You know what I've always thought are really fantastic? Human rights. Now that I've outed myself as a radical free thinker with that newfangled, revolutionary stance, let's get down to brass tacks, because I think a few things need to be addressed in the wake of Henry Morgentaler's death.
Everybody who didn't know who Morgentaler was probably does by now, if only because news travels fast on the internet and, to put it mildly, the man was a bit polarizing. Specifically, he had a thing about legalizing abortions here in the Great White North. More specifically, he thought it was a pretty keen idea and spent the majority of his life (when he wasn't busy surviving the Holocaust) lobbying for a woman's right to dictate what happens to her body. Bluntly, this fucked a lot of people right off.
You can go through the man's biography on your own time; I'm not here to eulogize. Suffice it to say the good doctor was in and out of jail for years because he just wouldn't back down on this silly notion that the state had no place inside a woman's uterus. Oh, and did I mention pro-life types were regularly trying to kill him? The late Bill Hicks used to harp on that particular flaw in pro-life logic far more scathingly than I'm capable of pulling off, but you can draw your own conclusions. I digress.
Back in 2008, a somewhat more evolved group of people than the ones who think bombing clinics is a perfectly logical way of illustrating their support for "life" decided to name Dr. Morgentaler to the Order of Canada. In response, a few people not interesting enough to name decided to hand their Orders back, and a bunch of other people took time out of their presumably busy schedules to protest the appointment. One disgruntled law enforcement officer went so far as to file suit against the Advisory Council over their decision.
All the way up to his death, Dr. Morgentaler was hounded by this kind of criticism. By all rights he never tucked tail. In fact, here's a delightful little quote my editor sent me to get me started on this very piece:
“Women no longer die as a result of abortion. Women no longer get cut up or damaged as a result of abortion. Women no longer lose their fertility because of abortion.”
Huh. Sounds like the kind of guy a lot of guys profess to be. The kind of guy who thinks women are people, and they should have the right to safe and effective medical treatment when they need it. This kind of statement is the sort of thing that will get you labeled as the aforementioned radical free thinker with newfangled revolutionary ideas, I'm here to tell you.
And I totally see why people wanted to kill this dude.
See, we have this weird thing about our beliefs, and I'd like to unpack it for a second.
Beliefs are great. I don't trust people who don't believe strongly in something (I don't much care what) because people who are wishy-washy bore and aggravate me. I like passion; I like debate; I like it when people have different opinions about stuff. It's just about the only part of the human condition we haven't effectively sterilized out of ourselves. It's healthy, and it's all based on belief. Grand.
Here's where it gets unhealthy. "Belief" does not presuppose "reality”. Just because you choose to believe an invisible man dictates human morality based on how last night's burrito is sitting does not make it so. Just because you choose to believe a mass of lumpy tissue fermenting in a woman's lower regions constitutes a citizen does not make it so. And just because you think scraping that cellular Jell-O out of a woman constitutes murder does not make it fucking so.
Look, there are a million reasons why a woman might need to get an abortion. And yeah, maybe you and I might not think every single one of those reasons is a valid one. But here's the thing. First of all, I don't get any say whatsoever because I lack the requisite parts to have anything valid to contribute to the discussion (which begs the question, why am I writing this post? Shut up). Second of all, even if you do have the same bits as our hypothetical Mom-to-be, your opinion of what's happening in somebody else's guts affects matters just about as much as shouting encouragement at a televised Maple Leafs game from your couch will make that shitty team win. (ed. note - Fuck you, Alex)
The question isn't "is abortion moral". The question is "who are we to frame body ownership as a moral issue?"
I have it on good authority that abortions are singularly No Fun. They are traumatic; they hurt; they leave physical and emotional scars that sometimes don't heal. But they leave them on the woman who bears them, not on you, and that means your opinion doesn't matter. A woman's body is her own domain, and not you, nor I, nor anyone else gets to dictate her choices for her.
What we can do instead is ensure that services and supports are in place to help that woman safely and effectively deal with the repercussions of that choice, no matter which choice she makes. I find it telling that you don't see an awful lot of support from the pro-life camp for adoption services, or counselling services, or mother's allowance, or anything else that might help her deal with the repercussions of actually having that baby they want her so badly to have. What you do see an awful lot of is public shaming, appropriation of rape culture by the religious sects, and a whole lot of no goddamned hope whatsoever.
If you don't think abortion is moral, don't have one. If you think a woman is basically a brood mare whose sole function is to reproduce no matter what the circumstances, fine. You're entitled to your beliefs, just as I am mine. But keep two things in mind:
Banning a thing isn't going to make it not happen. Ever. Even if you succeeded in making abortion a punishable offence, people will still have them. There'll just be a whole lot more dead mommies to go with the side order of fetus.
