(Note: This post originally appeared on another blog of mine in 2012. It has been edited to update my thoughts on some of these issues.)
The Gospel Coalition, a popular Christian ministry, recently posted a blog titled 10 Questions a Pro-Choice Candidate is Never Asked by the Media. They posted this because The Gospel Coalition believes that the media tends to ask pro-life candidates tough questions relating to their abortion stances, but fails to do the same for pro-choice candidates. In their opinion, pro-life candidates are grilled, so to speak, for being pro-life, but pro-choice candidates are given a "pass" and not challenged in their thought processes. So they posted a list of 10 questions that they'd like to see answered by pro-choice politicians. I'm not a politician, but do have a few things to say in regard to these questions. So let's get started, shall we?
1) You say you support a woman’s right to make her own reproductive choices in regards to abortion and contraception. Are there any restrictions you would approve of?
In short, no. I do not support restricting a woman's right to her own body.
The underlying assumption of this question is that everyone out there would want to restrict abortion in some way -- usually, the picture that comes to mind is a woman nine months pregnant with a healthy baby deciding willy-nilly to get an abortion -- and then, the pro-life questioners think, once they can back a pro-choice person into the corner of admitting they'd accept some restrictions, they begin questioning why a baby's life matters at some points throughout pregnancy and not in others. Then things get murky and sticky for the pro-choice person.
That's what this question is all about.
But we need to erase the assumptions and clear up some ill definitions. First of all, abortion isn't about killing babies (as anti-choice rhetoric would have you believe). It's about ending pregnancies. Women have many, many reasons for ending pregnancies. For the record, the image of that woman in her ninth month of pregnancy just deciding to get an abortion doesn't reflect reality -- women who choose abortion when they're that far along (if they even can -- most of the time, state laws prohibit it) do so in a heart-wrenching decision that was made due to her health or the baby's health. So there's that.
So, with the understanding that abortion is about ending a pregnancy, and the death of a fetus being the natural consequence of that (it's not the woman's fault that the fetus can't live without being inside of her), my stance is that if a woman wishes to end a pregnancy after viability (which is what this question targets), for whatever reason, she should always have that option. Perhaps there could be an option to try and save the baby's life after the pregnant state has been terminated. Perhaps not. That really depends on the situation, and why the woman is choosing to terminate (which is none of anyone else's business).
But I would not support a restriction on any woman's right to end the state of being pregnant.
2) In 2010, The Economist featured a cover story on “the war on girls” and the growth of “gendercide” in the world – abortion based solely on the sex of the baby. Does this phenomenon pose a problem for you or do you believe in the absolute right of a woman to terminate a pregnancy because the unborn fetus is female?
I believe that aborting based on the biological sex of the baby is an awful reality that our world faces. But I also believe that it's a woman's right to abort a pregnancy for whatever reason she wants or needs, and we should not be in the business of questioning the motives of women who abort.
That being said, let me point out that sex-selective abortions are not an issue because of abortion being legal. They are an issue because of deep cultural and systemic sexism. In order to address sex-selective abortions, we first need to address the underlying cause, which is cultural sexism that leads potential parents to believe that sons are more valuable than daughters, and that daughters are, therefore, expendable. We fight this not by eliminating the right to abortion, but by working to eliminate sexism, and creating a world in which daughters are valued and loved just as much as sons. That is not currently the world we live in.
Outlawing abortion because of sex-selective abortions would create one of two scenarios: 1) the woman in question would get an illegal and dangerous abortion anyway, or 2) the woman would give birth to a daughter she (and everyone else) did not want, and the girl would grow up likely abused and mistreated. Forcing the birth of an unwanted girl does nothing to eliminate the sexism inherent in sex-selective abortions. Wouldn't it be better if people were relieved of the cultural notions that boys are "better than" girls?
I am very much against the notion of interrogating women as to why they're having abortions. Who gets to decide what's an acceptable reason? And who gets to decide if a woman is lying about her intent? Women deserve trust and respect, and in terms of this particular reason for aborting, women need to live in societies where their value is on par with that of men. That's what will solve this problem.
3) In many states, a teenager can have an abortion without her parents’ consent or knowledge but cannot get an aspirin from the school nurse without parental authorization. Do you support any restrictions or parental notification regarding abortion access for minors?
To begin with, no, I do not support parental notification or a parent's "right" to force a daughter to complete a pregnancy (nor do I support a parent's "right" to force a daughter to have an abortion). The autonomy of teenage girls should be respected, and decisions regarding their bodies and futures should be their decisions.
