| REGULARS |
|
|
| When I was sixteen years old, I was pretty sure I had knocked up my girlfriend. We had been together for a year, having sex for half that time, and suddenly her period would not arrive. A week went by, then another. We were good kids, horny but well behaved, with college and all the rest still to come. It was spring. I was waiting to hear from schools. Neither of us slept. Heading into week three, we finally sought the counsel of my mother, who calmly suggested that we make an appointment with a gynecologist - immediately. My girlfriend was given a pregnancy test, which came back negative. Another five days went by. I pledged never to have sex with her ever again. I pledged to stop whacking off. The morning before appointment number two, she called to tell me that her period had arrived at last. I've been thinking about this episode recently for a couple of reasons. First, of course, because Judge Samuel Alito has been nominated to the |
|
Supreme Court. Barring an outburst of moral courage by the Democratic leadership, he will be confirmed and the Court will begin an assault on various civil rights laws, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and other such radical notions. The big prize will be the reversal of Roe Vs. Wade, meaning abortion will again be outlawed, at least in certain states.
The main reason I've been thinking about my high school pregnancy scare, though, is because of an odd email I received a few weeks ago. It was from a young college student in a Southern state. She had read some of my work for class and, as an aspiring writer, she wanted me to know she enjoyed my
|
I'd like to understand why a virtual stranger would call me a baby killer.
|
writing, though she found some of the graphic material difficult to handle, given that she was both a Republican and a Christian who had pledged to remain abstinent until marriage.
I sent her a note of thanks, which (stupidly) included my observation that the current administration did not strike me as particularly Christian, insofar as Christ preached non-violence and ministered to the poor.
Her response began like so: "I must ask, do you believe in abortion? I do realize that it is a liberal stance, but I also realize that not all liberals assume it. If you are, I just don't understand why you feel it's okay to murder innocent babies who just 'didn't come at the right time' or who 'interfere' but don't think it's okay to defend our country from terrorists who have slaughtered countless Americans for their own pleasure?"
I am quoting her because her sentiments reflect, in a refreshingly unfiltered way, the posture of the Religious Right when it comes to abortion. And because I'd like to understand why a virtual stranger would accuse me of being a baby killer.
The answer is this: because doing so is one way of locating her murderous impulses within another. It is a radical example of what psychologists would call projection. This is one of the hallmarks of the Right in this country: an abject refusal to face their own rage. Any act of aggression is invariably framed as self-defense. (See, for tragicomic effect: Bush's claim during the first presidential debate that Iraq attacked us.)
Abortion simply exaggerates this impulse. It allows people to stand outside health clinics and emotionally abuse young women. In extreme instances, it allows individuals to murder doctors and nurses and to view themselves not as terrorists, but saviors. Obviously, not all anti-abortionists kill or harass people. But all of them share a histrionic view of themselves as heroic rescuers (the term pro-lifer says it all) aligned against Godless fornicators.
Ah yes, the fornicators. Embedded in the anti-choice stance is the basic notion that sex for pleasure is wrong. Sex is for procreation, which is why every fetus (in some minds every sperm) is holy. But most people, even Christians, want sexual pleasure a lot more than they want children.
This is why the anti-abortion movement emphasizes the most gruesome aspects of abortion; all those placards with dead babies aren't just there to spook the clients of Planned Parenthood. They are reminders of the horrors that await those of the faithful who fall prey to carnal desire.
|
"Pro-lifers" are the baby daddies of the spiritual world: nowhere to be found when the kid shows up.
|
Which brings me back to my correspondent. Let's be honest here: any virgin who sends me fan mail is probably a pretty conflicted individual. In some sense, this young horndoggle needs the specter of being a baby killer to keep her from ... impure thoughts. Her note is also typical of anti-choiceniks in its flabbergasting solipsism. It seems never to have occurred to her that there might be a world outside her own beliefs; that a pregnant woman's body is her own property, not that of the state or any religious interest group; that the issue here is one of individual liberty, not ideology.
