The truth about pro-choicers

Everybody loves babies, at least in abstract terms. They’re super cute, aren’t they? All babbly and cuddly, with their plump little arms and downy heads. They never start wars or fuck up the economy or make George Osborne Briton of the Year. They just flop around being babies. Bless them. I bloody love babies, I do.

I’ve had two babies myself. They’ve not been cute all the time, what with the incontinence and crying and being totally useless at witty repartee, but it’s pretty hard not to fall for your own. Mine are particularly brilliant now and were perfectly lovely when they were tiny. I was even fond of them when they were foetuses, loving every kick, wriggle and hiccough.

Like most people who pay attention in biology classes, I’ve a good understanding of what pregnancy means. I’ve seen that little heartbeat fluttering on the scan and been filled with complete and utter joy. It’s not just a clump of cells, it’s a human life – a bloody miracle! And how fragile, innocent and precious that tiny life must be. The trouble is, though, I’m also a pro-choicer. What this means is that whenever anyone mentions the word “abortion” I forget all of the above. I just think, “sod it. Baby, schmaby. Isn’t it just some random blob?”

This, at least, is how a number of male columnists seem to think pro-choice women operate. Silly little creatures who come to the debating table having completely forgotten the magnitude of having a life grow inside them. Good job there’s always a bloke on hand to explain it to them.

Take Mehdi Hasan, for instance. Last year he took it upon himself to patiently explain to the pro-choice lobby that “Being pro-life doesn’t make me any less of a lefty”. His piece included the following anecdote, which I’m sure will delight us all:

I sat and watched in quiet awe as my two daughters stretched and slept in their mother’s womb during the 20-week ultrasound scans. I don’t need God or a holy book to tell me what is or isn’t a “person”.

Obviously I’m grateful for that insight. Me, I look back on having 20-week scans and think “bloody hell, what kind of alien parasite was that?” The very idea that one could invest personhood in one’s own offspring and still have a clear-eyed view of the human cost of pregnancy; well, that’s just impossible, isn’t it?

Then we have Marko Attilla Hoare getting out the tissues at Left Foot Forward and telling us that “abortion is a tragic choice no woman should have to make”:

Women who seek abortions are victims of a society that does not respect them or their babies; they should not be stigmatised or treated as criminals. But let us stop pretending that this ongoing bloody tragedy is a manifestation of their emancipation.

I’ve responded to this more fully here. Suffice it to say, I am surprised at Hoare’s pitching of abortion as the choice of the woman who lacks privilege, since without easy access to safe, free abortion, it tends to be only the very wealthy who can avail themselves of what should be universal right. But never mind. Clearly the 68,000 women who die every year due to limitations on legal abortion are emancipated in ways I could never understand.

Now we have Tim Montgomerie of The Times (and supporter of SPUC), telling us that “the ground is shifting in the abortion debate”. Montgomerie writes approvingly of the recent approval for new restrictions on abortion in Spain, and of Michigan’s decision to force women requesting abortion see pictures of foetal development to help them “fully understand what they’re choosing” (because clearly they have no sodding idea). He’s utterly incensed about UK abortions being permitted at later dates on the grounds of foetal abnormality:

Many people are simply too frightened of having to raise a disabled child. Although the UK currently recognises that a 24-week-old foetus deserves the full protection of the law, this protection is not afforded to babies that might be disabled in some inadequately defined way.

Brave, brave Tim, making a stand against all those women who carry a foetus inside them for 24 weeks then think “disability? Yuck! Can’t be arsed!”. If only there were more Tims like him. But wait, there are! Here’s Tim Stanley of The Telegraph ready to back Montgomerie up:

Yeah. Who’d be pro-choice at Christmas? Imagine. Makes you think etc. etc.

The thing is, I’d rather not be pro-choice at Christmas. Who would? It makes you sound like a right Scrooge. “Right to life? Nah, not for them there embryos, Tiny Tim.” If it was all about protecting unborn babies, I’d be waving the anti-choice flag as much as the next person. The trouble is, that’s not what abortion is about. Human beings not yet born are not merely sitting in some waiting room, hoping that the evil pro-choicers won’t come and nab them before their time has come. They’re inside other human beings. These other human beings need ownership of their own flesh and blood. Clearly that’s a right pain in the arse, but there it is.

Being pro-choice is hard because it involves empathising not just with abstract innocents, but with women who are faceless, ordinary and no more perfect than you or I. There’s evidence to suggest that, at least when it comes to their own lives and those of their nearest and dearest, anti-choicers can be somewhat flexible in their understanding of pro-life politics. Being pro-choice involves taking the empathy you have for those closest to you and extending it to all women, whoever they are and whatever they’ve done. In a patriarchal society that isn’t easy but we owe it to womankind to do so. Fussing over the blameless foetus is easy; defending the rights of normal, everyday human beings is far more difficult (but, if we’re going to get religious about it, I’d bet it’s what Jesus would do).

In Backlash Susan Faludi refers to US legal cases in which it was established that parents are not obliged to sacrifice their bodily autonomy for their live, born children. In one such ruling the judge stated that “to compel the defendant to submit to an intrusion of his body would change every concept and principle on which our society is founded. To do so would defeat the sanctity of the individual.” And yet this is precisely what anti-choicers expect pregnant women to do for those not yet born. In England, where consent to organ donation after death is not even assumed by default, we still expect living pregnant women to give and give, regardless of their physical health, social environment and personal needs. This is not right. If we’re prepared to let people die because we won’t automatically harvest the dead, we should not expect the living to serve as hosts for those not yet born regardless of the effect this will have on their lives.

When it comes to foetal abnormality, I’ve made my personal position clear before. And I feel bad, if not ashamed, about it. I don’t want to care for a severely disabled child because I’m already in a position of having to care for a disabled adult in later years and I know what it involves. And having grown up with this adult, I know what it’s like to have this pressure around you when you’re young and I don’t want that for my children, too. It’s not easy. It’s miserable. The thing that Montgomerie et al miss is that we are not simply talking about babies (who are in any case dependant). We can be talking about whole human lifespans, and witnessing slow, agonising declines. One thing I know for sure is that not wishing the pressure I face to be upon my children is in no way similar to wishing the person I have to care for out of existence. I love him, but I am realistic about my limits, and those of people around me (and of the society I live in). It’s a horrible thing to admit to but it is, I think, more truthful than glibly stating that people are “too frightened to raise a disabled child”.

And that, perhaps, is the most difficult thing about being pro-choice. You feel it strongly and vehemently because you respect the bodies of other women, but you also know it’s not as neat as you’d like. You know it’s difficult. Some things are morally messy, but it’s no reason to trample over the bodily autonomy of half the human race.

It would be brilliant if pro-choicers were simply deluded. If “look, it’s actually a baby!” was the only answer we needed. That’s not how it is. “Look, we’re all human beings, we all make difficult choices, we all have to own our bodies and lives” is the less satisfactory answer. It is, nonetheless, the most honest and humane one we can give.


19 thoughts on “The truth about pro-choicers

  1. It’s about trust. Either you trust that women can be left in complete control of their reproductive systems, or you don’t.

    I have never heard an argument against choice that didn’t, at some point, presume that women are unfit or unable to decide for themselves.

    That’s not to say that everybody who is anti-choice is a misogynist, but it is an inherently misogynist position and people, especially men, really need to consider the enormity of the assumption they are making when they claim to know better than the owner of a womb what should happen inside that womb.

    1. It’s not remotely misogynistic, and you obviously haven’t read much literature on the subject if you think pro-life arguments make assumptions about the woman’s rational capacities. They’re almost invariably concerned with the ‘personhood’ of the foetus and its subsequent right to life (or lack thereof). Whether the person carrying the child is male, female or Martian is utterly irrelevant. A very ignorant comment.

      1. Do you think they receive training in how to misrepresent the most plain and obvious statement, or is lack of basic reading comprehension a requirement to be a champion of anti-safe-and-legal abortion?
        I’m giving JC an 8/10 for the suggestion that if men could get pregnant, abortion would still be restricted in law. Hilarious.

  2. I’m -fairly- sure you’re advocating the right to kill people who make your life inconvenient. As long as it’s whilst they’re dependent on you in some way.

    1. No, that’s not the case, no more than saying no one should be forced to give blood is advocating the right to kill people in need of blood transfusions. You don’t seem to understand pregnancy as giving life. It’s not something to take for granted.

    2. I love it when anti-safe-and-legal-abortion proponents pop up with their platitudes copied from the Right to Life’s website. This one is especially enjoyable.
      Abortion isn’t murder, brave anonymous. It’s not the slippery slope to euthanasia either. I know the thought of women making choices you can’t control makes you very frightened. Seek professional help. Maybe then you won’t lose your ability to comprehend text.

  3. @..” “Look, we’re all human beings, we all make difficult choices, we all have to own our bodies and lives”..” That sums it up in a nutshell..Not a neat nor tidy explanation(or situations) but the most apt description I’ve ever seen expressed as closely to how I feel about being pro-choice..And I’m also a Ma, Moms, Momma of 3 heckified grown sons..But at the beginning & end of the day it should rightfully be a woman’s choice..Our history dictates, in horrific real cases, what taking a woman’s choice away causes..Very well & honestly written. Thank you for sharing your thoughts

    1. ‘Our own bodies…our own lives’ The debate has zero to do with women’s’ bodily autonomy, and everything to do with whether or not they are in fact making a decision which impacts on *another human being*.

      1. So, to summarize JC’s point, the woman doesn’t matter, because who cares about HER? Evidently we aren’t human beings, eh? Or is it just that once we’re here we aren’t worth defending?

  4. Interesting article. I broadly share (I think) your position but confess I’m confused by your central argument. If its that “Being pro-choice involves taking the empathy you have for those closest to you and extending it to all women”, that’s arguably a narrow view as its perfectly possible to be pro-choice merely by a philosophical rejection of the absolutist pro-life argument that the rights of a clump of cells trump all else. If the ‘truth’ is that decisions to abort are consciously made as a choice between relative evils, this strikes me as pretty axiomatic. It would help to be a bit more explicit 🙂

  5. Sorry to be a pedant, but presumed consent on organ donation is law in Wales, so the sentence on this should perhaps specify England, not the UK.

    1. I think it’s still true in Scotland and NI, so rather than jettisoning the entire Celtic Fringe, one might say “UK (except Wales)”. (In no way being any less pedantic…)

  6. I wonder if at some level we are skirting around a fundamental power issue here. I hate to go all 1970’s and all that but the fact that women can choose whether a foetus is a wanted or unwanted one and then choose to act accordingly is so damn scary that over the patriarchal years we have had to shrink wrap that power, rename it (the first step in all ownership collisions) and discuss it as a human ethical issue. It isn’t. It is the basis of women’s real power. It is the right to give, or take, life or potential life. Women have the power to allow life. Their choice is whether they do so, or not. If I had chosen not to allow any of my children life they wouldn’t be here. That makes me important. Ouch.

  7. Thank you for this article! I am pro-choice as well and have struggled with the messy aspects of this stance. Your wonderful articulation of the complexity for women in making this decision has helped me sort out my own feelings about it. It’s not just about being pregnant, giving birth and caring for a baby– I’m betting that most of us would be willing to do that part. It’s also about the way it affects the rest of a woman’s life and the lives of those around her. I know many women who, for moral reasons, have given birth to a baby they were not prepared to care for and then gave the baby up for adoption, and it’s an experience that can haunt a woman for the rest of her life. I’ve also know many people who were adopted and struggle constantly with identity issues–some to the point of not wanting to have children of their own because they wouldn’t want a child to grow up without feeling moored to their genetic family history. I’m not anti-adoption–I think it can a wonderful gift! I’m just pointing out that the complexities can continue even after a “pro-life” decision has been made. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts!

Comments are closed.