The reason that teenagers are denied aspirin from schools without parental consent is because the schools themselves must avoid potential lawsuits and monitor drug use on campus. Schools therefore have a right to regulate (and, again, monitor) any kind of drug usage. And that has nothing to do with whether anyone -- schools, doctors, legislators, or even parents -- should be able to commandeer a teenager's body and force her to carry a pregnancy. To suggest that anyone should be able to do so is to suggest that a teenager's body does not belong to her, and that they are not individuals worthy of autonomy.
Let's look at the implications here -- without her aspirin, a girl might have to experience cramping, or a headache, or some other form of pain (the same goes for teenage boys in high school when they're denied an aspirin). Without an abortion, however, she'd be forced to carry a pregnancy for nearly a year, give birth, and potentially face teen motherhood (all of which have significant effects on physical and mental health). In other words, should adults have the right to monitor a teenager's drug use (or other behaviors)? Yes, within reason. But should they be allowed to deny a teenager bodily autonomy? Absolutely not.
I do think it would be ideal if parents played a supportive role in their children's major life decisions regarding their health and otherwise. But parents do not own their children, and should never have the right to limit a child's personal rights. In an ideal world, a young woman would be able to approach her parents about this issue and have a conversation about it, but we don't live in an ideal world. There are certainly reasons (especially in our culture) why a young woman would want to avoid that conversation with her parents, and I support her right to access reproductive health care without their consent. Again, parents do not own their daughters' bodies.
In short, taking aspirin is not a constitutional right. Aborting a pregnancy is.
4) If you do not believe that human life begins at conception, when do you believe it begins? At what stage of development should an unborn child have human rights?
To begin, human life is a spectrum. There is no point in which life magically begins.
That being said, when life begins -- or, even, when a child should have human rights -- is absolutely beside the point. No one has a right to use another person's body for their own survival against that other person's will. I don't have that right, you don't have that right, and an "unborn child" doesn't have that right. Any "right" to another person's body does not exist, and has never been considered a human right. So why should it be considered one in the case of pregnancy? To grant fetuses such a "right" would be to grant them special rights that no one else possesses.
So, to ask whether fetuses should be granted human rights has nothing to do with abortion, because the use of someone else's body is not a human right.
5) Currently, when genetic testing reveals an unborn child has Down Syndrome, most women choose to abort. How do you answer the charge that this phenomenon resembles the “eugenics” movement a century ago – the slow, but deliberate “weeding out” of those our society would deem “unfit” to live?
In the eugenics movement, adult people were being forced into sterilization -- in other words, their own autonomy and bodily rights were being violated. That is not analogous to a woman choosing to not give birth to a child who she knows will experience hardship throughout life. The situations might be analogous if the government started forcing women to abort Down Syndrome babies, but that isn't currently the case. As always, the choice to abort (and the reasons why) rests with the woman and her own reasons for making decisions that affect her and her future.
6) Do you believe an employer should be forced to violate his or her religious conscience by providing access to abortifacient drugs and contraception to employees?
Let's be clear about one thing -- insurance premiums are part of a comprehensive compensation package that an employee earns. Let me repeat that. Employees earn their compensation. Pay and benefits are not gifts that employers hand out, out of the goodness of their hearts. As such, an employer has no right to say what an employee does with that compensation.
A friend of mine had an employer once who had a religious objection to the Disney company (it had something to do with gay rights, but I don't know the ins and outs of it). Does that mean that this employer had a right to tell my friend that he couldn't use his paycheck, or perhaps paid time off, to visit Disneyland or watch a Disney movie? The money he earned came directly from this employer, so does said employer have a right to say what he does with it?
If your employer believes only in faith healing, should she have a right to dictate that such healings are the only form of "medicine" that can be included in your premium? If your employer is a Jehovah's Witness, can she dictate that blood transfusions not be included in your premium? Should an employer have a right to force you to not use your compensation on something just because they don't want "their" money being used for those purposes?
No, because that money is no longer theirs. It belongs to the employee, who earned it.
Most people understand the basics of this within the context of most situations. What you do with your own compensation is none of your employer's business. Therefore, if you want contraception or abortion included in your insurance premium, that choice is yours alone to make. No one has a right to dictate the lives of others through the guise of "religious freedom."
