The Harvard Salient -- 12 March 2007

The Harvard Salient
20 April 2007

More Than a Woman’s Concern

Why a Woman’s Right to Choose Only Hurts Women

By Gabriella B. Tantillo, Staff Writer

Recently, I attended a discussion of the ideas brought forth by an event called “Why Liberals should defend the Unborn,” which was co-sponsored by Harvard Students for Choice, Harvard Right to Life, the Radcliffe Union of Students, and the Women’s Center, among other groups. While I confess to not have attended the original event itself, I was curious enough to see the effect such a discussion could have on the undergraduate population.

Thus, I showed up at the Women’s Center that Wednesday evening looking forward to the discussion. Despite the contentious nature of the original talk, most of the students at the discussion were considerate. Yet, apart from the contributions from the very dutiful president of Harvard Right to Life, the discussion was largely commanded by those who were unabashedly liberal—and unabashedly pro-choice.

To my surprise, several men showed up for the discussion. I was looking forward to their unique perspectives, happy that they felt welcome at the Women’s Center. Rather than expressing any substantive opinions on the issues, however, they were surprisingly passive—brainwashed, perhaps, by feminist propaganda, into feeling guilty for having any opinion on the matter at all.

When one of the men was asked what he thought about abortion, his response did not demand equality for men in the decision—”Well, I believe in reproductive choice and being in control of fertility”—or invoke a moralistic tone—”Abortion crosses the line by putting the secondary rights of the women over the primary right to life.”

Rather, he chose to respond passively: “I’m a man. I don’t think I should have any choice in whether a woman can have an abortion”.

This statement illustrates a disturbing trend, where the progressive rhetoric that permeates this campus has saturated people’s minds to the extent that individuals who have done nothing but strive for the plight of the impoverished see themselves as “white male oppressors” just by virtue of their sex.

There are a numerous reasons why this is disturbing. First of all, I do not believe anyone at all should be barred from “having an opinion,” or having one that is somehow less worthy, due to a condition of birth. Is this not a form of reverse-discrimination? And furthermore, the developing embryo inside the womb has only half of its origin in its mother. The fetus belongs equally to the mother and father; of the 46 chromosomes it contains, 23 have come from the mother, and 23 have come from the father. It is simply erroneous to suggest that this creation originates exclusively from the female. Why then, is it only women who ought to have the “right to choose”?

It is true indeed that the woman will physically bear the burden, carrying the developing fetus in her uterus for nine months. But what is nine months in comparison to an entire lifetime? And why are women seen as playing a fundamentally more important role than men in issues of childbirth? Doesn’t childbirth start with conception, in which both man and woman are equally relevant?

Simone de Beauvoir once wrote: “Woman? Very simple, say the fanciers of simple formulas: she is a womb, an ovary; she is a female – this word is sufficient to define her”. Much of modern feminism has focused especially on combating this oppressive “definition” of womanhood. Indeed, most feminists would scoff at the association of the female gender with maternity.

So we have reached a blatant contradiction. If women truly desire to escape the stereotype and expectation of motherhood, if we desire the term “woman” not to be synonymous with “uterus,” then we have to stop pretending to preach familial “liberation” while simultaneously monopolizing the control of issues relating to raising children. By claiming that women have a “right to choose,” whereas men somehow do not, pro-choice advocates do nothing but further emphasize women’s “classical” gender role as mothers and further promote the idea that women are solely responsible for childbirth. If we want to break away from our historical role of being confined to the home to cook, clean, and “raise the babies,” fair dictates that we help out the family by contributing financially—hence the birth of the modern career woman. What we fail to realize, though, is that the compromise goes both ways. If we want men to relinquish the “power and privilege” that comes with the exclusive generation of income, we must also be willing to share the responsibility of childbirth and raising children. I will not deny that women have a unique and important role to play in the raising of children. But it is a unique and not an exclusive role. Men should also play an active role in the rearing of our country’s youth, and that role should begin with pregnancy.

Furthermore, making pregnancy a “women’s issue” goes even further than to define women: it implies that men somehow have nothing to do with childbirth. Regardless of how you feel about the abortion issue, sequestering the “right to choose” within the female prerogative will have the effect of completely exonerating men from any kind of responsibility. Men, moreover, can then more easily avoid facing the repercussions of their sexual behavior. In an age where many females choose to have abortions because they perceive no future with their past sexual partner, it is both unfair and irresponsible for women to face the burden of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy on their own. If both sexes play an equal role in the creation of a child, then they should face the decision regarding its future together. It appears to me both unrighteous, and furthermore, scientifically inaccurate, to purport that women somehow have a greater “claim” to the fetus developing inside of her. The decision of what to do with the fetus should be handled by both parents, and the law should ensure that men are aware of the children to whom they have helped give life. Finally, just as fathers are often required to pay child-support for single mothers, a more just and fairer world conclude that men should also contribute financially to abortions. If anything, such a stipulation may perhaps discourage some men from evading the responsibilities of promiscuity and the subsequent siring of bastard children that they have historically enjoyed.

Finally, we must bear in mind how women who choose to have abortions actually feel. The pro-choice movement mischaracterizes abortion as an empowering “right” necessary to achieve gender equality. But talk to any woman about to end a pregnancy, and chances are, she will not feel as if she is exerting a “right” or “taking control” all. Rather, women who do choose to have abortions often feel nothing but isolated and desperate. Abortions are seen as a “necessary evil”, a choice they are forced to take, a choice brought upon by our society’s refusal to extend opportunities and accommodations to young women with children.

As the argument goes, in a truly enlightened society, gender should play no role in the paths individuals traverse in life. In light of this, perhaps we should reconsider whether the slogan, “Support a woman’s right to choose,” is really a sound argument in favor of abortion. If protecting the fundamental rights of women means supporting policies that discriminate against half of the population, enforce oppressive gender stereotypes, and lack any kind of scientific logic, then as a pro-woman individual, I am confused. Does jealously guarding the creation of children as a woman’s issue truly advance women? Or does it do nothing but further “define” our roles in society? Feminism should be about achieving equality for women, and holding both genders, male and female, to a higher standard.