2,600 words | 10-minute read
so a priest made a nazi salute at an anti-abortion event, which is a sentence i didn't think i would ever write, but unfortunately once written, i suppose doesn't seem that far-fetched.
one of the first articles i wrote for my undergraduate political magazine was called "yeah, i'm pro-life. quote me." in it, i discussed how disappointed i was with the current movement against abortion, and especially the fact that they had, in my view, co-opted the title of "pro-life." i spoke about the fact that multiple anti-abortion groups had actually endorsed joe biden for president in 2020 because, despite their differing views on the issue of abortion, they believed that the policies he stood for were "more consistent with the biblically shaped ethic of life than those of donald trump" (x, x). in relation to this, i discussed how certain policy goals, such as comprehensive sex ed, are more conducive to reducing the rate of unexpected pregnancies in the first place, and therefore logically the number of abortions, than outright banning the procedure. finally, i noted, as i have time and time again, that we have concrete and endlessly-repeating evidence from history, throughout time and around the globe, that legally banning abortion has three outcomes: (1) more women die, (2) more infants die, and (3) the rate of abortion actually rises to be higher than places where abortion is safe, legal, and accessible. every major human rights organization in the world, including the un council on human rights, amnesty international, and human rights watch, affirm that abortion is essential for the freedom of women, reproductive health, and a culture that truly values the health of individuals and families, and the strength and trust of communities.
all that being taken into consideration, advocating for banning abortion doesn't seem very "pro-life" to me.
however, the anti-abortion crowd has given themselves the not-so-humble moniker of "defenders of life," and organize marches across the country every year to plead for the "right" of the government to control female bodies. we know that historically, and still to today, the oppression of women has been greatly tied to their sexual and reproductive capacities, with both christian and non-western-religious examples such as female bodies being seen as "lesser" and "defective" versions of males', the practice of concubinage throughout history and around the world, or anti-suffragist propaganda that claimed that giving women more rights would make them abandon their true duties of childrearing. surely i do not need to continue listing examples of misogyny throughout history; in short, "women's sexuality has been derided as unclean and its use governed by norms laid down by men. conversely, they have been depersonalized as a romantic, unsexed ideal whose fulfillment lies mainly in motherhood" (x). i give these examples to show, then, that through the waves of feminism that overtook the united states throughout the twentieth century, the freedom of women was a major concern. the first wave focused mainly on political rights, such as voting; the second on economic rights such as equal employment; the third on social rights and perceptions such as body image and sex positivity. it may make sense, in this context, that roe v. wade was decided in 1973, when many feminist activists and writers from all races and classes were focusing on the lingering effects of the patriarchy on women's bodies: the control that was still vested in the government, created and run by men, to dictate what a uterus and a vagina was or was not permitted to do.
and in this context came the birth control boom, started by griswold v. connecticut granting married women the right to access birth control under the constitutional right to privacy. and since the very beginning of all this talk about sex and sexuality and actually giving women a say when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth, an unsurprising conservative backlash has been mounting. so imagine my surprise, and then my annoyance at my own surprise, when i saw a post from an anti-abortion activist, a woman herself, wearing a pin that crowed that "abortion is a symptom of women's oppression, not a solution." how the hell do you come to that conclusion, i wondered? after all of this time, after all the long fight for women to have access to healthcare, for women to be able to make decisions about their own bodies without a controlling husband or an all-seeing government eye peering into their doctor's office, could a person, much less a woman, believe that giving women the ability to choose to give birth or not is oppressive? how on earth could you believe that wanting the government to be able to force someone to give birth against their will is not oppressive?
but i have been trying, in the past few months, to give grace and space to those who do not think the same as i do. i believe too many people, on the left and right alike, are desperate for a soundbite, a comeback quip that will destroy the other side and salt the earth behind them too, leaving no space for any retort because they have just so epically owned their opponents. but i know that i can't sum up my entire argument in a sentence or two, certainly not in a tweet, or on a pin at a march. that's why this "blog post" is so long and yet is only a fraction of what i think and have already written on the subject. so let's take a look, then, at what this perspective might mean.