The point of religious freedom (and you can honestly do research on this subject to see for yourself) is to make sure that nobody is forced to join or leave any one religion -- in other words, a person must always be free to worship (or not) as he or she pleases. If you live in a country where you can be executed or otherwise punished for following the "wrong" religion, you are experiencing religious persecution. This is a far cry from being asked to follow the law while conducting business in a country that embraces religious freedom. Everyone is free to follow whatever religion they'd like to, and to worship however they'd like to, and attend whatever service they'd like to -- but that freedom does not include any right to discriminate against others or control others while you are participating in the open market where not everyone shares your views.
7) Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King, Jr. has said that “abortion is the white supremacist’s best friend,” pointing to the fact that Black and Latinos represent 25% of our population but account for 59% of all abortions. How do you respond to the charge that the majority of abortion clinics are found in inner-city areas with large numbers of minorities?
My answer to this question is very similar to my answer to the question regarding sex-selective abortions.
The fact that minority communities have more abortions than white communities is indicative of a larger problem -- that is, that there are more minority communities living in poverty and struggling financially, and, as an extension of that, are less likely to have access to comprehensive sex education, birth control, prenatal health services, and resources once a baby is born. This is a result of a long period of oppression against minority communities. But when people have little access to money, food, shelter, and education (you know, about their bodies and how to protect themselves against pregnancy), guess what? Abortion rates will go up.
Making abortion illegal and forcing minority women to carry pregnancies they don't want and/or can't afford (and will likely further perpetuate the cycle of poverty) isn't going to solve this problem. What will help solve this problem is making sure that women have access to education and contraception, and that our society is taking proactive steps to lift people out of poverty and create a more equitable society.
I want to point out that the countries with the lowest abortion rates are in western Europe, where contraception and sex education are abundant. In these countries, abortion is legal, but the numbers are low. Countries such as ours, which make concerted efforts to shame sex and keep people uneducated about any method of contraception other than abstinence, tend to have very high abortion rates (and this is true in countries where abortion is illegal, too). Criminalizing abortion doesn't reduce -- or end -- abortion. But progressive social policies do. So if the end-goal is really about reducing or ending abortion (among minorities and elsewhere), why do so many in the pro-life crowd consistently oppose the measures that have been shown to actually achieve that end?
The fact that minority communities seek abortion more than affluent, white communities is not evidence that abortion is a tool used by racists to further perpetuate racism. Many minority women choose abortion for themselves, which makes it a rather empowering thing. In all honesty, further perpetuating racism and poverty among minorities would be easier done by blocking women from accessing abortion and other reproductive rights.
8) You describe abortion as a “tragic choice.” If abortion is not morally objectionable, then why is it tragic? Does this mean there is something about abortion that is different than other standard surgical procedures?
Not everyone considers abortion to be a "tragic choice." Sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.
On the surface, the idea of abortion can be considered tragic because women seek abortions when they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy. No one gets pregnant on purpose just so they can dish out hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars to undergo a medical procedure. This is tragic in the same way that a transplant surgery is tragic, in that nobody wants to undergo that procedure or deal with the lifetime consequences of that, but sometimes they need to and so they do. And, along with the tragedy of having to go through that, there is also usually great thankfulness and relief that they were able to. The same is true of abortion.
But let's dig deeper. Abortion can be a tragic choice when it's a choice that a woman must make, but doesn't want to. There are times when a woman might want a baby, or be connected to the idea of having a baby, or has become quite attached to her developing pregnancy, but must make the decision to abort anyway (for whatever reason). That is tragic. There are times when a woman is joyfully carrying a pregnancy, but discovers that she must abort due to an abnormality in the fetus or for the sake of her own health. That is tragic, and it's tragic because it involves a medical procedure that the woman doesn't want. The same would be the case for any necessary medical procedure that the person doesn't want to, but must, have. Such procedures cause grief, and that is tragic.
In short, there are many medical procedures that encompass both tragic and non-tragic elements. Framing abortion as entirely tragic while other procedures are entirely non-tragic is disingenuous, and not looking at the bigger picture of what medical procedures can and do entail.
9) Do you believe abortion should be legal once the unborn fetus is viable – able to survive outside the womb?
Yes. Abortion should be legal even when the fetus is viable. Again, as I already pointed out above, this is because abortion should not be defined as "killing babies," but rather as terminating a pregnancy. Just because embryos and early fetuses cannot survive outside of a woman's body does not mean that abortion is about killing babies. It's still about ending the state of being pregnant. If this is done before a fetus is viable, then it will die; if it's done after a fetus is viable, then there's a chance it will live.
