Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

The Rhetoric of Abortion: Reflections from a Former Pro-life Activist

By Elizabeth Wardle, PhD, AlterNet. Posted October 14, 2006.


As a sheltered Christian teenager, I thought I knew what was right for all women. But as I gained more life experience and education, I learned the hardest questions don't have easy answers.
Advertisement

Editor's Note: The following is an excerpt from Abortion Under Attack: Women on the Challenges Facing Choice, edited by Krista Jacob.

In the house and church I grew up in, there was no question about where I would stand on abortion. A fetus was a life. We opposed taking life. Case closed.

What conversation can be had when only one question is considered pertinent? I was a chaste, Christian, small-town, pro-life teenager from a happy home with two parents. My most exciting experiences were church camping trips. At sixteen, I had never even kissed a boy. Nothing had ever happened to me to suggest other questions were relevant in the abortion debate. I was sure of my views and sure my experiences provided enough information with which to make an informed decision about what was right for all women everywhere.

Thus, I goaded my girlfriends into attending protests and meetings and starting teenage pro-life groups. No one questioned me. Where we came from, my girlfriends were wrong not to have thought of going to the meetings before I did. They admired my staunch, unquestioning sense of what was right and wrong. Looking back, it's clear I was pompous, self-righteous, and unbearably certain of myself. But I had the total peace of mind that only comes from a worldview with no shades of gray.

My certainty and peace of mind were not to last, however. College showed me that life is full of gray.

In college I discovered that some people have sex without feeling they have done something dirty, that women get pregnant who are in no position to take care of a child, and that one of the most frightening things in the world for an eighteen-year-old from a pro-life, Christian fundamentalist family would be telling her parents she was pregnant. If I had become pregnant and informed my parents, I knew exactly where I would have gone: straight to a home for pregnant teenage mothers, to be physically well-cared for and proselytized to for nine months, after which time my child would have been adopted by a good, white fundamentalist family dying for a healthy new (white) baby. I would have been shamed. My parents' biggest concern would have been how to hide my pregnancy from their friends.

Problematic as this response would have been, it pales in comparison to what has actually happened to other Christian teenagers, who have been disowned, thrown out of their homes, and even physically harmed. It later came as no surprise that, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, one in five women seeking abortions is a born-again or an Evangelical Christian. Had I become pregnant as a teenager, I would have done all in my power--including consider an abortion--to avoid the shame I would have felt in the eyes of my Christian community.

I began to understand why parental consent laws might be a bad idea: they can raise the number of late-term abortions, as young women from conservative homes put off a decision or wait for parental or judicial consent. Some pregnant teens would even choose illegal abortions rather than face their parents' wrath.

In my women's studies classes I learned about poverty and racism, about misogyny, about the history of birth control (or rather, control of birth control). I learned that for many women there are several important questions that come before whether or not a fetus is a life--questions such as, "Will this pregnancy cost me my life? Who will feed this child? Where is one person who will provide me with some support if I have this child?" I learned that two out of three women who have abortions say they cannot afford a child and half do not have a dependable partner with earning potential. In one study, Glen Stassen and Lewis B. Smedes, Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, found a clear correlation between unemployment rates, healthcare costs, and abortion rates.

The more I learned the more I began to let go of my carefully held certainties. After my worldview took on a few more shades of gray, my friends started telling me about their abortions. I had to come to terms with the fact that the women against whom I had so emphatically protested in high school were good people, people I knew, people I would want for my friends. What to do with that? Love the sinner, hate the sin? Fairly easy to say in Christian theory, but my friends didn't seem like sinners. They seemed like girls who had fallen in love, or been taken advantage of, or even raped.

I started to wonder about sin, and why so much sin in the Christian tradition falls on women, centers around women's bodies.

