ProWomanProLife

You are here: Home / Archives for pro-abortion

A Failed Moral Argument for Choice—Part 1: Let There Be Truth

by 3 Comments

I recently finished reading “Life’s Work: A Moral Argument for Choice” by Dr. Willie Parker, a self-proclaimed Christian abortionist in the United States. I was interested in this book for two reasons: first, since Dr. Parker is an abortionist, his proximity to the practice gives him a unique perspective and opportunity for insight when it comes to the abortion debate that I felt was worth being familiar with. Second, I have become increasingly perturbed by the disconcerting phenomenon of Christians taking a pro-abortion stance and using the Bible to defend their position; thus, I wanted to read Dr. Parker’s attempt to justify abortion using a Biblical framework

Now, as someone who has written a book myself, I have some degree of respect for those who are capable of communicating their beliefs, ideas, and passions in a book. In short, I picked up Dr. Parker’s book with this tentative position of default respect. However, I was surprised—impressed, even—at how quickly he lost my respect. It was not the caliber of his writing that lost me, which was consistently clear, articulate, and grammatically correct. Rather, it was his analysis—or, shall I say, his lack thereof.

I will launch a full-scale critique of Dr. Parker’s “argument” another time, perhaps once I have regained more of my composure and recovered more fully from the shock of just how poorly researched, supported, and reasoned it is. For the time being, I will limit my critiques to something that Dr. Parker referred to ad nauseam and claimed to promulgate: truth.

Context: In the prologue to his book, Dr. Parker writes that he is constantly “travelling the country like a twenty-first-century Saint Paul, preaching the truth about reproductive rights…” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 5). I confess that, when I first read those words, I physically cringed, irked by the fact that Dr. Parker seems to think so highly of himself and his work that he felt entitled to compare himself to the man who is credited with writing 13 books of the Bible, the most influential book and the bestselling book of all time. Forgive my less biased perception of Dr. Parker, but I have a hard time seeing the comparison.

There is, however, an equally problematic reference that Dr. Parker makes in that same quote. It is his reference to “the truth about reproductive rights”. For someone who writes “I don’t believe in moral absolutes” and “I don’t think of the world in terms of good and evil”, Dr. Parker sure speaks a lot about “truth” (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 195 and 202). Unfortunately, the “truth” he speaks of was shockingly, frequently untrue. (Perhaps this is reflective of his unbelief in “moral absolutes”—perhaps “truth” is as malleable, inconsequential, and subjective for him as morality seems to be.)

The first time I found a statement that is objectively, verifiably untrue in Dr. Parker’s book, I was immediately incensed and deeply disturbed, as my boyfriend can attest. In the middle of the chapter of his book ironically called “Preaching Truth”, Dr. Parker makes the following assertion:

A full-term pregnancy lasts forty weeks, on average. And up until at least twenty-two weeks, the fetus is not “viable.” That is, it cannot—it will not—survive outside the uterus, not with the assistance of medical technology, as in a respirator, and not with the spiritual support of earnest and hopeful prayer. Not ever. Up until twenty-two weeks, fetal development is insufficient to sustain life. A baby born at that gestational age cannot breathe. Its body weight cannot support life. Its skin is permeable. The antis may want to call a twenty-two-week fetus a “person,” but if born, it will die (Parker, 2017, Life’s Work, pg. 150) [emphasis added].

(As an aside, note that Dr. Parker is making the peculiar and weak claim that the supposed inevitability of a premature child’s death means that he or she is not a “person.” At the risk of spoiling a future blog post that I will write on this statement and Dr. Parker’s similarly cringe-worthy “analysis”, let me state unequivocally right now that, if the inevitability of death is grounds for denying the preborn child personhood, then no living human is a person, since we will all eventually die. Dr. Parker is arguing in this section that life does not begin at conception and, by extent, that the human fetus is neither alive nor valuable. He is arguing this on the grounds that the child’s viability and survival are still in question. Let me simply ask this question: How can someone die if they are not alive? Rest assured, I shall return to this tragic—dare I say, non-viable—line of reasoning in a future blog post.)

At first glance, his comments seem persuasive. Dr. Parker is a doctor, after all. In fact, he is an ob-gyn. Surely he, of all people, can be trusted. Surely he, of all people, will speak the truth.

But, for Dr. Parker, the truth seems to be irrelevant. This may seem unnecessarily harsh; however, as someone who cares deeply and personally for actual truth, I think the severity of my critique is justified because of how verifiably untrue Dr. Parker’s claims are.

As it so happens, I have looked into viability before, and so I knew with certainty that Dr. Parker’s claim that no child born at twenty-two weeks can ever be viable is demonstrably untrue. Premature children born before twenty-two weeks have survived with medical assistance. For many years, the youngest recorded preemie was James Elgin Gill, a Canadian man born in 1988. He was born at a mere 21 weeks and 5 days, setting a record as the world’s most premature baby. However, USA Today reported in 2017 that a new record was set by a baby girl who was born at just 21 weeks and 4 days. And then there is Amilia Taylor, born in 2006 in the United States at just 21 weeks and 6 days.

Each of these individuals—born before twenty-two weeks gestation—is living proof that Dr. Parker’s seemingly reliable statements and bold declarations of “cannot”, “will not”, and “not ever” are little more than reckless overstatements that he made to support his pro-abortion position about “viability”. With a simple Google search that took me less than two minutes, I was able to find three cases that contradict Dr. Parker’s assertions and demonstrate that premature children born before twenty-two can, in fact, survive outside of the womb with medical support. And yet, because Dr. Parker is a doctor, his falsehoods carry an air of reliability and professionalism, and have been dispersed en masse to the public. I am grieved by the knowledge that there are likely now hundreds and thousands of individuals around the world who have innocently placed their trust in Dr. Parker, expecting to receive the truth, and, through no fault of their own, have accepted his flagrant falsehoods as scientific facts.

