Abortion debate: Knock 'er down, knock 'er up, use the cops to make her keep it
Many, many years ago I was a high-school volunteer at the local community crisis hotline. It was in a part of the country where families sometimes get a little "too close." When rape, statutory rape, child molestation, incest, and pregnancy collide there aren't a lot of attractive options. From time to time we'd get one of those calls.
I was still there when Roe vs. Wade was decided. It didn't make the calls any easier to take -- those never are -- but at least it made seeking recourses much, much easier. We no longer had to smuggle the victims 500 miles to Washington DC for a 1st trimester abortion, or 800 miles to New York for a 2nd term one. But even for an 18-year-old the situation still tore my guts out.
Last week members of the U.S. Senate playing word games with a hand-picked ideologue over whether "precedent" or "stare decis" was a better word for the way he might or might not feel about Roe when he becomes a Supreme Court justice. The nominee regurgitated endlessly rehearsed assurances to the effect that both "precedent" and "stare decis" can be found in respected legal dictionaries.
All very uplifting -- I'm a sucker for history and word origins myself -- but I'm disappointed none the less, because I think the nominee, the men who nominated him, the men who supported him in the Senate, and the men who pay those men think pregnancy how nature, or God, or intelligent design, or tradition, punishes women for letting men fuck them. I think they all see abortion not in terms of new human life but as nine months plus eighteen years of hard labor for the woman's moments of pleasure.
The victims who called the hot line (and they were always still girls because women can move away when they turn eighteen) didn't fit that righteous, stereotypical paradigm. Instead of enjoying momentary trysts in back seats they experienced moments of terror and anguish, in their own beds at home, at the hands of adults who were who were raping them instead of raising them, penetrating them when they should have been protecting them, who were taking their own moments of pleasure deep in the bodies of girls who wouldn't consent, who legally couldn't consent, yet who were faced with the inevitable consequences.
Look, the only question that really needs to be asked is a simple one: If a girl's guardian knocks her down, and knocks her up, should the law side with her molester and force her to extend her torment for another nine months? Should the law reward her molester with a child?
If abortion really was wrong, if abortion should be illegal, then the only answer is yes. If abortion really was wrong, which it’s not, and if abortion should be illegal, which it shouldn’t be, then an exception for child-molestation, rape, or incest would be as psychotic an inconsistency in law as an exception for burglary because one is broke.
Whether he'll admit it (to others or himself) the nominee believes the law should force women to bear their molester's babies. Whether they admit it (to others or themselves) the men who nominated him believe the law should force women to bear their molester's babies. Whether they admit it (to others or themselves) majority of men in the Senate who plan to confirm this judge believe the law should force women to bear their molester's babies. The men who pay them believe this as well, and I'm guessing that many of those men rapturously ejaculate to fantasies of denying women abortions so they must bear their molester's babies. (There are thousands of forced-pregnancy porn stories on the internet which implies an awful lot of men are jacking off over them, which turns my stomach, which makes me want to disappoint the men who would make their fantasies law.)
But here's the thing. While I believe the majority of the nominee's supporters believe this, I don't believe a majority of Americans do. I don't believe a majority of the full Senate does.
So I'm sorry no one asked the nominee to spell out his position on whether the law should reward molester by forcing their victims to bear their babies. I'm sorry no one will frame the confirmation vote in the Senate as a referendum on whether the law should reward molester by forcing their victims to bear their molester's babies. I'm sorry more people aren't asking their Senators whether they're willing to vote to allow women to be forced to bear their molester's babies.
Because my own memory suggests... because I can't help believing... that's just a real-life consequence that's at stake in the current abortion debate: Should a woman, young or old, ever have the right to say no; should the law of the land protect the interests of women, young or old, or protect the interests of men who assault and impregnate them by wile, guile, force, or circumstance?
I would argue that the current nominee's supporters are firmly on the side of criminals and absolutely opposed to the rights of victims. They might not like being described that way, but that's the way it is.)
Update #1: Lest you think this is an abstract issue read the comments.
