In the media reports of the Women’s March on January 21 and following the anti-abortion March on the 27th some conservative women expressed self-righteous outrage that their participation wasn’t welcomed in the Women’s March. This complaint has generally been put forward as a way to delegitimize the earlier demonstration, with some going so far as to suggest that their putative exclusion showed that the earlier march didn’t truly represent women. The refrain is also, of course, part and parcel of the anti-abortion movement’s effort to claim an undeserved pro-woman mantle with a little of the wannabe victim vibe that has become a tried-and-true conservative ploy when dealing with real victims.
While the pretense of high dudgeon is nothing more than amusing, many of those attending the anti-abortion protests may be right that they wouldn’t have been or won’t be welcome to march with progressive women. I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t want to stand in unison with women, no matter how friendly they are to other feminist issues, as long as their “pro-life” message involved efforts to inflict their beliefs on others.
I get that good Catholics and possibly some Protestants may believe that the zygote that is formed at conception is immediately ensouled and, hence, the moral equivalent of any fully developed human. I and many of my sisters are not, however, good Catholics, nor do we share these religious beliefs. By my reading our Constitution actually forbids the adherents of any particular religious belief from imposing the prescriptions of their religious belief on the rest of us and that is all we need to say to religiously inclined anti-abortion fanatics. I have Catholic friends, incidentally, who are perfectly happy to acknowledge that while they believe abortion is wrong, they see no need to force others to observe prescriptions they are willing to accept for themselves — so I know that the concept of live and let live is not too difficult to comprehend.
I also get that there are people who may have a more or less developed secular philosophical belief that the zygote, embryo, or fetus, as a potential human life has a right that surpasses that of the female host. There are many strong arguments against such beliefs, though — arguments that we should maybe revisit more often in order to counter the “killing babies” hysteria that many seem to mindlessly embrace. Of course, such beliefs are no more privileged than religious belief when it come to imposing it on others as long as there is no compelling social reason to do so — hence the need to address the adequacy of arguments pro and con.
Nor can we ignore those others who like to call themselves “pro-life” and who, no matter what they say, have embraced the anti-choice stance because they really want to control the behavior of women, especially their sexual behavior. I don’t think I even need to elaborate about why this is not only scurrilous but frightening.
You may notice a particular theme that is emerging here: pro-choice as a rejection of authoritarian control over diverse individuals by a majority (or in the case of anti-choice women, a sizeable minority). Which is why most anti-choice, anti-abortion advocates can’t make common cause with progressive feminists. The use of the world “choice” is a bigger deal that even many advocates for choice realize.
It is true that the progressive, pro-choice attitude doe not preclude an embrace of some absolute political values — racism is bad, extreme wealth inequality is bad, sexism is bad, etc. However, when you examine the “bads,” most of the time, at least, you’ll find they embody some type of authoritarian exclusion, exploitation or suppression of individuals or personal preferences based on privileged preferences of those embracing the particular badness. Voilà, the mainstream anti-abortion movement.
Of course, there is always the exception that proves the rule. There actually were anti-abortion women marching in unity with progressive women on Jan. 21st. In particular, a group called New Wave Feminists were represented at both marches.
I find their views about abortion per se a bit twisted logically — one of these New Wave feminists asserts that “as pro-life feminists we firmly believe in non-violence, and violence against women is never acceptable, even in the womb.” Does she men that she’s okay with aborting boys? Or, more likely, does she think abortion is a violent act against women comparable, to say, wife-beating? What does she think about late-term abortions that are necessary to save the life of a woman?
But he point is that, except insofar as it figures in an exchange of ideas, what she means doesn’t make much difference because she and others who share her beliefs are and should be free to make and defend their own choices as long as they don’t force them on me and thee. Their activism differs from the mainstream anti-abortion movement in a crucial way:
The group doesn’t advocate for making abortions illegal, as many anti-abortion groups do. Instead, it aims to provide women enough support that they do not feel they need to have an abortion in the first place.
This difference is very important. It’s a break with mainline anti-abortion orthodoxy which is essentially authoritarian, demanding that the preferences of a narrowly-comprised group, often impelled by specific religious beliefs, be imposed uniformly.
I don’t know about you, but I would march for women’s rights with the New Wave Feminists any day. They get it. Militant anti-abortionists don’t.