Last night we filmed yet another Steve Hannah show. This filming went a little different than usual in that we got on to the subject of abortion and decided to ride the debate out for a while. This was different because it was very serious in contrast to the usual light but absurd view points usually expressed on the show.
One thesis that was proposed was that the Pro-choice lobby has effectively won the fight already by causing anyone who would defend an anti-abortion stance as irrational Christian Conservatives who are making the stand based solely on their religious beliefs. In reality this is far from the truth as there are many logical reasons to oppose abortion, not the least of which being on the grounds that it is murder (you don’t have to be a conservative Christian to believe that murder is wrong).
In today’s climate it is very unfashionable to be against abortion. For politicians it is tantamount to political suicide. If you look at the democratic presidential candidates in the US (Obama and Clinton) both support the pro-choice movement. I’m not going to question their motives for their beliefs, but the fact is, they wouldn’t have a chance of winning office if they stood on the other side of the fence on this issue. Of course Republican candidates are far more likely to support the anti-abortion camp, but they have been wearing the reputation of stuffy old conservative Christian white man for centuries, so this is no surprise. Perhaps this is where the perception that anti-abortionists are all irrational Christian conservatives – the fact that on the political level, many of them actually ARE!
If a man is against abortion, does that make him callous and uncaring? Certainly he cannot fully understand how it feels to carry a child, to give birth, or to have an abortion. He can only try to empathize. With an issue like abortion, though, would emotions and feelings not serve only to cloud the matter? Can we not talk about abortion policy without invoking how it makes someone feel? Can we stick purely with logical and moral arguments and not delve into the black hole of a woman’s feelings.
During the debate, one of the hosts introduced another interesting thesis: that one can be pro-choice and anti-abortion at the same time (I am paraphrasing); That perhaps the reason why the abortion issue is so heated is because any legislation that takes a person’s choice away as it pertains to their own body (as an anti-abortion legislation does) oppresses that class of people. That an anti-abortion law would serve as yet another symbol of woman’s sub-ordinance to man which has been forced on women since the dawn of civilization. What, then, if we take the stance that a woman retains the choice of whether or not to abort – but that we disagree with any choice to abort barring extreme circumstances? If we take this position, we are basically hoping for hegemony (i.e. we allow the woman to have an abortion but we hope that she will choose not to).
Perhaps this stance is more inline with our society’s values, as democratic society is largely based on hegemonic control, and not on the iron hand. An interesting thesis whose adoption as a belief would certainly be less likely to elicit judgement as an irrational Christian Conservative.