I went to a conference on morality and the judicial system this past weekend. I have been really interested in law and civil society and its ethical implications, so I knew I would be very interested in this particular symposium. In the first break out session I attended, surrounding marriage equality and reproductive freedom, a lot of the focus was on the recent civil unions debate here in Hawaii. At least one person asked a question pertaining to abortion and women’s rights. The response from the panelist was brief, and in my opinion, quite muted; not really getting into much of anything of any import. I managed to ask the final question;
Where do the rights of men enter the discussion of reproductive freedom?
My question may seem loaded, and in that case maybe it is. I have several close friends and a few acquaintances who consider themselves feminists, and I always seem to part ways with them on the issue of abortion and the man’s role in the birthing process. My own understanding of the reason for that is that much of the feminist perspective, when insisting upon the exclusive right of a woman to decide the fate of an unborn child (heretofore referred to platonically as a “fetus”), are actually doing so in a sexist manner. That is, to favor one sex over and above another with out challenge. Some may refute this accusation, but it remains to be clearly articulated how any person may advance the exclusive privilege of any individual based upon any protected identity (AKA “suspect classification”), such as sex, at the direct expense of another and call it anything but an “ism.”
I will not at this time deliberate at much length on this topic, though I publicly welcome comments and concerns, as long as they are not unreasonably accusatory, reactive or irrational. I will, however, recreate a conversation I had with a woman in between breaks at this conference, which proved to be a light hearted, honest discourse about this volatile issue. I will jump right to the discussion.
~~~
Woman: “What prompted you to pose that question?”
Me: “Well, I am a man. This is a field in which I feel incredibly oppressed by the lack of equal access to birthing decisions, including abortion. It does not seem to serve justice to exclude the father from such an important decision, one involving the life of his offspring. Furthermore, I am greatly disturbed by the legal definitions imposed upon the situation, we are basically claiming that a woman’s body is something like property, which she somehow has exclusive rights to do with as she pleases.”
W: “But does she not have the right to her own body?”
M: “To an extent. I mean, suicide is technically illegal; there are limits to what one may do to one’s body, even in the privacy of one’s own home. I am not in favor of criminalizing abortion, but I do not think that the idea of ‘her own body’ is even really in play here. She would not be pregnant if not for the man. From a legal perspective, if we are to reduce this to a property rights issue, then half the fetus belongs to the man! [with a smile]”
W: “But wouldn’t you agree that the woman, having to carry the baby to term, should have a higher degree of decision making power?”
M: “But that is to the detriment of the man, it is a punishment without a crime. There is nothing I can do to put the baby in my body, nor is there anything a woman can do about being the sex to carry the fetus to term. Biological reality should not be the basis for distributing power, any more than it should be the basis for granting the right to, say, civil unions. I can’t be blamed for being born a man any more than a woman can a woman.”
W: “But you brought up the idea of rights, are not rights distributed unequally by civil authorities?”
M: “Wait, aren’t we at a conference about getting the government out of the bedroom? Besides, we’re speaking on ideological terms, about what should be, not necessarily what is. I grant that abortion should not be criminalized, but that does not mean I think it should be occurring at the rate it does, for example.”
W: “So abortion is wrong? Is this a discussion about morality?”
M: “No, not necessarily. I do allow myself to be formed by my morals, but I don’t have the expectation that others are bound by my interpretation of what is right or wrong. However, because I think opinions should be open to public scrutiny, I do think that if an abortion is elective in the sense that it is done at the will of an individual based upon little more than the desire of freedom from the biological consequence of sexual intercourse, than yes, I think it is wrong. But I may make the same argument against liposuction; I do not think that because we can deploy medical interventions, that we should, or that such interventions somehow magically become justified.”
W: “When did this become a conversation about sex?”
M: “Any discussion about fertility is necessarily a discussion about sex. Anyone considering an abortion has had sex. I think that is self-evident, is it not?”
W: “Well, I don’t think it has to be…”
M: “Who do you know of that has ever had an immaculate abortion? [jokingly]”
W: “So is your objection about sex or abortions?”
M: “Well, both, really. The two are inextricably tied to one another, aren’t they?”
W: “I guess so, but what does this have to do with sex?”
M: “Well, that is probably a much longer conversation, but hopefully it will suffice to say that in our culture we approach sex entirely too casually, like it is free. But it isn’t. You only have to look toward sexually transmitted infections and the very subject of our own mini debate to realize that. I think maybe that same attitude is extended post-coitus; abortions are thought to be emotionally free and should remain so. But women I talk to agree that abortions are tough decisions, never an easy out. What is free about that? Besides, isn’t it a more than a little objectifying to think of your sexual partner as nothing more than the tool by which you expect to achieve orgasm? If that is what the sexual revolution offers, consider me a lobsterback.”
W: “Okay, so how does this all relate to the rights of man in reproductive freedom?”
M: “From everything I have heard, there is this weird assumption that women are the only ones who are entitled to reproductive freedom. This does not seem just. It is not okay that there is such a glaring inequality that exists in our society. If a woman chooses to abort a fetus, it should never be left to her sole discretion, anymore than many men take it to be their sole discretion to leave the woman at will. It should be a joint decision, just as sex was in each case [I feel that rape is an acceptable reason by which to abort, and this was expressed in the course of the conversation]. Each of them made the choice to engage in the biological act that created the fetus, therefore each should have an equal say the act that would destroy it. If they cannot agree, it should be brought before a neutral third party, I guess.”