Update #2: In comments Olympia of Olympia's Playground raises the perfectly correct argument: "Do you trust women?" which should have settled the question 50 or 100 or 150 or 1,500 years ago full-stop. Yet a room full of men in a hearing room managed to overlook it all last week and the nominee himself took an activist position explicitly linking women's subordination to their husbands with children's subordination to their parents in his Casey dissent. Thus it would seem that appeals to common American decency (not to mention the fundamental American principle of the autonomy of adults) will continue to fail.
To be honest I'm not sure we'd be having a debate about abortion at all if abortion opponents didn't see it as a feminist issue in the first place. Recall that the current nominee's Casey dissent says there's no difference between a child having to notify her parents and a woman having to notify her husband. Recall too that in virtually every other dimension all but a handful of anti-abortionists are utterly indifferent to human life after birth. In other words I suspect that for them abortion is a proxy for feminism so they bitterly reject it.
For whatever reason, though, these anti-choice radicals have hardened their hearts against the idea of equality for women. Instead I'm raising the rape/molestation angle because that bypasses their hatred of feminism and instead gouges them in their law-n'-order underbellies. The point being that morally Olympia is 100% right, but we're trying to persuade an amoral majority in the Senate not to coddle the criminals who "molest" and impregnate women against their will.
(I'd like to add that for me, anyway, the matter really does come down to the freedom for women to choose when and if they want to reproduce. Were this *not* a proxy fight over feminism the debate might just as easily be over the rights of the poor, the uneducated, the underage, and the ethnically different over the choice to *become or remain pregnant.* No matter how I look at it the whole thing still boils down to reproductive choice for free and equal adults and I can't believe this is even a question for debate.)
Well said, as usual figleaf.
K
Great post!
[Thanks, Coco. --fl]
As a woman who has both had an abortion and survived an incestuous childhood, I applaud this post. Thank you.
I see it as black and white as you do. My sister was impregnated by my father, and induced her own abortion or spontaneous miscarriage, however you want to look at it. She is now a pediatrician in a small town in New Mexico.
She never had any babies of her own.
[Yikes! Fucking Hell, Elizabeth, I'm so sorry! You know there's a reason I call this blog "real *adult* sex" and your history is a big hint as to why. And you're right, it's a total black and white issue. Thanks for coming out on this. You're very brave and, I'm afraid, you and your sister are very much not alone. --fl]
Incredibly thought provoking, FL. Can you fly to DC... this week? I always err on the side of believing women are capable of making the right decision. To deny them this right (choice) is to deny that they are capable of making competent decisions.
[If you can set me up with someone to talk to I'm ready to go. Thanks, Red. --fl]
Good God - the things you just brought up made my stomach churn and the bile hit the back of my throat. I'm sorry that these nominees and people who run our country think they have the right to decide what is best for everyone else. Including women.
Because I got pregnant from a co-worker who raped me after work one night in the parking lot. And I had an abortion, because I was 20 years old and couldn't handle the fact that I was raped much less the fact I was pregnant.
I fear for this country if those in charge succeed in taking us backwards. And women's rights is just part of all they're capable of.
Thank you Fig for writing everything you do.
[You know in just a handfull of comments you're the second person to mention being right in the anti-choice, pro-molester/rapist bullseye, Bella. I'm terribly sorry. Thanks. --fl]
Thank you for this. Another great argument I've seen elsewhere (at Bitch, PhD) is: do you trust women?
Because if you trust women, then you trust them to do what they need to do for themselves, their health (mentally and physically), and their lives.
[I'm not sure we'd be having a debate about abortion at all if abortion opponents didn't see it as a feminist issue in the first place. (Recall that the current nominee said there's no difference between a child having to notify her parents and a woman having to notify her husband. Recall too that in virtually every other human dimension very few anti-abortionists give a shit about human life after birth.) For whatever reason, anti-choice radicals have hardened their hearts against the idea of equality. I'm raising the rape/molestation angle because that bypasses their anger towards women and gouges them in their law-n'-order underbellies. The point being that morally you're 100% right, but we're trying to persuade an amoral majority in the Senate. Thanks, Olympia. --fl]
Very well said, Fl! I've long been appalled that the government thinks they can make the decision of abortion for a woman. I'm not sure I could make that decision for myself, but I believe I have the right to make the decision. I can't help but think that if some of those "suits" were forced into places some unwanted children will be forced into, they might see things differently. Thanks for the well thought out, and very nicely said, post!