My position is that a woman should never be forced by law to serve as life support to someone else. So if she decides she doesn't want to be pregnant, or realizes she cannot, then she should always be able to request the other person be removed from her body. Again, as I've also mentioned before, what that means for a viable fetus is another question. If we weren't talking about termination, but a woman inducing labor and then walking away from the born fetus, does that change things for the anti-choice crowd? Because, really, that's how this question needs to be framed.
10) If a pregnant woman and her unborn child are murdered, do you believe the criminal should face two counts of murder and serve a harsher sentence?
No.
But let's flip this around. Do you believe that if a pregnant woman is raped, and the fetus she's carrying dies but she does not, the perpetrator should face murder charges? What if this rape happens when she's still in the first trimester, not showing, and she miscarries right after being raped? Should the rapist be charged with rape, murder, or both?
Should a pregnant women be able to claim an unborn child on her taxes? If I'm pregnant, can I drive in the carpool lane? There are plenty of instances in which an unborn child is not considered a sentient being apart from the woman.
But here's the point, once again: this is about women making decisions for themselves. A woman has a right to make decisions about her body, including who can and cannot use it for survival, but that doesn't give anyone else the right to murder or harm either she or the fetus she's carrying. A woman's right to abort doesn't extend to others' "rights" to abort for her. This is about her choice, since it is her body in question.
Anti-choice rhetoric tends to make abortion an issue about babies or the men involved and, in the meantime, completely erase the pregnant women from the picture. But the natural state of pregnancy leaves women with tremendous power over life and death that doesn't extend to others. As we continually see, though, people having tremendous power in this world -- especially when it's a woman -- is at the root of the abortion issue. There are too many people afraid of this power that women hold over life and death, and are determined to take it away and claim that power as their own.
Those associated with the Gospel Coalition ... there you have it: Answers to your questions which, quite honestly, did not strike me as the "tough" questions you apparently hoped they'd be. As always, I welcome feedback and reply.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
The Faulty Thinking Behind "Rape Exceptions"
(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.
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Some Thoughts on "Family Values"
(Note: This post originally appeared in another blog of mine, written shortly after the 2010 elections in which Republicans made many gains in Congress. At the time, I was teaching intermediate writing at Utah State University. The post has been lightly edited.)
I don't know why I'm less patient with my students this semester than I ever have been before, but the truth of the matter is that I am, and I know that I am. I teach in Logan Utah, where a large percentage of the population is LDS (Mormon), and often very conservative. Usually I take this as a learning opportunity for both my students and myself, but this semester my patience for all things ultra-conservative has begun to run very, very thin.
Perhaps it's because the new Republican House majority, many of them extremely conservative (and extremely religious), has started to use their conservative (and religious) beliefs to try and pass legislation that will ultimately affect me and my family. Attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, make abortion (and, in some cases, birth control) illegal or otherwise inaccessible for many women, and define marriage as between "one man and one woman" are results of these ideologies. In the past, I have benefited from being able to discuss these issues with students in an educational environment, but when actual legislation wants to interfere with my life, these issues hit a little too far below the belt. What astounds me is how successful these movements are, and how easily so many people swallow the rhetoric behind them.
What I want to get at here is the fact that, I think, part of the reason conservatives are currently so successful in pushing their agendas is that they have hijacked the term "family values." In essence, the message is that if you agree with the ideologies of the far right -- that is, if you identify as pro-life and espouse very conservative, traditional views about marriage, families, and gender roles -- then you are "pro-family." On the other hand, and if you disagree with conservative ideas, then you are accused of attacking families and "family values," which they refer to as, "the foundation of Western society."
I see this throughout many of my students' papers. They write about the "moral decay" of our society, or the "crumbling morals" of most modern people, and it doesn't matter how many times I tell them to define "morals" or explain why one set of morals is above another. They can't, or won't, do it. All they know is that "moral values" are declining, "the family" is suffering, and abortion, gay marriage, and single-parent families (among other "social ills" such as working women) are to blame.
This makes me extremely angry, because I personally believe that a close examination of the far right's movement reveal them to be vehemently anti-family. They are not pro-family, but pro-one-type-of-family.
What do conservatives mean when they say "family values?" Look closely at the arguments, and you'll find that for them, the only proper definition of a family is a two-parent household with children, in which there is a father who works to support the family and a mother who stays home to take care of domestic business and raise children. Now, there is nothing wrong with that type of family if that's what you desire, and I agree that it can be a wonderful structure that can benefit those involved. Understand that my problem comes when people push the notion that this is the only type of family that benefits people or society as a whole. My problem is the idea that families who deviate from this structure are second class to those that do, and also the main cause of social ills nationwide.
