On Choice, Sex, and Sarah Palin (Or, "Putting My Foot in It")
McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for VP has brought many women’s issues front and center. I often avoid discussing these issues because, well, because I’m a bit chicken. Although most of my politics tend to be pretty left-wing, some of my views are not. It’s pretty much guaranteed that in this post I’ll offend everyone. Good thing I’ve worked through some of my “pleaser” issues in counseling…
This entry started as a response to an entry on a friend's blog, but I thought I'd move it over here and flesh it out a bit. As part of his interesting take on the issues, my friend Alan asks, “Is it valid to question why with a family of four children would you be trying for a fifth when you’re occupying the state’s top position and well out on the bell curve of healthy pregnancies?” And I thought, “Whoa there, good buddy – you are making one hell of a presumption in that statement. You are presuming that the Palins were indeed TRYING for a fifth baby. Actually, you're making another presumption, too: you are presuming that birth control always works."
I’m thinking that it’s pretty obvious that they were NOT trying for a fifth and that baby Trig was the proverbial “accident”. I know that if I were the one in that situation, I would not be TRYING for another baby. I don’t know many women who had older children and were on the cusp of a swinging political (or any) career that would try for another child.
I think that what happened instead was more complicated, and more common, than we may want to believe. In the United States, 40-50% of pregnancies – in or out of marriage – are unintended. Sarah kept her pregnancy secret until month 7, even from her family – if you’ve been pregnant, you know how difficult that must have been – especially on someone so trim and fit. I think her reluctance to tell was indicative of the time it took her to adjust to her new, unplanned reality.
To have an abortion would have made Sarah Palin’s life easier in some ways. Her daughter Bristol’s life would perhaps be easier with the same choice. They acted on their beliefs and chose to keep the babies, but I think their choices also point out the major (insurmountable?) difference between men’s and women’s rights: only women can get pregnant and the results of that in the right circumstances are blessed and amazing; in less-than-ideal circumstances, the results are blessed yet difficult.
Sex and babies are complicated issues. Even those of us that choose to save sex for the instances within God’s parameters (between a husband and wife, according to my particular beliefs) have difficult, and often inconvenient, decisions to make. Sarah had no choice (given her beliefs, and mine) but to keep the pregnancy. But I know if I were in her shoes I’d be pretty devastated - I don’t plan to have more children myself, and another pregnancy at this point in my life would be very inconvenient. Am I callous talking about children this way? Maybe. But it is a reality in this world of longer life expectancies, more opportunities for women, and the truth that even the best birth control has a failure rate.
Dave and I (well, ok - so it was Dave) had a vasectomy as part of our family planning, but even those can fail. (I personally know 2 people with post- vasectomy “surprises”). I know that with God’s help we’d work through an unexpected pregnancy – even one with a Downs or otherwise-disabled child - but it would be unwelcome, and complicated.
I think part of the abortion/sex/women’s rights/contraception debate is missing if we fail to acknowledge the reality that birth control is not 100% effective. Even in marriage, only abstinence is the fail-proof plan. I personally believe God created sex as more than just for procreation, so I am NOT advocating abstinence. So as someone who participates in (and enjoys!) God-ordained, married sex, I have to accept the reality that pregnancies are always, always a possibility.
I also believe that having the choice in how we deal with this reality should always be a possibility
