![\"Abortion](\"http:\/\/consistent-life.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/09\/people-MacNair-5.jpg\")
<\/a>Rachel MacNair<\/p><\/div>\n
<\/p>\n
I recently received an email from a fellow Quaker in response to my emails on the availability of insights at prolifequakers.org<\/a>. I think she made points that are important to address.<\/p>\n I mainly focus on her statement: \u201cPreventing a woman who needs one from having an abortion is in many cases a more violent act than an abortion.\u201d<\/p>\n My observation is that advocates of women having access to abortion tend to be considering the woman in isolation. They see her situation as a given, without taking into account something very important:<\/strong> is the ready availability of abortion a part of what causes the situation?<\/p>\n At the extreme, we have cases of rape and incest \u2013 many people who otherwise oppose abortion will make an exception for pregnancies resulting from these causes. Yet we need to take into account that men inclined to commit rape, pedophilia, and incest are keenly aware that the abortion clinic is handy. While in theory those taking under-age girls there should be reported to law enforcement, in actuality, perpetrators often navigate the system with ease. And know in advance that they can.<\/p>\n For some cases where sexual abuse went on after the abortion(s), see Abortion Facilitates Sex Abuse: Documentation<\/a>. More generally, in How Abortion is Useful for Rape Culture<\/a>, I ask the question (and give a case as an illustration): \u201cWhat does having abortion handy do to men who have a sense of male entitlement to female bodies?\u201d For a movie with a realistic story in which the director didn\u2019t catch the implications, I offer the implication I saw: The Message of \u201cNever Rarely Sometimes Always\u201d: Abortion Gets Sexual Predators Off the Hook<\/a>.<\/p>\n But we don\u2019t need to go to that extreme, since there are plenty of men having a sense of male entitlement in entirely consensual adult relationships. Consider this tweet still available online<\/a> from a famous comedian several years ago, after the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had decided to knock down some abortion regulations in Texas:<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Someone who feels a sense of male privilege over women\u2019s bodies, writing only to male readers presumed to have that same sense? What does this say about the connection of abortion to women\u2019s genuine rights?<\/p>\n And if her situation is that the father of the child is vehemently against her continuing the pregnancy and will resist paying child support? This circumstance isn\u2019t merely a given; abortion makes it more likely. As Julianne Wiley put it<\/a>:<\/p>\n There will always be men who, at any given moment, want sex but don\u2019t want a child;<\/strong> some of these men will get women pregnant. But sexual intercourse now implies for each of them \u2013 exactly nothing, no responsibility.<\/p>\n It\u2019s only the woman\u2019s subsequent and separate option that determines everything. That being the case, why should any man feel he\u2019s acquired an obligation if the woman decides to give birth? Because he deposited sperm in the woman\u2019s vagina? Don\u2019t be medieval.<\/p>\n Am I predicting that the elevation of sexual autonomy to the status of a \u201cright,\u201d coupled with the availability of abortion, will cut men loose entirely? That paternal responsibility will sink to zero? That men are not only going to take off, but feel justified about it?<\/p>\n Hell, no. I\u2019m not predicting that. I\u2019m\u00a0reporting\u00a0<\/em>it. I\u2019ve done my share of women\u2019s shelter work. I saw it all the time.<\/p>\n Julianne Wiley<\/p><\/div>\n Importantly, thousands of women who\u2019ve had abortions have joined the pro-life movement, and hundreds of people who used to work for abortion facilities have as well. That\u2019s pretty amazing when you consider what they have to admit to in order to join the movement.<\/p>\n And the movement wouldn\u2019t have lasted this long, and had the successes it had, if this weren\u2019t true. If a merely philosophical view on when life begins were all that were driving it, it would have folded long ago. It\u2019s because activists keep hearing stories from women that often include \u00a0feeling trapped in their situations, traps which would not have been there had abortion not been so readily available.<\/p>\n Since this argument comes from a Quaker, from whom a pacifist stance<\/a> would normally be expected, I point out the parallel to the just war theory. A common argument for just war theory says, \u201cAllowing people to be oppressed is in many cases a more violent act than a war.\u201d<\/p>\n She further says: \u201cI also believe that peace is not simply the absence of violence. To have true peace we need justice and freedom from oppression for all.\u201d<\/p>\n That\u2019s a basic understanding of pacifism. We oppose not only direct violence, but also structural violence \u2013 poverty, pollution, and other forms of harming people as a side-effect of the way societal structures are set up.<\/p>\n She develops the thought: \u201cMaybe in an ideal world all women who become pregnant would choose to carry their pregnancies to term without coercion or fear. However, that is not the world we live in.\u201d<\/p>\n That is quintessentially the argument for \u201cjust war.\u201d In an ideal world, we wouldn\u2019t have people attacking and oppressing others. But that\u2019s not the world we live in. So, the argument goes, we need a \u201cstrong defense.\u201d<\/p>\n Pacifists are aware of the problem, but come up with a variety of nonviolent solutions. A major insight of pacifism is that while nonviolent solutions often take more time and effort in the short term, they work better in the long run. The simplicity of the quick violent solution is deceptive because the damage lasts over time<\/a>.<\/p>\n Advocates of just war theory think that pacifists are na\u00efve to think that there aren\u2019t times when violence is necessary to protect the innocent. Pacifists think that just war advocates are na\u00efve to think that wars can be done within the strict limits the doctrine sets. It\u2019s in the nature of wars to get out of hand. This is how violence works. Once violence has its foot in the door, it snowballs.<\/p>\n Point 1 above flows from this point: I think abortion availability advocates are na\u00efve to think that, once violence is proposed as a problem-solver, it will stay strictly limited to women who want it. That other people in her life won\u2019t try to push her into it or blame her for not doing it<\/a>.<\/p>\n I think it\u2019s also na\u00efve to think it won\u2019t spread to other forms of violence as a problem-solver. Are those men who have sex in the knowledge that their own child could die because of it going to remain limited in using violence to solve problems?<\/p>\n I think the image of the woman alone being the one who decides whether or not an abortion happens is about as realistic as any Hollywood movie where the good guys win all the violent confrontations and the bad guys always lose. You\u2019d be more inclined to support that violence if you believed this. But that’s not the world we live in.<\/p>\n ======================================================<\/p>\n For more posts from Rachel MacNair engaging arguments from those who favor abortion availability, see:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Is an Embryo More Important than a Woman?<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cThe Daily Show\u201d Doesn\u2019t Do Its Homework<\/a>><\/p>\n If Men Could Get Pregnant<\/a><\/p>\n What Do Men Have to Say on Abortion?<\/a><\/p>\n How Abortion is Useful for Rape Culture<\/a><\/p>\n Abortion Facilitates Sex Abuse: Documentation<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n For more on pro-life Quakers, see the website of our member group:\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n Friends Witness for a Pro-life Peace Testimony<\/a><\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/h3>\n
<\/h3>\n
Point 1: What Abortion Availability Causes<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a>Point 2: Just War and Pacifism<\/h3>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n