[Thanks, SnowWhite. --fl]
Bravo for a post well done. That's all I can say. Bravo.
[Thanks, Camo. --fl]
Amen, Figleaf.
Completely, 100%, utterly, totally, indubitably, wholeheartedly right.
Yes, yes, yes.
No question. None. Our bodies, our right to choose.
And forgive me, but i'm VERY glad i don't live in the US right now. That place scares the willies out of me.
La Minxxxxxx
[Yeah, but damn it, Minx, this is the land of the free.. I can't understand why all these nominal conservatives don't all move to Russia or China or some other place where citizens already have no rights to self determination. Why they want to turn *my* country, the United States of America!, our sweet land of liberty!, into another North Korea or Cuba is beyond me. Thanks. --fl]
I just put a relevant comment on Lynn's latest Blogwatch. She (& I) were talking about emergency contraception, but it's really the same idea.
http://notfrisco2.com/leones/?p=1739#comment-17217
[Thanks, David. --fl]
I was not molested when I had to worry over pregnancy, but if I had been I know I would have aborted.
I can't carry to term without risk of death. I know this. I don't want to take the risk. I can't imagine someone taking the right from me to make that choice. I of course take preventative measures, but sometimes they don't work.
Women know thier bodies, we should trust that.
[You couldn't be more right, Autumn. I still can't believe people could disagree. Thanks. --fl]
Very well said Figleaf. I agree totally with you for slightly different reasons.
My sister and I both experienced difficult pregnancies that could have killed us. While she was having her problems, I took comfort in the fact that she at least knew what she was getting into before before my nephews (triplets) were born. She was even offered selective reduction, which she refused. This is what freedom of choice was about. Willingly excepting the risks that come with any pregnancy. Your reasons for doing it are you own. But if you are going to risk your life or even your health (fertility included) you should do so willingly.
Unfortunately our government, like most religions get a little fuzzy when we point out these issues. Suddenly, it is all paternalistic condescension... "Don't you worry little lady, you are perfectly safe being pregnant and giving birth."
Yes, woman rarely die in childbirth anymore, but they can, but that assumes that she will make it to that point. Since the leading cause of death for a pregnant woman is homicide, at the hands of the father of her child. Shocking that all women are willing to go through with a pregnancy, eh?
Luckily, we are loading the Supreme Court with anti-choice Catholics, who have forgotten that during the Annunciation, Mary is not just told that she will bear the Son of God. She tells the angel "I am the handmaiden of the Lord. Let it be to me according to your word,". In other words, she AGREES to bear a child.
If Mary is given a choice, why are the rest of us not entitled to the same?
[Sitting in stunned silence for a moment. I hadn't remembered that, LushlyMe. Thanks for reminding us. Why not indeed! Thank you. --fl]
Another heartbreaking and eloquent post, fl. The only thing I have to add is how sad it is that we have to resort to rhetoric about "not her fault" and "the bible says..." [Don't misunderstand--by no means am I diminishing those useful arguments!] when the bottom line is My Body My Choice.
You are so right about this being an anti-feminist issue and it's TRAGIC that many traditional supporters of feminism have been so scared off by the republicans that they refuse to stand up for basic human rights.
[To use another Biblical phrase, just as "late term abortion" has been the camel's nose under the tent for anti-choice people -- a factor that makes wavering choice supporters tip away, so can innocent victims of pregnancy from custodial molestation be the camel's nose under the tent to turn waverers away from the anti-choice, anti-adult-women side.. Thanks, M. --fl]
Again Figleaf, thank you for bringing such a point to attention, as the varied comments have brought up more thoughts.
