ABSOLUTE POWER: What "Pro-Choice" Is Really All About: Answers, Abortion, Fatherhood

For a long time it baffled me. To be specific, it baffled me from the first time I heard what exactly an abortion is - I must have been 10 or 11 years old - till last week. I could never ever, for the life of me, no matter how hard I stretched my imagination or suspended my moral judgment, understand why anyone would want to be pro-choice.

I could get the "pro-life-for-me-but-not-anyone-else" point of view, I could conceive (ha!) of the "government-shouldn't-legislate-morality" perspective, I could even sympathize with the "our-country-isn't-there-yet" argument.

But I just couldn't figure out why anyone in her right mind would say that abortion is a right that all women should, must, and ought to have in order to be truly free in a just and democratic society, and thus all other rights should bow before it.

What does the dismembering of fetuses (if you insist on calling them that) have to do with justice and democracy?

And so it was that I spent lo these many years of my life assuming that pro-choice activists either have some sort of inexplicable blood lust, or live in perpetual denial of reality.

But this past week I finally got it. I don't know how they managed to communicate their message so poorly all along that it took me nearly a decade and a half. This is it: when it comes right down to it, pro-choice activists are not talking about fetuses at all.

They're talking about fear. They fear a future in which men control the bodies, lives and futures of women. And that's why we've been talking past each other all this time.

I first began to see the light (so to speak) about two months ago, talking to my old friend Catherine. Catherine does not hesitate to express her opinions or launch the conversation into dangerous topics. We started with capital punishment, and from there it was a short leap to her fears for women during the new presidential regime.

Choice will be taken away, she said, and you know what follows from that. Men impregnating women, keeping them home, beating them up, destroying their career chances, abandoning the infants, children starving on the streets, and the final re-institution of the 1950s.

I was, needless to say, somewhat stunned by the course of her logic. You think we'll get a better world by killing the children? I said.

You think anyone will care to look for solutions to economic and domestic problems when they can just knock off the main players in the drama?

Around and around the debate went. It expanded and contracted and went nowhere. At least we trusted each other to say what we really thought, no small accomplishment in the discussion of this particular issue, but by the end we had to admit that we'd reached a standstill and we might as well quit. (Ironically enough, afterwards Catherine went on to say that she thought our society was hostile to rounded female bodies because it fears fertility in women, and isn't that atrocious?)

The conversation percolated quietly in my brain until this past Thursday, when I went to a public debate on abortion policy over at Princeton University. The main draw: Peter Singer, notorious Australian "bioethicist" who is famous for advocating such things as bestiality and infanticide (the former only if it is mutually pleasurable, the latter presumably not).

His arguments were surprisingly unpersuasive, for they relied upon vegetarianism (?!). The really interesting speaker, in fact, was a student at the university, joining her illustrious colleague on the pro-choice panel.

She spoke very fast and very passionately, and as far as I could tell she only contradicted herself once. But there was this phrase that she kept repeating: "an incubator of the state."

It was her tag line, her emotional hot button, and every time she said it you couldn't help but have a little thrill of 1984-ish horror run up and down your spine. Bearing babies for Uncle Sam? Kitchen, children and church, like Hitler used to say? My uterus a public utility?

What could be more grotesquely offensive to my sensibilities - all of them, as a woman, as a Christian, as an American, as a modern (or even postmodern) - than that? I'm not an incubator of the state, no way.

It took a little while to snap out of the haze she had cast over the crowd. Pro-lifers are certainly not advocating incubation for the state; the phrase misses our point entirely. In the meanwhile, though, I had missed hers too. It took some reflection to get it. She really feared, like Catherine, that some nameless faceless bureaucrats out there (probably men) had it in for her, wanted to punish her for being a woman, being fertile, being (worst of all) sexually active outside of chaste Christian marriage.

She thought that that is what the pro-life side is all about, and she saw her life and future and career and hopes and dreams all threatened.

For her, it's not about life, or babies, or responsibility, or sacrifice. It's all about control. Who's going to control my body, me or the nameless faceless state?

