Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Reproductive Justice and Gender

If Men Could Get Pregnant, Abortion Would be a Sacrament

By Erica Jong, Huffington Post. Posted January 22, 2008.


Childbirth is miraculous, but it can also be difficult, dangerous and even deadly -- so why should men be able to force women to go through it?
antiabortion
Anti-Abortion Men
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Thirty five years ago (22 January 1973) the Supreme Court decided a case titled Roe v. Wade which held that until a fetus is viable outside its mother's body (twenty eight weeks), it is not a legal individual whose rights extend beyond the rights of its mother, that in fact the mother's health preempts any rights the partially formed embryo has.

This case overturned a law in Texas that criminalized abortion and reverberated through the states. According to the Roe decision, laws against abortion violated a woman's right to privacy under due process (in the Fourteenth Amendment). This decision superceded state laws restricting abortion.

Roe v. Wade is one of the most controversial cases in U.S. Supreme Court history. Even before it was decided there were men and women whose stomachs turned at the idea of abortion. The issue had been argued many times before in fairly recent history. In 18th century England, mothers accused of murder were not put to death if they could prove they were "with child." In infamous London prisons of the day there were "child-getters"--fertile men who could reliably make a woman pregnant. Some female criminals availed themselves of their services repeatedly so as not to be hanged.

In the early Soviet Union, abortion was freely available. It was later abolished because too many women were using it in place of birth control--which was hard for most women to get up until the sixties and seventies. Rich women had it, but often not the working classes. Remember Mary McCarthy's The Group? Vassar girls had diaphragms in the thirties--but not blue collar women who relied on condoms and men who would wear them or withdraw before ejaculation. As a seventeen-year-old freshman at Barnard, I got my first diaphragm from Planned Parenthood (a college tradition). I never got pregnant accidentally because I knew that an abortion would make me terribly sad. I loved children, dogs, cats and other living things, and I understood that terminating a pregnancy would be extremely hard for me emotionally. (But then I had sophisticated New York gynecologists all my life and grew up in liberal, enlightened Manhattan with parents who were bohemians of the thirties before they surprised themselves by getting rich).

In my own Manhattan high school years, girls disappeared from New York to darkest New Jersey or Pennsylvania to seek the services of illegal abortionists and many of them were accidentally sterilized while others may have died. Rich women in New York went to Flower Fifth Avenue hospital for a "D & C." My mother did this as late as 1960, but our housekeepers and baby nurses from Jamaica or the Deep South didn't have that option. A safe medical abortion (my mother referred to it in whispers as an "a- b") was expensive and hard to find. Many poor women got infected and died. In my mother's case, as I later learned, my father was adamant about not having another baby. There were already three girls growing up and needing private schools, hand-smocked party dresses, music lessons, art lessons, ballet, figure skating, charge accounts at Saks, Best and Company and Bergdorf's, Doubleday book stores (with their listening booths for LPS--which we quaintly called "records."

How interesting that the thirty-fifth anniversary of Roe comes on the very day that my daughter will go home from the hospital after having had twins. She had a really tough time, and has been warned that she would be at risk if she got pregnant again. She is not yet thirty and has had, thank the goddess, three beautiful children and a lovely husband. She also has generous parents and in-laws, step-parents who adore her and can refuse her nothing. But she was still terrified by a very difficult delivery (the details of which are hers not mine to describe. Since she is a much-published novelist, I'm sure she will).

The babies, a girl and a boy, are miraculous--like all babies--bringing back to me Ordinary Miracles, a book of poems about childbirth I wrote when Molly was born. (The phrase has entered the language--or been ripped off by various ASCAPniks and jingle writers). Babies are miraculous, especially just when they just wake to the world.

They seem to come from a better place which some call 'God,' some call 'Mother Nature,' and some call human evolution, depending on your point of view. (I happen to think that evolution is every bit as numinous as 'God'). But one thing is clear: Having them ain't easy. And that's long before you have to raise them.

For centuries, death in childbirth was woman's lot. In some places, it still is. In mountainous Afghanistan where women can't get to hospitals or there are none, in war zones, in occupied zones with barriers or curfews, in many parts of Africa, in rural India, and China, in rural America, giving birth is still no joke. Even in big cities, it can be dangerous. There is massive bleeding, the placentas don't always detach promptly, babies are often transverse or breach, just for starters. Then there is the question of medical care.

