In a recent address at the first annual conference of the pro-life student group Choose Life at Yale, Tristyn Bloom suggested that “the reason people continue to defend abortion is because, essentially, of existential terror: fear of what will happen when something unexpected, uninvited, unplanned bursts into our lives demanding action”:
We often hear that a problem with young people today is that we are irresponsible. We don’t have a sense of duty. We don’t have a sense of order. We’re immature. I think that the problem is actually the opposite. I think that we are pathologically terrified of risk and I think that we have this enslavement to our own ideas of respectability, our own ideas of our life plan, our commitments, our existing duties such that something as radically changing as a new life doesn’t fit in with those existing duties. To accept that life would be the irresponsible choice, and that’s the framework from which a lot of people are operating. They see themselves as accepting consequences, as responsible. They have a semblance of a moral framework and we can’t ignore that just because it’s completely the opposite of our own. And this isn’t just about whether or not you accept a child. I think that we are so enslaved to a plan, and a routine, and a vision of our lives, we can’t embrace the unsettledness, openness, flexibility, and folly it takes to have an actually pro-life culture in every instance.
Josh W., a Catholic blogger, expands on Bloom’s point:
[U]tilitarianism … has come to define propriety and social mores, at least to a certain extent… . Actions have costs, benefits and risks, and the ethical choice is one which takes that into account. Having lots of of kids, for instance, is frowned upon because it is seen as being both personally and socially irresponsible.
But this is also a vision of life that becomes progressively divorced from meaning. It’s the sort of “healthy” ho-hum bourgeoisie existence that Friedrich Nietzche had a panic over. And this is why I have a sympathy for counter-cultural sorts, weirdos and the like, even if they’re doing something I’d consider stupid or evil; because there is an acknowledgement of the enervating and sterile aspect of modernity and a desire for spontaneity. That is what makes the beatniks and hippies fascinating, because they correctly recognized the meaninglessness of the world they grew up in and reacted against it. They went for the wrong medicine and ironically wound up having bits and pieces of their own ethos assimilated back into the mainstream, but they had some awareness.
Dreher adds questions to the debate:
I hadn’t thought of the pro-life issue this way — that a culture of life can’t take root in a culture that is terrified of making a single mistake that would ostensibly ruin one’s life.
On the other hand, it can’t be denied that having a baby out of wedlock really does, in most cases, have a significant impact on the economic prospects of their mothers. What is the difference? A middle-class support system? What?
Update from a reader:
Jesus H. Christ, talk about an ivory tower. “The reason people continue to defend abortion is because, essentially, of existential terror… We can’t embrace the unsettledness, openness, flexibility, and folly it takes to have an actually pro-life culture in every instance.”
If I were just a bit more spontaneous, I’d agree that it’s the role of the state to force a person to keep something unwanted inside them! Gosh! I need to live a little! Thanks, Ms Bloom!
Pro-choice can be pro-life. Repeat that over and over, because it’s true. Pro-choice simply means that when it’s not me affected, I cannot make the decision.
The Dish 