The question is, who's got the better grasp on reality? What is this really all about? Is it about saving the lives of innocent babies, or is it about keeping adult women under control?

By sheer coincidence (God's way of remaining anonymous, as the old French proverb goes), the very next day I stumbled across a novel in the library called The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood, copyright 1986. It's a movie now too, I guess, and I must have heard the name tossed about on the breeze, so I thought I should read it, ignoring the three 20-page papers I have due in less than a month.

It's a story of a theocracy in not-so-far-distant America, renamed the Republic of Gilead, run by nasty men who take some stuff in Genesis as prescriptive rather than descriptive. Women are divided into their three (and only) functions: Wives, who look pretty and with some luck bear sons, Handmaids who bear sons (for Wives who can't) but do nothing else, and Marthas who cook and clean. They lead regimented lives, every step and bite and word under scrutiny, but men come and go as they please.

Women who perform all three functions, for poorer men, are disdainfully called Econowives. All marriages are arranged and pleasurable sex is permitted only with prostitutes (called Jezebels, of course). Procreating is the only goal in life for women. Love is not a factor. Women who fail in their appointed duties are sent to clean up toxic waste in the Colonies; they only last a couple years, at most.

The moral of the story is not too hard to figure. Men must not control female sexuality, but they obviously want to. Abortion must stay legal. Love must stay free, marriage breakable.

If not, we will have social totalitarianism upon us, and all the progress of the past 40 years will be swallowed up by another interminable reign of the uterus. It's a well-told story, and properly terrifying. Imagine having my books, my school, my tank tops taken away! Imagine having my Bible turned into an instrument of torture! No, I don't want that either.

It clicked, finally. When I as a pro-life woman am talking to another woman who is pro-choice, we are not talking about the same thing. I am talking about my horror that the most vulnerable humans in our country are being slaughtered at the rate of 4,400 a day because they can't be paid for, because the boyfriend doesn't want that, because social disapproval has overcome the mother, because fear is the number one motivating factor. But she is talking about her horror that her education might be ended, her rights revoked, her career squelched, all because she has chosen to have sex with a man and nature has taken its course, or worse yet she has been raped by a man and nature has taken its course, and someone out there had decided to punish her for violating their morality.

We're not talking about the same thing. No wonder we can't understand each other. No wonder we can't persuade each other.

As a matter of fact, though, she raises some good questions. Is the pro-life side always motivated purely out of love for the unborn child? You don't need to go to the extreme of abortion clinic bombers to find exceptions to what should be the rule.

Pro-lifers often have strong feelings about chastity and sexual responsibility. Is there a certain amount of satisfaction in the thought that these women are being disproved in their casual sexuality? Or that single irresponsible men are being brought to account for their own wanton behavior?

Or that sex is manifestly not just about having a good time? Is there even a hint of that in there?

I'll tell you right now: that has to go. Not one of us is one hundred percent chaste in word and deed and it is not our business to judge. Life judges harshly enough as it is. Single mothers are the heroes of our time for not taking the easy way out, and we ought to be telling them that. We ought not to be moralistically informing the world that sex has its consequences and they should've seen it coming. They're smart enough to figure that out for themselves. And it shows very little love for people in situations of genuine personal distress.

But I have some questions for my pro-choice friend too. Who does she think is out to get her? Does she really imagine a conspiracy of control-freak middle-aged white upper-middle-class corporate men who want to turn her body into another profit-churning manufacturing plant?

In this prosperous job market, are they really out for her career and her job power? Do they really see her as a machine whose main purpose is to produce babies? I think it's fair to say that her enemies, in this society and at this time, are far more interested in her not producing babies - inconvenient, demanding, messy things that they are. The man most interested in her sexuality is the one who can profit from it without any cost to himself, and he's the one who'll keep her pigeonholed, as non-wife non-mother non-commitment, by his true commitment to abortion availability.

