I want to wear the feminist label, will I be allowed to join the club?
That's the question I have been asking myself lately, since I have a deep, dark, dirty little secret (folks, get ready to light your flame torches and assemble your angry mobs after this sentence.): I am against abortion.
Uh-oh. I can hear the groans already. This is a tired issue. I must not be getting enough hate mail. Here's my opportunity to give a baby-killer speech.
But wait. This shouldn't be a big deal, right? This world is open-minded enough to realize that feminists can come in all shapes and sizes, and that being Pro-Life doesn't instantly ally oneself with the angry Nuremberg Files fans, right? RIGHT?
Maybe. Perhaps it's all in my head, but I can hear the sounds of Women's Studies footsteps stampeding away from me as this is read.
Yes, abortion is a very touchy and very divisive political issue. Despite the fact that Roe vs. Wade is more than 25 years old, most people do not agree on whether a child has a potential "right to life" or a woman has a "right to choose."
But if anything, such differences in opinion should be encouraged. The abortion debate can be a beautiful opportunity to discuss just what it means to be a feminist and who is allowed to wear the label. Feminism can and should accept women who aren't pro-abortion, as well as women who are. We, as women, can engage in a meaningful debate if we learn to celebrate our lives, ideas and differences. Pretending that such differences don't exist and refusing to allow a diversity of opinion can only lead to more pain. And silencing such differences can only lead to despotism.
Is there enough room in the clubhouse for dissenters? If feminism simply means fighting for the equality of women, will I be kicked out for objecting to campaigns for "reproductive rights?"
It looks that way. Dopey women's magazines like Glamour constantly send women stupid, mixed messages. They plaster unintelligent articles like "What's your astrological love sign?" all over their pages and then toss in the occasional "news article" that reads, "Your rights are being challenged — write your senator to stop abortion restrictions NOW!"
Now, I only took a few little journalism classes in high school, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that such "news" is really editorializing of the most insulting kind. Sure, the press has liberal leanings, but how dare magazine writers assume that to read fashion articles you have to be pro-choice? That women's magazine editors willingly and selfishly veil their politics as journalism is horrifying.
It is simply unfair to think that someone who fights for the equality of women should automatically be forced to carry banners for other causes as well.
I should not be excluded from the club simply because I don't see abortion as being liberating for women. Especially in this time of birth control, morning-after pills and condoms, there's really no excuse for unsafe sex. If we put more responsibility on men and women to always use protection, abortion wouldn't need to exist. We wouldn't need to have such a scientific and ethically dubious backup plan.
Abortion rates would surely drop if we changed our close-minded, hypocritical attitudes toward sex. If society were less superficially judgmental about premarital sex, fewer women would terminate their pregnancies. If promiscuous women weren't labeled as "sluts" by their peers and by men, then getting pregnant outside marriage wouldn't be seen as scandalous gossip.
But the sad reality is that most women still get angry and condescending looks if their bellies are big and their ring fingers are bare. Let's face it — even today, hearing about someone getting "knocked up" is still news. Too many women have abortions because they want to hide from those dirty looks and snide whispers, not because they fear the pain that comes with nine months of carrying a baby.
The finer points of personhood have been mulled over about 80 million times before, and one thing is clear: We DON'T know, scientifically speaking, exactly when life begins. But we do know that all sorts of medical advances point to many different stages in fetal development. This leads me to believe that America is curiously inconsistent in its civil morality.
Why is it that under one law, one is innocent until proven guilty, but under another, one is dead until proven to be alive?
If we can give criminal suspects the benefit of the doubt, then surely we can make such an accommodation for innocent, unborn children. And you may not agree with me, but please: don't put a "Keep Out" sign on your front door.
"Is there enough room in the clubhouse for
dissenters? If feminism simply means fighting for the equality of women, will I be kicked out for objecting to campaigns for
"reproductive rights?" "
" If we put more
responsibility on men and women to always use protection, abortion wouldn't need to exist."
Kathleen Heil is a religious studies sophomore. Reach her at ladiekadie@hotmail.com