This was not the only factual inaccuracy in Dr. Parker’s book. Contradictions abound. Take, for instance, Dr. Parker’s discussion of pro-life legislative measures that have recently been enacted in the United States. On page 146, Dr. Parker writes:

Bills proposing that fetuses are people have come before legislatures in at least twenty-eight states. None have passed [emphasis added].

A mere eight pages later, Dr. Parker directly contradicts himself in his discussion on fetal personhood and related legislation, where he states:

In 2016, “personhood” bills were introduced in Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Iowa, Maryland, Missouri, South Caroline, and Virginia. The only state in which such a bill has passed has been Kansas, which in 2013 affirmed the Pro-Life Protection Act, declaring that “life beings at conception.” [emphasis added].

Note that, in a few short pages, we have gone from every single bill “proposing that fetuses are people” failing to “such a bill” passing in Kansas. Once again, Dr. Parker demonstrates that his view of truth is like his view of morality: lacking absolutes and free to toss around, manipulate, and twist to suit one’s personal or rhetorical preferences.

There is one final factual inconsistency that I will expose before I leave this preliminary element of my critique of Dr. Parker’s demonstrably defunct “argument”. On page 117, Dr. Parker repeats the same, tired rhetoric that “[t]he Bible does not contain the word ‘abortion’ anywhere in it” in a pitiful attempt to justify abortion through a Biblical worldview. And yet, on page 207, he writes:

In my view, the only Christianity that mandates an anti-abortion view is an emotion-based faith—a rigid reading of Scripture that invites no questioning or interpretive consideration [emphasis added].

Now, I will save my comments about Dr. Parker’s so-called “Christian” faith for a later blog post. For now, I would simply like to point out the completely contradictory nature of asserting that the Bible is (a) completely void of any commentary on abortion whatsoever on the one hand, and then (b) asserting that only a literal, “rigid reading” of the Bible could result in a Christian coming to a pro-life worldview on the other hand.

After reading his book, my conclusion is that Dr. Parker’s only contributions to the abortion debate are slightly more articulate versions of the same illogical, contradictory, factually-flawed mantras and slogans that already contaminate what could otherwise be rational, scientific, intellectually-honest conversations on the subject of abortion. If anything, his willingness to wield his professional credibility in defence of this unprofessional nonsense and throw his weight as a doctor around in order to convince people of the credibility of the blatant falsehoods he has peddled is the only additional damage that Dr. Parker has done—and, believe me, it is damage he has done to his own side, not to the pro-life community.

Dr. Parker may care a great deal about the practice of abortion. But of objective, verifiable, absolute truth Dr. Parker seems to care very little.

With that, I shall move forward in my critique; my next post will examine a premise central to his rhetoric: the merger of his dubious Christianity and his intellectually vacant “moral argument for choice.”

Why “Choice” is an Unhelpful Term in the Abortion Debate

by 1 Comment

Pro-choice. Anti-choice. My body, my choice.

Somehow, the abortion debate has been characterized by this one word: choice.

I first started thinking of the term “choice” and its utility (or lack thereof) in the abortion debate when I started working on my spoken word: Pro-Woman, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life. I had a few different goals in making that video. As I said in the video, one of my goals was “to challenge the idea that choice is what abortion is all about.” I nuanced the word choice and discussed the reality of coerced abortion, which is a pervasive problem that too few pro-abortion individuals acknowledge.

However, I had another goal: I wanted to commandeer the term “choice”. Because, if we are honest, saying that someone is “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” is utterly unhelpful and entirely unenlightening. Here’s why:

If you think about it, when it comes to classifying choices, everyone has three categories of choices: “good” choices, “bad” choices, and “neutral” choice. For example, here would be an example of some of the choices I have listed in each of these three categories:

Good Choices: having access to education, caring for one’s children, being politically engaged, etc.

Bad Choices: sexual assault, murder, speeding, theft, littering, smoking, etc.

Neutral Choices: favourite ice cream flavour, favourite animal, favourite colour, etc.

Note: I put those descriptive words in quotations because I am of the opinion that, regardless of how someone personally classifies a choice, there is an absolute truth about the classification of that choice. For example, many rapists would classify the choice to sexually assault someone as “good” or “neutral”, but that choice is objectively and absolutely wrong, regardless of their personal classification. This also works in the reverse. For example, I classified smoking as a “bad” choice because of the health side effects associated with cigarettes. However, I do not think that smoking is, from a moral perspective, an absolutely wrong choice.

Let’s return back to our lists. We all have these three lists. Yes, there are some objective moral absolutes that, in my opinion, override the perceived correctness of our subjective categorization. Regardless, we each have these three lists that are informed by many factors, including our political ideology, our religious identity (or lack thereof), our family background, our cultural context, and our personal preferences.

Now, I mentioned that I oppose sexual assault. Technically, that makes me “anti-choice”. And you know what? I absolutely am anti-choice when it comes to sexual assault! I do not think sexual assault is ever a legitimate choice that an individual is entitled to make. And, if he or she chooses to make that choice, I am more than happy to be “anti-choice” and remove his or her freedom via incarceration. So you better believe I’m “anti-choice” in that sense. And I certainly hope that most people would agree with me and be “anti-choice” in relation to rape and sexual assault.

