(Note: This post originally appeared on another blog of mine. It was written in September of 2012 during election season, shortly after a few Republican lawmakers became famous for making some pretty callous and vile comments regarding rape. The post has been lightly edited.)
We, the citizens of the United States, have been hearing quite a bit about rape lately. We're hearing how rape can be "legitimate" or, I guess, not legitimate. How "real" rape, apparently, cannot result in pregnancy (courtesy of representative Todd Aiken). And, of course, we've been hearing how outraged people are because the Republican party wants to outlaw abortion with no exception for rape victims. Republicans seem to have a lot to say about rape these days.
And I'm angry.
I'm angry that we're listening to a bunch of old men discussing what should constitute a "legitimate" rape and what shouldn't.
I'm angry that grown men -- grown men who are legislating my rights -- have such a distorted view of female reproductive biology.
I'm angry that damaging myths about rape and the female body still thrive in our country.
But mostly, I'm angry that we're still discussing rape exceptions when it comes to abortion. Both pro-choice and pro-life advocates should be at a point where we can agree on this one.
Because here's the thing. Pro-life people who want to make abortion illegal in order to "save babies" should take into consideration that their entire argument is invalidated by support for rape exceptions. For all the talk we hear about rape exceptions, and how pro-lifers seem to think that such exceptions make their stance either compassionate or rational, what I really hear when people say they want to make abortion illegal except in cases of rape is that their opposition to abortion has nothing to do with babies and everything to do with punishing sexually active women.
If you believe that abortion should be illegal, and you feel that way because you want to "save babies," you should know that the only consistent viewpoint you can really hold is to oppose abortion with no exception for rape. If the "sanctity" of a fetus's life outweighs a woman's bodily autonomy, then shouldn't that be the case regardless of how it got there? "Unborn life is life, and all life is sacred" -- isn't that the platform that the anti-choice movement runs on? So if you are pro-life and claim to support women and babies (as many do), and claim that your stance is not about controlling women or sex or punishing sexual activity ... then, seriously, why are you arguing about rape exceptions? (And if this makes you uncomfortable, rest assured that the implications here should.)
But what about the other side of the spectrum? What about pro-choice people who argue about rape exceptions (because they're definitely out there)? What about people who claim to be pro-choice but are only vocal about a woman's right to abortion in cases of rape?
They're the pro-choice people who respond to anti-choice arguments by saying, "But some people are raped! What about them?" They're the ones who say, "We could never have an abortion ourselves, but don't want to intrude on anyone else's decision, especially if they've been raped." They're the ones who say, "Maybe I could get behind restrictions on most abortions. But if a woman is raped, there should be an exception." They're the ones who say they don't like the idea of abortions, and treat abortions as a dirty, shameful secret ... unless they're supporting a rape victim, at which point they'll feel safe to vocally support abortion, too.
And, like the pro-lifers I discussed above, many pro-choicers use these arguments under the assumption that it makes them sound compassionate, rational, down-to-earth, and "willing to compromise" about the abortion issue.
I will be candid, though, about the fact that vocal arguments for a rape exception does none of these things. At their core, all of these arguments demonize women who utilize choice unless they happen to be victims of a violent crime. Both sides of this argument are allowing the issue of choice to be uncomfortable, unfavorable, and seemingly irresponsible -- unless you've been raped.
I'm not trying to invalidate rape, or what rape victims go through. I acknowledge rape to be one of the most unthinkable and violating crimes that still perpetuates society, and can't imagine what each of its victims likely goes through. I commend each and every one of you for your bravery, and respect the choices that you make, whatever they happen to be. My point isn't that you don't deserve choice -- only that every woman is equally as deserving.
By acknowledging rape exceptions as valid, we are acknowledging that sometimes it's acceptable for women to control what happens inside their bodies -- and sometimes it's not.
By acknowledging rape exceptions as valid, we are acknowledging that a woman is only deserving of reproductive freedom if she didn't choose to have sex (and if she did choose to have sex, then mandatory bodily servitude is a just consequence for any resulting pregnancy).
By acknowledging rape exceptions as valid, we are acknowledging that any time women consent to sex, they must, at the same time, also consent to a possible pregnancy and legally surrender their bodily autonomy (a notion for which, by the way, there is absolutely no comparable application of law).
By acknowledging rape exceptions as valid, we are acknowledging that every woman who is in need of an abortion for any reason other than being brutally victimized, is not deserving of one.
By acknowledging rape exceptions as valid, we are willingly taking part in slut shaming -- saying that, while rape victims are deserving of having their feelings and situations and constitutional rights be taken into consideration, women who consent to sex do not. (Let me reiterate that. Shying away from abortion except in cases of rape, you are supporting that women have their feelings, situations, and constitutional rights ignored and revoked, for no other reason than having consented to sex.)
In 1973, the Roe vs. Wade decision in the US Supreme Court guaranteed all women a constitutional right to reproductive freedom.
Anti-choice people tend to caricature women who get abortions as immoral women who have one irresponsible sexual encounter after another, and then show up for their monthly abortion appointment. Anti-choice groups love to paint this picture as a token scenario when discussing abortion. But do you know what? It really doesn't matter what we think of any woman or her sexual choices -- we can think that her choices are irresponsible, immoral, not cost-effective, not ideal for anyone, or any number of other things. But she's still acting within her constitutional rights, and her actions are none of our business.
How often and why a woman has an abortion is none of our business.
We must remember that we are talking about individual rights and bodily autonomy. It does not help our case to validate those who say that victims of violent assault are deserving of a legal, safe medical procedure, but sexually active women who consent to sex are not. It's not helping our case to say that they are more deserving, either. Abortion is every woman's right. There is certainly a time and place to discuss the implications of rape and rape culture in our society -- but invoking rape within the abortion discussion only serves to divide women.
When a woman finds herself making the decision about whether to abort a pregnancy, it does not help to ask whether she was raped. It's much more helpful to recognize all abortion-seeking women as adults who have a right to privacy and personal medical decisions.
Let's put the discussion about rape exceptions to rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment