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

[This series begins with Kicking At The Darkness.]

In this, the fourth of a series on abortion rights in America (inspired largely by the pending confirmation hearings of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court), I refer the reader to a statement in my last essay. There I stated that pro-lifers are not anti-choice. And I believe that I defended that statement ably. But now I want to examine whether pro-choice people are anti-life. And I would say that pro-choicers are as passionate about living as the most strident pro-lifer. Such passions are not without their contradictions, as most pro-lifers support the death penalty for serious crimes, whereas most pro-choicers do not. It is hard to be consistent; it is hard to be balanced. But here, we try.

I once sat on a New Hampshire porch talking with a woman who worked as a professional therapist. She was, and remains, 30 years my senior. She is what one might call, "New Age"; a radical feminist progressive, a vegetarian full of mysticism and, of course, opinion. Our friendship began when I was fresh out of college when Gail (not her real name), hired me to be her house painter and perennial housesitter. But once, while sitting watching a summer thunderstorm roll in from the southwest, Gail and I engaged in a conversation about hunting and abortion. The two topics were not directly connected; it's just how our conversation fell. And I can so clearly recall that conversation because of two opinions she offered passionately, her passion all the more fierce because I was an incongruity, at least to her: I was pro-life through and through, anti-death penalty, and (the shock!) also a vegetarian. I was anti-war, anti-hunting, anti-road kill. I was chockful of love for all living things.

But Gail wandered off into some truly strange territory. On the one hand, she clearly and vociferously opposed hunting. In fact, she had nearly severed all ties with her only son, solely because he was a hunter. She could not fathom how anyone could eat anything that did not grow on a vine.

To say that Gail was New Age is a bit of an understatement. She was all crystals and yoga and meditation, enhanced with a little marijuana. She and I even once attended a conference at Hampshire College in the New Age shangri-la of Western Massachusetts for a conference organized by psychotherapists for world peace and harmony.

So later in our conversation Gail expressed her feelings, in mystical overtones, about abortion. A believer in reincarnation, Gail proclaimed that her advice to would-be mothers facing the choice of abortion was to point out that it was not the baby's time.

"I tell them to say to the baby, 'You've come too soon, you're not welcome here. Try again later, when the world is ready for you.'"

Gail never heard my response to her admission. I am not one to trounce a sensitively-held religious ideal in the midst of a debate. But if I had said anything, it might have been something profound, like "What the hell?"

You see, Gail, passionate about life, was quite reckless about death. And she was ridiculously hypocritical. For it takes no great leap of mind to see that Gail's advice could be said by any hunter to any unfortunate deer, moose or elk: "I am sorry to do this, but I must send you back. Your time has not yet come. You are not welcome right now. Try again."

That Gail would offer this kind of apparently sympathetic advice to a woman about to kill a baby, and yet not grant that kind of grace to her son who wants to shoot a deer, is quite telling.

Moreover, Gail's view is rooted in pantheism. It is not merely rooted in sentiment, but in the pervasive New Age spirituality of most radical feminists. Such feminists renounce the "patriarchal" religions and attendant deities of "male-dominated" religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (as they are perceived). Such feminists almost always embrace a deity that is female, if they embrace a deity at all, and that female is usually associated with the Gaia, or the Mother Earth (or some such derivation or variation).

Thus, such feminists can and do take a cavalier approach to death, at least fetal death. For as the Mother Earth controls her body with her own types of abortion (earthquakes, disease, monsoons, landslides, pestilence), so too do women control their own bodies. Gaia can always give her "souls" another chance; another incarnation.

Can the reader think of a more threatening idea toward life than this? I can. It is the idea of reincarnation in general, irrespective of feminism and gods and goddesses. For it is easy to see how a tyrant or a murderer or an oppressive political system could easily slide into large-scale genocide. If everyone is to be reincarnated ad infinitum, or even once, why then fret about their deaths at all? Why NOT thin the herd, so to speak, for the good of the many, especially when the many are "not ready" or "not yet welcoming?"

Honestly, the patriarchal religions of the West (if they are patriarchal, which is debatable), especially Christianity, could never be so cavalier about life or death, as in that religion each person is unique and timely, and has only one shot at living. In fact, science is far more Christian in this sense than Hinduism or various reincarnation systems, as science pretty much concludes that one life is all one gets.

Hence it is possible that being pro-choice is to be pro-life, but what view of life is it that countenances death of children as a solution to a problem? At least the hunter is trying to feed a family. What does the death of a child actually give us, better lives?

A BROAD STROKE

Let me posit something I've nothing more than anecdotal evidence for believing. I believe that abortion and child abuse (as well as the abuse of women) are correlated. Granted, prior to Roe v. Wade children and women were abused. But I believe that Roe v. Wade moves us farther from and not closer to a solution of those problems.

Let's stipulate that abortion proponents support life, but their position is not life at any cost, but life that is worth living, a life of quality. Let's further stipulate that some children will today be born into families that should not be allowed to even care for a pet fish. But it must be asked, does accepting Roe v. Wade make for a better world?

I don't think so. If a father and mother can kill a child one minute before it is born, why can they not kick a baby around a bit one minute after it is born? If a mother can abort her child one week before delivery (partial-birth abortion) because of threats to her mental health, then why can't she drown that child one week later, when her postpartum depression proves her mental illness? You see the picture.

If you have a low view of a thing, you are likely to treat it poorly. If you believe dogs are scum, you are likely not to care for dogs. If you believe Jews are half-human, you are not likely going to afford them full human rights. If you believe babies in utero are the property of their mothers, and are only children if deemed so by their mothers (a standard pro-choice belief), then it is quite likely that you will not cherish children very much. (I am not stating that this is the outcome for all pro-choice mothers. But I think it is a dangerous underlying social current.) Violence against children in utero negatively feeds violence against all children ex utero to some degree. I don't see how that can be denied.

So where are we? We are here: Life is fraught with danger and oppression. Both pro-life and pro-choice groups attempt to overcome such dangers and oppression. But it is clear that being pro-choice is not enough to keep violence and oppression at bay. Pro-life approaches, though clearly flawed, thus foster a more convivial world and worldview. Any view that believes a high-quality of life is preserved by killing unborn babies is not much of a view.

(Again, I am not through here, so be patient.)

Contratimes

To continue this series, read here.
©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

[Photo: Blue Jay in the rain. Camera: Canon EOS 3. Lens: Sigma APO EX 300/2.8 with 1.4 extender. Film: Kodak Ektachrome 100VS. Exposure: 1/30 @ f 5.6 Tripod and cable release. Click on image for larger view. All rights reserved.]