When I started this blog, I never intended it to be overtly political (Fuck the King of Thailand) but a recent social media donnybrook has prompted me to fire up the blog engines to make a long-form point and to clarify where I stand on a particularly contentious issue. Join me, won’t you (or don’t) across the fold for the kind of self-indulgent bullshit that is my stock in trade.
First, a disclaimer: I am a hetero identifying cis male. As such, I cannot, nor would I ever claim to have any insight into how any individual woman personally feels about abortions (either hers, or another woman’s). Furthermore, I would not, nor have I, nor will I ever claim to tell women how they ought to feel about abortions.
I understand (and fully believe) that we exist in a culture rife with mansplaining; a culture that devalues women’s personal stories, opinions, analytical abilities, competence, and all the rest. I strongly and roundly reject this misogynistic/patriarchal culture and all its values. Because I recognize our cultural pathologies, it is important that as I make political arguments (particularly those that may be seen as radical, leftist, or unpopular) that I am careful about how I phrase these arguments. This is especially true when the person on the other side of the argument is female-identifying. I hope that those who have and will continue to engage with me know that I take their arguments seriously. I hope that they know that I mean them no personal ill-will when we disagree about tactical political matters. I also hope that these disclaimers and caveats aren’t necessary. But in the event they are, I offer them above.
And further, if I HAVE hurt you by making the political/tactical personal, I am deeply sorry. That is never my intention when arguing in good faith with people who share broadly similar positions. I try my best to keep arguments civil and issues-focused. I suspect that I’ve sometimes failed, and will likely fail again. When that happens, I will apologize sincerely again, because you are my friends (even if only the online variety), and friends try their best not to hurt one another.
With that out of the way, I’ll return to the crux of recent debates/disagreements. First, some context: in what has increasingly become a semi-regular occurrence, anti-abortion advocates have tried to smear Planned Parenthood by accusing them of illegally profiting off of the sale of fetal tissue. These accusations are lies, and they have been proven to be lies repeatedly. Nevertheless, Congressional Republicans will vote to defund Planned Parenthood because they’re total assholes.
Whenever Planned Parenthood is under attack, the usual chorus of liberal defenders will pop up to make 2 main arguments in defense:
- Abortion makes up only X% (this number is usually 5%) of the services provided by PP, and therefore, attacks on Planned Parenthood are really attacks on women’s healthcare in general, and especially attacks on poor women and/or women of color.
- The decision to end a pregnancy is one of the most personal and difficult decisions a woman might have to make, and therefore, women should be free to make it without government interference.
On the merits, I agree with both of these points (for the most part. There are real actual women who don’t think having an abortion is a difficult personal decision, and I don’t think we should erase their experiences). So what’s the problem, then? Wherefore the controversy?
Simply put, I feel that these arguments (and those like it that are embraced by the liberal pro-choice coalition) have caused deep and lasting harm to abortion rights, and women’s rights more broadly.
What? How can that be? If you agree on the merits, how can they be problematic? you inquire.
I’m glad you asked! I believe that the anti-abortion (self-styled “Pro-Life”) movement is powered by and lead by Christian authoritarians who believe that a woman’s primary, God-given function is to procreate. I further believe that they seek to control women’s sexuality and deny them the right to pleasure seeking and full agency.
Wait a minute! I’m Pro-Choice and I disagree with these people as much as the next person, but aren’t you being unfair? Don’t some of them sincerely believe that they are protecting the life of a future-potential baby and that their proposed restrictions are about the moral question about when life begins and which life deserves the protection of the law?
Maybe! But I doubt it. Here’s the test: next time you meet a sincere “pro-life” activist, ask them what legal penalty they would enforce against the woman who ends her pregnancy. You’ll almost always hear about prosecuting the doctor who performs the abortion, but never a penalty for the woman who has chosen to end the pregnancy. Why is this? If the primary concern is the fetal life, why wouldn’t the person who has ordered the “murder” (to use their rhetoric) held to account for that crime? If I were to pay a hitman to kill somebody, I would be charged and convicted of murder along with the person who did the literal killing. If these activists believed that women were the possessors of full human agency, then surely they would be responsible for making the choice to commit fetal murder (and should be punished in accordance with the law).
The only reason to not similarly punish the woman who has hired a hitman to do the baby-killing is if they assume that women don’t have the ability to control their actions or make rational decisions. I believe these people are wrong, delusional, and dangerous. Therefore, I believe that their rhetoric and tactics need to be met by rhetoric and tactics that are equally forceful.
I guess that makes sense. But still, shouldn’t we be trying to convince the mushy middle? Your preferred “Abortion on Demand, without Apology” rhetoric might make people uncomfortable. Heck, it makes me uncomfortable, and I’m 100% pro-choice!