What about my family? My immediate family consists of myself and my son. I am a single mother who works, goes to school, and has sent my son to daycare so that I can do so. My family is stronger and closer than it was when I was a married housewife, and my relationship with my son has never been better. My son, too, thrives more now than he did when I was in the midst of a troubled relationship with his father. Many conservatives, however, would have people believe that single mothers are a burden on society. Mike Huckabee, a United States politician, recently opined that our society should never glorify single motherhood because most of the time it results in uneducated women raising children in poverty. (And yet, interestingly, this man also wants to keep sex education out of public schools and prevent these poor, uneducated women from birth control and abortions if and when they need them.)
I think I'm living proof that his stereotype isn't always factual, though. What is being said about single mothers isn't pro-family, but a claim that women can't survive on their own without a husband -- or, even if they can, they'd always be better off with a husband, preferably one who will take care of them financially. These arguments are sexist and offensive, and do not speak to many families headed by single women (or, for that matter, by single men). When the far right speaks out against single mothers who work, they are anti-family.
What about couples who choose to not have children? What if they want to enjoy each other for their entire lives and never want to have kids? What if these men don't see themselves as fathers, and these women would rather advance their educations and professional lives rather than raise children? Or, even if they do have children, what if the mothers still want to work and send their children to daycare? The far right has made arguments that women who choose not to have children, or have children and decide to work anyway, are inherently selfish. But these couples are families, too. Again, this is only more sexist rhetoric designed to keep women in the home. (There are actually some churches that promote, to varying degrees, that there are spirits who are just waiting to be born, and by not birthing them, women are hindering God's plan.) When the far right speaks out against childless couples, or mothers who choose to work or go to school (even if they don't necessarily have to), they are anti-family.
What about homosexual couples who want to marry and raise children? Many states (including my own state of Utah) have laws barring unmarried people from adopting children. While this is, in a sense, aimed at single women, it is also largely aimed at the gay community. These laws bar pretty much anyone except for heterosexual married couples from adopting children, which sends a message that only married heterosexual couples are worthy of certain social privileges. Again, while the far right wants to prohibit abortions and many forms of birth control, they also want to keep certain people from adopting the hoards of unwanted children in this country. Studies show that children with homosexual parents grow up just as well-adjusted and happy as any child raised with straight parents, but because the people of the far right are afraid of any relationship that doesn't involve a man and a woman in traditional roles, they would rather see these children pushed through "the system" than with a family. How on earth is this pro-family? When there is a child who wants a family, a loving couple who wants a child, but you refuse to allow this family to form simply because the couple is gay, you are anti-family.
And hiding behind a veil of thinly-defined "family values" doesn't change any of this. Families come in many shapes, sizes, and forms. When you hear the far right running their mouths about "family values," realize that all they're doing is instructing an entire nation of people to adhere strictly to the following: "if you're a man, marry and support a family; if you're a woman, marry, have children, and stay home; if you're gay, pretend you're not or stay out of society; and if you're a child, learn from this structure so you can grow up and do the same thing." If they really cared about the family, they would support education, family planning, all types of loving couples, and gender equality, because these types of people make up happy, loving families all over the world.
So, while I used to enjoy lively, educational debates with my students involving social issues, more often now I just find myself getting angry and steering away from these controversial topics. I've grown tired of hearing how arguments make sense, but students just can't agree on any level because it's still "wrong," or because God says so, or because they've been taught to never question anything. Yes, I'm discouraged. What is the educational system coming to when people refuse to enter conversation with an open mind because, despite how much sense the "other side" is making, there is only one choice to make? One way to think, one way to live, one way to be ... it's a system that controls every major life decision people make based on antiquated structures, and shuns them from the idea of "family" if they dare not to.
Words are powerful, and it's time to reclaim the word "family" and what it truly means to be for or against it.
I don't know why I'm less patient with my students this semester than I ever have been before, but the truth of the matter is that I am, and I know that I am. I teach in Logan Utah, where a large percentage of the population is LDS (Mormon), and often very conservative. Usually I take this as a learning opportunity for both my students and myself, but this semester my patience for all things ultra-conservative has begun to run very, very thin.
Perhaps it's because the new Republican House majority, many of them extremely conservative (and extremely religious), has started to use their conservative (and religious) beliefs to try and pass legislation that will ultimately affect me and my family. Attempts to defund Planned Parenthood, make abortion (and, in some cases, birth control) illegal or otherwise inaccessible for many women, and define marriage as between "one man and one woman" are results of these ideologies. In the past, I have benefited from being able to discuss these issues with students in an educational environment, but when actual legislation wants to interfere with my life, these issues hit a little too far below the belt. What astounds me is how successful these movements are, and how easily so many people swallow the rhetoric behind them.
