Of Birds And Bees, And The Free Oppression Of Women, Part II

So far in this series, which actually begins with Kicking At The Darkness, we have discussed whether the human fetus is in fact human, and whether abortion rights actually liberate women. We have concluded both that the fetus is indeed human, and that women are actually oppressed by abortion and its advocacy.

Today (and the next few days) I turn to some harsh realities. Each bitter pill is presented for context and to give us some guidance–along with honest understanding of the world–as we wiggle through the minefield which is the abortion debate.

First, recall with me the practices of former Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu, who was ousted in 1989. Ceausescu's attempt to create an abundant supply of citizens by mandating pregnancy created despicable horrors. Forced quarterly gynecological exams for women, even at the workplace, and vicious punishments for aborting a child, were just a small part of his heartlessness. Countless children were abandoned by frightened and already impoverished mothers, later placed and then neglected in hideously underfunded and squalid orphanages. There has hardly been a more grotesque abuse of children and the sacred mothers who, by nature and not by government fiat, are indeed equipped to bring those very children to life. It is enough to make the skin crawl and the soul crouch in a corner.

It is this horrendous historical fact that colors the abortion debate in our country for countless abortion rights advocates. Outlawing abortion, as Ceaucescu did, appears to many one small step, or even a large one, toward mandating pregnancy. It is a legitimate fear.

But there is a counterpoint to this that is equally horrible, perhaps to be revealed in its full brutality by social scientists ten, twenty or a hundred years hence. It is the horror that is entirely Chinese, and could easily become entirely American. That horror is forced abortion; the mandated termination of prenatal life. Just as a dictator may use anti-abortion sentiments to draft laws forcing women into pregnancy, a dictator could use pro-choice sentiments to force women into sterility.

Prudence would have us pause here and ask, Which outcome is more likely in America? Would a pro-life democracy, proud of its celebration of women and children, turn vicious and contra-natural, forcing women to be baby-makers for the state? Or would a pro-choice democracy devolve into forcing women to abort their babies, perhaps to abate population growth, also in a contra-natural imposition against women and children? Who knows?

My particular confidence is in this: Democracies are less likely to turn to drastic impositions. After all, forcing women to abort or to conceive are historical practices, not of democracy, but of communism (Romanian and Chinese respectively). And I hold particular allegiance to something perhaps viscerally and not rationally inferred: I don't believe a pro-life democracy is likely to force women into mandatory baby-making, largely for consistency's sake. For pro-lifers don't want to oppress either babies or mothers, or even potential mothers. But a pro-choice democracy already has a strike against it: If it can permit a mother to kill a child in utero, it is not too far from encouraging such killing. The distance between permission to kill and insisting on it is less than it is between protecting a child from death and forcing a woman into pregnancy.

How can I make such a claim? Because pro-lifers are not anti-choice. They recognize that any woman can choose to kill her baby, they just don't recognize that such a choice should be legal (and funded and protected by the citizenry, particularly those who oppose it). They don't want to prevent a woman from choosing to kill her baby any more than they want to prevent a man from stealing a car. Laws are not really preventative; they are punative. Speeding laws are not drafted to keep you from choosing to speed. They are drafted to punish you if you do. And pro-lifers recognize that most women, including the vast number of women who've aborted a child, nearly always have a choice: To have sex or not (or to have unprotected sex or not). The choice comes not in the consequences stage. It comes in the initial stage. And that choice is (usually) always free.

And what, if any, is the punishment for a woman who aborts a baby in a pro-life society? My guess is that it is the same as a pro-choice one: A woman has to bear the consequences of her "choice", which is the intentional killing of her child. This is not imposed in some sort of trial; there are to be no sentencing hearings for mothers who abort. There will just be self-loathing, sorrow, remorse. And these do not come from outside; they come not from church or country club. They come from within: The women I know who have had abortions punish themselves every day (and those who do not are largely in some sort of denial).

Let me try my hand at pointing out the paradox: The "punishment" for a mother's actions in a pro-life society, where abortion would be illegal, is to give birth, or to feel guilt for choosing not to; and the "blessing" of a pro-choice society is the legal power to choose to kill. But which society produces the harsher terms–the one where children are born, or the one where they are permitted to be killed? The one society claims to desire to protect life, and it does, making failure to participate in that protection the only painful thing. The other society claims to protect freedom, and it does, though its proof of that freedom is the freedom to kill. Which society do you believe would produce the least amount of suffering, the greatest amount of winners?

For sharper focus, think of the name of Planned Parenthood, the international non-profit organization committed to family planning. Think of what Planned Parenthood stands for: It stands for parenthood that is planned. Ironically, Planned Parenthood is hugely pro-choice. Why is this ironic? For this simple reason: planning for anything, like a vacation or a business venture or a wedding, should always include contingency plans for THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE NOT PLANNED. What, pray tell, does a wedding planner do if she has not planned for a rainstorm spoiling a wedding under the stars? You get the idea.

Well, here's Planned Parenthood's contingency plan for parenthood that is unplanned: Something could always be killed–in the name of freedom, of course.

Clearly, that is no plan at all.

(I am not through yet, so be patient.)

Contratimes
To continue this series, read here.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes

[Photo: Nesting tree swallows contend over mate and nesting box, Hancock, NH. Camera: Canon A2. Lens: Sigma 300/4 APO Macro with Sigma 1.4x EX APO extender. Film: Fujicolor 400. Exposure: 1/1500 @ f5.6. Monopod. Click on photo for larger view. All rights reserved.]