Still more on pro-life feminism: a response

Ampersand at Alas, a Blog posted an interesting challenge to the whole notion of "pro-life feminism" over the weekend. (Make sure to read the comments section as well).

Ours has been a civil exchange, and that tone has been kept up in the comments section. Still, civility only gets us so far -- it enables a dialogue to take place, but it doesn't guarantee that the dialogue will be constructive. On some basic issues, the gulf between our respective positions is too great to bridge. For example, in the comments section beneath his post, Ampersand wrote:

In my view, a fetus for most of the pregnancy (before it develops an effectively functioning cerebral cortex) has no inherant value of its own. It is like any other mindless object.

However, mindless objects do have value when people project that value onto them. So, for instance, a piece of paper with some black ink on it has no inherant value of its own. But if that piece of paper happens to be the original Walt Kelley drawing that my Aunt Gerry gave me, then I find it very precious.

Presumably, you'd say that a piece of paper is a piece of paper, whether it's the Kelly drawing or some incoherant ink scribbles I made to see if a pen had ink in it. After all, in both cases it consists of pulped, bleached wood with some black in on it. It's the same in either case, right?

I disagree. We don't live in an objective universe; we live in a subjective human society, where the value of most objects is the subjective value placed on them by their owners. So I say a fetus has no inherant value of its own; but when I see that a particular fetus is loved and treasured by its eager parents, then I think that particular fetus does have value.

Of course, pro-lifers see value in all fetuses. However, just because you see value in something, it doesn't follow that you do (or should) have the legal right to control that something's destiny.

Well, I appreciate Ampersand's candor. I'm at a loss as to how to respond. I confess (as he might well suspect) I wince when I see what I regard as living human beings compared to pieces of paper! (I'm fairly certain that the comparison was not intended to be offensive). I'm obviously troubled by the notion that the fact that a child is loved makes him or her more valuable. This seems to be parental narcisissm of a high order: My child has no intrinsic worth; rather, it derives its worth from my perception of it. Jeepers.

Of course, pro-choice feminists make a colossal distinction (one hopes) between a pre-born child and a child out of the womb, living independently. Few such folks (again, one hopes) would argue that a child who has been born still derives his or her value from his or her parents' affections! But like most pro-life folks, I am convinced that life does begin at conception, and it is at the beginning of life that our value and worth begins. (And of course, this is the position of most pro-lifers).

Most of the commenters at Alas, a Blog seem convinced that a pro-lifer (never mind a male pro-lifer) cannot be a feminist in any meaningful sense of the latter term. Alsis38 made a representative remark:

As far as I'm concerned, there is no such thing as a pro-life feminist. You can be a feminist who hates the concept of abortion and would never want one, for sure. But if you are out there trying to cut off women's access to legal abortion (as the pro-life movement has been doing with great success for the last twenty-odd years), or applauding those who do, you are not a feminist.

Some things, I don't have very nuanced feelings about, and that's one of them.

This is a "small tent" vision of feminism indeed! It's also an ahistorical vision. Feminism in this country, by even the most conservative definition, has at least a 150-year history (we tend to date it to the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848). It's only in the last 35 years or so that abortion rights have suddenly (and to my mind disastrously) emerged as the sine qua non of feminism in our culture. As Feminists for Life points out over and over again, Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton both opposed abortion. (And not merely out of a desire to protect women from bad doctors, but also to preserve the lives of innocent children).

Pro-life feminists are feminists because they support equal rights for women in the political, economic, cultural, social, and sexual spheres of life. (Obviously, I can't speak for all pro-life feminists; we are a diverse lot indeed). For all of the accomplishments of the last 100 years, we still have a long way to go. Pay equity is STILL (infuriatingly) an issue. The feminization of poverty is a growing, rather than a declining problem. The sexual exploitation of girls and women worldwide through porn and sex trafficking is also a major threat to women's health and dignity. I am concerned about major issues like these, and minor ones too (like why my college gives benefits to male football players -- like subsidized housing -- that are unavailable to my female soccer and softball players.) But apparently, no matter how "correct" my stances may be on every other issue, to oppose abortion (or more precisely, to favor legal restrictions on abortion as one tactic in that struggle) is to lose any chance of being considered a feminist.

Look, I know as a man I need considerable humility here. It's not my body, after all, that carries children. And I won't lose access to legal abortion for myself. It's incumbent on male feminists (especially pro-life ones) to be careful to listen to the anguish, the anger, and the fear that surrounds this issue. It's imperative that we understand just how important the notions of "autonomy" and "choice" are. Most pro-lifers tend to be dismissive of those words, but I'm not. They are meaningful, immensely so. It is with a deep sense of humility that pro-lifer feminists declare that they favor limits on personal autonomy and choice at the moment that these lead to the destruction of human life.

