Should the decision to have an abortion be treated as a valid, moral, and even normal choice in a woman's life? Many people don't think so, and that includes Christians who are anti-choice as well as Christians who are ostensibly supporters of legalized abortion. Does it make sense to defend a woman's right to choose, but then denigrate women who do choose? Actually it can make sense to support a right to choose but not agree with all choices, but not if you also denigrate those who choose.
Read Article: Abortion & Shame: How Christians Use Guilt, Shame to Control, Intimidate Women
I’d agree that currently 99%+ women would indeed not do it likely. The people tend to dwell upon the image of the woman with disdain for the fetus going ‘ha, I don’t need birth control, it chafes, I’ll get an abortion’.
Even supposing such a person existed, after their first abortion they wouldn’t make such choices anyway now would they?
Austin,
You wrote, “If we imagine that the ideal world is where women are choosing not to abort while also being unable to choose to be sexually active or to use contraception, then we will have trouble treating abortion as a valid and moral decision in the real world where we live.”
I’m seeing four problems here:
First, if a woman is truly unable to choose to be sexually active, then she’ll never face the choice to have an abortion or not, and choices about contraception are meaningless.
Second, I think women can decide for themselves if they want to be sexually active inside or outside of marriage and they can decide if they want to listen to the conservative Christian argument or not. Women aren’t powerless.
The idea that women “can” be controlled by guilt and shame is a view of women that characterizes them as weak and impotent to make their own decisions. I’m not buying that assumption.
Women can make the same choices about sexuality, abortion and Christianity that you, as a man, are able to make.
Third, there are hundreds of millions of conservative Christians who aren’t Catholic and who believe that contraceptives within marriage are fine.
Fourth, this is a Straw Man view of the conservative Christian stance. The ideal world would be where a woman freely chooses to be sexually active, within a marriage relationship and makes thoughtful, loving decisions about contraception and pregnancy.
“Unable to choose” would be tantamount to rape and out of bounds for a conservative Christian ethic.
This assumes that women never have sex against their will.
Regardless, you’re missing the fact that that hypothetical is offered to illustrate the difference between an ideal that still allows abortion to be a valid moral choice in the real world and an ideal which doesn’t allow for this. Whether the ideal is practical or achievable isn’t relevant; what’s relevant is how the idea shapes our expectations and behavior in reality.
Few people are entirely powerless, but that doesn’t mean that women are faced with nothing more than listening to the conservative Christian argument or not. The reason why should be clear: the conservative Christian argument is being used as the basis for public laws and policies which shape, constrain, or restrict people’s behavior, knowledge, and choices.
I’m not singling out women in particular as being controlled by guilt and shame. No, guilt and shame are facets of human thinking which are used to control people generally.
There are also Catholics who believe that contraceptives within marriage are fine. I fail to see how the existence of such Christians, Catholic or not, is a “problem.”
This assumes a positive viewpoint on contraception, which is quickly disappearing within conservative Chrsitian circles. You may have missed the memo that the anti-choice movement is moving against contraception, not just abortion.
Moreover, this “ideal” is itself base on a straw man: namely, that who abort their pregnancies aren’t making a thoughtful, loving chocie.
Not really, given how conservative Christians fought against the very idea that it is possible for a woman to be raped within marriage and how some even today think that this is a contradiction in terms.
One issue in the pro- /anti-choice that concerns me is that as class differences. Like it or not, the issue of abortion is always there – no matter what various religious people would prefer, whether or not our social discourse approves of or disapproves of it. With legalized abortion and organizations available for all women, even poor people have access to reproductive services.
When abortion is illegal, the poor no longer have this option. Or rather, they may resort to some back-alley practitioner. Some women will hurt themselves in an effort to abort. Feminist literature from the 1960s sometimes deals with this topic of women going horseback, doing strenuous exercise, “falling” down flights of stairs – all in the hopes of a miscarriage. That’s their way of taking care of the problem and saving face.
This is not the same for wealthy people. Wealthy people will be always have access to whatever they want, and they will have the money to cover it up. Wealthy women will be able to go to a gynecologist who will be able to do some other procedure “for her health”. In actuality, the procedure is to abort a fetus. Or, wealthy women can travel to some country where abortion is legal. She will be able to cover it up by saying she’s on vacation. No one will have to know. Basically, wealthy people will have access and they will be able to save face.
>Women can make the same choices about sexuality, abortion and Christianity that you, as a man, are able to make.
Austin addressed this already, but I also wish to add a few thoughts.
I agree with Austin that this is a reality that doesn’t only impact women–but in regard to this one issue, only women would be impacted, so it’s fair to “single out” women in this context.
At AETV list we hear from men and women constantly who are controlled to some degree or other by what other people think or how they’re judged.
If you look at codependency evaluation tests, you’ll find that none of them allow for a total score of zero for codependent traits. This is because it is consider an impossibility to be completely free of codependent tendencies. Whether I accept it or not, the fact is that I have 100 million years of evolution driving me toward social tendencies, as a social species. Humans are very domesticated animals, and we are extremely tied together in a social context. Even the most extremely anti-social individuals would have extreme difficulty surviving without some connection to social interactions.
Two theists and one atheist have contacted out list within the last week to say they they felt “hurt” by comments made to them from our responses. Think of this–people are expressing emotional distress over comments made to them from people on an internet list who have no control over them or their lives. What possible impact could our personal assessments of them or their beliefs possibly have in any reality that would have any real effect on them? And yet they express pain as a result of what some virtual stranger thinks. Imagine how magnified that is going to be when it’s people who matter–their friends, family, coworkers, boss, people who actually can and do impact their lives?
I don’t pretend to support that it’s correct that people should be heavily impacted by the assessments of others. I’m just pointing out that to a very large degree, they ARE. So, to state as much should not be considered an insult or painting a person as weak. People are codependent, some to a large degree. None so much as conservative theists–a community that works very hard to subjugate and control females within their populations. They teach codependent attitudes down the line and expect this to be used as a tool to keep women in line. And it works, more often than I wish it did.
I should also broach the number of people who write to us to say they’re in the closet with their atheism. This list includes minors, adults (including heads of families), professionals (living in conservative Xian communities who fear business loss) and even ministers. Why aren’t they “out”? Fear of social and familial backlash toward their nonacceptance of theism. Social assessments can bring quite a load of pressure to bear.
Shame isn’t exclusive to abortion, shame is a rite of control used by many when they fail to understand a conditon of poverty. That same part of our culture that demands the elimination of abortion also demands the elimination of assistance to cultures of poverty that would prevent abortion. Nobody thinks the issue through because we are comfortable with shame as an end rite.
It’s a common behavior for someone who has resources to blame those who are in poverty using rites of shame. We have all heard these attributions, the poor should get a job, get an education, get off of welfare and avoid abortion at all costs. Of course, if the rich need such help, there is a valid and justified reason without the same rites of shame. If they keep it quiet, abortion or public assistance are justified protections.
Whether or not we blame someone about abortion often swings back and forth depending upon whether we are talking about ourselves or someone else. If we need some abortion, of course its justified. A friend within our class might have the same reason. The farther that person gets away from us, the more likely we are to blame them for the conditions that harm them.