Of Birds And Bees, And The Free Oppression Of Women: Conclusions and Solutions

[This series begins with Kicking At The Darkness.]

Let us imagine an America where all abortions are illegal. What is the one thing we would discover should that ever happen?

We we would discover that abortions will be performed, irrespective of the law.

Let us imagine America with no restrictions (we're pretty much there now) on abortion. What is the one thing we would know should that be the case?

We would know that babies will be aborted by some if not by many women, for callous, gratuitous, self-indulgent reasons. Of course, that already happens now. We know that.

Given what we know in either scenario, what solution is there to the abortion problem? On the one hand there are the pro-choicers, adamant that all women have the right to "reproductive freedom" (Orwellian newspeak, of course); that outlawing abortion, even restricting it, is tantamount to embracing a medieval ethos, returning women to back-alley abortionists. For sure, this reaction is justifiable only if everything else remains equal, i.e. motherhood remains devalued, being feminist means being like men, and the world maintains an inhospitable posture towards mothers, including unwed ones, and children (especially those from the "disadvantaged" sectors, where abortions are often sought). Moreover, abortion advocates repeatedly speak about making abortion "safe and rare." How this latter idea jives with mandating that all women have access to the complete apparatus conjoined to "reproductive freedom" is elusive and vague.

But let us assume that the abortion advocates are doggedly serious about making abortion safe and rare. What do they mean? Do they mean that rarity is guaranteed by contraceptive measures; that promiscuity should be treated benignly as long as abortion and the concomitant diseases of promiscuity are rare and safely treated? Or do they mean something more?

Now, on the other hand, we have the pro-lifers, many of whom believe that abortion should be outlawed in all instances. OK. Voila! I'll give them their wish – abortion is completely illegal in all corners of the United States. However, abortions will still occur. Now what? Convict and sentence? OK, let's do that, with severity. But guess what? Abortions will still occur, as will "bad abortions." Where does that leave us as a "culture of life"?

KEEPING THINGS RARE

It requires no great feat of mind to ascertain one supreme fact concerning the philosophy of psychology embraced and followed by pro-choice activists, and that fact is this: The pro-choice zeitgeist demands that no one feel guilty except those who make other people feel guilty. Should a woman feel guilt for sexual indiscretions or promiscuity? Of course not. Such behavior is in fact empowering, and is a behavior to which the complete women is entitled. Should a woman feel guilty about slashing her body with razors, scarring herself into the psych ward? Of course not, as she is lashing out at the repressions of her family, or the cultural exploitation of the female form, or the abuses hurled upon her by patriarchal males and their phallic ideologies. Should a woman feel guilt about aborting her unborn child, no matter the circumstance? Of course not!

You get the picture. The sexually permissive avoid guilt and shame like the plague, though they do not mind abashing the sexually pure for their alleged prudishness. Hence, it is impossible for this subset to countenance an over-turning or restricting of Roe v. Wade, precisely because it would suggest that abortion is wrong, and hence necessitating shame and guilt. This, to the abortion advocate, simply will not do.

But surely if abortion is to be "rare", there is something untoward about it, something indecent. We want cancers to be rare, and foul water. Conversely we want healthy bodies and clean water to flow with prodigality, with abundance. No one who delights in something, even if the thing is inherently benign, would wish to delight in that thing rarely. We want poverty and disease and tragedy and grief to be rare, if not obliterated. Hence, as abortion rights advocates, hoping for the rarity of abortions implies that abortion is undesirable. What, pray tell, is anyone thus doing to make abortion a rare occurrence?

A SOLUTION?

How do we, as a people divided on this issue, find a solution?

I have already made several suggestions in this series. First, all of us, particularly women, need to return to a sense that women's bodies are holy places: that the womb is a sacrament, and that motherhood is neither blight nor misfortune, nor something that "ruins" a woman's figure and sex appeal. Women's bodies are not playthings for men; nor are they idols for their indulgence. Recall with me that thousands of years ago women were placed in temples as prostitutes, incorporated into an idolatrous cult – often in honor of a female deity – in which men would gratify their lusts with sick and disturbed license. Curiously, things have not changed that much at all, as women (and men) continue to be treated as objects in the cult of mammon, sexually abusing one another for some sort of beatific vision which never comes.