many anti-abortion activists, even and especially those who call themselves feminist, have raised concerns about the mindset that access to abortion may cultivate in men and women alike -- namely, a mindset that perpetuates a perspective of women as commodities or objects, female bodies as things to be used and thrown away -- if a pregnancy is unlucky enough to occur during that usage, no worry, we can "just" abort it. access to abortion, these people may argue, just allows men to continue devaluing women, especially sexually, because any inconvenience or evidence can easily be flushed out and thrown away.
this in some ways is a valid concern. in other ways, though, i worry that it continues to blame and punish women for the abuses of men against them. this, i think, leads us to the very fundamental issue at the root of the anti-abortion movement -- it itself ignores the roots. if we are interested in solving issues of women's oppression, it will not do to strip choices away from women. this is not a solution. rather, we must get to the source. whenever someone is oppressed, someone else is the oppressor. if we are worried about the sexual abuse of women, we cannot blame and punish women for being sexually abused. and i consider forced pregnancy to be the epitome of physical and sexual punishment. it is the ultimate case of denying the dignity of a human being, of using a person as a means to an end.
yet in all of this, i'm sure there are some reading this who are frustrated that i have "only" been talking about women. there is an entire other person involved in a pregnancy, of course -- the baby itself, what about the baby. i do believe that the majority of people who are against abortion are acting out of genuine moral concern for the fate of babies, innocent and defenseless. what. about. the babies.
and this is a legitimate concern, even as a pro-choice person. however, in pondering it, i must remind myself, and everyone on both sides of this debate here, about the reality of pregnancy, both in terms of biology and in terms of (current) legality. it is physically impossible for a fetus to develop without the use of another person's body. that body is, of course, the body of the pregnant person. a fetus relies on its mother for nutrients, waste disposal, oxygen flow; any and everything that it needs it is provided for by its mother. this is, of course, a major difference between a fetus and an infant -- the latter is a person that can theoretically be cared for by any adult -- its mother, father, nurse, babysitter, foster parent, anyone can feed, change, or rock an infant to sleep. a fetus, on the other hand, is connected to, and relies on, and cannot survive without, the resources provided it by one singular other person's body. this responsibility cannot be transferred to another person's body. and, as has been pointed out time and time again, even by women who gladly became mothers, the toll that this process takes on that body is enormous, even in the best of cases. pregnancy is a process that affects the entire body of the pregnant person, from their mental health to their immune system to their heart to their kidneys, to the risk of sepsis, eclampsia, aneurysm, and death. it changes the body permanently, and is at an end only after a life- and body-altering major medical, sometimes surgical, procedure that involves a hospital stay, constant monitoring, and months of recovery. many anti-abortion activists also believe that access to abortion tells women that they are weak, that they cannot do the thing that their bodies "were designed to do." but the fact of the matter is that pregnancy is hard, and long, and dangerous. no matter how much you downplay it, no matter how compliant you are to your husband or to your religion, no matter how willing you are and how much you want to have a baby, every pregnancy poses a potential threat to the pregnant person -- to their health, their future fertility, even their life. something can go wrong in an instant, even if you "do everything right." stripping away the option to save one's own life is barbaric. requiring doctors to work against their own best instincts and the best interest of their patients is barbaric. forcing someone, especially by bringing down the power of government upon them, to undertake such a risk against their will is barbaric. and it is oppression. full stop. abortion, therefore, cannot be a "symptom" of women's oppression; it is, for many women, a lifeline out of the continuous female history of reproductive coercion and abuse that in the past had been perpetrated by governments for the benefit of husbands and masters. for so many years, and still to today in some parts of the world and in the united states itself, women's worth is tied to their ability to produce children. doing anything against the societal norm of producing children was taboo, even shun-worthy, even death-worthy. that is female oppression. allowing women a way out is salvation.