However, I also mentioned that I support people having the choice to access education. So I am “pro-choice” in the sense that I want people to have equal opportunities when it comes to accessing education, should they wish to do so. And I think most people are “pro-choice” in that regard, since most individuals support equal access to education for all.

So then, we come to a position where most of us are “pro-choice” on some issues and “anti-choice” on others. Do you now see the futility of these labels?

The issue is that labels like “pro-choice” and “anti-choice” do not have intrinsic values embedded in them. They are not value-laden statements. The value of the label is directly linked with the underlying subject matter, not the label itself. That is why being “pro-choice” is good for education (ie. because education is good), but bad for sexual assault (ie. because sexual assault is bad). The same goes for the “anti-choice” label: being “anti-choice” is good when discussing sexual assault (ie. because sexual assault is bad), but bad for choosing one’s favourite ice cream flavour (ie. because one’s favourite ice cream flavour is neutral and functions exclusively as a personal preference).

Determining whether being “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” on any given subject matter is easy when everyone agrees on the moral value of the underlying issue (eg. everyone agrees that sexual assault is bad – and I say “everyone” because even a rapist would demand justice if he/she was sexually assaulted). Things become much trickier when there is disagreement. And that is precisely what we see in the abortion debate.

In the Great Abortion Debate, you have two camps: those who support abortion (ie. “pro-choice”/pro-abortion) and those who oppose abortion (ie. “anti-choice”/anti-abortion/pro-life). Those who support abortion are “pro-choice”, because they support abortion as a legitimate solution to an unwanted or crisis pregnancy. However, that is not a negative thing in their minds. There is nothing wrong to them about being “pro” a choice that, in their minds, is categorized as helping women. Similarly, those who oppose abortion can be called “anti-choice”, because they are “anti” a choice that, by their evaluation, results in the violent destruction of an innocent life. However, that is not a negative thing in their – our – minds. There is nothing wrong to them – to us – about being “anti” a choice that ends another human life.

The real issue that needs to be addressed is this dualistic method of characterizing and framing the issue of abortion. Abortion is either right (“good” or “neutral”) or wrong (“bad”). Part of the problem really comes down to what this “choice” is that we talk about so flippantly. If abortion ends the life of a separate living human entity, then it ends a human life – that is the “choice” being made. If abortion does not end the life of a separate living human entity, then it is just another medical decision women sometimes need to make – that is the “choice” being made.

So which is it? Is abortion right? Is abortion wrong? It is helpful to have these conversations. In fact, it is necessary to have these conversations. But we cannot have these conversations effectively when we devolve into the lazy labelling tactic of just accusing someone of being “anti-choice”.

Pro-choice. Anti-choice. These words and labels are empty without context, without information, without the necessary details required to reach an educated conclusion about the rightness or wrongness of abortion as a subject matter. So it is unhelpful and unwise to limit the abortion debate to these two overly simplistic labels. Again, whether you consider yourself “pro-choice” or “anti-choice” is irrelevant unless we first define the value of the choice we are discussing.

So to all my pro-life friends, I say: don’t let yourself be limited. Do not let people delegitimize you with meaningless mantras like “anti-choice”. You are “anti-choice”. So what? There is nothing wrong with that unless abortion is a good/neutral subject matter. So do not let the conversation end after you have been labelled. Push further. Have that difficult conversation about the rightness or wrongness of abortion as a subject matter. Be courageous. Be respectful. And be bold. (And, while you’re at it, be sure not to label others. It’s not helpful.)

To all my pro-abortion friends, I say: don’t let yourself be limited. Many flaunt the “pro-choice” label as though it is their badge of honour, their symbol of tolerance, their ticket to the ultimate woke life. Do not give in to that temptation. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with being “pro-choice” in the context of abortion. But perhaps there is. Do not skim over that detail. Wrestle with that question. Labels limit discussions. Do not accept that as your standard.

Stay curious, my friends.

Beware of the pro-choice echo chamber

by 2 Comments

Ten years. I have been doing pro-life activism for ten years. (I feel old just writing that…)

I have always been 100% pro-life, because I am convinced that is the only intellectually consistent position to hold. Unsurprisingly, when I first started my journey into the realm of pro-life activism, I had many pro-abortion advocates challenge my absolute pro-life stance. They presented complex arguments and asked difficult questions:

What if a woman is sexually assaulted? What if there is an ectopic pregnancy? What if a 10-year-old child becomes pregnant? Will you still condemn abortion in these situations?

Whether the pro-choicers asking these questions really wanted to hear my response or not, they were successful at drawing my attention to the complexity inherent within the abortion debate. Admittedly, at the young age of twelve, my burgeoning pro-life activist self had not yet considered these nuances. And so, spurred on by the desire to find answers to these ambiguities, I committed myself to research, intellectual curiosity, and the pursuit of understanding. Over time, I developed a well-informed, comprehensive, bulletproof pro-life message.

And then, after a few years of pro-life activism, I came to the fateful day when I realized that there were no new arguments or questions anymore. Each “new” question was simply a recycled, repackaged repetition of a question I had already answered. And no matter how hard I tried, I could not find a new challenge to end this perpetual cycle.

I was stuck in what I have come to call the “pro-choice echo chamber”.

The pro-choice echo chamber is a place where the same meaningless slogans and mindless mottos are repeated over and over again, where there is no growth, no development, no opportunity to improve, just the same empty words reverberating through hollow corridors, being used and reused and used again.

