Social scientists have long noted that cultural values in a given society are , to some extent, shaped by economic factors, Karl Marx being only one of them. By the time of the American Revolution, slavery had become a political issue, and after 1800 it was legal in the “slave states,” illegal in the ”free states”. The the acceptance of slavery in the south and its refutation in the north were not without economic factors. The northerners claimed slavery was contrary to the Bill of Rights . But the warmer climate in the south, with a long growing season, was conducive to large scale production of plantation crops, first rice and indigo, then king cotton. Slavery enabled a vastly greater crop production. The mass cognitive dissonance (in this case guilt) created by slavery in the south - was successfully relieved by the preaching that slavery was endorsed by Christianity, because whites were acting to save the souls of the African captives by teaching them Christianity. Of course only a small percentage of Southerners ever owned slaves
because of the high cost, but the wealthy, who controlled the economy, also controlled cultural values. Just as the extensive wealth of the gun lobby, supported by 130,000 dues-paying gun dealers controls the distorted views about teenagers legally buying assault weapons.
In the second half of the 20th century a cultural and economic revolution took place. In the 1950’s highways were built, creating a vastly more mobile society. The fast food industry was born, reducing the time families ate together, but increasing the leisure time of millions. The economy was up, many could afford college, bringing more people together to broaden personal experience. And the sexual revolution.
Sex went from being a discreet means of reproduction to a means of recreation. The green light was given. And Madison Avenue and Hollywood made the most of it. Extra marrital sex was normalized to the point that it became de rigueur in some circles. A resulting phenomena was the increasing unwanted-pregnancy rate. And this presented the economic problem: the economy of time, money, unwanted motherhood, ‘illegitimate’ children, the social stigma. Abortion solved this sizable problem of cultural economics. Before 1960, the illegal abortionist, as well as the woman, was considered a miscreant. But as more women were having the procedure, and it was increasingly viewed as preventing a disastrous fate, it became more and more accepted until it became mainstream by the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973.
Those who were against abortion slowly became the antagonist in the eyes of many. An aquaintance of mine expressed that those opposed to abortion ”don’t need to push their religion on me.” Also laws against abortion were condemned as created by men with little input from women. Laws and religion – opponents of abortion.
But there’s more to consider. If a man runs down the street, knocks over and old woman, breaking her arm and runs away with her purse the most common reaction is NOT -”I think what that man did is against the law!! ”. The most common reaction is NOT – ”What that man did is against my religion.” No, the most common reaction is, that it is SIMPLY NOT RIGHT - forget religious rules and governing laws. My heart tells me – what the man did is simply not right. Humans cannot do that to other humans if any social contract is working among our species.
After the Roe vs Wade decision in 1973, two divided camps started to grow. The two sides of the abortion debate fashioned dictums to express their theses. The pro-abortion side says ”My body, my choice”. The anti-abortion side says ”Thou shall not kill”. It appears to me the only antagonists in the debate are those that don’t respect the others deep felt points of view. We must respect and understand both. The changing ‘economic’ factors in the American society have changed social norms and values and “Roe v Wade abortion” (That is, as Row v Wade stipulated- first trimester abortions) is accepted by many. Their response to ‘Thou shall not kill’ is that abortion is not killing, a fetus is not a human in the first trimester, and in humanitarian terms, it doesn’t cause pain. But I see no reason to refuse tolerance to those who still believe that abortion is SIMPLY NOT RIGHT, as the vast majority of the population did before 1960. And the vast majority still do in other countries. Their response to My Body, My Choice is that life isn’t that simple, and they ask what about responsibility to human rights, and the responsibility of childbirth that will always burden womanhood.
Frontline presented a well-balanced show on the abortion issues in America, underlining what a deep and long-lived rift it has caused in this country. It presented impassioned opinions from both sides, but remained neutral in its attitude. And this is good instruction for we Americans. We must accept that we must respect the others’ right to opinion, even as we legally, peacefully work to change it.
A conundrum. Rachel Maddow condemned a law that “forced women” to carry a fetus to term after 24 weeks. (ie proscribed abortion). lt can also be viewed as forcing a woman to make a decision – by 6 months into her pregnancy. But Kermit Gosner in his abortion clinic, terminated the lives of at least 3 fetuses/newborns after being born viable after 24 weeks from artificially induced labor. He was sentenced in 2011 to life in prison for murder. So it seems that if a fetus is aborted in the womb, it may be seen as ethical by some, but if labor is artificially induced, and the viable fetus is terminated outside the womb, it is murder. This idea should give pause. To some, this may be
an acceptable framework for law ; for others, not.
One more factor that must be included is the psychological effects from an abortion that some women, and maybe men suffer. It should be included in all abortion counseling and included for consideration in post-operant care.