W: “But we’re getting the government out of the bedroom, right?”
M: “The third party can and probably should be a personal connection. I have a general distrust of governments anyway.”
~~~
In the end, neither one of us seemed very much moved beyond our original position. That’s ok, it’s not about winning debates, its about having a calm, rational conversation. I’m not interested in telling women they should or should not have access to abortions. I do, however, have an interest in sharing an oft-unheard perspective, that of the man who is willing and able to bring the child to term and provide a loving home. Of course, that is not always the case, but it should be considered nonetheless. Until that is the norm, I’m sure we will continue to have plenty to debate about…
Dang it. I can’t get the Flickr OR Picasa slideshows to embed on WordPress… Well, here is the link anyway:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/loganlaituri/sets/72157622730862522/show
They are posted in order, so it should be relatively easy to click through them and have them make some kind of sense.
Last Sunday I served my church as a lector. A lector is someone who does various readings for the service, either a liturgical prayer or the readings from the Gospels or Hebrew Scriptures. It was the first time I had done it, and I am not sure exactly who composes the prayers (of which I lead the first). I am fairly certain the the readings are on a cycle, like the Latin Mass readings in the Catholic church. I go to a UCC church, and I have been very happy there. I have felt so at home that I last year I decided to serve on the coordinating council, which has been a really enlightening experience. Because of my time on the council, during which we also have had a search committee looking for our next pastor, I know that the average age of our congregation is 69 years old. Pretty up there. I think I am the youngest voluntary member of the church…
Anyway, I have found a nice little home at this nice little church every Sunday (and two days a month for council and team meetings). It isn’t what I’m used to, but that is part of what makes it so satisfying. I am challenged to see things from outside my own perspective a bit. By that, I mean that what I really would like is a younger, more vibrant, media rich (maybe a house church) type of experience. But I’m pretty sure God has put me in this place, and that makes me happy. I don’t know exactly why, but I have faith that it is so.
So I’m sitting up by the alter last Sunday, enjoying the service, heart racing a little bit (cuz, you know I always get a bit nervous, even if it’s nothing). Looking out at the congregation, I watch everyone’s eyes skim over the hymnal, singing in voices that are distinctly elderly (you know what I’m talking about; you know, but you don’t say anything cuz at least it’s cute that they get so into it, you know?). It was almost like out of a Norman Rockwell portrait; bright faces, mouths open in song, natural light pouring in from the windows and the big doors open in the back.
Peering over the lectern, I watched as pages of the Bible flittered and flipped on the intermittent breeze being offered by the oscillating fan next to the altar (we’re old school like that too, no A/C, very Berry-esque). Like an invisible hand playfully skimming the Bible. In the Rabbinic literature, there are metaphors that describe the Torah’s beautiful fragrance. Staring at those pages dancing upon the lectern, all I could think about was this rich floral aroma, like pollen shaken from their ink, being carried out toward the pews. After I read from Ezekiel, all during the sermon, I watched as my fellow church members inhaled this sweet, subtle scent of God’s grandeur. It made me smile.
Every now and then, I get a blog comment or an email in my inbox from people wanting to parse theology with me. I LOVE talking theology, but I have found I am not so good at it when it is done in a private medium that is dictated by a back and forth correspondence like emails or chat, etc. Starting now, if you see something you want to comment on (especially if you want to disagree with me, but also those who are sympathetic to my opinions), we need to agree to dialogue in a public forum. The reasons for this requirement are as follows;
- TRANSPARENCY – this restricts the propensity for ad hominem remarks and ensures that there is some public scrutiny and accountability to refine our expressed thoughts. Strict anonymity will also not be tolerated; if you need your identity concealed for personal reasons I can understand, but too often people use the internet as a crutch to lean on while hurling profane, unintelligible (or unreasonable) rants in the general direction of those they disagree with.
- COHERENCE – Private conversations sometimes get lost or disjointed if the text does not get carried over with each communication (switch to Gmail to avoid this problem! [ok google, give me money for advertising for you]). People lose sight of the original subject, lose track of the argument, etc. Most public forums like blog or Facebook commentary are stored and are accessible throughout the duration of the discourse.
- GUILT – That’s right, I am not innocent. I too have fallen back on the lack of accountability in private conversations to be a belligerent jerk. It’s not that I am intentional about it, I get defensive about my beliefs like anyone else. I don’t like how worked up I get sometimes, and I have noticed I don’t let myself get as worked up when I know that we are both open to a third party (or parties) being able to chime in.
So there you go. If you like or dislike something I have written, you gotta get in touch publicly. I will not moderate comments unless they contain openly hostile remarks or are obviously not being objective or reasonable. If you email me directly, I will remind you of these guidelines I have set for myself and invite you to post a comment or get in touch with me by Facebook (though I will not converse on the topic in question over a private message, only publicly accessible comments).
To those who I have been in touch with and have not maintained a modicum of respect, I apologize. Furthermore this IS NOT an indictment on any individual, but a pattern I have observed. I appreciate your input, but have found that any objective deliberation between people who disagree most often needs occur in a publicly accountable platform…