My body, my choice! Keep your rosaries off my ovaries! My body, my choice! You’re just pro-birth! My body, my choice! It’s just a clump of cells! My body, my choice! My body, my choice! My body, my choice! My body, my choice…!

And so the pro-choice echo chamber continues.

I have heard it all. Perhaps that sounds arrogant, but it is true. After ten years of listening to pro-choice rhetoric, I have come to conclude that there is nothing new under the sun.

But two weeks ago, something miraculous happened…

I was with a group of law students, and we had just come from a deeply fascinating presentation about statutory interpretation. (And yes, I am aware that only a law geek such as myself would find statutory interpretation “deeply fascinating”…)

Eventually, we came to the subject of abortion. After outing myself as being a pro-life absolutist, we began an hour-long conversation on abortion. The conversation was remarkably respectful, incredibly thought provoking, and refreshingly coherent. And then, for the first time in approximately seven years, I was asked a question that I could not answer.

Now, to be fair, I actually did have an answer. When I was asked the question, I offered my usual, polished, well-rehearsed response. But instead of my fellow pro-lifers nodding their heads and the opposing pro-choicers shaking their fists, the students around the table thoughtfully considered my words. And then, rather than devolving into emotionally-driven retorts, they pushed me further, challenging the premises of my reply, inquiring further about my line of reasoning, and pointing out inconsistencies between my default response and my absolute pro-life stance.

I was surprised. And impressed. And, believe it or not, incredibly thankful.

Because here’s the thing: I love being challenged. Nothing breeds growth, development, and strength like the persistent presence of civilized, coherent challenges.

It’s a universal truth: the existence of resistance creates the opportunity for improvement. This is true of physical strength and emotional fortitude, but it is also true of ideological advancement.

The unfortunate reality is that, despite the fact that I have purposely pursued pro-choice friendships—in part to avoid the dangers of the pro-life echo chamber—many pro-choice individuals have never welcomed ideological resistance, and so they have little to offer in that department.

To be clear, I have seen this in the pro-life movement as well, so I am not suggesting that this is a uniquely pro-choice phenomenon. However, because all mainstream spheres of our society—including education, academia, politics, media, business, entertainment, and law—buy into the pro-abortion ideology, the pro-choice echo chamber is validated, rather than shunned. It is embraced with open arms, welcomed without critique, and deified rather than destroyed. And for that reason, the pro-choice movement has become condemned to perpetually suffer from intellectual inconsistency and a lack of rhetorical creativity.

In short, the pro-choice movement is stagnant.

So beware, dear readers. Beware of the pro-choice echo chamber. (And, while you’re at it, beware of the pro-life echo chamber too.)

If you are pro-life, guard against these phenomena by surrounding yourself with intellectually curious pro-choice individuals who are willing to consistently and respectfully challenge your ideology.

If you are pro-choice, guard against the desire to repeat meaningless phrases or regurgitate mindless sayings by pursuing pro-life friends who promote constructive and civilized conversations.

I have adopted this approach in my activism, and I have never once regretted it. I am more consistent, intelligent, and coherent because of the pro-choice ideological challenges that I have faced and—thanks to some brilliant pro-choice friends—I now face again.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a new challenge to consider. I will let you all know when I am ready to reveal my response.

Until then, stay intellectually curious and ideologically consistent.

Pro-life feminism vs. pro-abortion hypocrisy

by 4 Comments

Recently, as part of a personal feminist book-a-thon, I read F-Bomb: Dispatches from the War on Feminism by Lauren McKeon. I was particularly intrigued and interested in reading the book for two reasons. First, I know Lauren McKeon personally. She and I spent a fair amount of time together for an article that she wrote about me in Toronto Life Magazine. Second, I had been notified that her book talked about me and a number of my fellow pro-life activists. All that to say: I was curious to read what she had written and what her take was on my overtly pro-life feminist stance.

The book was engaging and well written, although I found myself slightly irritated for most of the book because there were no sources provided. (Call me a nerdy university student, but if you’re going to make grandiose claims and rather outlandish accusations, you’d better back them up with evidence.)

Then I came to Chapter 8, which is titled “Teen spirit: Clinic closures, access attacks, and the pro-woman rebranding of today’s anti-abortion activists.” And this is where things went downhill.

I had hoped that, unlike most pro-abortion feminists, McKeon would have taken time to truly get to know the pro-life feminist movement. She had been relatively fair for the duration of the book, having the decency to humanize her opponents prior to critiquing them (which is an approach that I found quite effective and engaging). Unfortunately, McKeon’s evaluation of pro-life feminists such as myself fell woefully short.

Things really fell apart for me when she made the following accusation:

“The linguistic pairing of anti-abortion and pro-women messaging is like a conversational escape hatch for those who don’t want to admit they’re limiting women’s rights, even though they are” (McKeon, 2017, p. 201).

*sigh*

In case you are wondering, this is one of the most overused “arguments” that pro-abortion advocates like to level at pro-life individuals.

Pro-tip for all of you pro-abortion individuals out there: This argument is really, really weak, so you might want to try mixing things up a bit.

There are two key claims that work together to create this rhetorical mess:

First, there is the accusation that, by opposing abortion, pro-life people are “limiting women’s rights”. If you believe that a woman has the right to exercise coercive control over the body of another human being, and if you believe that a woman has the right to ask a physician to end the life of this other human being, then sure—you got me! I’m limiting a woman’s rights! But in order to make that claim, you would need to show me where, in any legal or constitutional document, women are actually guaranteed these “rights”.

Spoiler alert: You won’t find any legal or constitutional document protecting these “rights” because these “rights” do not exist.

