Joe Hargrave at the American Catholic has an excellent post on “Restructuring the Case for Life.” He bases it on a Dinseh D’Souza article for Christianity Today in which D’Souza writes:
If I’m on the right track, pro-life arguments are not likely to succeed by simply continuing to stress the humanity of the fetus. The opposition already knows this, as probably do most women who have an abortion. Rather, the pro-life movement must take into account the larger cultural context of the sexual revolution that invisibly but surely sustains the triumphant advocates of abortion.
It won’t be easy, but somehow the case against abortion must include a case against sexual libertinism. It is time to return to the drawing board.
I’d take slight issue with this in that I don’t know that we’ve truly convinced the larger public about the humanity of the unborn child, and as such efforts should continue on that front. But I think DSouza is on the right track.
Hargrave adds his own thoughts:
The strength of the pro-choice movement has never been derived from outright denials of the humanity of the unborn child, but from the manner in which it presents itself – as a champion of women, and particularly poor and minority women. Abortion is almost always referred to as a “woman’s issue” and all too often pro-lifers end up stuck in the rhetorical boxes created for them by their opponents. We end up somehow arguing against women. Of course much pro-life literature and propaganda focuses on the harm that abortion does to women as well as children, but all this tends to do is reinforce the notion that abortion is then, if not a “woman’s issue”, a mother’s issue.
Perhaps you can tell where I am going with this. In my view, what is often missing from the abortion debate are men. Behind every unwanted pregnancy is a man, and behind many abortions – possibly the vast majority of abortions – are the actions of men: of husbands, boyfriends, friends and fathers. Abortion is not always (and I have to imagine, hardly ever) the decision of the idealistically independent, strong-willed woman determined to do as she pleases in spite of a patriarchal society. This is a radical feminist fantasy.
Hargrave marshals the evidence that demonstrates why abortion is not just a woman’s issue. He then continues:
I don’t doubt for a moment that almost every pro-lifer understands the role that fathers play in the abortion of children. But what we need to do is incorporate it into our political program. The role of men in abortion must become more widely broadcast, it must be expanded beyond the occasional nod it gets in an obscure journal or pamphlet. When abortion is discussed on national television, in the major newspapers, on the radio, in any venue where a multitude of people will be listening or watching, the role of men must occupy a much greater place that discussion.
It must be done, first of all, because it is the truth, and as studies have shown, a truth that must not be ignored. Secondly, it must be done in order to demonstrate that to be pro-life is not to oppose women, but to oppose all who would abandon their parental responsibilities and obligations. It is high time we acknowledge the partial truth behind one of the most commonly used pro-choice slogans: “if men could get pregnant, abortion would be legal” or some variation thereof. It is only a partial truth, of course, but it does highlight a failure to hold men accountable for their own sexual promiscuity and often appalling behavior towards their pregnant wives and girlfriends.
I think Hargrave is on the right track here. It’s a fact of political life that controlling the narrative is essential to advancing one’s cause. Despite the fact that a wide majority of even pro-choicers have difficulty with the morality of abortion, the pro-choice cause has been aided by the feminist narrative that abortion is a woman’s issue, and that abortion rights somehow are essential for the cause of equal rights. And D’Souza’s argument about sexual libertinism is also correct.
There are plenty of ways those of us in the pro-life movement can make our case. Lucky for us most of the arguments favor our side of the debate. There is no harm in using every tool we have at our disposal.
September 24th, 2009 | 11:17 am
This is well put. I’ve tried to make the case to firm pro-choicers—who often seem to see promiscuity as fixed and immutable, if not morally neutral—that abortion is the lynchpin of a sexual culture that is tragic and aberrant. I would just add that in raising the question of men’s role in abortion, we not forget that there are also many men who desperately want their pregnant wife or girlfriend to give birth, but despite promises of support, still lose their children to abortion. Seeing abortion as a women’s issue not only fails to call the profligate men to account, but to acknowledge the grief of those who wanted to be fathers.
September 24th, 2009 | 11:26 am
I would welcome a discussion of men’s role because of my general ignorance on the topic.
September 24th, 2009 | 12:19 pm
See Richard Stith in the August/September First Things
September 24th, 2009 | 12:26 pm
[...] Via First Things. [...]
September 24th, 2009 | 1:49 pm
While I agree that the “yes it is. no it isn’t” shouting match isn’t changing people’s minds, and that men should be held accountable, and single motherhood (particularly in poor areas in the US) is tragic to both women and children, I don’t think that this strategy will work for a few reasons:
(1) Many prominent feminists argue that if the man is so irresponsible (and likely abusive), the single mother is better without him and the state should take care of her and her baby.
