Feminists for Life, men and abortion

Several years ago, I became a regular contributor to Feminists for Life.  It wasn't much, mind you, just a few bucks deducted each month automatically from my checking account.  I first found FFLA (as it is often called) in 2000 after reading a Frederica Mathewes-Green article on the web.  I was very excited to join, particularly as Feminists for Life seemed to advocate a strong consistent-life ethic; they opposed abortion, of course, but also euthanasia, capital punishment, and had several articles on their site about domestic violence.

I joined FFLA because I was eager to match, in some way, my convictions about the sacredness of all life (including embryonic human life) with my belief in equal political, social, economic, and sexual rights for women.  Everything I had learned as a student in women's studies courses (and from my solidly pro-choice family) had convinced me that the right to control one's own flesh is the most basic and important right of all, the sine qua non, if you will, of feminism. On the other hand, as my faith grew and deepened (thanks in no small part to my encounters with the Mennonites), I was increasingly convinced that the life of a Christian ought to be one of radical, total non-violence.  My conviction that life began at conception deepened as I read everyone from the aforementioned Mathewes-Green to Mary Ann Glendon whose famous address to the 1995 Beijing Conference on Women I have read and reread.

During this time, I came to believe that abortion was also a critical issue for men.  Glendon's words from the conference struck me:

...as John Paul II has emphasized, primary responsibility for a woman's tragic and painful decision to have an abortion often lies with men and with the general social environment. All who are genuinely committed to the advancement of women know that society can and must offer a woman or girl who is pregnant, frightened, and alone, a better alternative than the destruction of her own unborn child. Many proponents of abortion as a woman's "right", however, are far from having women's interests at heart. In fact, hiding in the shadows of the abortion rights movement are: irresponsible men; the prostitution traffic...

(Bold emphases are mine)

Honestly, I still find myself in complete agreement with every single word in that paragraph. 

I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a pro-life, pro-feminist man.  (For starters, it means you're going to confuse a lot of people, and annoy lots of others.  Oh, and you're gonna have lots of 'splainin' to do!) I've come to the conclusion that the only way I can reconcile these two aspects of my faith and my beliefs is to focus solely on calling men to greater accountability.  In practice, that means dropping out of the current abortion wars.  I have, as of this month, cancelled my contributions to Feminists for Life.  I've been thinking about doing so for a while, ever since they quietly dropped their anti-death penalty advocacy (I find nothing about it on the site these days, though there were once many articles on capital punishment) and become a solely abortion-focused movement.  At the same time, I'm not going to give a dime to NARAL or Feminist Majority or Planned Parenthood.  To the best of my ability, I'm going to avoid supporting either side in the struggle over legalized abortion.  My heart is too torn, my politics too conflicted, for me to do anything else.

But I am not going to shirk all responsibility here.   Rather, I'm determined to work harder on reaching out to and interacting with young men on the issue of sexual accountability.   That may mean several things.  For one, it means working with teenage boys to resist the overwhelming culture of peer pressure that encourages them to "hook up" and "hit it" with as many young women as possible  It means working to break the cultural connection between having sex and being a "man".  It means teaching them that being "responsible" is about more than wearing a condom (though heaven knows, some of them need to start doing just that).  It means teaching them that they are responsible for the outcome of any sexual activity in which they engage.  At its bluntest, that's a message that says "don't ejaculate inside a woman until you are ready to raise the child that may follow."  In my book, coming inside a girl or a woman is the moment at which you give your complete consent to all that may follow as a result, physically, emotionally, spiritually.

I can already anticipate the Men's Rights Advocates' response: "What about the woman's responsibility?"  Women, including sexually active teenage girls, have their own agency.  They have their own moral responsibilities.  But I do believe that at this phase of the struggle, the most effective work that pro-life/pro-feminist men can do is with other young men.   That doesn't mean I won't work with and counsel young women (I already do as a youth leader).  But my primary focus, and the primary focus of all men who want to end abortion must be to change the hearts, minds, and above all, the behavior of their brothers. 

I've decided that in both public and private, I will take no position on whether abortion ought to remain legal.  But I will work, in whatever way I can, to make it unthinkable.

Comments

[bmmg39]

"If the "date rape" drug were legal to dispense, but I refused to dispense it on the grounds that it (obviously) makes it easier for a person to be raped, would you accuse me of religious intolerance?"

"I would accuse you of not doing your job and of substituting your judgment for the judgment of my doctor."

Okay...at least you're consistent...even if that consistency means supporting the sale of child-killing drugs and the date-rape pill...consistency is good, though...I suppose...

[zuzu]

Lots of drugs can be abused and not used for their intended purpose. Lots of drugs have effects that might happen if not used correctly, or if there's an interaction with another drug.

Does that mean that the pharmacist is entitled to substitute his or her judgment for that of the FDA, Congress and the doctor? No. If dispensing legal medications makes someone uncomfortable, they should not be in that line of work.

And before you bring up roofies again, I have a friend who was raped after someone put some in her drink.

[bmmg39]

"And before you bring up roofies again, I have a friend who was raped after someone put some in her drink."

What. You think I'm using such an analogy LIGHTLY? It's a mortally serious subject. They both are. Hence, the analogy.

[bennson]

I think you are right on the money. I, too, can no longer support FFL because they do not support the use of condoms. If distributing condoms in high schools and colleges would reduce the abortion rate drastically among those students, who in their right mind would have a problem with doing so? Are those of us who call ourselves "pro-life" actually concerned with saving lives or with promoting our moral beliefs? I wish every woman could have the maturity and foresight to know if they are ready to have a child. I wish every man could realize what a responsibility it is to create a life. But we have to live in the real world. My mission is to take my message to other mothers like myself, and focus on our own children, especially our daughters. We need to teach our young women that they must respect themselves enough to INSIST on a condom every time. I know of three girls in my own class who had abortions, because they had been convinced by their teenage boyfriend that "nothing will happen; just this once". One friend told me she would give anything to have that moment back where she could have said "no way, if you want to be with me, you have to wear a condom." A lifetime of regret could have been prevented if she had only been empowered to take control of the situation. I want to live in a world where abortion is the very last resort. Doesn't everyone? This is why I can't agree with FFL or with my own faith's teachings on the use of condoms. Condoms will and do save the lives of unborn children. To restrict their availablity or condemn those who use them in any way is contrary to the cause of protecting life.

[Adam Greenwood]

"I've been thinking a lot about what it means to be a pro-life, pro-feminist man. . . . In practice, that means dropping out of the current abortion wars. I have, as of this month, cancelled my contributions to Feminists for Life."

If you reconcile feminism and pro-life stances by stopping do anything to promote life, you have in effect abandoned your pro-life stance. Like most pro-choicers, you've adopted the logic that the concerns of grown women are more important than the lives of unborn person. You've reconciled nothing. If you were really interested in reconciling your views, instead of abandoning one of them, you would have retreated into silence and confusion on both.

I read your site from time to time. My friend Russell Fox is a friend of yours and--though I'm pretty conservative myself--I felt I could trust you in part because of I had this vague idea that you were against abortion, which led me to believe that your feminism was not typical liberal self-hatred, but principled. I saw the consistent life ethic in your banner. But following some links from other sites today I found out that I was wrong. You don't stand up for life after all. Guess I was right about the corrosive effects of feminism after all. God have mercy on us.

[Hugo]

Adam, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I remain prayerfully silent on the issue of the legality of abortion, and pray for the day when it becomes unthinkable. That position earns me scorn from both sides, and perhaps that scorn is merited. Call it foolish ambivalence, call it un-Christian cowardice, call it what you will -- here I sit, and I cannot do otherwise.

Regards to Russell, and peace to you.