By the end of college, my former certainty about abortion had completely deserted me. I had arrived at a place where I couldn't identify myself as pro-life any longer. I now believed in choice, but without advocating abortion. I still believed a fetus was a life--but I had come to understand there were other issues at stake, too. Was mine a pro-choice position? None of the pro-choice rhetoric with which I was familiar led me to believe it was; having once been a true believer in the pro-life movement, I found nothing in the rhetoric of the pro-choice movement that appealed to me or adequately stated my position.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: feminism, essay, issues, women, voices, personal, choice, pro-choice, abortion

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


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:
So many good points
Posted by: zipper696 on Oct 14, 2006 4:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How refreshing to see what happens when education and life experience broaden the mind of cloistered people.
Would that more of these misled teens signing up to the Total Abstinence programs and being told that sex = sin could have a similar experience.

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

» RE: you mischaraterize Posted by: Lauren
» Abortion/breast cancer Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Abortion/breast cancer Posted by: morticia
Religion is a serious threat to American democracy
Posted by: Moonray on Oct 14, 2006 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In many U.S. school districts, including mine, children are not taught real sex education because local churches have intimidated and infiltrated the local school board. And that's just one small example of religion's harmful effects on our nation.

Notice I make make no distinction between conservative and "progressive" religious groups. That's because I firmly believe there is no real difference. So-called progressive groups merely act as enablers of their right-wing cousins. Those who decide to abandon logic and common sense in favor of believing in an invisible sky-god left over from the Bronze Age cannot claim to be progressive in any sense of the word. I have found that most of these folks are simply to intellectually timid to stand up to religion, and thus flock together in these little "progressive" churches to appear socially respectable.

It's all very sad, because the forces of ignorance and stupidity are winning this battle. If you don't believe me, just watch and see how many Bible-thumping Republicans are elected to Congress next month despite all that's happened in the past six years.

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

TV
Posted by: vincen13 on Oct 14, 2006 6:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What a beautiful piece of writing. I admire you and understand your journey. Mine is very similar. I grew up in certainty abortion was unacceptable and in time and experience changed my thinking to staunch pro-choice.

Your thinking is very elegant and powerful. I agree with you 300% about the social issues that need to be addressed to make it safe for each woman to choose as she needs to.

When I am feeling angry and bitter about this issue I suggest that rather than outlawing abortion we should enact laws that make it a crime to impregnate a woman when she is not able to carry the child to term. We could shift our legal focus from punishing terrified, pregnant, young women to punishing the men who impregnated her. Do paternity testing right away, find the offending male, and imprison him for 2 years, all of his earnings banked for the mother and make it a felony not to pay child support. In my dreams, I know, and it is an angry, punitive fantasy but that is how I feel when I see the "right-to-lifers" lined up a mile long with their children in the cold trying to foist their view of the world onto me as I drive by.

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

» And I can't help but notice Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
» RE: TV Posted by: tofurella
Still missing a major point
Posted by: TonyGottlieb on Oct 14, 2006 6:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The abortion issue must progress beyond a woman's rights aspect. Made illegal, courts and justice systems confronted with abortion penalties and punishments could not contain the result. Pro and anti-Abortion advocates alike ignore the two parent involvement issue. They are called fathers not partners. They are seeking their rights. Therein may be the common ground, and perhaps the answer.

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

» RE: Still missing a major point Posted by: MartianBachelor
Finally - the refreshing truth!
Posted by: ggmurray on Oct 14, 2006 7:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for this wonderful article that shines a light on the whole abortion debate. No one WANTS an abortion: it is the choice of last resort. I think healing around this issue will come as we have the courage to speak the truth about our experiences.

I had an abortion many years ago, a hard choice, but the right one at that time in my life. From it I learned that life itself is more than a body, and that on the soul level we are loved unconditionally, and so is the departed one.

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

POINT 'A' TO POINT ' B'
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 14, 2006 7:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Opposing views are interesting and make for good arguments. But a running account of how a young woman came to her decision is enlightening. Life is alot of gray. Trying to make it black and white doesn't work. Thanks for sharing this and I hope that lots of young women and even girls get to read it. A sane and sensible approach to a complicated matter. Thanks, ANNA

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

"I was once a she-bot programmed by Patriarchy, but now I'm cured"
Posted by: H_H on Oct 14, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my women's studies classes I learned about poverty and racism, about misogyny, about the history of birth control

I also learned that white, comfortably middle-class women on college campuses were the most disadvantaged, oppressed group on planet Earth. And that men stink.

