Irony Abounds!

When trying to listen to impassioned arguments based upon strongly held “beliefs” and “values” it is admittedly difficult to escape the notion that these zealots never actually listen to their own arguments. If they did, the evidence that they are so full of holes as to make a screen door seem opaque. This morning a so-called leader of the “Pro-Life” movement went on NWPB to explain and “justify” the new Alabama Anti-abortion Law, touted as the most restrictive in the nation in the eyes of her “value” driven sect. The statute was designed to put Alabama in the lead as the case most likely to receive first consideration by the Supreme Court, and lead to overturning Roe v. Wade precedent. The ironies abound. The woman appeared educated, despite the incoherence and illogical positions she espoused, and it was not clear whether her inconsistent arguments were borne of sheer ignorance or callous hypocrisy. I address here only the arguments she presented, not the larger debate.

To begin, it is ironic that a woman would be put forward to carry the flag for a piece of legislation enacted by middle-class and upper-class white men in the Alabama legislature. That ploy could hardly be ascribed to coincidence. Her argument began with the proposition that "all lives matter equally," and so abortion that kills “people,” in her view, allows for valuing one person over another. There are so many flaws in this argument that it is hard to choose where to begin a response. First, the argument assumes that one can define the moment at which “personhood” begins for there to be a differential valuing. Regardless of where one argues that critical point should rest, the very existence of the argument supports the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that the “Pro-Life” sect attacks. If we are dealing in absolutes, the existence of parthenogenesis in nature, and in mammals even though not documented as occurring in humans, would classify every ovum [human egg] as a potential person. Thus, every ovulating woman would be a “potential” murderer simply through menstruation.

Going less far afield, the logic of the Pro-Life sect would certainly classify any miscarriage as manslaughter, even if a defense could later be proven that the event was a bodily defensive reaction to the fetus [self-defense], rather than a failure of "duty of care" to properly nurture the tiny “person.” An even more concrete discrepancy arises considering that the Alabama law does not allow exception for abortion procedures when the fetus threatens the life of the pregnant woman, unless a physician deems the procedure required by a medical emergency. Since there is no definitive prescription for what does and does not constitute a valid “medical emergency,” any doctor would risk being second guessed and risk losing license and career by making a choice. This puts a doctor’s personal interests  inescapably in conflict with the best interests of the patient, a violation of the Hippocratic Oath.

The argument that the basis for Pro-Life anti-abortion legislation rests in concern for “all” life is, at best, cynical. That the burden falls only on women smacks of Augustinian notions of punishing and subordinating women because of the mythical failings or “sins” of Eve. Far too many examples of poor women whose lives have been destroyed through excessive childbearing, through the trauma of sexual assault and rape exist to deny that the Pro-Life movement is valuing potential life based upon conception over women and their right to control their bodies and reproductive processes. Moreover, the so-called “pro-Life” sect has done nothing demonstrable to address the impoverishment, poor health, starvation and abuse of children whose births have been and would, of necessity, increase as a result of the anti-abortion legislation. Societal reality is that there are circumstances in which a woman is incapable of caring for a newborn. Only a vile hypocrite could advocate for compelled birth of children and then swiftly turn one’s back on the child born in such circumstances.

Interestingly ironic is that the same demographic that supports this so-called Pro-Life sect are supporters of the president and his policies that separate immigrant and refugee families, place children in cages and offer them up to “agencies” that include organizations that are tied to child trafficking like the one in which Department of Education DeVos has a financial interest. This flies directly in the face of the argument that “the circumstances of conception do not determine the value of one’s life.”

The Alabama law does not include exceptions in the case of rape and incest. The Pro-Life argument is that sexual assault and violent rape are deplorable, such events do not justify pregnancy termination. This group stands behind the Ohio law that will, unless a court intervenes, require a preteen girl impregnated by rape to carry to term the product of that criminal assault. This is the result they seek, even if the pregnancy threatens to physically or psychologically destroy the life of the young girl. Again, such logic may only be supported by some notion that the female is guilty of original sin and deserves whatever circumstances [punishment] that may befall her.

The interviewer questioned the spokesperson about statements by longstanding evangelist Pat Robertson that the Alabama law “goes too far,” and raised the issue of risks to women from illegal abortions. After dismissing Robertson as not “speaking for” the Pro-Life sect values [likely news to Pat Robertson], she launches into argument that sound, at best, nonsensical. She does not refute the assumption that illegal abortions will occur [as they always have]. But counters with the absurd argument that “the former Director of Planned Parenthood stated that prior to Roe V. Wade most illegal abortions were performed by licensed physicians, and penicillin makes such procedures safer.” In other words, her claim is that the law is not seriously harmful because licensed physicians would perform illegal abortions in clean and safe environments. The Alabama law would impose prison for up to 99 years for any physician performing a procedure that violates the law. She also argues, ironically, that the small number of women who are maimed and may die from back-alley illegal abortions is outweighed by the “lives” save by criminalizing abortion. [Not my interpretation – her argument].  The Pro-Life speaker did not address how the number of pregnancy terminations would presumably drop significantly just by turning the procedure from legal to illegal. Nor did she address why the number of deaths and maiming from illegal procedures would not increase substantially, when licensed physician services and access to appropriate antibiotics would be cut off by the new law.

Perhaps the most far-fetched interpretation of the Pro-Life argument might be that technology has advanced. It assumes that all women have clean and safe places to live where they could perform self-induced home abortions. This is the privileged lifestyle of the spokesperson and most of her comrades. After all, pregnancy tests can be done at home with over the counter products. If it is accepted, as they appear to acknowledge, that women who feel they need to terminate pregnancies will find a way to do so, then such actions should be confined to the privacy of homes and not allowed in facilities such as doctor’s offices or clinics. The irony, of course, is that their arguments would compel them to push for making pharmacists criminal accomplices if they sell over the counter products to induce abortions and medications that would make home abortions safer. Irony abounds!