I shall argue that there is a page from the history of the black experience from which women—feminists, in particular—could learn a very important lesson.
When it comes to sex, women and men will never be completely equal. Of course, in terms of sexual desire women can be as ravenous as men. And it is, I suppose, a sign of progress that this is acknowledged by all. The “Mother Mary” image of women seems to have receded into the annals of history never to return again. Or so it is if what we see in popular culture is any indication of things.
For males growing up who have to contend with raging erections this transformation in women is wonderful. Oh, to be sure, sex remains special, but not in the way that it once was. Rather, it is that gateway to physical satisfaction for which they is no equal. And guess what: Increasingly females have precisely the same view of sex. And with the availability of both contraception and abortion, women can think about sex rather like men: Bring it on ! ! !
To state the obvious, what contraception and abortion have done is essentially eliminated the most significant consequence of sex for women, namely pregnancy. The problem, however, is that we utter “contraception” and “abortion” in the same breath as if they were, for all practical purposes, one and the same. Nothing could be further from the truth. Although they both prevent birth, they do so in radically different ways. Contraception prevents the formation of a fetus; abortion removes an already formed fetus from the womb. Abortion is an operation.
Now, I know many quite intellectually gifted people (a few have worked with me as teaching assistants) who think that as an entity the fetus has simply no moral value whatsoever. The woman can do with it what she pleases. If she wants to punch it or have it punched, then so be it. In fairness, I do imagine that some of these individuals would say that some things that a woman might do to a fetus are in bad taste: punching it for example. But that is true with wearing clothes as well. So what? It is my right to dress as I please, however grotesque my attire might be. You wouldn’t punch your fetus. Fine. Just remember that I am not open to moral criticism for punching mine.
I want to concede for the sake of argument that the moral status of the fetus is null. Unfortunately, this concession does not do quite to the work that those who hold it think that it does. For the null moral status of the fetus is supposed to lend support to the view that there is little or no difference between abortion and contraception. This follows, however, only if it is true that the operation of having an abortion is trivial. But it is not. Commonplace: Yes. Trivial: No.
All sorts of operations are commonplace, but are not, on that account, trivial. Plastic surgery is done all the time by all sorts of people. Yet, it is not a trivial procedure. Likewise for liposuction. Everyone contemplating these procedures is told to bear in mind that they are medical procedures and, as such, have attendant risks, however minimal. Indeed, we think it irresponsible of surgeons who perform these operations not to alert people of this.
So how has it turned out that the medical procedure of having an abortion is placed pretty much on a par with having a manicure or, I suppose, a pubic hair trim? In what follows, I take a lesson from the black experience.
The very idea of an Uncle Tom is that of a black who devalues her or his own moral worth. So we know that this sort of negative moral attitude is possible. I want to suggest that in denying the reality of abortion as a medical procedure we, in effect, devalue women. Indeed, I hold that insofar as women deny this reality, then they participate in the devaluing of women, just as we have allowed that blacks can participate in the devaluing of blacks. For those who would like to draw upon the black experience in an illuminating way: Well, here is your chance. It is not possible to understand correctly the civil rights struggle in America without taking this point seriously. This is so whether one is black or white or whatever. By the way, being black is hardly a guarantee that one will.
Now, the point that I am making regarding abortion holds without suggesting at all that abortion is wrong. For the point is that, as with plastic surgery or liposuction, the reality of the character of this medical procedure should not be trivialized even granting that women have the right to avail themselves of this procedure whenever they choose. The right to do something does make what one does trivial. Every adult has the right to get married, from which it does not at all follow that getting married is trivial.
In a quite interesting blog regarding abortion, Nick Wright observed that there are at times questions that we need to think about regardless of our stance on the subject. His case is that of a boyfriend receiving jail time for trying to help the girl whom the boyfriend impregnated terminate the pregnancy. Wherever one stands on abortion, Wrights point is that there is something wrong when the girl is perfectly free legally to punch herself in order to terminate her pregnancy, but her boyfriend engages in criminal behavior even if he assist her at her invitation.
I am, in effect, making a point similar in character to Mr. Wright’s point. Whatever our stance on abortion might be the truth of the matter is that abortion is not a medical operation; and to ignore this truth is to do what is wrong. To whom is the wrong done? Women.
Most men engage in sex (even while using protection) with the thought should the protection fail there is always the alternative of abortion. Most men think nothing of supposing that women should avail themselves of this alternative should that prove necessary. Get a manicure; get an abortion. I have always been under the impression that I cannot respect you if I trivialize your experiences, even those that you undergo voluntarily. If this is right, then it may be the case—surely in some instances it is the case—that a males commitment to abortion may be no more a sign of moral respect for women, then his commitment to satisfying his erection by having sex with a woman is.
Recall the following saying: The more things change, the more they stay the same. If the commitment on the part of men to abortion has more to do with having the freedom to “get some” than not, then this saying proves to be application where we would least expect it to be. For if the argument is sound, then abortion is a medical procedure that a woman might not want to risk although she understands perfectly well that most women undergo it and survive. I wonder how many men are prepared for this option. What I do know is that men who dismiss this option out of hand do not take women in the morally serious way that is supposed to be the defining feature of feminism.
Once more: The right to do something does not entail that what one does is inconsequential. Thus, insofar as we pretend that the procedure of an abortion is on the order of a manicure, then far from affirming the equality of women, our behavior is, instead, an affront to their self-respect. And just as the black Uncle Toms were (along with white racists) an affront to the self-respect of blacks, women who distort the reality of abortion as a medical operation are themselves (along with men who do so) an affront to the self-respect of women.
In conclusion, let me repeat that I have not once claimed that abortion is wrong. In fact, I have presupposed for the sake of argument that the moral status of the fetus is null. The power of the argument presented is that it goes through perfectly with this very presupposition.