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

Thank you
Posted by: WyrdSister on Oct 14, 2006 8:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thank you, thank you for this article. It is relieving to see the things I have been trying to articulate all in one article.

People need to know that there are alot of things that feed into the Choice position rather than just the one that anti-choicers spew: abortion = murder.

Independant thought is a difficult concept for the anti-choicers, it's really easy to repeat one montra over and over again. But complex thoughts and ideas need to be brought to the table and acknowledged before any real changes can be made.

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

But after all that is said, she is still not pro-choice
Posted by: Envi on Oct 14, 2006 8:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although I find it good to hear that exposure to the world and education has made this author very thoughtful on this issue, when it comes right down to it, she is still against a woman's right to choose. A wonderfully idealistic piece- don't we all wish the world could be as she wishes? But, come down to earth, life is not that way in America, and won't be for a long time to come under a our present presiding political/religious wingnut party. They are patently against every improvement she cites, such as teaching birth control, living wages, etc. The fact still remains that when put to the test, she will be yet another fundamentalist trying to punish women for having sex by supporting the archaic right wing. Don't get me wrong, excellent article, but read between the lines and you will see that nothing has truly changed in her mind.

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

welcome to life, Dr. Wardle
Posted by: hannah on Oct 14, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, amazing how one's thinking can change when one comes out of their narrow little world and begins to see life from all points. And you are so right, Dr. Wardle; your new view is indeed pro-life. Basically just a matter of putting yourself in another's shoes for just a moment, to see how and why they have come to a life-changing decision. Isn't it more "Christian", anyway, to not be judgmental of others and the choices they make? Isn't that God's job anyway? It apalls me to see and hear so many so-called "Christians", who are actually the biggest hypocrites and bigots in the world, passing judgement, and attempting to pass along their view of everyone who doesn't or can't live life according to the "Christian's" idea of how everything should be.

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

Rhetoric
Posted by: fork on Oct 14, 2006 8:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Was mine a pro-choice position? None of the pro-choice rhetoric with which I was familiar led me to believe it was; having once been a true believer in the pro-life movement, I found nothing in the rhetoric of the pro-choice movement that appealed to me or adequately stated my position."

But all the italicized points following this, such as " Birth control, sex education, and factually correct abstinence-only programs are abortion issues" or "Raising the minimum wage is an abortion issue" have long been part of pro-choice rhetoric. The problem is that you didn't get to hear them; instead you were fed strawman arguments. What is to be done about this when the flow of information is controlled by conservatives, either in the context of parents and churches inculcating children, or with biased MSM sources?

The message has been out there a long time. Your article says nothing new about how to get the message across.

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

» RE: Rhetoric Posted by: WyrdSister
Misguided
Posted by: dkm on Oct 14, 2006 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article is based on the supposition that what gets the antiabortionists all excited is abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. In reality they demand that women subject themselves to the domination of men. Afterall, why is the antiabortion movement so predominantly male?

For this reason there is no possibility that any of the italicized factors will be allowed to come to pass since they allow women to have control of their own lives. It is a nice dream, but it is based on a false assumption.

Another false assumption is the term, "pro-life." If they were really prolife they would be protesting against Bush's wars of conquest, but instead they are among his staunchest supporters. It takes a unique ability of self-deception to be in favor of a life before it exists and then in favor of ending after it exists.

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

» RE: Misguided Posted by: Ocean tides
Who's choice is it?
Posted by: DinTN on Oct 14, 2006 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Loved your article!
Personally I don't think anyone who has never been or will ever be in the position of being pregnant, or being a father-to-be, should have any say whatsoever in this issue. How can someone who will never be effected by whether or not abortion is legal or illegal think that it is in any way their business!
It amazes me how so many so called "activists" get involved in issues that will in now way effect their own personal lives. It seems to me that most are just so bored in their own lives that they think they have a right to sway everyone elso over to their way of thinking knowing that a particular issue never has and never will be a choice they personally will have to face.
Let only the people, male and female, who will possibly someday have to such a decision have the final say, and all others should mind their own business!