Nor has it occurred to her that those women who get abortions suffer considerable anguish, that they are not sex-crazed degenerates who waltz into the stirrups whistling "Zip-A-Dee-Do-Da." In fact, the feelings of the mother, the circumstances surrounding the pregnancy, mean nothing to anti-abortionists. All that matters is the unborn soul, which becomes the object onto which they project all their tender wishes about this fallen world.
It is here that the rage of the anti-choice movement gives way, briefly, to despair. They want to believe in a world where every soul truly is precious, as God promised, in which every fetus — if allowed to come into the world — will become part of His divine plan. The unborn child becomes, in other words, a powerful object within their emotional cosmology, a means by which they can connect to their own quasi-divine nobility, the sanctification of potential life over actual life.
The problem is that unborn children eventually get born and must live in the actual world. In this sense, "pro-lifers" are like the baby daddies of the spiritual world: full of promised love for the abstraction, and nowhere to be found when the kid shows up. They don't want to deal with the fact that some children in this country grow up starved of love, and warped by poverty.
It should come as no surprise that the anti-choice movement is ascendant at the moment. The Bush era has marked, above all, a dramatic shift away from the tragic complexity of the world. Instead, the citizens of this country have been encouraged to indulge their most childish impulses: rage, hypocrisy, self-absorption. What is surprising is the abject failure of the left to call them out on this crap. Cowed by the infantile rhetoric the Religious Right, slavish after those elusive swing voters, Democrats have refused to frame the debate as one over reproductive rights.
Which brings me to a final story. A few days after the last presidential election, I found myself talking with a friend of friend who lived in suburban Virginia. She was a single woman of about thirty. She and many of her friends had had abortions. And yet she voted for Bush. I asked her if she had any idea what Bush's views on abortion were. She replied that she didn't know what either of the candidates thought about abortion. It hadn't been a big issue.
I was astounded by her ignorance. But then I thought about the way the campaign had unfolded. When questioned in the second debate, Kerry had been careful to make clear his personal objection to abortion. He seemed almost ashamed to add that he didn't believe the state should regulate the bodies of its female citizens.
In the weeks to come, the usual pro-choice suspects will dutifully argue on behalf of a woman's rights to choose. That's not going to be enough. The leadership of the left has to recognize that those who oppose choice are not simply benighted crusaders, but bullies who are exploiting the abortion issue to exalt their pathologies.
The choice to abort an unborn child is, without a doubt, a modern tragedy. Forcing poor women to seek out illegal practitioners is a medieval one. n°
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
Click here to read other features from the Reproductive Rights Issue |
|
 |
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION FORUMS:
The politics of abortion - where are we headed?
The morality of abortion - where do you stand?
Share your stories
| Previous Raw Hooksexup |
| ABOUT THE AUTHOR: | ||
 |
Steve Almond's new essay collection is (Not that You Asked). It is, like much of his work, filthy. |
|
Comments ( 31 )
Well said.
i agree COMPLETELY with steve's idea that these pro-life people are simply projecting their own violent impulses on to this situation. i cant believe its still an issue in america, thank god i live in paris...
Steve Almond's latest column on prolifers is filled with so many strawmen and ignorant statements I don't know where to start.
First, the college student never called him a "baby killer." She asked why he thought killing babies was ok? Instead of defending his view (he could have argued that the unborn aren't human beings), he merely acts like she is attacking him personally and then goes on to attack her personally. To Steve it seems that any argument against abortion becomes a personal attack on individuals getting abortions or indviduals in favor of legal abortion.
One could also easily argue that pro-choice people see themselves as rescuers: saving "choice" for women in crisis and protecting their "rights" from those crazy prolifers. Talk about projection.
