3

This article is dedicated to our courageous feminist sister, Pat McQuillan, on her recent passing.

"I brought up the question of when human life begins. In short, it is philosophically debatable, but according to Joe (a medical resident), the only standard we can use without getting into a moral hassle is genetics. Human beings are genetically unique from conception. Yes, it may not seem to me to be human, but where do we draw the line? If we go by morals, virtually anywhere, including post-birth. There was something about these arguments combined with the spirit of the (pro-life) people that reconvinces me of my pro-life stand.

I can't believe what I would LIKE to believe. It would be easy for me to rationalize abortion if I was pregnant, but so have lots of people rationalized war. And maybe this whole abortion thing is just one big rationalization after all, everyone was marching to a different drummer as recently as five years ago. P.S. You cannot unqualifiedly say that I am á human person. They said the same about Dred Scott 100 years ago."

This "pro-life" statement appeared in my diary over a year ago. It neatly sums up the typical "liberal" anti-abortionist's reasoning. This statement was an important expression of where my head was at during my last stage as an anti-abortionist, because it includes not only my reasons for my view, but also the elements of what would finally enable me to decide right to choose.

Abortion is an emotion-laden subject, and I believe that the reason for this is that this subject exposes a person's total life view, including their hang-ups and prejudices, more openly than almost any other. A person's view on abortion hinges on several factors: their religious affiliation and creed, their understanding of feminism, their acceptance of their own sexuality, and to a lesser degree, their political leaning. There is a virtually uncrossable chasm between anti-abortion and "right to choose" people because their heads are coming from diametrically opposed places.

There is a great difference religiously between the anti and pro-abortionist. The anti-abortion view is a dogmatic one, and is almost always founded upon a dogmatic religious belief. Catholics, Orthodox, and other fundamentalist sects have a very black and white view of the world, and it is not surprising that they carry this same view with them into the abortion struggle. The only person I can remember

1

I WAS A RIGHT TO LIFER

meeting in the anti-abortion movement who did not hold a dogmatic religious view was a Canadian woman who considered herself to be an agnostic. I am not sure of her background however, and there is a good possibility that she came from a dogmatic religion, and lost the religion, but not the dogmatism. When I was going through my period of change before I decided right to choose, I tended to be more religiously conservative when I leaned toward anti-abortion, and more liberal when I leaned toward right to choose. I currently consider

myself an agnostic, although I am going to a Catholic school, and attend Mass frequently for family reasons. In the right to choose movement, there are several people who belong to an established church, but that does not necessarily mean that they have a dogmatic religious view. The people I have met were either agnostic, atheist, or a rebel in their church.

Despite the so-called "Feminists for Life," I want to make the unequivocable statement that no true feminist can be against the right to choose. Scratch a "pro-life feminist" and you will find an anti-abortion women's rightist. And as we all know, there is a hell of a difference between a feminist and a person who believes in women's rights. A feminist takes upon her/himself a certain personal pledge to overhaul her/his own ingrained sexist attitudes, and devote one's energies towards completely abolishing sexism. One need not make this commitment or devote this time to the movement in order to be a women' rightist, and the "Feminists for Life" certainly haven't. A feminist active in the Columbus NOW told me that when the "Feminists for Life” come to NOW meetings all they do is sit in a corner and object. Their great crusade is to change NOW's opinion on abortion. Until then, they won't do a damn thing for their "sisters" that they show such a great concern about when they are in-utero. If anyone has any information about the "Feminists for Life" doing anything to help other women, please let me know, because it will surely be news to me.

I went around calling myself a feminist long before I even knew what the word meant. I believed in women's rights, but I had no real understanding of what sisterhood meant, and

I had never spent even a minute of my life working for other women. All I did was talk a lot about what a great "pro-life feminist" I was. I grew out of this stage into a full-blown feminism. Unfortunately though, the other "Feminists for Life" have yet to mature in their feminism.

"But nothing did she say about the right and duty to remain unpregnant through a loving chastity." This quote, taken from The Death Peddlers, by Paul Marx, O.S.B., was directed at a pro-right to choose person as she made a plea for total repeal of the abortion laws. This statement is a vocalization of the attitude that pervades the anti-abortion movement in regards to sex. Truly, it is no understatement to say that at least unconsciously, they want to punish young women for having sex. The people in the anti-abortion movement

find it impossible to identify with those women who have to undergo abortions, particularily those who are pregnant out of wedlock. Dr. Edward G. Kilroy, president of the Ohio Right to Life Society, suffers greatly from such lack of identification as is evident in a statement he made recently to the Catholic press: "They (ACLU) will stop at nothing to guard that decision (right to choose), sparing no effort to deny the right of existence to unborn children for the mother's convenience." Antiabortionists wonder why other people find it so necessary to have sex, so obviously, they must not enjoy it very much themselves. Furthermore, they are vehemently opposed to sex for minors, and the vast majority of them do not believe in the use of artificial birth control. And obviously, if one is opposed to birth control one ends up in a situation where "Only a moral formation which stresses chastity as the reasoned use of the sexual faculty according to one's state in life, and also as the loving exercise of self-control for the sake of developing the whole personality as well as serving the common good can prevent abortion, the ultimate abuse of sex." (same guy again).

In summation, when one talks about the possibility of changing anti-abortionists, one must first talk about the possibility of changing one or more of their deep-rooted personal convictions. Unfortunately, openness and the ability to change are lacking in most people, particularily those with a strong dogmatism. However, it has happened before to other, and it will happen again. I am living testimony to that. My hope is that as we begin to understand what makes the "Right to Lifers" tick, we can more effectively hit their soft spots in debate, and more accurately predict the future of the abortion struggle in the light of existing political, social, and religious attitudes. I hope that we can also bring ourselves to realize how important our related activites are to the abortion movement, for as much as we help to hu manize this society, so much do we aid the continued existence of the right to choose.

Drawing by Elizabeth Catlett

page5/What She Wants/August 1974