On day number one of a “boring” first-year essay writing
class, the professor I’m working for asked the students to name a controversial
issue from which he could develop an example of what it means to “nod to the
opposition.” “Abortion,” a student called from the back of the room.
My boss didn’t back down from the challenge. Unfortunately,
on September 26, 2012, two-thirds of the Canadian parliamentarians who voted on
Motion 312 could not, or would not, nod to the opposition. Why is Canada afraid
to open up discussion on a section of the criminal code that is so old it is
not even scientifically sound? In short, it is because the question of when a
fetus becomes a “human being” is directly related to debates about its
personhood. And discussions about its personhood threaten what many Canadians
perceive to be the reproductive rights of women.
The rights that are threatened can be formulated as follows: all women should have control over what goes on in their own bodies. If a woman experiences an unintended pregnancy, she should have the right to choose whether or not to continue with that pregnancy. She should have access to a full range of options, including access to clean and safe abortion services. This female autonomy should be protected and supported through official governmental structures. As the Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose said back in 2005, “working women want to make their own choices. We don’t want old white guys telling us what to do.”
Many Canadians were shocked to see Ambrose stand up in
favour of Motion 312 on September 26. Even more shocking, perhaps, is the fact
she was not being inconsistent in doing so.
Working women are not the only ones who breathe a sigh of
relief when the abortion debate is firmly closed. Both men and women like the pleasure and emotional intimacy
of sex without the responsibility of fatherhood and motherhood. Mother Teresa
once said that “it is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may
live as you wish.” She pointed to the fact that abortion is actually a symptom
of the western world’s focus on self-gratification, a focus which includes a
very patriarchal selfishness that is affecting our relationships. Many men like
sex but don’t want a woman’s reproductive system, because its consequences mean
commitment. To maintain the lack of abortion regulation in Canada today is to
contribute to the image of woman as an object, or at the very least to
contribute to an incomplete picture of a woman. The rhetoric of women’s rights,
in fact, comes in part from a bunch of men telling women what to do. Women believe that it is their right to give themselves
sexually to any man they please, and that it is their right to be able to do
this while denying the biological end of sex, and that it’s all absolutely fine.
But believe you me, there are men who very much like the fact that these beliefs have been normalized.*
Am I, as pro-life, concerned about women’s rights? You bet I
am. I believe in every woman’s right to shirk a performance of her sexuality
that denies a fundamental part of herself. I believe in a woman’s right to sex
that is about her holistic acceptance and about a commitment to her person:
body, soul, and emotions.
I have yet to meet a vocally pro-choice woman, with or
without an experience of abortion, who exudes the inner glow of full emancipation.
In fact, most of the women I meet, and these days many of them have had an
abortion or know someone who has, give off a strong sense of being let down, a
sense of bitterness, woundedness, and even fear. There are hundreds of women
who describe their abortions as being the most invasive, mortifying, terrifying
and traumatic experiences they have ever been through (see the stories at the
Rachel’s Vineyard website for a sampling of these stories). The rhetoric of
choice, freedom, rights and emancipation causes many women to bury their abortions
under overwhelming feelings of shame and grief. Women who have come out to talk
about their experiences speak of their desire to hide “secret sin”: these
feelings cannot necessarily come from their social formation. Right now our
official governmental structures, our education and counseling systems, and a
large bulk of the media output about abortion, predict a woman’s good when she makes the choice for
abortion. It is only fair for those who champion abortion for the sake of
women’s rights to acknowledge the fact that post-abortion stress syndrome (http://www.rachelsvineyard.org/emotions/symptoms.htm)
not only exists, but that it consistently wreaks havoc in the lives of the women
who have been through this procedure.
Of course, as a pro-life Canadian citizen, I believe that
much of this trauma can be traced back to the fact that women, no matter what
they’ve been told, inherently know the fetus is both a human being and a
person. But even further, abortion contributes to a culture in which women are
dehumanized. Some of the humiliating feelings of shame and grief that are
experienced by post-abortive women are from a society which asks them to leave a vital biological and
emotional part of themselves at the door of the bedroom. Abortion is the
final, violent manifestation of the rejection of the full, relational existence
of women, even as it is also the rejection of human life.
I am absolutely sick of hearing a women’s rights rhetoric that focuses on the woman's choice, but that ignores abortion’s causes and abortion’s fall-out. A mere nod to the opposition is not enough:
Canada, we need to take the blinders off.
Our women will thank us for it later.
