Visitors here can know one thing for certain. The
singular, most driving motivation I have for maintaining this space is to shed
light; to respectfully offer something of value to critical discourse about
what we’ve been given to hold sacred about Human Sexuality. It’s precisely that
impetus that keeps me here, compels me to re-examine the “givens” of human
existence in ways that lift us up, rather than mow us down.
And in the scheme of how we choose our directions in
life, this is pretty important, I think. Motivations count. In and of
themselves, they’re repositories of power, fully capable of doing pernicious
harm or bestowing us with healing.
So recently, when a certain misogynist buffoon currently
bidding for the US Presidency argued that some sort of punishment would be in
order for women who choose abortion should the laws in the US change, the need
to raise our voices yet again resounded with new urgency. Now as ever, there
seems little left for actual human beings to do except call this craziness out,
in word and in deed, for the insulting, oppressive and invasive denial of basic
human rights that it is.
I’m not sure when it is that most of us become aware
that having agency - that is, having the right to self-determination - is
inextricably bound to the status of being human. For many of us, I think, that spark
of illumination comes sometime in the pre-dawn of infancy, when we want with
all our hearts to escape the steamy confines of suddenly too-tight wombs. And
in the synchrony of primal energies that we surely take for granted, most of us
emerge when the time is right, our entrance into the waking world catalyzed largely
on our own, by powerful, mystical essentially inscrutable forces within us. For
the most part, the maternal bodies that host us take their cues from our own,
the onset of labor almost always induced by developmental changes in the fetus
itself.
But the agency embedded in the birthing act aside, societal
inequities invariably come to bear - doing pretty much all they can to deny our
right to self-determination - through the odious machinations of racism, gender
bias, classism and patriarchy. Indeed, in most locales, this process begins
prenatally. Just contemplate the effects of social inequality on maternal
malnutrition, environmental pollution, maternal and family stress due to economic
deprivation and unequal access to prenatal care if you doubt my words.
So when phallocentric forces propose punishing women
who choose abortion, it’s critical to understand the pernicious kind of lunacy they’re
proposing.
First, and ironically enough, such a mindless move
would put us in league with many of the same nations many loudmouthed phallocentric
US conservatives have argued are less … shall we say, evolved than we are, wherein various interpretations of ancient
religious laws demonize women’s every attempt to have agency - sovereign
control - over their bodies.
But contrary to the notion that this sort of thing
only takes place in other, more “backward” exoticized
cultures, we should all be assured that the unrelenting grasp of gender
inequality is alive and thriving in the US as well.
In fact, while indigenous people of the US often had a
highly evolved ethos regarding gender equality in reproductive rights, self-determination
and the like, the idea that female bodies ought to be subject to the rule of
the church or the state has been evident on US shores since the arrival of the
Europeans.
Today as I write, Chile, Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Nicaragua, Malta and, of course, Vatican City outlaw abortion entirely. These
locales give no exception even to save the life of the mother. On the other
hand, Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Pakistan, Jamaica, Peru,
Costa Rica and Liechtenstein at least allow health of the mother exceptions.
They don’t, however, allow exceptions for rape and incest.
Amazingly, the otherwise relatively forward-thinking
Ireland’s Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 has made terminating
a pregnancy in that country, sans an extreme and verifiable risk to the life of
the mother, a nightmare of clandestine activity that can land a woman in prison
for 14 years. The law is draconian and cruel, so much so that it forces women
to carry dead fetuses to term, and likewise, to carry fetuses so irreparably,
hopelessly damaged that they have absolutely no chance of survival outside of
the womb.
When you think about it, though, the title of Ireland’s
law, The Protection of LIFE (my
emphasis) During Pregnancy Act, pretty much highlights the pivotal, troubling crux
of the matter. I could be mistaken, but it sounds to me that the good and
thoughtful people responsible for this wording assume that “life” - human life
as we have come to conceptualize it over time - is fundamentally the same prior
to birth as it is after the fact. Their belief, I assume, is that the essence
of human life essentially remains unchanged by the awesome, mysterious, still largely
incomprehensible process of being born.
Well…. it should come as no surprise that some among
us vehemently beg to differ.
The fact of the matter is this: Determining when human
life actually begins – in all its complex, interrelated, and nuanced
multidimensionality – is not a simple matter. And were we to venture outside of
the rigid perimeters of dominant religious dogma, we’d perhaps develop a more holistic
view, assuming we can maintain a critical enough stance to open our minds and
hearts.
Most indigenous American people of many cultural and
tribal groups, for example, have never stigmatized abortion. Rather, they have
approached it as a pragmatic and responsible decision made by a woman for
whatever reason she herself deemed
appropriate. Nor was the decision to abort ever considered to be murder, or the unjustified taking of a
human life.
Why?