[Yeah, there's a lot to think about. Thanks, Bella. --fl]
Currently our federal government here in Australia is debating the legislation of RU486, the Abortion drug which has been used in Europe for a few years now. Our health minister Tony Abbott is a former lay priest of sorts, who ironically enough, announced to the media (at one point, and using his personal situation as an 'example' for others to follow) that he (and his former girlfriend) adopted out their child thus 'giving' the child an opportunity rather than option to 'abort'.
Well, the shoe was on the other foot, months after his announcement. They didn't wait for DNA confirmation and the son turned out to be another man's child, it appears that Abbott's 'sweetheart' of the Sixties/Seventies, was a bit of a tart too, but that's beside the point. The point is, that as a politician he used an innocent person's life to justify his anti-abortion stance and in the end it backfired, with (I think) a large chunk of the stress, emotional strain, hitting a young adult male who thought he met his biological father after two decades.
Whether in the US, Australia, UK or similar places, you do find that even in the event of rape/molestation you will find groups who are anti-abortion.
The flipside of all this is the justified abortion of female foetuses in India, simply because they're female, a financial burden (in terms of dowries, for the less wealthy) .
It appears that most 'intelligent' nations are trying to tow the same party line but as it's known, once a system reaches 'order', it has to also reach disorder or chaos and I believe that's what will happen eventually.
[Yeeks! The whole dowry thing totally flips me out! Few practices reveal the "women are property" attitude more starkly or more stupidly. How many of those girls would become "financial burdens" if they'd maybe let them go to school? Let them go to college? Let them have careers? I used to work for a high tech company where I worked side by side with several highly educated, well paid, brilliant, savvy, funny, and frankly desirable women of Indian heritage. Our company also hired scores (maybe hundreds) of programmers from India but all were men. The Indian women I worked with? All second or third generation raised and educated in the States. Yeah, there's a problem over there but it ain't abortion. That's a symptom of something deeper that's really, really, *really* unnecessarily, stupidly, wastefully, crushingly exploitative. (And no, I'm not usually so culturally insensitive.) Good point, Anastasia. --fl]
f,
what a wonderfully, well thought out, and eloquent post. would that everyone in washington representing voters had the ability to see things clearly like you.
if you've read any of the history on my blog, you will know i endured a childhood of sexual abuse by my father and 2 of my brothers. i can tell you that i am the anti-abortionists nightmare in that i am the statistic they say does not exist. i was raped by my brother at the age of 13. this was the one and only time of actual penetration and it resulted in a pregnancy. my parents arranged for and took me to get an abortion. no one at the hospital (i was in my second term at that point so couldn't go to a clinic) knew the real story. if my parents had been forced to reveal what happened to me? i seriously doubt they would have and i would have been forced to carry that pregnancy full term. i shudder at the thought.
expecting females to jusify their reasons for obtaining an abortion is, in my opinion, an invasion of their privacy and is a way for controlling men to continue to try to control their women.
thank you for this post, so very much!
~ss~
[Absolutely no problem, SS. I'm sorry you went through that. Unbelievably, awfully sorry. Not surprised. Just sorry. Take care. --fl]
Figleaf, I just recently found your blog, and this post makes me admire you all the more. I live in South Carolina, which has one of the worst records in regards to gender-based violence. I include our government's (both state and federal) willingness to take away rights the feminist movement has worked tirelessly for as gender-based violence. I had a social work class where my professor, a wonderful man, said that our society's level of racism and sexism is the biggest threat to "national security" we face--it's the real terrorism that our current regime is covering up by saying it wants to "spread freedom"--a truly interesting idea, as they're trying to take away more of ours everyday in ways that have real consequences.
I applaud your post and thank you for making accurate and insightful arguments. Now, if only the Jackasses in power could make the same deductions.
[Your professor had a pretty good point, Rae. I remember from a textbook on the economics of slavery that the state of Virginia had something like 20-25% of adult males of working age in the state militia to prevent insurrections. Morality aside that's a terrible cost to pay just to maintain a tradition that was unproductive, unsustainable, and thoroughly disgraceful. Thanks. --fl]