Second, there is the assertion that, by limiting women’s “rights”, pro-life people are doing something wrong. Now, in order to highlight how ludicrous this claim is, allow me to layout a hypothetical situation:

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I attack someone on the street. You call the police. The police arrest me. I accuse you and the police of limiting my rights. I am implying that you have done something wrong. Do I have a fair point?

Absolutely not.

While I may have the right to liberty, the Criminal Code provisions against battery and assault directly limit my right to liberty. In fact, these limitations are necessary in order to ensure that you and other citizens have your right to liberty. If these limitations were not in place, all manner of rights would be infringed upon. Therefore, in order to ensure social order, peace, and stability, limitations are placed on our rights on a regular basis. And it is undeniable that, while these limitations may restrict my personal right to liberty (which I interpret subjectively as bad), they create greater collective liberty in society (which we acknowledge objectively is good).

So just because pro-life people want to limit women’s “right” to forcibly control the body of another human being (which we have already established is not actually a right in the first place), does not automatically follow that pro-life people are doing something bad—or that we are creating “a way for society to control women”, as McKeon later asserts (McKeon, 2017, p. 201).

But this wasn’t the only stale, pro-abortion, isolationist tactic that McKeon relied upon. She also played the age-old you-can’t-call-yourself-a-feminist-if-you’re-anti-choice card, stating that the “anti-abortion movement’s women’s rights makeover” is “at odds” with the “wider feminist movement” because “[f]eminism, after all, generally works to broaden what we can do and achieve, not restrict it” (McKeon, 2017, p. 218).

As overused and unimaginative as this accusation may be, I think it is one of my favourite, primarily because it beautifully highlights the absurd degree of hypocrisy—and the painful lack of logic—within the “pro-choice” movement. Here is what that argument is really saying:

“You can’t choose to be a feminist. Real feminists support choice! And you, obviously, don’t support choice. And since I am a real feminist who supports all women’s choices, I’m not going to allow you to choose to identify as a feminist. I don’t support that choice because I am a real feminist who actually supports women’s choices….” (and so the idiocy continues).

My hope is that, as you read and re-read those lines, you will see the glaringly obvious double standard that “pro-choice” feminists have created, with the express purpose of excluding, ostracizing, and demonizing pro-life feminists. If you don’t see the hypocrisy in that line of “reasoning” (if you can call it that), then you will have successfully rendered me speechless (for all the wrong reasons).

Before I close, there is one last statement I’d like to highlight from the epilogue of McKeon’s book. McKeon is in the midst of appealing to her (she presumes) sympathetic readers and reminding them of how she hopes “we can learn to listen more to the other side” (McKeon, 2017, p. 269). And then she says this:

“But I do believe we have to let go of our liberal superiority, the belief that clearly reprehensible views aren’t powerful enough to gain mass traction” (McKeon, 2017, p. 269).

Now, to be fair, McKeon has discussed many views throughout her book, so she is not leveling this statement exclusively at pro-lifers. But there is something so beautifully ironic about McKeon counseling her readers to “let go of [their] liberal superiority”, while she simultaneously puts on a brilliant display of her own sense of liberal superiority by blanket-labeling entire segments of the population—including all pro-lifers—as holding “clearly reprehensible views”.

My pro-life feminism may be a reprehensible view to her, but it is a justifiable and logically consistent view to me. And the fact that she and other radical pro-abortion feminists like her feel entitled to exclude me and my fellow pro-life feminists from their supposedly inclusive, tolerant spaces tells me that their version of feminism is undeniably deceptive, elitist, and hypocritical. And that seems “clearly reprehensible” to me.

Eugenics, Margaret Sanger, and the sordid history of the pro-abortion movement

by 3 Comments

I am back again with another article about—you guessed it—the unendingly problematic book Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. This time, I bring you a criticism from Tiloma Jayasinghe’s essay “When Pregnancy is Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will be Pregnant.” The essay is really more about pregnancy than it is about abortion. The author’s criticism is that, through various laws and public policies, certain types of women (eg. low-income women, drug-dependant women, etc.) are monitored more closely when they become pregnant, such that the very act of them becoming pregnant borders on criminality.

As I was reading through this essay, I found myself writing “Fair point” in the margins. To be perfectly honest, I suspect that my response was less a reflection of my agreement with the author’s critiques as it was a reflection of my relief that, finally, someone in the book was writing something semi-coherent (which meant that I no longer felt the need to scrawl rant after rant in the margins.)

But then, rather predictably, Jayasinghe wrote something so shockingly hypocritical that it bordered on being amusing:

“Anti-abortion groups are clearly ‘pro-life’ only for certain kinds of life (white and middle to upper class) and are really, in fact, anti-sex” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 268).

Now, evidently, this statement is made after a long line of “arguments” that are meant to build up to this grand finale. However, regardless of the context, this claim is so blatantly false—and so bloody ironic—that, knowing what I do about the history of the pro-abortion movement, I felt compelled to respond. (The only other alternative was for me to write another rant in the margins of the book, and unfortunately, I had run out of space.)

Now, I could respond to this claim by going on and on about the plethora of ways that pro-life individuals help women from all walks of life, regardless of their racial or socio-economic backgrounds. I could take Jayasinghe’s bait and argue at length about why pro-lifers have the moral high ground.

But if I did this, I would be playing Jayasinghe’s game. I would be conceding the underlying premise: namely, that pro-abortion individuals actually have the moral high ground, and that pro-lifers need to somehow level the playing field. And quite frankly, that is a premise that I will never agree to for many reasons. The pertinent reason in this situation, however, is because the pro-abortion movement was founded on eugenics, and therefore has no right to claim moral superiority.