What I want to get at here is the fact that, I think, part of the reason conservatives are currently so successful in pushing their agendas is that they have hijacked the term "family values." In essence, the message is that if you agree with the ideologies of the far right -- that is, if you identify as pro-life and espouse very conservative, traditional views about marriage, families, and gender roles -- then you are "pro-family." On the other hand, and if you disagree with conservative ideas, then you are accused of attacking families and "family values," which they refer to as, "the foundation of Western society."
I see this throughout many of my students' papers. They write about the "moral decay" of our society, or the "crumbling morals" of most modern people, and it doesn't matter how many times I tell them to define "morals" or explain why one set of morals is above another. They can't, or won't, do it. All they know is that "moral values" are declining, "the family" is suffering, and abortion, gay marriage, and single-parent families (among other "social ills" such as working women) are to blame.
This makes me extremely angry, because I personally believe that a close examination of the far right's movement reveal them to be vehemently anti-family. They are not pro-family, but pro-one-type-of-family.
What do conservatives mean when they say "family values?" Look closely at the arguments, and you'll find that for them, the only proper definition of a family is a two-parent household with children, in which there is a father who works to support the family and a mother who stays home to take care of domestic business and raise children. Now, there is nothing wrong with that type of family if that's what you desire, and I agree that it can be a wonderful structure that can benefit those involved. Understand that my problem comes when people push the notion that this is the only type of family that benefits people or society as a whole. My problem is the idea that families who deviate from this structure are second class to those that do, and also the main cause of social ills nationwide.
What about my family? My immediate family consists of myself and my son. I am a single mother who works, goes to school, and has sent my son to daycare so that I can do so. My family is stronger and closer than it was when I was a married housewife, and my relationship with my son has never been better. My son, too, thrives more now than he did when I was in the midst of a troubled relationship with his father. Many conservatives, however, would have people believe that single mothers are a burden on society. Mike Huckabee, a United States politician, recently opined that our society should never glorify single motherhood because most of the time it results in uneducated women raising children in poverty. (And yet, interestingly, this man also wants to keep sex education out of public schools and prevent these poor, uneducated women from birth control and abortions if and when they need them.)
I think I'm living proof that his stereotype isn't always factual, though. What is being said about single mothers isn't pro-family, but a claim that women can't survive on their own without a husband -- or, even if they can, they'd always be better off with a husband, preferably one who will take care of them financially. These arguments are sexist and offensive, and do not speak to many families headed by single women (or, for that matter, by single men). When the far right speaks out against single mothers who work, they are anti-family.
What about couples who choose to not have children? What if they want to enjoy each other for their entire lives and never want to have kids? What if these men don't see themselves as fathers, and these women would rather advance their educations and professional lives rather than raise children? Or, even if they do have children, what if the mothers still want to work and send their children to daycare? The far right has made arguments that women who choose not to have children, or have children and decide to work anyway, are inherently selfish. But these couples are families, too. Again, this is only more sexist rhetoric designed to keep women in the home. (There are actually some churches that promote, to varying degrees, that there are spirits who are just waiting to be born, and by not birthing them, women are hindering God's plan.) When the far right speaks out against childless couples, or mothers who choose to work or go to school (even if they don't necessarily have to), they are anti-family.
What about homosexual couples who want to marry and raise children? Many states (including my own state of Utah) have laws barring unmarried people from adopting children. While this is, in a sense, aimed at single women, it is also largely aimed at the gay community. These laws bar pretty much anyone except for heterosexual married couples from adopting children, which sends a message that only married heterosexual couples are worthy of certain social privileges. Again, while the far right wants to prohibit abortions and many forms of birth control, they also want to keep certain people from adopting the hoards of unwanted children in this country. Studies show that children with homosexual parents grow up just as well-adjusted and happy as any child raised with straight parents, but because the people of the far right are afraid of any relationship that doesn't involve a man and a woman in traditional roles, they would rather see these children pushed through "the system" than with a family. How on earth is this pro-family? When there is a child who wants a family, a loving couple who wants a child, but you refuse to allow this family to form simply because the couple is gay, you are anti-family.