Many, I'd guess most, prolifers recognize that women having abortion suffer considerable anguish. Steve has absolutely no clue if his correspondent does. His thinking seems to be "If someone thinks abortion kills a baby, then they must think that abortion isn't a tough decision." Nothing could be further from the truth. Prolife people recognize that abortion is often a case where the woman in question sees no other choice and feels forced into having an abortion.
Like most pro-choice columns, Steve makes no attempt to prove that the unborn aren't human beings. He merely passes over that argument in favor of pigeon-holing and insulting prolifers.
Why is the choice to abort an unborn child "a modern tragedy?" What's wrong with abortion? If the unborn are merely "part of the woman" then why is killing them "a modern tragedy?" Is removing wisdom teeth or getting a haircut a "modern tragedy?"
This is completely brilliant. Thank you, Steve.
Wow. I have never been so saddened to read an article in all my life. This is not simply due to to my disagreement of the Steve's stance on abortion but more about the poor journalism tactics. Then again, this really isn't even journalism now that I think about it, just someone's emotional throw up. This should really be placed on someone's personal blog for his friends, family and occassional fanboys. Steve's wreckless bludgeoning of people with opposing views shows how personally he takes this issue. Let me ask you Steve, do you have a uterus? Why is this issue so close to your heart that you would personlly attack other people with opposing view points? I mean, I understand rational discussions about issues, but to start attacking the person instead of the idea is truly bad form. Learn how to argue like an adult Steve. Not everyone in the world has to agree. Bad form Steve, bad form.
Thank you, that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
As a woman who terminated a pregnancy at age 19, and had to walk past anti-choice protesters to get into the clinic, I'd like to say thank you for saying this.
Please God, let the pendulum swing back to the left soon.
This was a fairly idiotic argument. I am pro-choice.
Amen.
thank you, steve almond, for your powerful and nuanced essay. it's so important to hear the male voice on the subject of reproductive rights. i encourage Hooksexup to invite more pro-choice men to speak up and share their thoughts. abortion is NOT just a woman's issue!
I like the way you don't let the "liberals" off the hook. Right on!
argue that an unborn child isn't a human being? what is it with you pro-life whackjobs? can you stop fetus-fetishizing long enough to fathom that the world's fetuses don't belong to you? the choice belongs to the woman who carries the fetus/cell cluster/child. not some moralizing religious hypocrite. you want to be a good christian -- pray for people's souls, don't try to take possession of their bodies.
Line me up with the folks who say this article was doltish. The writer is as blind to other world views as he claims his correspondent is (talk about projection!). I'm a pro-choice male, and certainly the Radical Right is full of hypocrites, but even I can see that there are many people of good conscience who believe that life begins at conception and, therefore, that abortion is a homicide, and the law does not permit homicides except to save oneself (or another) from the risk of death or grievous bodily injury. If life begins at conception, then the state has as much interest in preserving the life and well being of a fetus as it does preserving the life and well being of a child. If a mother injures a child, the state will prosecute her; if you believe life begins at conception, why should the rule be any different?
Moreover, framing the issue as wrong because it invades a woman's right to control her body ignores the fact that there are MANY laws governing what you can and cannot do with your body: you cannot sell a body part for a transplant, you cannot sell your sexual services, you are required to wear car seat belts or motorcycle helmets in many states, you cannot ingest a variety of drugs, etc., etc. Only a strict libertarian who opposes all government regulation of a person's individual choices could logically argue that abortion should be permitted SOLELY because to do otherwise would interfere with a woman's right to control her body.
(FWIW, I believe life begins at viability -- but the question of when life begins are beliefs, not admissible of scientific proof. I think Roe provides a good framework for evaluating the balance of interests between the individual and society, though I remain troubled that this is judge-made, rather than legislature-made law.)
I love you! Thank you for reminding EVERYONE that the freedom to choose is the American way. Thank you for mentioning the "emotional abuse" of young ladies who choose to exercise control over their bodies. This decision is heartbreaking enough without some fire and brimstone conservative damning you to hell. But, I guess we need to keep women where they were meant to be: barefoot and pregnant. LOL.