Hence, if women would truly rebel against the male idea that female sexuality is mostly an orgasmic lark, and instead embrace the ideal that, as holy vessels, they must make men EARN their way in; if they put up a truly feminine fight against the cheapening of the female body (fueled by feminists); not only would women truly feel empowered, men would have to become better men. As it is, it is EASY for men to get the ONE THING THEY MOST WANT from women: Why, in this permissive and casual milieu in which consequence is treated with indifference, would a man strive to be A GREAT MAN for a woman if he can, even as a married man, find women ready to satisfy his lusts for the most superficial reasons (eg. he's cute, funny, successful, wealthy, etc.)? Why be NOBLE when nobility is no longer a prerequisite? Why be a gentleman if women are encouraged – truly – to be self-determined harlots in the cult in which we now live, granting nearly free access to their wondrous bodies for the smallest price?

Second, embracing biology, with a true understanding of human anatomy and physiology, would transform sexual ethos. An erect penis is not a toy; nor is it a weapon. It is a procreative delivery system, designed and equipped to deliver, not LOVE, nor even pleasure. It is designed to deliver a fertilizing agent; and it is so designed even if we deny its basic and incontrovertible structures. It is the fertilizing sperm and the receptive life-giving egg which together create pleasure, even sexual pleasure, for the children beyond ourselves. For if sex is truly about pleasure alone, then who would not want to share that pleasure beyond the bed, and on into the very DNA of children born of such pleasure? One look at an ejaculating penis, with its vigorous, tenacious sperm, combined with the hospitable reception of egg and womb, and one instantly realizes that sex is about sharing the joy, beauty and laughter of life with some one beyond our immediate gratification: SEX is always about someone else, if you truly see it on the biological level.

Sadly, men and women are wildly divorced from the purposes of their own bodies, though brashly believing that they are more in tune with the body's workings than their prudish ancestors. (Associated with this, we need to transform culture so that birth pangs and babies' cries are more exciting and desired than the sounds and spasms of orgasm.)

Third, people truly need to unite in making the world, not a perfect welfare state, but a wondrous nursery, full of the adventure and thrills of being parents with children. Killing babies is not a solution. It is the neglect of a solution. Creating a culture in which a mother in the most dire situation nonetheless thrills at the thought of delivering a child to an applauding populace will transform the world! Mothers, even single ones, are WONDERFUL, and so are their babies. Welcome to the nursery, where we have all joined hands to truly help!

(I have a dear elderly friend, a staunch Democrat, who once defended her political party with the response, "I believe I am my brother's keeper." That this is a religiously-rooted idea is worth noting, though not necessarily germane. The point is that she does not really believe she is her brother's keeper. She believes the state, funded by her many tax dollars, should be her brother's keeper. And she believes that the state should force others to fund the same sort of ideal. I AM NOT advocating that kind of idea here. I am calling for something entirely more personal and private.)

Lastly, we need to reach a compromise, and here I propose one. The American judiciary and legislature should make all legal provisions to ensure that abortions are safe and indeed rare, making abortion accessible, but not easy. Abortions will occur, so there is no reason the state should turn a cold shoulder to that reality. This involvement by the state and judiciary would appease the pro-abortion lobby, particularly if that group is sincere in its desire that abortions are rare and safe.

And, to appease the pro-life groups, the executive branch, as executors of the state, should be permitted and even encouraged to constantly declare what the vast majority of Americans believe: That abortion is not right or desirable, and that the state would plead with people not to participate in such a procedure. Moreover, the executive branch, along with the Congress and judiciary, may want to reconsider referring to abortion as a "right", particularly since it is gender specific (half the population does not have this right). Granted, abortion is not really a right now: it is justified in an alleged right to privacy. But having some branch of the government say that abortion is wrong and that America encourages the delivery of all children; and that America further recognizes that not all pregnancies will make it to full term, would go a long way to bridging the gap between Americans divided along the fault lines of abortion.

These essays, I hope, prove one thing. It is possible to be pro-choice and pro-life. Let us opt for making life more abundant, and not death. Shall we do less than the birds and the bees?

Contratimes

©Bill Gnade 2005/Contratimes