And hiding behind a veil of thinly-defined "family values" doesn't change any of this. Families come in many shapes, sizes, and forms. When you hear the far right running their mouths about "family values," realize that all they're doing is instructing an entire nation of people to adhere strictly to the following: "if you're a man, marry and support a family; if you're a woman, marry, have children, and stay home; if you're gay, pretend you're not or stay out of society; and if you're a child, learn from this structure so you can grow up and do the same thing." If they really cared about the family, they would support education, family planning, all types of loving couples, and gender equality, because these types of people make up happy, loving families all over the world.
So, while I used to enjoy lively, educational debates with my students involving social issues, more often now I just find myself getting angry and steering away from these controversial topics. I've grown tired of hearing how arguments make sense, but students just can't agree on any level because it's still "wrong," or because God says so, or because they've been taught to never question anything. Yes, I'm discouraged. What is the educational system coming to when people refuse to enter conversation with an open mind because, despite how much sense the "other side" is making, there is only one choice to make? One way to think, one way to live, one way to be ... it's a system that controls every major life decision people make based on antiquated structures, and shuns them from the idea of "family" if they dare not to.
Words are powerful, and it's time to reclaim the word "family" and what it truly means to be for or against it.
An Illuminating Conversation
(Note: This post originally appeared on a different blog of mine, back on November 18, 2010, when I was teaching intermediate-level writing at Utah State University. It has been lightly edited to reflect updated views on this matter.)
I had a very interesting conversation with my English 2010 classes the other day which truly illuminated the inability -- or refusal -- of many pro-life activists to see abortion from a bodily rights perspective.
Essentially, I asked them if they would support laws concerning mandatory organ and blood donation. Should people be required by law to offer themselves up in any way, if it means that another person's life would be saved? All of my students, without exception, said that they would not support such laws. They would never support, they said, requiring anyone to do anything with their bodies against their will -- even if it meant someone else would die. One even went so far as to say that preserving life didn't outweigh someone's rights to their own body.
Further, they all said that even if the donating person in question is dead, and no longer requires his or her organs, mandatory donation would infringe on his or her personal rights. Yes, you read that right -- all of my students supported dead people's right to ownership over their bodies, and a "say" in what happens to those bodies, even if other lives hang in the balance.
The reason I found this to be so interesting is that all of these students -- again, without exception -- are vehemently pro-life, meaning that they oppose abortion rights. Most of them want abortion to be illegal in America, some of them in opposition to any exception at all (even if the pregnant woman would otherwise die). And they all have arguments about when life begins, how an unborn fetus is a separate being deserving of legal rights, and that a woman already does have a choice -- in whether or not to have sex, so if she can do the deed then she'd better be prepared to carry and deliver a baby.
I could go into a detailed argument for each of these anti-choice arguments, but what I want to get at is that, in this instance, I think they all miss the point. We can argue until we're blue in the face over when human life really begins and what constitutes morality, but none of these things touches upon the real issue here, which is the question of who owns the woman's body. You cannot grant two people occupying the same body equal rights under the law. One naturally has to concede to the other. So the question becomes, does the fetus' or embryo's supposed right to life include a right to live inside of and use her body against her will? Does it trump a woman's right to autonomy and control over her own medical decisions and what happens to her own body ... or does a woman's right to ownership over her body trump any right to life that a fetus may claim?
My English 2010 students, who identify as pro-life, seemed to think that requiring anyone to lose control over their own body for the sake of another was unconstitutional and, at its core, wrong. This is what they thought, at least, when the question concerned organ and blood donation. I'm curious, then, how we can say its wrong to require someone to donate an organ or donate blood (or do anything that compromises their bodies in any way) so that someone else can live, but then turn around and say it's right to force women to donate their bodies to fetuses so that they can live.
Pregnant women can come out of pregnancy with life-changing and debilitating disease, they experience difficult bodily and hormonal changes, and they risk losing their jobs. Some go into severe depression. Some die. So choosing to carry a pregnancy to term is certainly a life-altering, body-altering medical decision that affects each pregnant woman. It is a decision that can affect a person far more heavily than donating an organ or donating blood, something that my pro-life students said people should not be obligated to do.
People can, perhaps, argue about the morality issues associated with abortion. Some may not agree with it, and think it's a good thing when a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy. They may even completely disagree with the practice. But who can really demand that, by law, a woman must be mandated to donate her body to every pregnancy that happens in her body? To say so suggests that a fetus, and, indeed, the government, claim more ownership over a woman's body than she does.