Excellent article, well-argued, strong, and in this current climate, courageous. We need more of it.
"The Bush era has marked, above all, a dramatic shift away from the tragic complexity of the world. Instead, the citizens of this country have been encouraged to indulge their most childish impulses: rage, hypocrisy, self-absorption." - my favorite quote.
Very good writing, thank you.
Steve Almond has some interesting ideas here on the psychology of those who are 'pro-life', but he doesn't seem to produce any evidence for his thoughts: it is a speculative opinion piece. Steve, do you have any evidence to back up your ideas?
Thank you for pointing this stuff out! My mother was a receptionist at a women's clinic in Alabama in the mid-90s. When Eric Rudolph bombed the abortion clinic in Birmingham, since the doctor who worked there was the same as the one who ran her clinic, the FBI showed up to tell her not to drive her car (that I was using as a high-school student), because they had pictures they'd seized with the car and license plate clearly displayed parked outside the clinic. I was petrified for weeks that they'd come after me because of the car. These people are hypocrites, and it's about time someone called them out!
Excellent article! I would love to post it on the New Jersey Religious Coalition For Reproductive Choice's website. www.NJRCRC.org
Oh this is HILARIOUS: "It seems never to have occurred to her that there might be a world outside her own beliefs". Steve, you suffer from exactly the same problem (in fact, probably more so, your fan seems more open-minded than you). It's simply impossible in your ideological world that someone could think that ALL human life is equally valuable and subject to protection.
Look, I've had two guilt-free, relief-laden abortions. I do think 1st-trimester fetuses are "just tissue". And I don't even veil my political position in the double-speak of "pro-choice" - I'll come out and say it, I'm pro-abortion when it comes to unwanted children. Nonetheless, I'm not so blinded by ideology to think that anyone that disagrees with me is a violent, ignorant, moron. I know many sincere pro-life people, and they simply think that fetuses are humans. That doesn't mean they're projecting or hypocrites or that they think that non-procreative sex is evil. It means they have a different opinion of what it means to be human. Try and accept that not everyone agrees with your with knee-jerk, by the book, liberal ideology.
As long as a fetus cannot survive on its own outside of a mothers body... then that fetus is part of HER body. Therfore it should be HER choice with what to do with HER body.
Wow. Classy. A reader writes to tell you how much she respects you and instead politely thanking her and continuing to produce material for her and everyone to ponder, you take the opportunity to use your platform to ridicule, broadbrush-paint, and essentially label her - and anyone who has an opinion divergent of yours - an idiot ?
Speaking of solipsism, rage, and hypocrisy...
Hey LW -- just because someone writes to praise a writer doesn't mean that writer should turn off his or her brain. Did you read that email? "Do you believe in abortion? Why do you feel it's okay to murder babies?" How would you feel to receive such a vicious, ignorant note? And the issue here isn't the author, but the attitudes and actions of the anti-choice movement. Do you get that? I very much hope, for your sake, that you aren't a poor, sexually active woman, LW. And that you don't know any poor, sexually active women. Because those are the folks who are going to be suffering in the years to come. Should writers simply keep their mouths shut about this in an effort to exhibit "class"? Your reasoning is truly sad. It's time for the ignorant to be called to task -- that includes you.
I'm linking this article to where my friends can see it. Everyone should read this, regardless of which side they take.
I am a loyal, staunch Conservative in the traditional sense. I believe in the traditional conservative (old time) view that less government is better. The Feds should be there to defend the country, build and maintain the transportation systems, regulate overseas commerce, and control immigration. Beyond that everything else should be regulated by the individual states.