Jayasinghe’s accusation is essentially that pro-life people are racist, classist, and pro-eugenics, that we prefer certain racial and socio-economic groups to others. The beautiful, hypocritical irony of this claim is that, not only is that objectively untrue about the pro-life movement, but it is also objectively true about the pro-abortion movement.

Eugenics has played a disturbing role in the rise and proliferation of both birth control and abortion. This was largely due to the influence of Margaret Sanger, who was the founder of the organization that we now call Planned Parenthood (which today is the largest abortion provider in North America and a prominent advocate and provider of abortions in developing nations in the Global South).

It was Margaret Sanger who really ushered in eugenics and married it with the movement from reproductive rights.

It was Margaret Sanger who spoke about the need to export birth control to the “biologically less endowed stocks” of humans in India.

It was also Margaret Sanger who made the following statement:

Every feeble-minded girl or woman of the hereditary type, especially of the moron class, should be segregated during the reproductive period. Otherwise, she is almost certain to bear imbecile children, who in turn are just as certain to breed other defectives. The male defectives are no less dangerous… Moreover, when we realize that each feeble-minded person is a potential source of an endless progeny of defect, we prefer the policy of immediate sterilization, of making sure that parenthood is absolutely prohibited to the feeble-minded (Sanger, 1922, The Pivot of Civilization, pg. 101-102).

If that isn’t enough, Margaret Sanger made this statement as well:

Every single case of inherited defect, every malformed child, every congenitally tainted human being brought into this world is of infinite importance to that poor individual; but it is of scarcely less importance to the rest of us and to all of our children who must pay in one way or another for these biological and racial mistakes (Sanger, 1922, The Pivot of Civilization, pg. 273-274).

These are the words of Margaret Sanger, who is considered the founding mother of birth control, Planned Parenthood, and, by extension, the pro-abortion movement in North America.

Everything that Margaret Sanger and her pro-birth control, pro-sterilization, and pro-abortion colleagues did was informed—tainted—by this toxic mentality. It was a mentality that believed only certain individuals with certain characteristics and body types belonged in society. It was also a mentality of entitlement, a mentality that believed that, somehow, we as individuals, as parents, as “normal” members of society, have the right to decide which lives are valued and which lives are not, who gets the ability to live and who does not. This is the pro-eugenics mentality. And, like it or not, this mentality was the foundation of the pro-abortion movement.

And so, ladies and gentlemen, this is why it is so rich to have pro-abortion feminists like Tiloma Jayasinghe accuse pro-life advocates of holding pro-eugenics beliefs. If Jayasinghe and the rest of the diversity-loving, inclusion-promoting, abortion-on-demand-supporting radical feminists want to find the people who hold ideas about reproduction that are tainted by racism, classism, and eugenics, they need only look in the mirror and in the archives of the pro-abortion movement.

I rest my case.

The danger of a single “anti-choice” story

by 2 Comments

“Show a people as one thing, as only one thing, over and over again, and that is what they become.” – Chimimanda Nzogi Adichie

Recently, thanks to a video that was circulated around on Facebook, I was re-introduced to the work of Chimimanda Nzogi Adichie, a renowned Nigerian author and feminist. I had first studied her work during my days in feminist academia. This is where I first learned about her idea of the single story.

In simplified form, Nzogi Adichie’s idea of the single story is this: when media, popular culture, and other societal forces work together and create a single story, a monolithic representation of an entire group of people, the nuance and heterogeneity that exists within the group is erased and they become known by that single story and only that single story.

If we take a moment to pause and consider the world we live in today, we will realize that single stories are being sold to us every day by news outlets, social media, and any individual who has a vested interest in targeting and undermining a specific group of people.

I see this happening to political groups and religious groups, racial minorities and sexual minorities. And, to some extent, these single stories are being noticed and exposed. However, there is a single story that I see perpetuated in almost every area of mainstream society. This is the single story about pro-life or “anti-choice” individuals.

The singly “anti-choice” story goes something like this:

All “anti-choicers” are, as the name suggests, anti-choice. They do not care about life, but rather only care about limiting women’s reproductive freedoms and controlling women’s bodies. “Anti-choicers” are almost exclusively old white Catholic men who shake signs in women’s faces and scream that women who have abortions are murderers. They are all sexist and misogynistic creeps who refuse to respect women’s bodily autonomy, and they only really care about children until they are born. “Anti-choicers” are heartless and compassionless, not to mention deceptive, ignorant, and hateful. In short, they are horrible people. All of them.

This is the single story of the pro-life movement. And it is this single story that erases all of the difference and nuance, diversity and heterogeneity within the pro-life community.

The truth of the matter is that the pro-life community is comprised of millions of diverse individuals who differ in culture, gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity, nationality, and religion. For example, despite being rather small at the time, the pro-life club at my university was comprised of students who stand in stark contrast to the “old, white, Catholic man” stereotype that the single “anti-choice” story perpetuates. We had students who were secular/atheistic, LGBTQ2+, Muslim, and racialized/people of colour. Most of our club members were also female students.

The problem with the single “anti-choice” story is that it fails to represent the beauty and diversity that exists within the pro-life movement. Instead, it creates a fraudulent representation of “anti-choicers” and projects that on all pro-life individuals. The end result is that mainstream society develops a false understanding of the pro-life community, remains ignorant and blind to the reality of who pro-life people are and what they represent, perpetuates this deceptive discourse using everything from university professors to media outlets, and then uses this ignorant, deceptive, and monolithic representation of “anti-choicers” to justify perpetrating hatred, aggression, and violence against pro-life individuals.