Many pro-lifers seem to be anti big government, wanting government and legislation out of our personal lives ... except, it seems, in the case of reproductive rights for women. In essence, the message I see is that the fundamental human right to ownership over ourselves should not be granted to women, but, rather, to other people who may need her body to live. It is demeaning, especially after it's made clear that such an expectation isn't expected of anyone other than pregnant women.
"The underlying assumption," one of my pro-life students said, in response to my initial question, "is that saving lives is more important than my personal rights and choices. I don't think that's true."
He, of course, would never want to be told he had to do anything with his body, even to prevent another from dying. Even to prevent his own child from dying, I'm sure. And yet he supports legislation that would force women to do just that.
It's further evidence, I think, that the pro-life movement is less about saving babies and more about controlling women and women's sexuality.
I had a very interesting conversation with my English 2010 classes the other day which truly illuminated the inability -- or refusal -- of many pro-life activists to see abortion from a bodily rights perspective.
Essentially, I asked them if they would support laws concerning mandatory organ and blood donation. Should people be required by law to offer themselves up in any way, if it means that another person's life would be saved? All of my students, without exception, said that they would not support such laws. They would never support, they said, requiring anyone to do anything with their bodies against their will -- even if it meant someone else would die. One even went so far as to say that preserving life didn't outweigh someone's rights to their own body.
Further, they all said that even if the donating person in question is dead, and no longer requires his or her organs, mandatory donation would infringe on his or her personal rights. Yes, you read that right -- all of my students supported dead people's right to ownership over their bodies, and a "say" in what happens to those bodies, even if other lives hang in the balance.
The reason I found this to be so interesting is that all of these students -- again, without exception -- are vehemently pro-life, meaning that they oppose abortion rights. Most of them want abortion to be illegal in America, some of them in opposition to any exception at all (even if the pregnant woman would otherwise die). And they all have arguments about when life begins, how an unborn fetus is a separate being deserving of legal rights, and that a woman already does have a choice -- in whether or not to have sex, so if she can do the deed then she'd better be prepared to carry and deliver a baby.
I could go into a detailed argument for each of these anti-choice arguments, but what I want to get at is that, in this instance, I think they all miss the point. We can argue until we're blue in the face over when human life really begins and what constitutes morality, but none of these things touches upon the real issue here, which is the question of who owns the woman's body. You cannot grant two people occupying the same body equal rights under the law. One naturally has to concede to the other. So the question becomes, does the fetus' or embryo's supposed right to life include a right to live inside of and use her body against her will? Does it trump a woman's right to autonomy and control over her own medical decisions and what happens to her own body ... or does a woman's right to ownership over her body trump any right to life that a fetus may claim?
My English 2010 students, who identify as pro-life, seemed to think that requiring anyone to lose control over their own body for the sake of another was unconstitutional and, at its core, wrong. This is what they thought, at least, when the question concerned organ and blood donation. I'm curious, then, how we can say its wrong to require someone to donate an organ or donate blood (or do anything that compromises their bodies in any way) so that someone else can live, but then turn around and say it's right to force women to donate their bodies to fetuses so that they can live.
Pregnant women can come out of pregnancy with life-changing and debilitating disease, they experience difficult bodily and hormonal changes, and they risk losing their jobs. Some go into severe depression. Some die. So choosing to carry a pregnancy to term is certainly a life-altering, body-altering medical decision that affects each pregnant woman. It is a decision that can affect a person far more heavily than donating an organ or donating blood, something that my pro-life students said people should not be obligated to do.
People can, perhaps, argue about the morality issues associated with abortion. Some may not agree with it, and think it's a good thing when a woman chooses to carry a pregnancy. They may even completely disagree with the practice. But who can really demand that, by law, a woman must be mandated to donate her body to every pregnancy that happens in her body? To say so suggests that a fetus, and, indeed, the government, claim more ownership over a woman's body than she does.
Many pro-lifers seem to be anti big government, wanting government and legislation out of our personal lives ... except, it seems, in the case of reproductive rights for women. In essence, the message I see is that the fundamental human right to ownership over ourselves should not be granted to women, but, rather, to other people who may need her body to live. It is demeaning, especially after it's made clear that such an expectation isn't expected of anyone other than pregnant women.
"The underlying assumption," one of my pro-life students said, in response to my initial question, "is that saving lives is more important than my personal rights and choices. I don't think that's true."
He, of course, would never want to be told he had to do anything with his body, even to prevent another from dying. Even to prevent his own child from dying, I'm sure. And yet he supports legislation that would force women to do just that.
It's further evidence, I think, that the pro-life movement is less about saving babies and more about controlling women and women's sexuality.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)