It's funny. Many of the same folks who think a Catholic can be pro-choice and still take communion DON"T think a feminist can be pro-life. It's all well and good for other folks to be forced to have big tents, but hey, we feminists have our standards! That saddens me. Look, I teach the history of the reproductive rights movement every semester. (And I'll bet I know the life story of Margaret Sanger and the text of the Griswold v. Connecticut decision as well as any of my pro-choice colleagues!) When I teach, I don't betray my pro-life position -- that would be crossing a very dangerous line, especially in a classroom likely to be filled with abortion survivors. Indeed, I've had pro-life Christian students come to argue with me because from my lectures, they assume I must be pro-choice!

There are other aspects of Ampersand's post I need to respond to as well. Folks have also raised issues of race and class that ought to be addressed. But it's Tuesday morning after a holiday weekend, and I've got too much to do.

But let me recommend a helpful link for pro-life women's issues. Check out the back issues of the now-defunct Journal for Feminism and Nonviolence Studies. I recommend this article in particular: Pro-Life Philosophy and Feminism, by Anne Maloney, a philosophy prof at the College of Saint Catherine.

Comments

[thisgirl]

Can I ask a question?

If you believe life begins at conception, do you consider the morning-after pill an abortifacient?

[Hugo]

I'm not a doctor or an expert, but from my understanding, the morning after pill is NOT an abortifacient when it does its primary job of preventing or delaying ovulation. It IS an abortifacient when it stops a fertilized egg from implanting in the lining of the womb. Almost all pro-lifers date the beginning of life from conception, not implantation.

I'll be the first to admit, it's "harder" to see a fertilized egg as a full human being than it is to see a 12 week fetus as a human -- but my perceptions do not create reality, and they don't erase the child's humanness.

[Stuart]

I appreciate your remarks here: "Look, I know as a man I need considerable humility here. It's not my body, after all, that carries children. And I won't lose access to legal abortion for myself."

These remarks seem to imply, however, that limiting abortion is only a limitation on women. Keep in mind that while this is true to a certain extent, limiting abortion would also seriously affect men who wish to avoid the obligations of fatherhood, or who pressure women into abortion.

See here, for example:

We are deeply concerned that many women are being coerced into unwanted abortions.(1) These coercive pressures often come from male partners, parents, or others. Studies show that women who are pregnant are more likely to be verbally abused, beaten, or kicked out of their homes.(2) Some become targets of homicidal attacks or other acts of violence intended to cause a miscarriage.(3) In fact, homicide is now the leading cause of death among pregnant women.(4) Similarly, coerced abortions and brutally induced miscarriages have become two common forms of domestic violence. Victims of incest and rape are also being pressured into unwanted abortions by sexual predators whose only concern is to cover-up their crimes.(5)

[thisgirl]

Thanks for answering :-)

I'm not trying to make some point in the debate, simply trying to understand why I've been refused the morning-after pill on "moral" grounds. Surely it makes little or no sense to restrict young women's access to a pill which can be an abortifacient, with the possibility that a resulting pregnancy might be ended in a termination at a much later and more developed stage.

Anyway, hear that? Thats me grinding my personal axe on your comments.. Sorry 'bout that

[Ampersand]

I confess, I'm a little disappointed that you chose to focus on the comments to the post, rather than responding to any of the points I made in the post itself. Of course, you're not obliged to respond to me at all, but I hope you'll respond to the post itself at some future point.

Hugo wrote: I'm obviously troubled by the notion that the fact that a child is loved makes him or her more valuable. This seems to be parental narcisissm of a high order: My child has no intrinsic worth; rather, it derives its worth from my perception of it. Jeepers.

There is an important moral difference between that which has a mind and that which doesn't. I don't think it's logical to pretend that difference doesn't exist; and I don't think acknowleging a clear, obvious real-world difference is narcissism.

Something that has a mind has its own inherant value (in addition to, and superceding, any value others project onto it). Something that doesn't have a mind lacks inherant value, and so only has the value that its owners project onto it.

What's more difficult to support logically is a worldview that thinks that the ten-month-old child I live with and a three-minutes-old embryo have equal inherant value. A planted acorn is biologically a living member of the species Quercus macrocarpa, but that doesn't make it indistiguishable from an oak tree.

[Hugo]

Ampersand, I am going to respond to your points -- I promise -- it's just that there is much there to unpack; the first thing I needed to do is explore some of the worldview differences that are at the root of the gulf between us.