Opinions about abortion have historically been fairly steady. That is to say, most people believe abortion should be legal in all or most cases (this clocks in at a range from a high of 60% to a low of 47% since 1995). More people also believe that abortion is morally wrong than believe it is morally acceptable in all cases.
Pro-choice liberals have framed their support for abortion rights using the terms “safe, legal, and rare” since Bill Clinton was president, yet since that time, attitudes have not changed in any meaningful way. ACCESS, on the other hand has drastically decreased. Clinics which provide abortion services in this country are shuttered at the rate of 1.5 per week. PER WEEK! Clearly, conciliatory language hasn’t stopped a determined right wing from restricting abortion access- and taking down other important health services with it. My advice for the pro-choice movement (not individual women, who are free to talk and feel about abortion however they’d like) is to stop apologizing and start making radical demands! Abortion on demand, without apology, subsidized as necessary, affordable for all who seek it.
Here’s Jessica Valenti writing in the Guardian, saying it better than I could:
But “safe, legal and rare” is not a framework that supports women’s health needs: it stigmatizes and endangers it.
In a 2010 research article, Dr Tracy Weitz, Director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) program at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote that “rare suggests that abortion is happening more than it should, and that there are some conditions for which abortions should and should not occur”.
“It separates ‘good’ abortions from ‘bad’ abortions”, she added.
Steph Herold, the deputy director of the Sea Change Program – an organization that seeks to create a culture change around abortion and other stigmatized reproductive experiences like miscarriage and adoption – agrees. “It implies that abortion is somehow different than other parts of healthcare,” she told me. “We don’t say that any other medical procedure should be rare.”
“We don’t say that we want heart bypasses to be rare. We say we want people to be healthy,” Herold said.
Weitz wrote that calling for abortions to be rare has tangible negative consequences for women and women’s health because it legitimizes efforts to legally restrict abortion – i.e., make it more “rare”. Worse yet, it “negates the mandates for routine training in abortion”, since students and teachers wonder why they should get medical training for something that supposedly should be rare.
“We want there to be as many abortions as there needs to be”, Herold told me.
I probably could have saved myself a lot of time by just posting a link to this article. OOPS!
But what if I believe abortions SHOULD be rare, or I think that this is a moral grey area and I’m not comfortable with the idea that women might have a ton of abortions without thinking twice about it?
I get that! Ethics and morals are complicated, I just happen to disagree that abortion is an ethical or moral grey area (feel free to disagree with me). I think that the principle of 100% bodily autonomy for women is non-negotiable. As a result, I think we need to fight for the person’s right to do things with their body that we may find personally distasteful. If a woman chooses to use abortion as a method of birth control (which DOES happen, though it is rare), it’s perfectly reasonable (and perfectly human) to question that choice as individuals. We can question her cost/benefit analysis, her decision to cavalierly subject her body to procedures that are more difficult and potentially more painful or inconvenient than the alternatives. But I also believe that if the language we use as a movement stigmatizes THIS woman’s choice, it opens the doors for those who oppose or restrict ALL abortion rights to seize the moral high ground and stigmatize OTHER women’s choices. Who’s to say that the woman who just “can’t afford a kid” right now shouldn’t be made to get another job, or make different lifestyle choices, move to a cheaper house, eat out less often, etc. I’m not comfortable with that, so I am not comfortable with a movement that publicly frames abortion as a difficult choice. I think that tactically, discussing the choice in ANY moral, ethical, or normative terms is giving ground to the enemies of women’s rights.
My analysis may be wrong. My assumptions may be stupid, or naive. My point above may directly contradict my point earlier that attitudes about abortion aren’t likely to change much in either direction regardless of rhetoric! But one thing is clear: abortion rights have been slowly eroded over the past several decades, and I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it seems to have accelerated during the period of Clintonian messaging. When I react angrily on facebook about Elizabeth Warren or another liberal politician using variations on the “safe, legal, and rare” defense, I get angry! Not because I don’t think Senator Warren cares about abortion rights (she does). Not because I think she’s stupid (she isn’t). Not because I think I’m better than her (I’m definitely not). Not because I think I have any right to tell her how to advocate for her position (I’m not her conscience or campaign manager). And not because I think I have any right to tell women how to feel, or think, or act (I definitely do not). I get angry because I see these messages failing to deliver substantive progress. I get angry because I see an empowered right wing that seems to get stronger by the minute despite having a position that I find to be objectively wrong. I get angry because I want to live in a world where women’s rights aren’t even a political question!
Frederick Douglass said “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” “Abortion on demand, without apology” is a demand. “Get your laws off of my body” is a demand. “Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare” isn’t a demand, it’s a polite request. And we’ve heard the right wing’s answer loud and clear: “Go fuck yourself.”
And I’m fucking sick of their shit.
apatheticallydecomposing 
Leave a Reply