The sad irony for my pro-choice friend is that the abortion regime is far more likely to produce men indifferent or hostile to women than one in which love, marriage and children - the package deal - is given the highest priority.

An honest assessment of sexual dynamics in this country is in order. It is bizarre that possibly 50 percent of marriages fail. It is bizarre that so many abortions are deemed necessary. It is bizarre that pregnancy has been logically disconnected from sex. It is bizarre that broken relationships are the standard experience of modern people. It is bizarre that commitment seems irrational. It is bizarre that is so hard for young folks to fall in love, promise themselves to each other, get married and stick it out.

You've got to wonder about a society when the most natural thing in the world has been turned into the most unnaturally difficult thing in the world.

Enmity has been there between men and women since the beginning of time and shows no signs of abating. There is only one place where a man and a woman can really come to terms with each other, without the games, without the hostility, without the pretense and without the clothes. That is in marriage, operated on trust, and formed in love. Falling in love is the only thing that softens otherwise calculating and manipulative creatures; staying in love, loving willfully and deliberately and permanently against all the odds, is the only way to keep the enmity at bay. This is how men stop seeing women as meat, objects, possessions, trinkets, subplots; this is how women stop distrusting, deceiving and wheedling for power that they physically don't have.

You've obviously never lived in Africa.

After about 2 weeks of agonizing over what to do, they had the doctor do the C-Section. The doctor, in the mean time was consulting with other doctors in neighboring countries on the proper procedures. As it turned out, she did have a few minor complications, but both mother and baby were fine.

Unfortunately, the pro-choice / pro-life issue is not as black and white as some wish to believe.

Some women view their child's birth by looking in a mirror, so the woman might be the one to notice the baby looked different than she expected.

I don't have answers to all your other points, but since this is a hypothetical situation I can try to change things a bit to make the example more suitable for this discussion.

For example, let's say the baby's real father's feet have extra digits or some other distinguishing characteristic-- so it is the woman (not the doctor) who realizes who is really the baby's father. If only males can inherit the characteristic, we'll make the baby a male.

Which brings up an interesting question concerning the Left's rhetoric concerning nature. To them, nature is inherently a good thing, worth preserving, protecting. Science and technology, in this view, are inherently bad in that they make war against nature.

But science and technology aren't evil when they are used to control human biology.

A really good point... Thanks for sharing the insight.

Thought-provoking article.

I view abortion as an abominable practice and sinful to the fullest extent. But these are not my primary arguments against it. When arguing from this standpoint, it becomes a moral issue and our system of law is not based on the Word of God.

My main, secular argument against abortion is actually a matter of technology. Though I am a man, I find absolutely no justifiable reason for abortion in the year 2002. There hasn't been one in quite a long time. My view is that a woman who gets pregnant today gets pregnant due to one of two circumstances: 1. She is reckless, and/or 2. She views abortion as the ultimate in contraception.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

Good post. I concur. The strongest abortion "rights" proponents I've met are men. you're right, there is not much talk about men's involvement and influence in abortion. There should be much more.

There actually has been some research into men's involvement in abortion. Turns out men are actively involved in an aboriton decision some 85% of the time. One could justifiably interpolate that men are influence abortion even more than that by simply making it clear they don't intend to be around. Men are NOT innocent bystanders in abortion in our country. I think many men would fight harder than women to keep it legal.

No, I have not lived in Africa. However, it doesn't take living there to know that having an abortion when a doctor isn't qualified for c-sections is NOT the answer. The answer is doctors who are better trained for handling pregnancy and labor. Don't ask me how that is going to happen, but it's the right answer. The moral solution isn't always the easiest one. I am glad to hear that everyone survived! They are probably relieved that they chose to try to save both mother and child.

My main, secular argument against abortion is actually a matter of technology. Though I am a man, I find absolutely no justifiable reason for abortion in the year 2002. There hasn't been one in quite a long time.

I agree. There is probably some extremely rare circumstance which might justify an abortion, but this is so rare as to make the "life of the mother" arguments meaningless.