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

» You still dont get it do ya? Posted by: may261989
» RE: You still dont get it do ya? Posted by: dangerouslysane
» Your confused Posted by: Patriot50
Blaming men is not the solution
Posted by: jackyb on Oct 14, 2006 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Perhaps the reason more men are pro-life is because more men are closer to God. They have to be, because for men there is no government lifeline. If women used not men for reference but God, instead, perhaps the blame game would diminish enough to focus on the real problem: survival in an undignified world where unfairness grows exponentially. This author will never advance her ideas when her agenda is all about woman, the hell with men in the process. As the fertility rate of third-world countries eclipses the West, simple math tells us that Western-style woman across the globe are doomed for extinction. Surviving means forming a partnership with men -- not war. It is ironic how so many choice woman blame men for the world's wars, but in the same breath they fan the flames of war against men.

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

» RE: Blaming men is not the solution Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Blaming men is not the solution Posted by: MartianBachelor
» P.S. to MartianBachelor Posted by: morticia
» RE: Blaming men is not the solution Posted by: dangerouslysane
» forgotten victims Posted by: LDavistrueblue
» RE: forgotten victims Posted by: morticia
» P.S. Posted by: morticia
Feminism at Work
Posted by: jenniferm on Oct 14, 2006 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm disheartened to see the know-it-all responses from what I imagine are some self-identified feminists. This thoughtfully written piece is a window into the way that many people experience, or experienced, what it means to be "pro-life." Perhaps the "no-duh" responses and mis-readings of this text (e.g., the author as currently a fundamentalist) are ample evidence of why the pro-choice movement too often fails to get its message to those who might benefit from it most--young women who identify as "pro-life." Being a feminist means practicing feminist ideals and to do so means not being an ass when given the opportunity to dialogue with those who do not share your exact views, an opportunity that does in fact always exist as the author's piece evidences.

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

» RE: Feminism at Work Posted by: may261989
» RE: Feminism at Work Posted by: danielle
Thanks
Posted by: leftcoasttransplant on Oct 14, 2006 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just wanted to say thank you for this article -- I've been saying for years that abortion is not the sole issue, and that by working on related issues of reproductive health, family planning, sex education, gender-based violence, etcetera, that we could decrease the need for abortion. I am firmly pro-choice, but recognize abortion as one symptom of a multi-faceted issue. I've gone to pro-choice rallies with signs that say "comprehensive sex ed prevents abortion" and "support family planning," and other feminists have been surprised and impressed by the thought behind those simple statements. While I appreciate their positive response, it confounds me that even within the pro-choice movement, so few people advocate for the bigger picture. Hopefully, articles like yours will help to remind and educate people! :)

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

» RE: Thanks Posted by: dangerouslysane
Pro-Choice?!? Gimme a break.
Posted by: LeslieGem on Oct 14, 2006 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is one of the most disturbing articles I've read on Alternet -- both for the content and the comments afterwards.

Wake up folks. Abortion won't be eliminated once you eliminate the social problems mentioned in the article. Do you know how many middle-class, married women have abortions? How many single, well-off women with partners or other support systems in place have abortions? There are women who either don't want children period or don't want anymore children. Do you support their right to an abortion? Or do you only support abortion rights for women that YOU DECIDE are worthy enough for this right? Anyone else that you deem unworthy better suck it up and have a child against their will.

Give me a break.

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

we could be twins
Posted by: ladyoracle on Oct 14, 2006 12:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your awakening to the complexity of the aboriton issue is much like mine. It's refreshing to know I'm not the only girl who was raised as a fundamentalist, but then changed my mind. You are also dead-right about how comforting it is to think one knows what's absolutely right and wrong.

