| Smile! Your Mom Chose Life |
|
|
|
| October 2005 | |
| Written by Peter Johnston | |
|
Investing in Gerber, not Planned Parenthood Feminists often decry a double standard in sexual and reproductive expectations. They claim that men are free to satisfy their sexual desires with little or no consequences while women are forced to bear the burden of pregnancy. In this proclamation, the feminists are right. Too often, a man will simply abandon the woman with whom he conceived a new being, leaving her and their child to fend for themselves.  In response to such a clearly unjust situation, the feminists propose a
solution: equalize the playing field by removing responsibility from
sex. If men rarely take responsibility for their offspring, why
not eliminate women’s responsibility as well? When the effect
(baby) is separated from its cause (sex), a woman can be as licentious
as she desires without any resultant obligation.Decades ago, the mass distribution of contraceptives established the first line of defense against sexual responsibility. But there was one problem: contraceptives were neither always effective nor always available, and increased sexual activity led to more pregnancies. Therefore, the feminists demanded abortion, the next line of defense. In Roe v. Wade, a mother was absolved from legal responsibility should she terminate the offspring of her sexual encounter. Since 1973, many Yale students have celebrated the anniversaries of Roe v. Wade, memorializing the case that gave mothers license to abort their children. Since the decision, adult women have attained a heightened level of autonomy, free under the law to make a previously prohibited decision. But this result does not solve the original problem: the unequal burden placed upon women in a pregnancy. Instead, by eliminating one disincentive (baby) of pre-marital sex, the burden is heavier because more children are conceived outside of marriage; men are even less responsible for their sexual acts, and the double standard persists. Of course, women who find themselves pregnant outside of marriage could simply turn to abortion, thereby freeing themselves from the unequal gender role inherent in the situation. But is abortion good for women? Further, is it just? These questions guided the founding of CLAY: Choose Life at Yale. In January 2003, Yale students celebrated the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade under the auspices of RRALY: Reproductive Rights Action League at Yale. With no significant contrary voice on campus, it seemed as if the student body had uniformly answered “yes” to the above questions; there seemed to be a broad consensus that abortion is both good for women and a just act. But a group of students founded CLAY and to its surprise, there was a mostly silent but significant minority of Yale students who depart from this dominant view. In bringing these students out of the woodwork to explore such an important issue, CLAY has provided a powerful counterpoint to campus orthodoxy. First, CLAY challenges the idea that abortion is good for women. In relation to physical and mental health, a number of studies have shown a correlation between abortion and breast cancer, and a debate is underway on the possible existence of a Post Abortion Syndrome. Further, CLAY asserts a high understanding of motherhood—an occupation of meaningful and purposeful work. By removing her child from the equation, a woman is forsaking the intense fulfillment promised by motherhood. Second, CLAY challenges the idea that abortion is a just act. Consider the following argument:
Despite its strong position, this argument is not meant as a conclusive claim to close debate. Instead, it is intended to invite debate—a primary goal of CLAY. CLAY does assert a strong position, but it recognizes that minds will never change if not challenged by opposing ideas. In this spirit, CLAY is undertaking a variety of activities to raise awareness of the abortion question on campus. In addition to intensive flyer campaigns and a candlelight vigil, CLAY is hosting four events this semester to inform and prompt further discussion. The highlight and capstone event will be a debate on December 1st between Peter Kreeft of Boston College and David Boonin of CU-Boulder. A double standard is inherent in the question of sexual responsibility. Before the founding of CLAY, a different double standard was in force on the Yale campus. The pro-choice contingent had great opportunity to express its conviction while the pro-life minority did not. Unlike the feminists, who in answering the question of sexual responsibility lowered the responsibility of all, CLAY is taking responsibility to defy this double standard, making possible an open dialogue between opposing ideas. Peter Johnston is a freshman in Saybrook College. |
|