The single “anti-choice” story has been used to justify the recent Bubble Zone legislation in Ontario that limits free speech for pro-life individuals (which was justified by claiming that “anti-choicers” are all violent).

The single “anti-choice” story has also been used to argue that physicians and healthcare providers who have religious/moral objections to providing certain services (such as abortion and birth control) should be forced to go against their convictions and provide the services. This is justified because “anti-choice” physicians and healthcare providers are viewed as being religious fanatics who are trying to force their beliefs on other people, which follows the faulty depiction of all “anti-choicers” as Catholic (or even just religious). Unfortunately, there is no space made for the truth, which is that pro-life physicians and health care professionals are autonomous men and women from a variety of religious or secular backgrounds who choose, for personal, professional, or religious reasons, not to engage in certain practices/provide certain services (and who have a constitutionally protected right to do so, according to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms).

The single “anti-choice” story fuels confusion, misinformation, and deception. It creates division, isolation, and polarization. Perhaps more than anything else, it breeds stupidity, idiocy, and ignorance. By creating a two-dimensional, monolithic representation of pro-life individuals, pro-abortion pundits are able to avoid answering difficult questions, engaging in constructive conversation, and addressing important concerns that pro-life people raise when discussing the issue of abortion (and other issues that fall within the pro-life worldview). Not only is this lazy, but it actually does a disservice to the pro-abortion camp.

The single “anti-choice” story creates a generation of ignorant, uneducated, radical pro-abortion activists who have memorized meaningless rhetoric but lack arguments with substance. And, when we consider the importance of the abortion debate in protecting human rights, addressing crisis pregnancies, and supporting women in need, this ultimately harms the men, women, and children whose lives are affected by abortion is life-altering (and life-ending) ways.

This must stop. We must put an end to the single “anti-choice” story, not only by holding pro-abortion groups and mainstream media outlets accountable, but also by actively contributing to the multitude of diverse pro-life stories that exist internationally.

So if you are a pro-life individual, stand strong. Be proud of your pro-life stance. Share your story. And let the diversity of the pro-life movement be seen.

Feminism, rape culture, and the pro-life movement

by Leave a Comment

In my previous post, I mentioned that I had recently finished reading Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. Well, I am back to discuss another one of the incredibly problematic accusations that was made in this book. And yes, we are going to be focusing once again on Jill Filipovic’s essay “Offensive Feminism: The Conservative Gender Norms that Perpetuate Rape Culture, and How Feminists Can Fight Back.” (Prepare yourselves.)

In addition to misquoting religious texts and accusing “anti-choicers” of trying to “give a fetus rights that no born person even has” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 19), Filipovic also decided to draw illogical comparisons between sexual assault and abortion. This is what she said:

“Sexual assault is not only a crime of violence and power, but also one of entitlement. So long as men feel entitled to dominate and control women’s bodies, sexual assault will continue. While issues like reproductive justice may initially seem unrelated to sexual assault, they are a crucial aspect of women’s bodily autonomy and integrity – legally forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy for nine months and give birth against her will and without her consent, or coercing certain kinds of ‘unfit’ women into not reproducing, are deeply troubling uses of women’s bodies to serve the needs, ideologies, and desires of others” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 26).

Filipovic then went on to claim that “anti-choicers” were actively supporting rape culture:

“We need to situate sexual assault within the greater cultural battles over women’s bodies, and recognize that anti-rape activism cannot be separated from action for reproductive freedom, anti-racism, LGBT rights, and broader equality; and that the opponents of those movements are the same people who have an interest in maintaining rape culture” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 27).

Now, there are many, many things that could be said in response to these claims. For example, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that pro-lifers are “legally forcing a women to carry a pregnancy for nine months and give birth against her will and without her consent”. As a pro-life woman, I have no interest in forcing women to give birth. However, I am interested in ensuring that the state does not sanction abortion, which allows doctors to systematically dismember an unborn human fetus/being/child. This has nothing to do with “forcing” women to give birth and everything to do with “forcing” men, women, and physicians to abstain from participating in the destruction of human beings.

But Filipovic’s accusation goes much deeper than this. The real claim that Filipovic is making is this: by opposing a woman’s bodily autonomy, “anti-choicers” are supporting rape culture. So let’s examine this claim.

As a pro-life woman, I would like to clearly state, once and for all, that I believe in, support, and advocate for a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. I mean, let’s be serious. I am a woman. I love women. I believe in women’s rights. I studied feminism. I am a traditional feminist. I am thankful for my bodily autonomy. I support the bodily autonomy of other women. Capiche?

However, there is a massive difference between supporting a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and supporting a woman’s right to exercise autonomy over the body of another human being (ie. the human fetus). This is where pro-life and pro-abortion advocates diverge.

You see, pro-abortion advocates believe that a woman not only has the right to control her own body, but that she also has the right to control the body inside her body (ie. the body of the human fetus). (Side note: This is why the “My body, my choice” slogan should really be “Our bodies, my choice.”).

However, as a pro-life advocate, I reject this belief. I reject the idea that another individual has the right to assert control over, perpetuate violence against, and threaten the existence of another individual. And do you want to know a secret? This is perfectly in alignment with my stance as a traditional feminist who combats rape culture!

When a man rapes a woman*, he is asserting control over and perpetuating violence against another autonomous individual. In simplified terms, he is violating the woman’s bodily autonomy.

