|
4/24/07
Heya Lord High,
I've
muttered about
the abortion debate on my MySpazz a few times, not necessarily
making sense. Your essay
reminded me of something
interesting I came across though - specifically
this part:
"I’m
glad you
said so, because guess what? That
means
you were lying before when you said that you
thought the
fetus was a living human
being. If you really
thought that, then you would
consider a rape exemption to be
equivalent to murdering an innocent for
someone else’s crime. So,
you basically just admitted that you are only
really
against abortion because you want
to punish women for
having sex voluntarily, because
you’re pissed off about
being a giant loser."
In my
"research" (read: did a bit of googling) I came across a site that
argues for abortion from a religious
standpoint, by collecting
evidence of what the major religious traditions
have had
to say about it. Dude found
that the mother's life has always been weighed
against
the fetus's, and that the
life of the already living human, the mother,
was,
quite reasonably, considered
more important than
that of the potential human,
the fetus. Admittedly abortion
was only permitted in cases where the mother's
health
was at risk. (Here's the
site, hope I represented the article accurately
based on
memory: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/index.html).
Still,
this standpoint (and let's take a deep breath
and recall
for a moment that religious
traditions are a fund of ethical thought as well
as
mystic mumbo-jumbo) seems to me
way more reasonable than either side of the
current
pro-fetus vs. pro-woman
debate (as perhaps it should really be called).
There
may be a logical contradiction
in saying "I believe in abortion only when the mother's health is at
risk"
(in the case of rape, that would be emotional health) - but it captures
some of
the conflicting emotions involved in what is in fact an ethical
question. Don't
tell me it's only an ethical question from the conservative standpoint
–
because women's rights are a question of ethics as well (part of the
larger
human rights question).
If
your own logic,
as outlined in this essay, is followed, you should be okay with
women using abortion as birth
control. Are you okay with
that? Seriously? Because I'm a woman, and I'm
non-religious, but it makes me fucking
uncomfortable. Although not as uncomfortable
as putting the government in
charge of whether or not a woman can have an
abortion. ( = Human beings' -
women's - well-being versus potential human
beings'
well-being on a larger scale). So
- what about getting together, left and right,
to
try to reduce the need for
abortions, as you talk about elsewhere in the
essay?
Works for me - only for that,
both sides have to admit there's something to
the
other side. Oh and also the
right has to get over the major practical
contradiction of being both
anti-abortion and anti-birth control. Which is
another
kettle of fish... and I need to
get off the internet and go to bed!
Cheers!
—Hiking Boots Slut
Dear Hiking-Boots Slut:
Thanks
for writing, and for
being the commendable sort of
person who actually does research—even if it's "only"
Googling—into
viewpoints with which she
disagrees (as
opposed to just deciding the other people are shitheads, or simply
making stuff
up about what they do or don’t believe and how they do or
don’t justify it,
which is what most people do these days).
It seems like there’s only one direct
question in your e-mail—the one
about “abortion as birth control”—but
before we answer that, we’d like to speak
to a couple of the other things you mentioned in passing.
First and foremost, we want to
make sure people understand
that when we pointed out the “logical
contradiction” of rape or mother’s-health
exemptions, we were of course only doing so in the service of
highlighting the
fact that the vast majority of pro-lifers are lying hypocrites whose
true
motivations aren’t what they claim them to be. We ourselves realize that
these are immeasurably
important concerns, and
that—if worse came to worst—the existence of
anti-choice legislation with those
exemptions in place would be better
than anti-choice legislation without
them. We realize
that our argument on that point
involved playing with fire, but the goal of course is to try and get
the
majority of less-far-right pro-lifers to realize that they need to get
their
philosophical ducks in a row (i.e., realize that they are actually just
sexually
repressed and don’t really give a shit about fetuses at all),
not to drive them
even farther to the right.
Additionally, we want to say
that we definitely realize that
it’s an “ethical” matter for the left as
well—that’s why
we’re pro-choice—and that we think your
(half-joking? totally
serious?) suggestion of relabeling the two sides as
“pro-fetus” and “pro-woman”
provides an insight into why it’s been so hard for us to get
the right to
accept this framework.