Again, in the eighteenth-century, my favorite period in English Literature, (at the dawn of the modern era--but before Louis Pasteur), accoucheurs (the precursors of obstetricians) killed many women with the microbes they unknowingly carried from the sickbeds of other patients. There was a great political struggle between midwives, who only dealt with women, and doctors who treated everyone, because the doctors wanted their monopoly.

Many women died of infection--like Charlotte Bronte--or nearly died like Mary Shelley. Women's health had always been a political football in the supposedly "civilized" Christian era. Many midwives (always specialists in women's health) were burned as witches throughout modern history.

Now we know about bacteria and viruses and we are much more aware of unconscious infection, but childbirth can still be a big deal--especially for older women, very young women, the ill, the malnourished, the poor, the mothers of multiple babies. It seems to me incredible that anyone without a uterus would try to dictate what a woman should do with hers.

So I am appalled that abortion remains under attack--and that birth control in America has been impeded. We came so far with so much struggle. To give it back now is no less than an assault on women's health.

Of course babies are precious and should be cherished. Nobody doubts that. But should a woman be forced by the law to give birth if she has health issues, a dead baby, twins or triplets, or can't get to a hospital or must be accompanied but a male relative--who may be at war or dead or unwilling? Fundamentalist Muslims, like fundamentalist Christians would deny her that.

No wonder the late great Florynce Kennedy said: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: abortion, pro-choice, children, roe v wade, reproductive justice

Erica Jong is the author of eight novels including Fear of Flying; Fanny, Being the True History of the Adventures of Fanny Hackabout-Jones; Shylock's Daughter (formerly titled Serenissima); Inventing Memory, a story of mothers and daughters, and the new novel SAPPHO'S LEAP.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Reproductive Justice and Gender! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Um...
Posted by: Xynyx on Jan 22, 2008 1:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not to belittle the point... but, if men could give birth, they'd be women. It's kind of a defining biological characteristic of females... in primates, at least.

Please refrain from stating this point in exactly this manner.

If only we truly knew more about men's lot in life when matriarchies were the rule, and not the exception... I bet the concept of civil rights didn't even exist then.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Um... Posted by: quitecontrary
Driscriminatory or hateful language...
Posted by: kclarke on Jan 22, 2008 5:13 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it interesting that in your comment requirements you ask posters not to use "racist, sexist or other discriminatory or hateful language" which is exactly what YOU have done in your article. "Abortion would be a sacrament" is profoundly offensive to Catholics--mocking our Lord, our Church, and our beliefs. Despite the fact that no one grants bumpersticker headlines credibility anyway, you discredit yourselves by showing yourselves to indulge true anti-Catholic bigotry, not interested in women's issues in the first place, just your own self-gratifying rant. If you really were interested in women's issues, you would be filled with indignance at the tens of millions of womens' voices silenced through legalized abortion since 1973.

Nevertheless, I thank you for your insults. True followers of Christ know that by your curses we are blessed. By your injustice, you make it easier for people to see the truth. So mock us all you want, I just wanted to let you know that your rejection gives us joy, because we share in the rejection of the Lord. But I would not look lightly upon the blood of the innocent children on the hands of this generation. The Lord is one God, there is no other. Justice will come in this life or the next. Millions of innocent lives have been cut short by abortion, and the cries of the innocent ring out in heaven. To whom will you turn when Christ comes?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think your title is probably right
Posted by: LAmom on Jan 23, 2008 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are other areas in which our society has sought to ennoble the taking of lives: describing wars as "glorious", cheering on executions. I do believe that there are those who would hold up abortions as something glorious as well. I guess my take on it is: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament, but it would still be wrong."

The best way to address the dangers of pregnancy is to look for ways to preserve the health of both mother and child, to try as much as we can to minimize the incidences where a woman must terminate her pregnancy to protect her life. That is an area where pro-life and pro-choice can both agree.

That is why I don't support the Republican policy of wanting withhold money from international groups that provide health services and contraception just because they are also pro-choice. When we get off our butts and get some pro-life groups out there providing those services, then we can pick and choose who we give money to. But until then we've got to do what we can to protect the health of women and children.

Pro-Lifers for Peace and Justice

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement