lifesavers vs. fetal symbols (was Re: uterine gentrification)

Yoshie Furuhashi furuhashi.1 at osu.edu
Sun Aug 22 11:58:02 PDT 1999


Steve Perry wrote:
>the abortion debate as conducted in america has mystified me for years.
>i'll just say two things: a) i favor abortion rights; and b) there is no
>honest,
>morally coherent way to deny that abortion is killing. (re: Doug's "Doesn't
>the concept of birth mean anything to you?" why should it? how can the
>developmental portion of life that occurs inside the womb be any less "life"
>than the developmental portion of life that occurs outside? that's rather
>like shooting a four-year-old and claiming it wasn't killing cuz he wasn't
>yet capable of abstract reasoning.)
>
>i'll leave the elaboration to those who care more about this issue, but in
>sum what strikes me is this: what is needed is not better sophistry in
>defining where life begins, but a reckoning with the fact that we simply do
>not value human life so deeply or unconditionally as we say we do.
>
>As for capital punishment, i oppose not because i think "killing is always
>wrong," but because i think "killing *by the state* is wrong."

That's probably not a very compelling political rhetoric (setting aside the fact that it fails to make a distinction between life and personhood, which negates the point [b] of your post). Very few -- even among the abortion-ambivalent like our listmate Max -- believe the elimination of a fertilized egg is a "murder," so your argument that "all abortions are murder, but some murders are OK" is not likely to resonate with Americans (and that's the reason why anti-abortionists have failed to reverse Roe v. Wade). Besides, arguing abortions are murders will compound *the problem of declining supply of abortion providers* (you say yourself that "killing by the state" is wrong, and according to this logic, there should be no public funding for abortions). Doctors & medical providers probably don't want to have their abortion service painted as "murder" or even "euthanasia." Nor would women who want abortion, for that matter. I'd argue instead that abortions are *lifesavers* -- abortion is a necessary good, for women's health and even lives would be endangered without safe, legal abortions. (Safe & legal abortions are even safer than giving birth.) Feminists need to put focus on _women's lives and health_, not on a metaphysical question of when life begins.

That said, we shouldn't take anti-abortionists' professed belief at its face value. They say abortion is murder, but they (not even the Rev. Fred Phelps) seldom ever make explicit enemies of women and advocate the killing of _all the women who had abortions_. They'd rather attack clinics and doctors and harass clinic patients. Why? Because there are too many of us. For this reason, I also advocate the coming out of women who have had an aboriton and are happy to discuss it and its relation to women's liberation. Taking a page from queer politics, I say, "we are here, we've had an abortion, get used to it -- we are everywhere!"

Last but not the least, anti-abortionists don't care about the concrete reality of fetuses and abortions. The fetus is *just a symbol for them* (a symbol of 'lost innocence,' lost religious authority, lost patriarchal control over female sexuality, etc.). Otherwise, they would be protesting against & bombing fertility clinics as well, where unwanted eggs and fetuses are disposed of without them becoming targets of terrorism. Why the different treatment of abortion clinics and fertility clinics by the Right? Because the former symbolizes women's independence from such gender-making institutions as marriage & motherhood, while the latter epitomizes the ideology of biological motherhood at all costs.

Yoshie



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list