I think abortion is wrong, very wrong. But I don't want the government telling a woman, or anybody else for that matter, what they can or cannot do with their body. I believe a woman who has an abortion for convenience will be called to atone for that grevious sin after death. A woman that has to make the heart breaking choice between her baby and her own life because of a medical condition that endangers one or both of them will either die or live with her decision the rest of her life. I know because my wife and I had to make that choice with her third pregnancy. I still have a hard time thinking about the day that we found out the baby was "probably" going to die inside her, which would have killed my wife. The day that the doctor ended her pregnancy was one of the hardest days in my life. And I still think about the daughter I never saw. I'm sure my wife has a very hard time every time she thinks about it. But we still have two wonderful kids.
And I want to see those two wonderful kids grow up in the greatest country on the face of the earth. And I want them to have all the choices and opportunities that this country can offer them. I don't want them to become adults in a world where sick Muslims that want want to impose their stone age way of life on the rest of the world are allowed to roam free and commit acts of terror that kill or maim innocent people all over the world.
I am really sick and tired of the pathetic pacifist whiners like this author that seem to believe that the radical islamist scum we are in a fight to the death with are human in any way. I want them all to die the most horrible death imaginable and then to their ultimate chagrin find out that there is no paradise waiting for them. Only an endless existence in the deppest pits of Hell. Given the chance I would glady put a bullet in the brain of any one of those sick bastards. And for the author's future reference defending your country is not murder. All those brave individuals that voluntarily give of themselves to defend this great nation deserve the respect of all of us. It is their sacrifices that give the author, an individual that obviously doesn't know the meaning of the word sacrifice, the opportunity to trash this great country.
In closing, you don't like it here, leave and don't let the door hit you in the ass!
Wow Sara - that was truly...um...constructive of you. 8 lines about how ignorant I am just proves the point (which YOU apparently missed). I am plenty versed on both sides of the abortion debate; BUT, you see, THIS piece was NOT about forwarding the abortion dialogue whatsoever! Mr. Almond had a chance to respectfully engage and educate his reader, and all of us, but instead chose to blow off steam about how ANYONE who may be 'anti-choice' is STUPID! YOU said the issue is about abortion - I say the same thing! I would just submit that Mr. Almond wasn't writing about the issue at hand like YOU say he was, rather HE (and you for that matter) was simply name-calling those who disagree with him.
All of the other essays in this issue of Hooksexup had an, honest respectful tone to them. I believe this refreshing, real-life approach is vital to the acceptance of the Pro-choice side of the argument! However, what Mr. Almond (and you for that matter) have done is set the argument back to the cliche of angry, hairy arm-pitted, gore-tec wearing women screaming 'MY BODY MY CHOICE' at the top of their lungs while holding a sign with a stenciled wire hanger that reads 'Never again' outside the capitol building. Which is NO BETTER than the dispicable approach of anti-abortionists screaming 'Don't Kill your BABY!' at girls walking into Planned Parenthood. All I'm saying is that In comparison with the rest of the material in this issue of Hooksexup which offered legitimate facts, history, and realistic perspective, this was a very juvenile, sub-par piece that served to do nothing constructive.
P.S. If you treat everyone who disagrees with you on an issue as 'ignorant,' you may find it a hard time making friends...
Steve, thank you for the insight and the vivid writing. Brilliant! You've captured at least one of the "core" motives of the anti-choice/pro-life factions.
I used to think that the dominant motivation was to eliminate the need to face unpleasant facts .. by fiat: "make it illegal, and I won't have to deal with it anymore." Now I'm bound to say that heroic projection (and introjection) is neck and neck with moral denial (and displacement.)
Thanks again.
You are vary phillosophical(?) when it comes to this crap!
but unfortunitly you are wrong!
Not all "pro-lifers'think that way!
and not all pro lifers will abandon children!-I know I wont!
Great article, It's funny, I was once pro-life, then I had a kid and realized "Man being pregnant is hell!" so I'm now a pro-choice activist. I feel no one should ever be forced into the hell of pregnancy.
Respect to the author of original work. I am want to say thanks for funny post, and thanks to google and yahoo for perfect blog search.
thnks for this testing :)
Wow and wow!
Add a Comment