As a pro-life woman, it is my belief in bodily autonomy (among other things) that fuels my opposition to sexual assault. And it is also my belief in bodily autonomy (among other things) that fuels my opposition to abortion.

Now, before people begin to freak out and make all sorts of unfounded accusations against me, let’s make one thing perfectly clear: I am not suggesting that abortion and sexual assault are similar. However, what I am saying is that Jill Filipovic’s claim is absolutely false.

Do “anti-choicers” actively support and maintain rape culture by “opposing” a woman’s bodily autonomy? Absolutely not. As I demonstrated, the pro-life worldview is premised on the equal distribution of human rights and bodily autonomy to all human beings, born and unborn. This is what fuels our opposition to abortion. This is what fuels our opposition to human trafficking. And this is what fuels our opposition to rape culture.

One final point: The connection between rape culture, abortion services, and businesses like Planned Parenthood is a lot more problematic than you might think. I would recommend that you watch this video and this video. The reality is that, through our activism, pro-life people have been actively combatting rape culture. And realistically, if you truly want to combat rape culture, you too must oppose the insidious way that abortion is used by Planned Parenthood to cover-up sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

 

*Note: I recognize that rape and sexual assault do not always follow this construction. However, in light of the fact that the vast majority of sexual assault is perpetrated by men against women, this is the construction that I have chosen to use.

The special rights of abortion providers

by 2 Comments

I recently finished reading the book Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape. It is a collection of short essays written by more than 25 different feminists about rape culture. Being a self-identified pro-life feminist myself, there were many arguments that I agreed with wholeheartedly. However, there were also many, many parts of the book that I found quite problematic. I’ll limit myself to writing about just one. (For now.)

The first essay was by Jill Filipovic, and it was entitled “Offensive Feminism: The Conservative Gender Norms that Perpetuate Rape Culture, and How Feminists Can Fight Back.” I found myself cringing repeatedly throughout Filipovic’s essay, scribbling notes in the margins until eventually I started running out of space. So many claims she made were either ludicrous or blatantly untrue.

For example, when referring to the biblical account of the Fall in Genesis 1-3, Filipovic claims that “[w]omen are simultaneously thought of as living in inherently tempting bodies, and using those bodies to cause men to fall.” For anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the Bible, you will know that Eve’s sexuality neither tempted Adam nor caused the Fall. And of course, while I do not expect every feminist to understand the complicated theological themes in the Bible, the willingness of feminists to twist and distort religious texts to support their own misguided ideological claims is legitimately concerning. But I digress…

The claim that I found most fascinating was when Filipovic stated that “the anti-choice right promotes policies that would give a fetus rights that no born person even has” (Friedman & Valenti, 2008, p. 19).

I’ve heard this argument before. To flesh it out a bit more, it goes something like this:

“No born individual has the right to abduct someone, hook themselves up to the kidnapped individual, and then live off of their body for nine months. So how can you claim that a parasitic fetus should get these rights, rights that ‘no born person even has’?”

(A more complex form of this argument is known as the “Violinist Argument.” For more information about the argument and the subsequent pro-life response, you can start here and here.)

This claim is nothing spectacular. And yet, it is spectacular in that it reveals just how short-sighted and hypocritical radical pro-abortion activists have become. Consider this: In no other area of society do we justify torturing, dismembering, and decapitating human beings. In Canada, these are all crimes when committed against a born human being. When we see these gruesome crimes take place repeatedly, we call it genocide. On the international stage, there are conventions that prohibit these types of violence, such as the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Even in times of war, these actions are not justified.

So I would suggest that we are asking the wrong question. The question is not: Why should we promote policies that give the fetus rights that no born person even has? The real question is: Why are radical pro-abortion advocates promoting policies that would give abortion providers like Planned Parenthood “rights” that no born person has: namely, the ability to torture, dismember, and decapitate other human beings?

Also, as a final side note, I would just like to point out that every born human being has the right to life. So really, pro-lifers aren’t asking for much. We’re just advocating for the oh-so-radical idea that all human beings deserve the right to life, whether 1 minute before birth or 1 minute after birth. Why? Because there’s nothing magical about the birth canal. Just saying.

“Disappointing but too too predictable”…

by 3 Comments

…Those words from this pro-abortion discussion about the Chatelaine piece. (Funny thing is that many a pro-lifer said the same thing.) But at Rabble, their concern is not over abortion but rather about how there should be no debate over abortion. We all agree. And if not, well, your views should be illegal.

Just when you think Canada has a slight chance of becoming progressive, they allow people to publish this sort of hatred encouraging the slavery of women. This should be illegal and the author of the article, as well as the editors of Chatelaine should be brought up on charges of hate crimes.

Wow. Talk about “too too predictable”–I don’t like your views–so Just Ban Them–that should take care of that. They’ve had some success, by the way, starting with telling pro-lifers where they are allowed to walk and what they can say within a certain distance of an abortion clinic. The positive side of this is that if pro-life arguments weren’t persuasive and powerful, our opponents wouldn’t have to limit free speech.

Go crazy, I say–bring out the Human Rights Tribunals and the hate speech charges and I as an ardent pro-lifer will defend Chatelaine‘s right to publish what was a pretty solidly pro-abortion piece.

_________________________

Tanya says:

This should be illegal and the author of the article, as well as the editors of Chatelaine should be brought up on charges of hate crimes.”

This quote automatically ran through my head in a Nazi-German accent. (The word ‘Chatelaine’ sounds pretty inaudible in that accent, by the way.) You try it. It’s fun!

Meta