The right tends to be under the
impression that the laws they want
to make are better for society as a whole,
and that the laws we, the left,
want to make are “special”
laws that would give “special” rights to
“special” groups of people.
What they don’t see is that we are usually
working with the exact same warrant that they are.
We believe that access to safe, legal
abortion (not to mention, say, affirmative action or gay
marriage) is the better law
for society as a whole, not just for women (or whomever). This is what we meant in
the original post
when we said that Roe v. Wade
“wasn’t
a ‘Roe v. Wade for women’ so much as it was a
‘Roe v. Wade for people.’” The difficulty
that some people have with understanding this, of course, involves the
fact
that, since only a woman can actually get
an abortion, it looks like we are making a
“special” law for women, when
we’re actually doing nothing of the kind.
Obviously, over the years since the ruling, there
have been nearly as
many men who found themselves pretty damn relieved that Roe
v. Wade happened as there have been women.
This is why we feel it would be dangerously
missing the point to relabel the pro-choice side as pro-woman. The fathers are
often involved in the decision (you know, the titular
“choice”), and a pro-choice
philosophy certainly isn’t anti-man,
so maybe pro-people would be
better;
or, since many of the couples who find themselves faced with such
decisions are
in committed relationships, and may even have other kids already, maybe
even—dare we say it?—pro-family.
That’s how we think
about it, anyway. Yet
we do realize that, sadly for the left,
there are many among our allies who would
prefer to think of legal abortion as explicitly a pro-woman
law, and who want the debate to be framed as a feminist
struggle against masculine tyranny, rather than as a struggle by people
who are
not crazy against the tyranny of people who are.
One of us can even remember having once been
yelled at for being pro-choice by pro-choice feminists—the
beef being
that he was obviously only
pro-choice
so he could “get out of it” if he ever got a girl
pregnant. Well,
then, what is he supposed to be, if
not pro-choice? These
particular women clearly just wanted all
men to play the bad guy, and
it’s not productive for our side
to be looking at things that way—there are plenty of
pro-choice men, and,
sadly, plenty of pro-life women. We
urge
all pro-choicers to remember when arguing about this that, as Jarvis
sang, “it’s not a case of
woman v. man; it’s more a
case of haves against haven’ts”—the
object of have, in this case, being
brains.
And now for your primary
question, which was about whether
we are “okay” with women “using abortion
as birth control.” To
that we can only say the same thing we say
to Conservatives who try to make the “abortion as birth
control” argument—that
we don’t need to defend being “okay” with
something that we don’t really think
would happen. Think
about it. You’re
a woman: would you ever find
yourself saying “Eh! Screw
a condom or the
pill… If
I get pregnant, I’ll just pop in for an
abortion?” Do
you know any women who would? Yes, legal abortion makes it
logically possible for women
to use an
expensive, invasive surgery involving a protracted, humiliating
process as
their primary method of birth control, instead of, say, taking
a pill, but it seems to us that this is only happening in
the nightmares of Conservatives. We
mean, legalized umbrella sale makes
it logically possible for people to
attempt to fight constipation by sticking umbrellas up their asses and
then
opening them instead of taking laxatives, but it doesn’t seem
like this is
something we need to worry about when deciding whether umbrellas should
remain
legal.
And the existence of AIDS and
other STDs makes this argument
even better, because this means that even women who are on the pill (or
Depo,
or who have an IUD, etc.) are still using condoms on top of that,
unless
they’re in a monogamous relationship, in which case they are
even more likely
to be on some kind of reliable birth control, even if they’re
not using condoms
with their partner. In
the case of a
woman who somehow gets pregnant despite any or all of this, then that
woman
would not really be “using abortion as birth
control,” but rather as what it is
intended to be—an emergency lever.
And
in the case of a woman who is not
taking these precautions, getting pregnant should be the least of her
worries. Sure,
everyone has a story about this crazy
friend or that crazy friend, but generally we consider
“abortion as birth control”
to be simply another Boogeyman invented by the right, in the grand
tradition of
“Welfare Queens,” “uranium from Niger,”
and “rainbow parties.”
Oh, wait—that last
one was invented by Oprah.
Sincerely,
—S.G. and the Crew
Back
to the Top
Back
to Reader Mail Central
Back
to the Homepage
|
|