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

she gives a useful rhetorical position for arguing with pro-lifers
Posted by: ladyoracle on Oct 14, 2006 12:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yes, any woman who is pregnant and wishes not to bring a child into the world should be able to make that choice without censure.

but, this is a useful argument to make to someone who is pro-life, but who is also (likely) against social programs that would help the woman after the precious fetus is born.

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

Pro Life? It's Really Pro BIRTH
Posted by: Cherieerwin on Oct 14, 2006 12:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RE: the labeling and importance of it: "pro-choice" is an OK label, but in my opinion what the group attitude really promotes IS "pro (quality of) life". But this "pro-life" group as you point out isn't an accurate description at all: they are pro-BIRTH. In many instances it results in another unwanted baby destined to misery. How can anyone consider the cheap "life" that results from a quantity of more babies that no one wants as compared to the quality life offered that baby who is truly loved, wanted and can be financially supported?
If we can get people to envision the quality not quantity aspect, i.e. that quality of life is more important than just breeding babies regardless of the circumstances they'll have to live under when they arrive maybe they can think about what "life" really means, and if we as a society prefer quality to quantity when considering our offspring.

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

Ms. Wardle, I beg to differ....
Posted by: morticia on Oct 14, 2006 1:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....that the pro-choice side lacks powerful visual images supporting safe, legal abortion:

The Bad Old Days

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

» RE: Ms. Wardle, I beg to differ.... Posted by: dangerouslysane
Thank you LeslieGem
Posted by: munchkinpup on Oct 14, 2006 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for being one of the few to "get it." Your comments are right on target. The author has experienced the LUXURY to have been able to attend college, learn about the abuse (historical and current) of women and presto she changes her mind. I too attended college and studied women's history, however I was from an upper middle class fairly liberal family. Girls in my high school class were getting abortions before they even attended college. They did not want to have a child- yet. I have also known economically advantaged happily married women who have had abortions for various reasons.
No, abortion will not be eliminated even if all of the opportunities and benefits from pro women/family programs ever came to fruition, which is extremely unlikely. Here is the point where this article and the author lost her way:

"But part of the loss of the rhetorical war is the fault of pro-choice feminists; for decades they have reacted to the terms set by anti-choice conservatives, simultaneously alienating women like me, who are for choice but not for abortion. I'd like to see us engage in a new discussion, employing new terms, contexts, and standards; being pro-active instead of reactive."

Huh?! Pro choice feminists are not at fault for anything. Let's cut the "pro-active and reactive" doublespeak and speak the truth. It is difficult to say the least, to battle with a religious movement that only wants to see women shackled by male domination of women's sexuality forever. The author states she wants to "engage in a new discussion," but her very words belie the same old anti choice agenda, just a "new" refrain.
Otherwise, WHAT IS REPRODUCTIVE CHOICE?? IF WE ARE FOR CHOICE, THEN WE ARE FOR ABORTION RIGHTS. PERIOD.

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

» RE: Thank you LeslieGem Posted by: crashgrab
Come on, ladies.
Posted by: emsimm on Oct 14, 2006 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, this is well written . . . as a result of your Ph.D. in Rhet and Comp. The use of a conversion narrative is a clever device, and the comments that people have left you are a testament to its effectiveness. Despite the fact that is well-crafted, I question your sincerity. Is this an assumed, fictional narrative voice? Are you really advocating that we beware of this particular argument?

I take exception to it for two reasons: a) its just too damn soft, and b)the 'woman' is conspicously absent. I'm glad that at least one commentator sent in a picture to remind us of the 'coat hanger' days. Do we really need to be as mushy as your piece to win over the hearts and consciences of the conservative right? Are they really so hardened or willing to close their eyes to images like this?

Why do we reject all rhetoric associated with 2nd Wave feminism? Despite what's going on in South Dakota, things seem pretty quiet on the Western Front. Is the 'in your face' approach over the-top? A bit. But the women's movement worked for us and the fact that we have dispensed with all of its politics and protest tactics looks like we have turned our back on our past and spat in the faces of all the women who led us to our current lives.

Taken as a 'stand alone', your argument might not be the smartest approach to retaining access to abortion in the future/present. If we want to retain our current rights (I live in MA, so I'm luckier than some) we need to combine your rhetorical approach with 2nd wave activism.

