they don’t mind me linking them so often lately…I just appreciate their thoughts.
UPDATE: another interesting view about the Flanagan article from a bird and a bottle.
If the mother’s instinct is as strong as Flangan claims it is (she calls it the strongest emotion imaginable), then why question a woman’s instinct that she can’t become a mother (or become a mother again) at this time.