The next post on abortion will look at why criminalizing abortion is not an inherently anti-feminist strategy.

[Jennifer]

"It's funny. Many of the same folks who think a Catholic can be pro-choice and still take communion DON"T think a feminist can be pro-life. It's all well and good for other folks to be forced to have big tents, but hey, we feminists have our standards!"

As a feminist and a Christian, I find that very funny (and true). My hesitancy in calling myself pro-life stems from my uncertainly about what criminalizing abortion would accomplish. I understand the argument that if it's basically murder, then it should be illegal. I mean, procedurally, what would overturning Roe v. Wade do? Throw the issue back to the states? Then what?

[Hugo]

Stuart, I hear you. On the other hand, I think we need a substantial dose of male accountability here.

Ejaculating inside a woman, with or without protection, is a commitment to raise a child with her. Not willing to do the latter? Don't do the former.

Yes, it is that simple.

[Amanda]

If life begins at conception, and women who have abortions are "survivors" (I flinch that you equate a free choice with that which is imposed--abortion "survivors" are usually relieved whereas rape survivors are usually traumatized), then what about women who have miscarriages? Are they "survivors"? What if they pass a fertilized egg that didn't implant and they didn't know it? Are they "survivors"?

[Sheelzebub]

I know this sounds odd, but I don't have any qualms about the Catholic Church freaking out over pro-choicers getting communion, etc., although I think that on the whole, they are incredibly misogynistic in their views and treatment of women. If we follow the Church's communion logic, then not only can my father not take communion, he cannot be a Eucharistic minister, as he and my mother have practiced birth control--a big no-no. I also think it's a bit rich that they get their knickers in a twist over abortion when they give the host to proponents of the death penalty.

But this is coming from someone who left the Church and is not particularly religious. They are free to act according to their beliefs--they just shouldn't be that surprised that more people are voting with their feet and leaving, especially considering their rather restrictive views on women.

Stuart, the text you pasted overlooked a few things. First, I would not want to put my body through the rigors and hazards of pregnancy after being raped. A rape survivor has already had control of her body taken from her once; I would not want to subject her to that again. That means if she wants to carry her pregnancy to term, she should be able to do so. If she doesn't, she shouldn't have to. Also, when abortion was criminalized, women and girls who got pregnant out of wedlock were still beaten, kicked out of their homes, and ostracized.

Also, I can't say I'd feel all that enthused about my rapist or my abuser being involved in my life via my child (I know you weren't saying that). So yes, they are free to stay the h*ll away from me. In fact, those are two sets of men that I would be quite happy to relieve of fatherhood duties. When girlfriends/wives are beaten (and this usually happens before a pregnancy), and when women are raped, I think the most pressing problem is violence against women--not abortion.

Also, while men may be thrust into fatherhood, women who are pregnant deal with significant physical changes, risks, and problems. That is the crux for me.

Finally, the page you linked to asserted that women are traumatized by abortion and hated having them. While I don't dispute that some do, others don't. There are also surveys that show many women don't feel regret over their abortions--they feel relief.

Hugo, regarding your assertion that we don't know if women would die if abortion were criminalized: there are cases of women dying from the complications of illegal abortions even recently, and this was due to the restrictions placed upon them. Becky Bell and Rosie Jimenez come to mind. Bell was afraid to go to her parents, who, under the law, had to give permission for an abortion; Jimenez was the first woman to die from a back alley abortion after the passage of the Hyde Amendment, which restricted public funding for abortion. They each chose an illegal clinic because they did not want to carry their pregnancies to term. They both died.

Also, just a comment about the adoption option--I know people who've done it, and they regretted it. Never got over it. It almost killed one friend of mine, who now wishes she had an abortion.

Granted, a giant change in the sexual double-standards in our culture, more social support for women who are pregnant/single mothers, the eradication of violence against women, and greater access to birth control would do a lot to reduce abortion. But I do think abortion should be available.

[Hugo]

Amanda and Sheelzebub: great responses, and food for thought.

Amanda, I accept that the term "survivor" is unnecessarily inflammatory. I try not to use standard pro-life rhetoric that is hurtful, and I slipped on that one. "Survivor" works for the pro-life community because it acknowledges the pain that abortion inevitably brings, even when that pain is mixed with (or even subsumed by) relief.

Obviously, a miscarriage can be a horrifically tragic event. I would surely use the word "survivor" for a woman who endured a miscarriage of which she was aware. If she wasn't aware of the miscarriage, then of course the term is not appropriate.