Because in most indigenous American cultures, human
life was believed to begin only after an infant drew her or his first breath OUTSIDE of the
womb. Up until that point, indigenous wisdom has it that all our souls exist in
disembodied, untethered, inorganic form.
In this construct, the human soul only enters the body
with the drawing of first breath. It’s at that precise moment when the discarnate
soul swoops in on the initial breath and takes up residence in the flesh. Up
until the moment of the infant’s first breath, there is no soul present in that
unborn collection of skin, blood and bone; there is a body in human form, but it
exists as an empty vessel - without the
required spiritual component that qualifies it as a human being.
And let’s be clear: ending unwanted pregnancies is not
a new phenomenon, brought on, as some would have us believe, by a wanton and
Godless postmodern world. Rather, women of indigenous cultures have been making
this decision for eons. Seen as an incontrovertible right, abortion was wholly
within the purview of women themselves - sans interference from men or tribal government
bodies.
Using what methods were at their disposal, in the past
as well as now, indigenous women of the Americas used a variety of wild plants
and their extracts called purgas to
induce abortion. Some of these materials, including slivers of slippery elm,
were inserted into the cervix, or neck of the uterus; certain botanical extracts and herbs were ingested.
In none of these cultures were women punished for
ending unwanted, difficult, or potentially fatal pregnancies. In none of these
cultures were women required to ask some third party for permission to control
their own reproductive activity.
So….
I have long suspected that Europeans’ decimation of indigenous
people was a whole lot more than a colossal land-grab. And although the theft
of real estate was certainly part of the agenda, it seems clear that an over-arching
motivation was the desire to obliterate indigenous norms and values – particularly
those that flew in the face of European ones. After all, many indigenous cultures
of the Americas were, and are,
matrilineal, that is, predicated on the mother’s lineage so that women are the primary
property holders, children are seen as belonging to their mothers rather than
their fathers, and so on. In these
cultures, when a marriage dissolves, marital property including the marital
home, belong to the female spouse.
In dominant cultures today, whether here in the US or
elsewhere around the world, one essential fact remains indisputable in my view.
A woman’s body is her own, and legislation that deprives women of their basic
rights to personhood, that is agency and self-determination, have no place in
societies that pay lip-service to the concept of equal treatment under the law.
And at the very least, it seems logical to surmise that the process of birth
matters. And how could it not? It’s a line of demarcation between a new organism’s actual personhood and its previous pre-born status as a complicated collection of differentiated body
parts.
Is the moment of birth the absolute point in time that what we call the “soul”
enters the body, as indigenous American wisdom holds true? I confess that I’m
not at all sure.
And then there’s this: science and technology being what they
are, the day may soon be upon us when a uterus embedded in a human female body
will no longer be required for the process of human gestation to come to
fruition; it may be possible then - even routine - for fetuses to develop to full
term outside the body, in carefully regulated artificial environments. Nutrients
pumped in, waste pumped out... No fuss; no sweat. Hollywood science fiction,
you say? Perhaps it is for now, but in the future, who knows?
And think of the benefits to women for whom pregnancy
is complicated at best: No vomiting, no swollen extremities, no enlarged hearts.
No pregnancy diabetes; no elevated blood pressure; no displaced organs; no shortness
of breath; no uterine prolapses from repeated pregnancies; no fistulas from
protracted labors leaking urine and feces.
Until that time, however, while women’s bodies are the
sole environments in which human fetuses must gestate to term, the choice must
be ours about if, when and how we surrender our bodies to the process of
producing another human person – a wrenching, rigorous, potentially lethal ordeal
that, even in the best scenarios, will change us forever.
Of course, as the mother of three daughters, I know
full well the connection beyond words that carrying and delivering a child can engender;
the existentially moving power of giving birth can inspire awe in the belief in
the magnificence of creation in the way that spiritual epiphany often does.
But regardless of all that, not all of us want to be mothers and that's absolutely fine. There are economic matters that come to bear, and the truth is, most women who choose abortion are mothers already and know full well the life long demands of parenthood and the enormous complexities of all that's required.
In the end, the choice to host a life - to surrender our physical and emotional selves - must be ours and ours alone. It should be made on our own terms, without intrusion from the state, from significant others, from well-meaning crusaders of any kind. In a 21st century world, the decision can only be ours, for justice. For fairness. For the sakes of our daughters everywhere.
In the end, the choice to host a life - to surrender our physical and emotional selves - must be ours and ours alone. It should be made on our own terms, without intrusion from the state, from significant others, from well-meaning crusaders of any kind. In a 21st century world, the decision can only be ours, for justice. For fairness. For the sakes of our daughters everywhere.
photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36521982494@N01/5284193">I had an Abortion</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/">(license)</a>
photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/44550450@N04/6865729352">Occupy Women's Rights - A rally to honor the many struggles for women's liberty</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/">(license)</a>
No comments:
Post a Comment