Your argument isn't falling on deaf ears here on alternet, but beyond? Loving the optimism, but its not motivating anyone to get out and picket, or donate to planned parenthood, or knock on the doors of their legislators, or revolutionize their school districts' health curricula. Want to know what the real problem is? The real impediment to access to abortion? We've become lazy. We're resting on the laurels of 2nd wave feminists.

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

Clarifications--Part I
Posted by: EWardle on Oct 14, 2006 2:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always tell my students that we read in any text what we bring to it, and that truism is clearly evident in the responses to my article. The responses suggest I am a thoughtful feminist *and* and fundamentalist right wing nutjob *and* a manhating "feminazi." How can all these be true? And how can my text support all of these readings? They can't--and it doesn't.

I wrote at the urging of my friend and editor Krista. I did not want to write for publication. It took years for her to convince me to do so. I didn't imagine I had much new to say, but I did imagine the personal cost of saying whatever I said could be high. The abortion debate is so polemical, so divisive. There is absolutely no dialogue, no room on either end for a view that strays from the core, fundamental beliefs of the movement (whichever movement that might be). Krista urged me to try to say something that might encourage an actual dialogue, that might lead us all to focus on potential areas of agreement. That's what I tried to do, by illustrating to feminists that it is possible for a right-wing fundamentalist to change (over a long period of time, by the way--there was no "presto" about it) and by illustrating to the "pro-life" movement that perhaps there is room for more than one position while still maintaining one's core values for ones' own choices.

I am grateful for the many thoughtful responses I've read here. I'm also disappointed by some mean-spirited misreadings. There is nothing in my article to suggest that I am "yet another fundamentalist trying to punish women for having sex." Unless you think the fact that I hold a personal belief that a fetus is a life makes me a fundamentalist. I disagree; what would make me a fundamentalist is if I thought a fetus was a life *and* that I then had the right to push my belief into law and onto the bodies of all women everywhere. I do not. My choice is just that--my choice. What other women do must be their choice--and thus, I will always vote for pro-choice (not pro-abortion or anti-abortion) candidates.

What disturbs me most about the ongoing abortion "debate" is that fundamentalism is alive and well on both sides. To be a fundamentalist is to believe certain things are true and everyone else must believe those things, too, in exactly the same way. I expect this of Evangelicals; I was one, after all. I am disappointed to see fundamentalism rear its ugly head on AlterNet, among self-proclaimed progressives. We will never make headway on this issue until we can listen and *hear* and respond thoughtfully and respectfully to people with whom we do not exactly agree. Attacks and name-calling might make us feel better about ourselves and our view, but they won't change people's minds, which is, after all, the point of a dialogue (isn't it?). Being condescending and sarcastic are also very poor rhetorical tools if change is what we are after. They, again, might make you feel like the superior person (i.e., the "she-bot programmed by Patriarchy" comment was really clever and Wardle's article wasn't funny or clever at all, so H_H gets to feel smarter), but they alienate any person who might consider a pro-choice position. Who will be influenced by a group that acts nasty, spiteful, and superior--whether that group is pro- or anti-choice?

[More below...too long]

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

» RE: Clarifications--Part I Posted by: txjill
» RE: a theological argument Posted by: Ripcord
Clarifications--Part II
Posted by: EWardle on Oct 14, 2006 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Finally, I want to adress the patriarchy comments. I agree there are so many more factors involved in the abortion issue than those I have stated, one being that a patriarchal society encourages women to pro-create and is solidified when women cannot control their own bodies and that women are forced into patriarchy-approved roles when access to abortion is limited. Believe me, as a professional woman who chooses not to be a mother, I am well aware of the pressure to pro-create and fulfill my "proper role." But my article was about something else--it was about why I used to be against laws that allowed for choice and what events encouraged me to see shades of gray. When I was against choice laws, any mention of patriarchy and controlling women's bodies would have immediately shut down a conversation with me. I didn't understand it and couldn't see it at that point in my personal journey. I needed other sorts of information in order to change. The patriarchy-controlling-women's-lives conversation can be productive among those who are already at a place where they can understand it, but it has limited usefulness for helping open dialogue and change the minds of "pro-lifers" who typically see the very concept of "patriarchy" as another piece of "liberal propaganda." That's why it's left out in this article.