(2) If someone on the pro-choice side opens the door to holding the delinquent fathers to account, the delinquent fathers can claim the pro-choice stance to avoid child support. After all, the single mother chose to have the baby instead of follow his wishes, she assumed full responsibility for the child. If the issue goes to the US supreme court, I don’t see how it’s possible to avoid either child support (when the father chooses to be pro-choice) or abortion being made unconstitutional. If the preborn baby is legally recognized as a human, child support is defensible since you cannot order a woman to murder.
I think that Frederica Mathewes-Green’s commentary (see Pro-Choice to Pro-Life: Unfolding a Journey http://www.veritas.org/media/talks/217) can provide room for some common ground:
“No woman wants an abortion as she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. She wants an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
As a woman’s issue, it’s important for the pro-life side to provide as much help as possible for women to avoid that trap and care for single mothers so that they will not feel forced to “gnaw off their own leg”.
As a woman’s issue, abortion (especially in countries like China) can often serve as a screening mechanism — one that allows couples (often with strong influence from the non-delinquent father but sometimes due to familial pressure) can abort a child if the child is female and keep the child if the child is male. If the preborn child is not legally human, society can do nothing to protect preborn girls from the ultimate form of abuse against women.
There’s also common ground in another area. It’s a children’s issue. Even the most strident pro-abortionist that believes that a preborn baby (even 9 months old) is a not human being, most people believe that infanticide is wrong. Unfortunately, highly influential ethicist like Peter Singer ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Singer#Abortion.2C_euthanasia_and_infanticide ) have given convincing arguments in favour of infanticide since there is no way to distinguish a child just before birth (when abortion is legal in the US) and after birth. Constitutionally, if late term abortions are allowed, the infanticide will inevitably be allowed.
Finally, it’s not only a woman’s issue. It’s also an issue of the disabled. Many parts of the world, including the US, already have pre birth disease checks of babies. As time goes on, the list of diseases being checked will likely grow. They are not explicitly for the purposes of abortion, but with legal abortion, there’s no legal way to prevent one from happening if the child has a disease or is likely to have a diseases. Imagine a world without Stephen Hawkins, Helen Keller, and countless others.
Disability advocates find this abhorrent, and so do pro-lifers.
IMO, pro-lifers need to emphasize their support for the disabled when presenting their case and their support for screening against women. It not only can help prevent prebirth screening abortions from becoming “just a clinical medical procedure”, it also projects a more positive image.
September 24th, 2009 | 7:49 pm
Think “Brandeis Demographic Brief,” with Roe reconceptualized as a population management measure that requires reconsideration.
September 27th, 2009 | 12:02 pm
Cultural acceptance of abortion is the end product of a society that has imbibed and lauded total war, assigned civilian deaths as collateral damage and even demanded torture as a means of protection. This stretches back over a century.
Couple this with economic individualism, capitalistic urges to promote one’s creation of wealth, and the loss of any communitarian sensibility (so much so that when one suggests that it isn’t bad to hold hands during the Our Father at Mass that notable conservative blogggers instinctively cry “sacrilege”) and the recipe is a loss of respect for all life. Except one’s own.
We are nothing but a community of Ayn Rand followers in which on frequent occasions the fetus is the enemy of self-pursuits. With World War 2 priming an entire generation to the act of killing and dehumanization, it is no shock that abortion became legal as the “greatest generation” held the levers of power.
Rebuilding and demonstrating respect for life-all life (illiegal immigrants, condemned criminals, the poor), hatred of war, and hatred of dehumanizing violence in radical ways (did anyone pay attention when the past three popes decried war) will be a beginning to the end of abortion.
Talking about sex will once again miss the mark. While sexual conservatism is a comfort zone for pro-lifers and conservative Catholics, it will gain as little traction as any of the past 35 years of activism has. The pro-life movement has to change and retreating to comfort zones as it has done routinely for 35 years is no solution. Resorting to Plan A once again after 35 years of failure is a waste of time and resources.
October 1st, 2009 | 3:39 pm
Is there not too much “the poor mother”, “the poor darling” who did not know that copulation can lead to pregnancy? The baby killing movement grows out of the decadent comfortable middle class desire to avoid responsibility.
One can I think justifiably point the finger at the promoters of baby killing as the denizens of the middle class comfort zone. They require the icon of the “poor underprivileged woman” who does not know better and requires their Lady Bountiful assistance.
Far better than arguing head on surely is arguing from the results. 13 million black babies killed in the abortuaries in this country. Blacks are a particular target of the baby killers as Justice Ginsberg made clear in her statement about the kinds of people who would be [or should have been] affected by Roe v.Wade.
One cannot say the baby killers have not been as clear in their objectives, as Hitler was in MEIN KAMPF. And with the same underlying hysteria.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact