If you are a man, you will never be faced with the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. It is an experience that simply does not apply to you. You will never be pregnant, your life will never be in danger because of a pregnancy and you will never be pregnant as the result of rape. There is no place for you in abortion debate. So when a whole bunch of men sponsor an amendment that takes away federal funding for a rape victim’s abortion if she isn’t bruised and bleeding, I feel unhealthily infuriated. Due to the hard work of internet activists, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act” has died, taking the ambiguous “forcible rape” cause with it (as if there is another kind). But popping up in its place is the “Protect Life Act.” Because if there is anything the Republicans care about, it’s life.
The “Protect Life Act” allows Medicare participating hospitals to deny lifesaving treatment to pregnant people if that treatment includes an abortion. A doctor would have the right to let a woman die instead of aborting her pregnancy, essentially saying that a woman’s life is not as important as your control over her body.
Bodily autonomy is critical in the fight for women’s equality. Until a woman’s body is her own, there will be no justice. As long as conservative men continue to make laws redefining rape to benefit rapists and making life impossible for a woman who makes a choice about her own body, we will not be free. Our personal appearance, our weight, our dress, our sexuality and sexual activity will be policed and judged by the world around us. The actions of our lawmakers set a precedent that men not only can but also have the right to make choices about women’s lives.
But as anger and blame on this issue is heaped onto the male Republicans in Congress, let us not forget the misogyny in the liberal community. It was not long ago that Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann went all-out ‘white knighting’ for Julian Assange, to the point of accusing the rape victims of lying and revealing one victim’s name to the public, putting her in danger of more physical violence. Here’s the thing that so many liberals could not reconcile: Wikileaks is great, Julian Assange is great for starting Wikileaks, our government is using the rape accusations as an excuse to go after Assange, and Assange is a rapist. All of those things can be true simultaneously. But I heard one man after another defend him. How could a rapist possibly do something as cool as Wikileaks? Attitudes like these only reinforce rape culture – a culture that allows men like John Boehner to propose misogynistic laws and still get re-elected.
I’ve established that men have no place in abortion law making, but the fact remains there are a whole bunch of women who support laws like these, at least until it happens to them. I can’t say, “Only people who agree with me should be allowed in the abortion debate.” I’d like to, but I understand the problems inherent in that. At least if the debate were made up exclusively of people who could become pregnant tomorrow, there might be something of an even playing ground. I don’t believe it’s any more acceptable for women to police each other’s bodies than it is for men to police women’s bodies, but a diverse coalition of women deliberating on abortion law is far more comforting than a diverse coalition of men (and definitely better than the white, rich, straight men who are coming up with these ridiculous laws).
Now, before you get your boxers too much in a twist, I do want to mention fathers. Abortion is a fantastic example of the personal being political, and the personal interactions of a couple must be seen in a political context. Speaking very generally, there is nothing wrong with the potential father expressing his opinion on whether or not there should be an abortion. It is only if he insists, demands, or forces the woman to go one-way or another that this becomes a problem. The very language of pregnancy reveals who culturally has the power over the child: “She’s pregnant with his baby,” or “Who’s baby is it?”
Obviously language like this shows our willingness to grant ownership to a man over a woman’s body. You’re pregnant with your own child – or not pregnant with child, should you choose. And the possible father who says “I want to keep it, I want to raise it, I want to be a father, I want us to be parents,” is not the enemy, and is not who I am rallying against. The man who says, “You must keep it, you must raise it, you must give me fatherhood,” is the problem.
Get your laws off my body.
Victoria Knobloch is a Collegian columnist. She can be reached at [email protected].
Ken • Mar 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm
“If you are a man, you will never be faced with the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. It is an experience that simply does not apply to you. You will never be pregnant, your life will never be in danger because of a pregnancy and you will never be pregnant as the result of rape. There is no place for you in abortion debate.”
So… trans*men don’t exist?
The rest of your article was well-informed, but your introduction is still problematic.
Sarah Hughes • Mar 2, 2011 at 2:22 pm
Thanks for the opinion piece. Its nice to hear the other side after yesterday’s hurtful and uninformed piece.
Elaine • Mar 2, 2011 at 3:34 am
I’m pro-choice even though personally I can’t imagine many circumstances under which I’d get an abortion. As a teacher, I’ve seen how badly children can turn out if they’re not wanted, or if their mother can’t pay for medical or psychological care. As a friend, I’ve seen people get abortions because there was no way they could handle a pregnancy, let alone a child: poverty, mental illness, rape, flakiness are all realities in this world.
If we had reliable birth control and if our rape culture were changed to be one where women and girls were treated kindly, very few people would need to decide whether to have an abortion. Instead of wasting our time on debating pro or anti choice, let’s work to end rape and to support girls and women who do decide to bear children.
Ronin • Feb 25, 2011 at 4:02 pm
Government continues to intrude on our everyday affairs, despite our constitutional protections. Both Republicans and Democrats are responsible — for they differ only in which intrusions to support rather than the idea that the average citizen should be left alone to make his own decisions.
Steve • Feb 17, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I would like to thank Justin Thompson, a leading member of the College Republicans, for showing us exactly what his party stands for. It’s good to know they have finally stopped pretending that they actually see women as people.
Sarah • Feb 17, 2011 at 12:28 pm
I couldn’t agree with this article more. And so saddened by the ignorance of the men who have posted in reply. You know, because “most women who get pregnant ‘sleep around.'” Another blatant example of sexism.
Justin Thompson • Feb 14, 2011 at 11:07 am
I cannot believe the arrogance and self worth in this girl’s op-ed.
I’ve met more than my fair share of women who think it is ok to abort a child as late as you like in the pregnancy (e.g. month nine.)
Furthermore, men have every right to be part of the conversation: we may not be carrying the child, but it is part of us too. To refute that fact is inept.
I’m not an absolutist in the debate. In cases of rape and incest (often incest is rape) then it is permissible in the 1st trimester. As well as if the child is determined early enough to live in a vegetative state/ suffer and be unable to communicate, etc.
So, otherwise, quit sleeping around and you won’t need an abortion.
Brandon • Feb 13, 2011 at 11:23 am
Wish you had the ability to edit posts.
The last one should not state “conception” but during the course of pregnancy.
Brandon • Feb 13, 2011 at 12:57 am
“That said, anyone who is truly pro-life and has a wit of sense can’t allow for “exceptions””
How about the hypothetical scenario that both the mother and the unborn child are both medically determined to have a high probability of death upon conception?
Michael • Feb 11, 2011 at 6:18 pm
The pro-life argument will argue that is is less fair to deny that child which is now developing life completely. The religious pro-life movement will argue that life starts at conception, the non-religious pro-life movement will argue you don’t know for a fact when life begins, so play it safe and forbid abortion. Obviously this is where the disagreement begins.
That said, anyone who is truly pro-life and has a wit of sense can’t allow for “exceptions”
Mike
Brandon • Feb 11, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Oops, extra post. My wifi messed up and looks like when I edited my previous response, it had already posted my other one.
Brandon • Feb 11, 2011 at 2:38 pm
“No, raping a woman is limiting/infringing on her freedom. Not allowing her to kill the child (in the eyes of those against abortion)is completely different.”
Whether or not it is intentional that you are limiting her freedom, you still are limiting her freedom to choose not to have a child of a serial rapist. I would argue that in the circumstance of rape, the crime itself will no doubt have an enormous impact, but the fact that a woman would not even have the *choice* on how to understand and deal with the aftermath not only limits her freedom to recover, but puts her into the early role of a mother. That is not fair and in my eyes, certainly not just.
“Take the other sides perspective for a second and think. If a woman has a child whom is the product of rape, is it then ok to kill that child when it is 1, 2, 3 years old because it brings bad memories? ”
Unfortunately, I take a different biological perspective. I don’t believe it is equivalent to killing a human child at a very early stage in pregnancy. While a child at the age of 3 could arguably have memories, have the capacity to retain consciousness, and express emotions, the early development of a embryo is far from becoming human. This is something I don’t want to get into, but I feel that in the case of forcible rape, the decision on whether or not their should be choice involved would be unquestionable.
Also, as Nina stated, we cannot presume to understand the circumstances revolving around a woman’s choice for abortion. It would be an enormous assumption to assume either of us would understand what it would be like to be raped and then have the additional burden of carrying that child. It isn’t as simple as “bad memories.” The rape itself is already an irreversibly life altering event. Now you want to tack on the requirement that the woman who was raped must bear that rapist’s child? Again, as Nina stated, it would derail her life completely. Why is that “fair” and how is that “just?” It isn’t an easy question to resolve. But I respect the right for a woman to make a choice. We don’t have to agree and we probably never will.
” I’m not saying I agree with that reasoning, but that is the argument the pro-life movement should be using. They make fools of themselves when they allow exceptions for rape.”
Well, in my eyes, it isn’t a very powerful argument. There are many biological and developmental differences between a 2-3 year old and an early stage developing embryo. It introduces another layer of complexity to the debate that doesn’t have an “either or” conclusion.
Michael • Feb 11, 2011 at 10:03 am
No, raping a woman is limiting/infringing on her freedom. Not allowing her to kill the child (in the eyes of those against abortion)is completely different. In their eyes abortion is akin to murdering a child. Take the other sides perspective for a second and think. If a woman has a child whom is the product of rape, is it then ok to kill that child when it is 1, 2, 3 years old because it brings bad memories? I’m not saying I agree with that reasoning, but that is the argument the pro-life movement should be using. They make fools of themselves when they allow exceptions for rape.
Brandon • Feb 10, 2011 at 7:53 pm
And yet, activist groups like those mentioned in the article are oversimplifying the issue. They are hoping to promote a black and white analysis to every circumstance of forcible rape that may occur in the future, without giving proper consideration and individual attention to a particular case.
As Nina mentioned, her life would likely have to be completely restructured. It’s not as easy as saying, “It’s a life” when the mental and physical well being of the mother is certainly just as valuable.
Then it may become a statement of equality. The implication of forcing a woman to keep a child of rape, independent of circumstance, is by default limiting the freedom of an entire gender.
Brandon • Feb 10, 2011 at 7:36 pm
” If one believes abortion is truly taking of a human life, than there should be no exception if that human life is a product of rape. That right there rips their argument right open.”
What woman, traumatized by rape, should in any circumstance be forced to carry their rapist’s child? The definition that abortion is the taking of human life, and that there should be no exception in the case of rape, is not absolute. What of the life of the woman who was raped? Is her future important? Her mental wellbeing? Of course they are. Then why would it be practical to force a woman to carry a rapist’s child who doesn’t wish to bear it? What if the woman aborting the child of the rapist does not believe she is taking a human life?
Michael Ball • Feb 10, 2011 at 11:14 am
While the above is completely true, if one believes that abortion is akin to murdering a child, they see no difference between executing a three year old who’s father raped their mother, and terminating the pregnancy. You aren’t just carrying a “thing” inside of you, that “thing” comes out as a child. This cannot be oversimplified by EITHER SIDE.
Mike
Russell • Feb 10, 2011 at 10:52 am
@Alexander. Despite your confidence that you know exactly what happened in the Julian Assange case, you weren’t there, I wasn’t there, and no one is ever going to know exactly what happened. The point is that it Wikileaks as an organization does not equal Julian Assange.
Still, if we are to believe your account:
“The other case was similar: he and the woman in question had protected sex and then fell asleep, and in the middle of the night he initiated sex again, this time without a condom.”
A person who is sleeping cannot give consent; so even by your account, this is rape.
Nina • Feb 10, 2011 at 2:11 am
To your point, Ben, it’s not just asking active soldiers to voice an opinion. But, at the same time, you do not run the risk of being forcibly drafted tomorrow. In a sense, that is something that everyone with a uterus has to deal with. I could be raped tomorrow. Look up the statistics, keeping in mind that rape is chronically under-reported. It could happen. And, if I were to get pregnant, I would then have to spend 9 months with a child growing inside of me. I would have to change everything, figure out how to pay medical bills, and probably drop out of school. It would derail my entire life. And all because a rapist committed a crime. There is no other crime where we ask the victims to bear this level of responsibility.
And I know that not all women agree with me, and I know that many people who get abortions have not been raped. But you do not know their stories, and neither do I. We cannot presume to understand. But you also will never understand what it is like to have to above scenario be a possibility. Most women live every day knowing that control could be forcibly ripped away from them. It is absolutely terrifying. And I will always firmly believe that women should have a right to choose.
Michael Ball • Feb 9, 2011 at 11:51 am
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the reason people are against abortion isn’t because they want to control what you do, but to control what happens to another life? People who are truly against abortion, both those who are religious and those who are not, aren’t against it because they don’t think women should have choices, they are against it because they truly believe it involves taking another human life. It’s not laws on your body, in their eyes it is laws protecting a child’s body. Just as you can’t kill your kid, they don’t think you should be able to terminate a pregnancy.
I do agree that the forcible rape exemption is incredibly stupid, but for different reasons. If one believes abortion is truly taking of a human life, than there should be no exception if that human life is a product of rape. That right there rips their argument right open.
Your ignorance is further displayed when you insist the father of the child should have no rights or actual say in the matter. This doesn’t even warrant a response, it is so absurd. I am sure, however, you are still fully in favor of mandatory child support.
Whether or not I agree with you is ultimately irrelevant. Before you go arguing a point, learn how to make a coherent argument first, that is not all emotion and no logic, at all. This sounds like an uneducated rant.
Mike
Ben • Feb 9, 2011 at 9:50 am
And another thing. If you’re so concerned about rape, let’s talk about Planned Parenthood’s complicity in pedophelia and underage sex slavery in the United States.
Recently, PP clinics in New Jersey, New York, and Virginia were visited by two actors claiming to be in the sex business. They asked counselors at all of the clinics to help them set up regular STD-screening and abortions “as needed” for their incoming herum of 13- and 14-year old sex slaves they were going to sneak into the country illegally. At a mimimum, five clinics offered them advice on how to avoid getting caught. All of mentioned over and over again that it was important to lie to the PP staff because they were under legal obligation to report rape. The attitude wasd one of ‘we don’t want to know, because then we would have to do something about it.’
This is not new. Two years ago, pro-life activist Lila Rose did a similar sting at Planned Parenthood clinics across the country. She posed as a thirteen-year old who had been impregnanted by a 31-year old man. (Sometimes, the ages were a little different) Over and over again, she was instructed on how to get an abortion while skirting the mandatory reporting requirements. In other words, they furnished her a bag of condoms and sent her back to her rapist.
I could go on and on with these examples. Look at some yourself.
https://liveaction.org/monalisa
Planned Parenthood is also racist! Its founder was margret Sanger, a virulent white supremacist who worried that too many dark-skinned babies were being born. But that’s a topic for another time.
Ben • Feb 9, 2011 at 9:23 am
This is the real kicker: “I can’t say, ‘Only people who agree with me should be allowed in the abortion debate.'”
I kind of thought that that was the point of the article. “Shut up!” is your well thought out argument.
Look, I happen to be a guy. But that doesn’t mean that I have to sit in the corner on my hands while we slaughter the next fifty million people. You don’t need specific genitalia to oppose the American Holocaust, you only need a conscience.
If I might borrow your argument for a second, let me just say that anyone who is not currently serving in the military should have no say in the wars in iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn’t affect you, so it shouldn’t concern you.
And you’re right, plenty of women are on the front lines of the pro-life movement, none of whom give a damn about “policing” your body. They just don’t want you to rip out the distinctly seperate human being growing inside of you and toss her out as a piece of medical waste.
Do you not understand that killing children is an industry, and you’re its propaganda mouthpiece?
A student • Feb 9, 2011 at 8:18 am
Dear Victoria,
In the worst case, if Swedish accusation is all a pure true, Julian Assange is not a rapist by American laws, but only by Swedish, the strictest interpretation of a sex without condom as rape.
However, if women’s SMS correspondance is authentic, pairs had a fully consentual sex, but later, not really matter by what reasons, women decided to challange the consent.
In this quit realistic case, there is a crime made against Assange. The most grave consequencies of this case, however, given its enormous publicity, might be deterioration of credibility for rape victims’ testimonies in the wide public perception, and in the courts.
Alexander • Feb 9, 2011 at 6:53 am
I don’t want to focus too much on something so tangential to your main point (which I am in absolute agreement with), but in case you aren’t aware: Julian Assange has not be formally charged with rape (or anything, actually) anywhere, including in Sweden, and furthermore, the charge the Swedes are considering (but have not yet made) is not rape as we understand it but rather something more akin to molestation: in both cases all parties have described the sex as consensual, but there was some disagreement over condom use.
In one case, the condom broke during sex and Assange (apparently) did not bring this to the girl’s attention despite being aware of her desire to have exclusively protected sex. The other case was similar: he and the woman in question had protected sex and then fell asleep, and in the middle of the night he initiated sex again, this time without a condom. The second woman says that despite Assange knowing her preference for protected sex he took advantage of her sleepy, confused state to initiate unprotected sex, although she did not insist that they stop once she became aware that the sex was without a condom.
It seems that while neither woman was particularly satisfied with Assange’s skill in bed neither had much issue with this until they discovered that his flagrant disregard for women’s preferences regarding condom use was something of a serial occurence, having happened to both of them. At this point they became concerned about STDs and originally filed the complaint in order to force him to get himself tested, which he had refused to do.
Now, please don’t misunderstand this minor correction as in any way defending the ridiculous blame-the-victim mentality perpetrated by the media regarding these accusations. While what Assange’s supporters say is technically true — that the charges against him in Sweden are not rape as we understand it — implicit in this typically is that the charges are ridiculous, because obviously it is a man’s prerogative to have unprotected casual sex with women against their wishes.
It is worth noting that Sweden is both the most gender-equal nation in the world, and the one with the toughest rape laws. Perhaps there is something to these laws.
thomas vesely • Feb 9, 2011 at 3:16 am
totally have to agree.