I am aware that many fertilized eggs do not implant. I'm also aware that historically, up to 40% of children born alive in, say, early modern France, died before reaching five. Children were no less valuable as a result; their deaths no less tragic. The fact that so many fertilized eggs never implant is simply an example of very early infant mortality.

[Amanda]

Hugo, surely you can see that most of us see a huge difference between a child carried and birthed and something that is experienced as just another period. In fact, I do find it insulting, as if I have just callously blown off the fact that without knowing I have possibly been the mother to dozens.

[Hugo]

I was referring to the miscarriage of children later in pregnancy, Amanda. One cannot count oneself a "survivor" of something of which one is unaware, of course!

I certainly don't think it's callousness not to mourn the loss of a fertilized egg sloughed off in menstrual flow. But I don't think that the tininess and apparent insignificance of that egg vitiates its personhood either.

[Amanda]

Hugo, I would also point out that miscarriage isn't traumatizing so much because a "child" was lost but because the woman who miscarried feels like a failure. I have known plenty of women who were saddened by miscarriage, often deeply, but most of them couch in the language of failure to perform. While the sting of miscarriage never goes away, oft-times the woman's feelings are greatly improved if she can successfully carry a baby to term.

[DJW]

"Survivor" works for the pro-life community because it acknowledges the pain that abortion inevitably brings, even when that pain is mixed with (or even subsumed by) relief.

Hugo, your theology and your social science just got mixed in the wash.

Seriously, can you provide empirical evidence for this claim that doesn't rely on the assertion that women who have no demonstrable pyschological ill effects from abortion are really actually suffering from a trauma, and they just don't know it? As a pro-life partisan you're free to believe that all women who have abortions should feel shame and guilt. As a social scientist, you can't really say that they actually do, even when there's no evidence for it. False consciousness-based arguments are bad when Marxists make them about the working class they revere, and they're bad when pro-lifers make them about the consequences of the choices they oppose.

It's not like you need to hold onto this view to maintain your position. I'm sure that many men who commit acts you, I and the law would consider rape don't believe they are guilty of rape or even did anything wrong. That alone shouldn't be--and isn't--a threat to our views on rape.

[DJW]

A quick follow-up: I'm making no claim about the general empirical knowledge about abortion, guilt, shame and so on. I distinctly remember being told about a study once that found a strong correlation between negative pyschological effects of abortion and the beliefs about abortion held by the women and her family/community, which should be unsurprising. I can't back this up because I haven't seen the study, and don't know where to find it, or if my summary of the conclusions is fair.

Hugo's use of the term 'inevitable' is what raised my ire, though. Even if it could be shown that abortion generally produces pyschological pain and guilt regardless of other factors, it's pretty clear it's not inevitable. Here, my anecdotal evidence is sufficient--I've known a few women very well who've had abortions that have been no big deal at all for them--at the time or years later. Of course, they could be lying, supressing, etc, but that goes both ways. The women who have abortions and do report shame/pain/guilt could be lying too, and telling people what they want to hear.

[mythago]

"Survivor" works for the pro-life community because it acknowledges the pain that abortion inevitably brings

It also neatly skirts one of the political issues--if you blame women, you are going to turn off a lot of women and their votes--while clinging to an insulting, infantilizing view of women as not fully adult, not fully capable of being moral agents.

If a woman hired a hit man to kill her ten-year-old, we would not call her a 'survivor' and pity her for the guilt she will inevitably feel. We do not say that the moral blame really attaches to the hit man, and the mother's role is not so important. We would never say that she should be forgiven and the hit man jailed or executed for murder. We would not call her a "survivor".

So either it's political expediency--if we just feel sorry for them, they'll join our side!--or it's sexist reductionism, that assumes women can't really be blamed for bad behavior, any more than you would blame a toddler for pulling the cat's tail.

[Stuart]

Hugo -- you said, "Stuart, I hear you. On the other hand, I think we need a substantial dose of male accountability here."

I'm not sure what to make of the phrase "on the other hand." Male accountability is the very thing I was hinting at. In other words: Abortion isn't just a "women's" issue that affects only women. Rather, it affects many men too, by enabling them to avoid accountability. I.e., many men support abortion or pressure women into abortion precisely because they lack accountability and are putting their *own* interests first.

[Hugo]

Stuart, I had misread your original comment; my bad. You and I are far more in agreeement than I had initially realized!

[mythago]

Stuart, many men support pay equity and job opportunities for women so that they (men) won't have to support women financially; they don't care about fairness, they care about their pocketbooks. Is that proof that women really ought to be paid less than men, to prevent men from escaping financial responsibility?

If a man believes women in Afghanistan should be free of the burqa because that man wants to see them in more revealing clothing, should we hasten to require the burqa?