And
Before you start preaching from the pulpit about morality, check yourself and ask a far more telling question: what are you doing to support the people whose rights you'd like to take away? What are you giving them in return for being told their reproductive organs are the property of the state? Charity? Support? Unconditional love? Because last time I checked I'm pretty sure that's what Jesus would have done.
Rest in peace, Dr. Morgentaler. Thanks for doing your best.
> I have it on good authority that abortions are singularly No Fun. They are traumatic; they hurt; they leave physical and emotional scars that sometimes don't heal. But they leave them on the woman who bears them, not on you, and that means your opinion doesn't matter.
ReplyDeleteGenocides are No Fun. They are traumatic; they hurt; they leave physical and emotional scars that sometimes don't heal. But they leave them on the countries that order them, not on you, and that means your opinion doesn't matter.
Don't say it's not a valid comparison. In both cases the sanctity of the life of a party inside another party is violated in the worst way.
> If you think a woman is basically a brood mare whose sole function is to reproduce no matter what the circumstances, fine.
A gross straw man. Fetal personhood ≠ "barefoot and pregnant, woman!".
> Banning a thing isn't going to make it not happen. Ever.
Of course not. The idea is to reduce the occurrences as much as possible despite this. Look at (say) drug laws, or prohibitions against vehicular homicide. There's laws against it, yet it happens. What's more, in both abortion and the vehicular homicide cases, people die.
> What are you giving them in return for being told their reproductive organs are the property of the state?
Again, a misrepresentation of the position. It is not an issue of the possession of the reproductive organs. It is an issue of the protection of a life of one not yet developed enough to protect itself.
> Charity? Support? Unconditional love? Because last time I checked I'm pretty sure that's what Jesus would have done.
Admittedly, this at least is a fair criticism.
> Genocides are No Fun. They are traumatic; they hurt; they leave physical and emotional scars that sometimes don't heal. But they leave them on the countries that order them, not on you, and that means your opinion doesn't matter.
DeleteDon't say it's not a valid comparison. In both cases the sanctity of the life of a party inside another party is violated in the worst way.
It's not a valid comparison. Genocides are committed against thinking, feeling human beings. Abortions are medical procedures removing lumps of tissue. Until something has a brain and a central nervous system and the capacity for thought, it's no more a person than your appendix is. And no, the fact that it will potentially become a person is not a valid argument either. The sperm I ejaculate is also something that could potentially become a person. This is not a straw man. The fact an egg is fertilized does not change the fact that it's not a human being. It's only slightly closer to becoming one than what's in a sock in the bottom of my hamper right now.
> What's more, in both abortion and the vehicular homicide cases, people die.
See above.
> Again, a misrepresentation of the position. It is not an issue of the possession of the reproductive organs. It is an issue of the protection of a life of one not yet developed enough to protect itself.
Again, see above, and I'll add that based on the fact that it would be an issue of the state telling a woman that she can't have a procedure to remove an unwanted chunk of biological matter from her own body just because there happens to be a tiny bit of someone else's biological matter inside it. Again - no brain, no nervous system, not a person. Just a clump of cells.
As a rich, white arts major at a Canadian university in 1974, I managed to get myself pregnant (stupid, stupid). The school's health services referred me to a well-known city gynaecologist, who obtained an approval for a termination from that Rich White Men's panel the hospital had. OHIP paid entirely for a 2-day hospital stay, and my parents never found out. I don't regret my decision. I don't know what I would have done if the Rich White Men's panel had turned down my request. Probably did what a close friend did in the same situation; travel to Buffalo, pay a medical clinic $100 for the same service, and come home.
ReplyDeleteI was never sure exactly what Morgenthaler was contributing to the scene. Pals who frequented his inner-city clinic described it as scummy, dangerous (because of the pro-life demonstrators and the media) and costly. Perhaps he was instrumental in getting the issue of abortion looked at, dealt with, and legislated away. I will honour his memory for that.
But it does occur to me to point out that women of my generation did not have to sneak into back alleys and visit butchers in order to end unwanted pregnancies. I believe this line of bull was concocted to scare women away from such a choice. What Morgenthaler was able to do publicly was put the lie to that bull, and encourage women to seek whatever alternatives they felt were appropriate. He wasn't the only one, but good on him for that.
Well said Cindy, and thank you so much for bringing a much-needed relevant voice to my article (like I said, I don't exactly have the requisite bits to have a real opinion on this).
DeleteMy nurse friend new Morgentaler back when she was a liberal, hippy in Montreal. Even as a free sex loving hippy, she didn't like. Said he got drunk at a party one night and was acting boisterous and stupid, not to mention a little arrogant. The way he acted at that party left her with a bad impression.
ReplyDelete