My view is that a woman who gets pregnant today gets pregnant due to one of two circumstances: 1. She is reckless, and/or 2. She views abortion as the ultimate in contraception.

No. Women "get pregnant" by having sex with men. A man and a woman co-concieve. Your male-less description is a BIG part of the problem with abortion. Also, not only women, but many men use abortion as a back up birth control measure in lieu of taking precautions themselves. Therefore, any man who does take personal steps to prevent conception and does not want a child is complicit is using abortion as his birth control method of choice. If he is pro-Life he is a hypocrite. Everyone involved in conception that ends in abortion is complicit in that abortion.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

This is untrue. There are no 100% reliable contraceptives. The best we have are 1)Sterilization 2)Redundant contraceptive measures. Even with those most reliable ones it is STILL possible to co-concieve. Anyone, man or woman, who wants 0% risk has only one choice, abstain from sex. Otherwise, it is a calculated risk on the part of BOTH parties. The default consequence of sex is conception. Therefore BOTH people have an obligation, not just the woman, to prevent conception. If they co-conceive and later agree to abort, then they were BOTH using abortion as their back-up birth control plan.

Think about it for a second. With the easily availability of condoms, birth control pills, and an IUD, how on earth is it possible for a woman to get pregnant if she really doesn't want to become pregnant in the first place?

Oh it is VERY possible. I know of two cases personally.: 1. I know a couple who co-conceived after her husband had a vasectomy. (Yes it was his, they checked). They had the baby and the vasectomy doctor paid for the maternity and labor cost. :-)

2. I know a couple who co-conceived when the wife was 55 and the husband was 62. She had gone through (they thought) menopause. They also had the baby, the husband who was due to retire that year stayed on the job.

These are just the ones I know of personally. Lots of people conceive while on the Pill. The Pill is not as effective as everyone thinks. It can be compromised by common illnesses, stress, or other medications. Sometimes the doctor simply does not prescribe the right mix of hormones. There have been known factory errors too. Lots of problems.

Every method has problems and none is 100% reliable. The most reliable method is redundancy, Pill + condom for example.

Who has the worse experience of it?

The father of the baby, who under the USSC Danforth and Casey decision, has to know that the prenatal baby he sired is scheduled for execution.

Who generally makes out on the deal?

The one who has the legal power to cause the abortion to happen. That is absolute power, albeit in a Mephistolpholean way, to destroy only.

The father of the baby, who under the USSC Danforth and Casey decision, has to know that the prenatal baby he sired is scheduled for execution.

Knowing from a distant is worse than physically experiencing?

The one who has the legal power to cause the abortion to happen. That is absolute power, albeit in a Mephistolpholean way, to destroy only.

Putting scars in the body and on the soul to be rid of an 18 year responsibility is less agonizing than payiing a couple hundred bucks?
37 posted on 4/14/02 10:26 PM Pacific by The Giant Apricots

No. Women "get pregnant" by having sex with men. A man and a woman co-concieve.

I thought that this was understood. That's why I didn't mention it.

Therefore, any man who does take personal steps to prevent conception and does not want a child is complicit is using abortion as his birth control method of choice. If he is pro-Life he is a hypocrite.

Well, my next statement is going to keep me in trouble with the sisters. Pregnancy, when it all boils down, is on the woman. A man can not, under any circumstance, get pregnant. Never! Therefore, the ultimate answer lies (no pun intended) with the woman. I'm not excusing irresponsible men, but let's face it. If a woman truly does not seek to get pregnant, she can either decline to have sex, or, take every means possible to thwart it. She can demand that the man wear a condom or say, "Nope. No nookie for you!" She can take birth control pills. If her body's hormones won't tolerate birth control pills, she can get an IUD. She can also use spermicidal products. The man can do this as well (prophylactics), but he's not the one who will get the pot belly. The woman will!

There are no 100% reliable contraceptives.

True. But, as a percentage, how many birth control pills fail? As a percentage, how many IUDs fail?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.