this was the point of my original essay, written when i was twenty years old as a sophomore in college. i wanted to highlight the hypocrisy of those who believed themselves to be pro-life and voted in such a way at the polls, as long as the issue at hand was abortion. but if the issue was anything else related to life, to freedom, to liberty, they were all too willing, and even gleeful, to check the box against it. people who are politically anti-abortion are perhaps nominally advocating for saving the lives of fetuses, but implicitly and impactfully, they are arguing for women to be denied the right to make decisions about their own bodies. further, they are arguing for an overarching and paternalistic governmental system that invades and monitors every single woman's reproductive systems and purports to deny women the right to make their own decisions and to make those decisions for them instead. this does not seem very "conservative" to me, but still the people who claim to support "small government" are also somehow often the very same ones who want that same government to have the authority to peer into every woman's uterus on a whim. this, i believe, cannot but be a continuation of women's oppression, and therefore access to safe and legal abortion cannot but be a (not the, but a) solution to women's oppression. i believe in universal healthcare, universal childcare, universal education up to and including higher education, specialized and subsidized perinatal healthcare to support expectant and new mothers and their children, the abolition of the death penalty, a livable wage and affordable housing. all of these policies save lives, improve quality of life for those who struggle, and are necessary for freedom from oppression. but because i necessarily tack "women's autonomy" to the end of that list, i am labeled "anti-life." many of the people who give me that name fashion themselves to be "pro-life," when in reality they are more accurately anti-choice -- anti-choice for women's medical decisions, for gay couples to marry or trans people to live freely, for workers to unionize, for immigrants to pursue their own safety, for the right of the poor to self-determination through affordable education or the right to survive with affordable healthcare, housing, or a wage that supports them.
i understand that many people may have certain moral qualms with the idea of abortion. i understand not wanting to get an abortion oneself, or even being uncomfortable when a loved one considers one or has one. i am catholic. trust me, i am very familiar with my church's history and current stance on the issue. however, one's feelings are not enough to drive a policy movement -- and one's religious convictions certainly aren't either. as we have already explored, access to abortion is universally considered a human right, one that promotes the health and life of women, families, and communities. i applaud the people who, for whatever reason, religious or not, may not like the idea of abortion themselves but still understand that it is a necessary option that must remain available -- who understand that "pro-choice" is not a dirty label. i especially applaud those who may be against the idea of abortion but instead of making an illogical 500-foot leap over a canyon of fire from "thing i don't like is bad --> thing i don't like must be banned" have taken a step back from their immediate emotional reactions, done research, and realized that simply banning something does not make it, or the need for it, go away. i applaud everyone who, whether they "like it" or not, recognize the necessity for abortion to be an option in their communities, and who fight not only for its continued legalization but also for the resources that provide people with the opportunity to build a full life that may include children. i applaud those who recognize that simply banning abortion is akin to trimming a tree rather than uprooting it -- who recognize that we need to get to the source of the problem and figure out what we can do not only to protect children and families, but to truly foster a culture that cares about and values human life, as well as the labor that has been done by women and pregnant people throughout history to carry it on.
these are people with whom i am proud to work alongside. together, i believe that we prove that pro-choice is pro-life.
those whose movement only insists on punishing women, denying mountains of evidence, and either ignoring or actively sabotaging any other attempt to aid and improve lives are those who i believe are truly anti-life. no amount of holier-than-thou bible quoting can change that. and no amount of "no true scotsman"-ing can convince me that any movement in which nazis feel comfortable, much less empowered, has the moral high ground here.
so yeah, i'm pro-life. quote me.
this post was written concurrently with a larger essay the author is currently working on that details legal, moral, and religious arguments for and against abortion. the ideas in this article are not comprehensive of the author's entire argument, and were informed and inspired by previous unpublished work that the author is still developing. ideas used in this post may be used or quoted by the author in future publications. please credit the author when sharing any information or ideas from this post.
© copyright jem 2025.
Comments