I was in Seattle awaiting the birth of a grandchild when I received an email with the subject heading "devastating news." That's how learned that Dr. George Tiller, a frequent target of anti-abortion violence, was assinated in his church hours earlier on the morning on May 31.
It was, indeed, devastating news, most immediately for the poor women of my home state of Kansas whom Dr. Tiller served tirelessly.
So after making a contribution to Peggy Bowman's Second Chance Fund, (Dr. Tiller would have approved) it seems timely to again share my perspective on the abortion debate.
I begin by asking you to imagine the following scene from the future.
Prenatal testing has determined that Jane Rovaris is carrying a 14-week-old fetus destined to develop juvenile diabetes. A well-financed group calling itself "Right to be Born Healthy" (RBH) has learned of Roveris's refusal to terminate her pregnancy and decides to intervene on behalf of the fetus. Members of the group abduct Rovaris on her way to work and an involuntary abortion is conducted under safe conditions.
In this same futurist scenario, the President of the United States declares his position on similar cases. Although he condemns the tacks of RBH he maintains that it is indefensible to willingly bring a chronically ill or genetically defective child into the world. Every fetus has a basic right to be born healthy. Fetal rights are now protected under constitutional law.
Having a fetus wrenched involuntarily from one's womb is a terrifying proposition. But equally terrifying is being forced to carry and birth a child involuntarily.
Fortunately, I've never faced either situation. I obtained a safe and legal abortion when an unplanned pregnancy followed soon after the birth of my second child. Because I was treated with respect and care, the event was not traumatic.
Sometimes I've tried to project myself into a different scenario-that of being forced to carry a fetus to term against my will. It's not easily imaged. As a woman of education and means, I know that the abortion option would always be open to me, even if it became closed to other. There are certain things that money and privilege can buy. Access to a safe abortion will always be one of them.
Only for the briefest moments have I glimpsed in myself another woman-poor, pregnant, and without choice. In these moments, fear radiates to the very edges of my imagination. I'm trapped in a nightmare from which there is no awakening, incarcerated in a body no longer under my control. I become a kindred spirit to Jane Rovaris, a woman I have invented even as I have reached to invent myself as a woman without choice.
When a woman is forced to carry a child-or forced to terminate a pregnancy for that matter-her spirit and will, and the direction of her life are no longer her own. Such coercion is horrid and violent. Yet we are asked to balance the rights of the fetus against the rights of the individual woman.
What is the "truth" of the matter?
The truth is that there is no truth on which we can all agree. And no wonder.
When we arrive at our views on abortion, we drawn on personal values and beliefs that emerge from our unique family histories, and the traditions that have been passed from generation to generation. We are further influence by our deepest unconscious wishes, longings and fears about such large subjects as life and death, birth and loss, sacrifice and entitlement, women, reproduction, and motherhood.
It is no surprise that people see the abortion issue differently, passionately clinging to their view-some identifying with the unborn fetus and others with the rights of the woman carrying it.
We know how difficult it is to convince another person to see things our way. Nor are we ourselves readily converted. My own views on abortion are deeply held. Although I consider myself an open-minded person, the chance of my changing sides on the abortion issue is about as likely as my dropping my Jewish religion when the next Jehovah's Witness knocks on my front door.
We cannot eliminate our differences on the abortion issue, nor will those differences go away. We can, at best, learn to deal respectfully with opposing views rather than trying to force all people to examine a complex emotional issue through the same filter.
So here is the bottom line-the ultimate challenge posed by the abortion controversy.
Given our differences, who should be in charge of a reproductive decision for me, or for you, or for Jane Rovaris? Should a minister or rabbi have the final word? Should the decision be dictated by whichever group exerts the most economic and political force of the day? Do we take a neighborhood vote?
The bullet that ended Dr. Tiller's life reminds us that there is no greater challenge that that of respecting differences or at least tolerating them. To do so we must recognize that it is our job to become the expert on our selves, not our neighbors.