What I'd like to do as a feminist and a rhetorician is seek out ways to stop talking *about* the "others" and instead start talking *with* them in order to change minds and improve the lives of women and children and--yes--men everywhere. My story is an attempt to demonstrate how I think that could happen. I'm sure many of you have other ideas about how to make this happen. I look forward to reading them. There are those of you reading, however, who clearly do not think the goal is to change minds of opponents but rather "battle" and "conquer" them. To those readers, I can only say we do not share the same goals or methods. Yours is the rhetoric of the closed fist; mine is the rhetoric of the open hand.

Peace and Choice,
Elizabeth

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

» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: kablooie
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: MEL810
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: Madam Hatter
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: xennonette
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: morticia
» RE: Clarifications--Part II Posted by: Madam Hatter
Coddled daughters of the religious right eventually learn.
Posted by: carcinoid112 on Oct 14, 2006 3:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They usually just keep their mouths shut.

At least ONE had the guts to admit she DID NOT UNDERSTAND.

And maybe she's got it all worked out intellectually, but this might just move her closer to the point of getting it worked out practically. Any move to interfere in the medical decisions of an individual and that individuals physician are highly suspect. If I decide that I don't want wealthy old men to have penile implants...I, by the absurd logic of the anti-choice movement, should be allowed to prevent it by law. Then, I might gather a group that decides there should be no access to certain medications. (How many insurance programs of all sort refuse to pay for birth control, but shell out regularly for Viagra?)

A society controlled for the benefit of the wealthy, powerful and usually male will have these problems. How about the US backs off the backwards fundamentalist turn that the Bush Administration has dragged us down with? Then the currently outraged 'betrayed' religious fundamentalists can pull away form the political fundamentalists that have used them, and suddenly, the anti-choice movemont goes back to being the province of the uneducated, the narrowminded and the brainwashed.

Give the woman credit. She learned over a number of years what so many of us learned very rapidly while standing by the deathbed (or floor, or bathtub, or alley or cartrunk) of our desperate sisters and friends who paid with their lives for something they were only half (or less) responsible for.

There's currently a young person with a CafePress site with the South Dakota restrictions and a wire hanger on t-shirts. I would hope (and as a Christian, also pray) that this never becomes needed nationwide, and that the restrictions are lifted. It's been 20 years since I watched a child die in an overcrowded Emergency Room from a self-administered "old wives tale/urban rumor" pregnancy termination of cola and Drano. I don't want to ever have to think of it again, but it comes back to haunt me regularly. Pro-life? Like her adoptive father who was also the father of the fetus that the 12 year old was trying to get rid of? AND of the baby his 16 year old half sister bore a few months later? He got 16 months. And she got to be dead.

If it's not your body, it's not your call. If you don't have a uterus, don't interfere with those that do. If you're wanting to exercize 'father's rights' you BETTER be ready for the responsibilities, too.

Anti-Choice. Brought to you by the people that also oppose financial help for the poor, healthcare for ANYBODY that can't pay, lots of big wars and plenty of capital punishment.

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

growing up with a mind
Posted by: Gregor on Oct 14, 2006 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we insist on regulating women's bodies, why not do what the Nazi's did with their pregnant teen moms. Just create an insititution where they can have their babies and then the babies who are most Aryan or gee, in this case "Most American" (however we could define that) and raise them as Hitler Youth--oh excuse me, "Christian Youth" or "American Youth" or whatever. I am sure that institution is coming, after all even the Right Wingers know you can't totally control humans, life is messy after all. If it could have been done it would have been done. Hitler was real close though.

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

» RE: growing up with a mind Posted by: dangerouslysane
Never put your opponent in a corner
Posted by: jackyb on