terminate, a reconsideration

Jezebel, my new muse, has  a post on a recent story in Vogue about Lori Campbell, a stylish, slender 40% tax bracket woman, who had a “partial-birth” abortion. The Jezebel post suggests this article’s profound ambivalence, arguing that it does as much damage to the pro-choice cause as it does good because it centers on a rich woman. The writer of the post, Moe, opines that “this Vogue piece only reminded me why people could vote for someone who might nominate such a chauvinist. Because it is just not very hard for prolifers to frame abortion as an ultimately selfish choice entered into by frivolous, elitist women who would, 364 days out of the year, rather vote for a cut in their capital gains taxes.” She might have a point.

At the end of the post, Moe implores readers to tell their abortion stories. “Because while we applaud Lori Campbell's courage and honesty,” Moe urges, “we know not all of you summer in Montauk. But feel free to tell us what you're wearing!”

The comments to the piece are, not unsurprisingly, pretty interesting. Nothing galvanizes people like the pro-choice/pro-life debate, and nothing animates individuals with the visceral punch like people’s beliefs about abortion. I know that I avoid discussing abortion with people who don’t share my dedicated pro-choice view simply because I go from clear-headed to blindingly enraged in under six seconds when confronted with a rabid pro-lifer.

My inability to keep a cool head in the face of oppositional views on abortion is not something I’m proud of. It’s not the kind of thoughtful, measured response I like to have when I’m confronted with people who disagree with me, and not merely because I know that a measured response is much more likely to help these people see my side. I don’t want to maintain my composure merely because being composed is more rhetorically effective. I want to be able to discuss abortion without seeing red because my arterial-spray blindness testifies to me exactly how unresolved this issue is for me, and I have to live with myself far longer than I have to tolerate anyone else’s company.

Almost two years ago, I wrote a post, "terminate," wherein I narrated in full and without flinching my eight pregnancies, seven of which ended in abortion (the eighth was an ectopic pregnancy, or a pregnancy that occurred in a fallopian tube; the tube burst and was removed surgically). At the end of the post, after giving the story of my pregnancies, I explained why I’d gotten pregnant so many times.

This is what I said:

I don’t blame my fecundity for my embarrassing track record of terminated pregnancies. I don’t blame any one thing, really, for it was a clusterfuck of issues that made it possible for an intelligent and forthright girl-woman such as myself to make this same mistake again and again and again and so forth to eight.

I knew full well how to prevent pregnancy. In fact, I’d known since I was about four, when my mother told me in excruciating detail first how babies were made and then how babies are not made. Even being a baby myself, I could see what her subtext was: she was saying, in effect, had I had this, this pill, you would not be here.

My abortions were in part my attempt to rectify my mother’s mistake. I was trying—and failing, failing miserably—to take control for my mother’s poor decision-making process that had left her alone at nineteen, a single mother.

In part, my abortions too were my attempt to compete with my mother. If she defined early adult life by her sexuality, then I would do so too, and with a vengeance. I outfucked my mom. I did it in her face, a whirlwind fuckforce of blonde retribution.

In part, my abortions were a by-product of my constant and desperate attempt to be close to someone, somewhere, somehow, regardless how flawed and regardless how wrong. Sex was the closest I got to love for a very, very long time in my life, and ok, cue the Oxygen for Women soundtrack, sure, it was because I didn’t love myself.

I know a lot about not loving my self. In fact, I know with agonizing precision how much a person can not love me. I have spent so many long bleak atomic wintry years of my life not loving myself that there is little a person can say to me that is outdone by what I have said to myself. And clearly, my will to terminate and terminate again and terminate once more was as much a by-product of my self-loathing as anything else.

I admit I was a terrifically fucked-up young woman. Were I the person then that I am today, I wouldn’t have put myself in the position that I did over and over again. (Although, oddly enough, I wouldn’t be the person I am today without being the person I was then, but that’s opening a whole other metaphysical can of worms.) I still feel that my decision to abort was the correct one, even if my decision to get pregnant was not.

When I wrote the piece, I was terrified, and afterward I had summoned the nerve and hit the “publish” button, I walked around in a wondrous sense of relief mixed with a jangly fever of anxiety. I was fully expecting a full ration of pro-life shit, and I got some, not as much as I’d expected, but some.

What I was not expecting, and what I got in great, heaping mounds, even from people I knew, was condescension from individuals who consider themselves pro-choice. Despite searching, I can’t find any of the blogs who linked to my post, but to a one, the writers who linked to me essentially condemned me for exercising my choice to abort a few too many times. Their objection boiled down to a single sentiment and that was this: I’m pro-choice, but eight abortions is too many.

This condemning wasn’t only virtual. Shortly after writing the piece, I was at a sex-blog social gathering here in Gotham, and I talked about the post, how I felt about writing it, and the reaction I’d been getting from people who showed themselves to be pro-choice—but only to a point. The women I was talking to were to a one more sexually adventurous than I. Every one of them had been to sex parties. One of them made pornos. To my shock, one of them said that she agreed; in her mind, I had had too many abortions. I should have, she thought, learned my lesson.

I was taken aback. I thought that this space was a safe one. I thought that I was free to express my obvious pain over my past, my abortions, and my writing. I felt like a kitten slapped on her fresh pink nose for a solecism she did not understand. And it all lead me to wonder why it is that people who would consider themselves liberal would hasten to condemn another so readily, even when that person was in pain.

Today, almost thirteen years after my most recent abortion, I still feel pain about what I put myself through over and over again. I recognize that my abortions—and the lingering ache I feel over them—had as much to do with my ancient self-loathing as anything else. I recognize too that I no longer loathe myself as I used to. I forgive myself for my loathing and the somatic susurrations of that loathing.

Eight abortions is too many, but it’s not ethics or pure empiricism that makes eight too many. It’s simply too many because the pain that caused me to do it and do it and do it again, each time to myself, and each time with no less pain, was too much pain for any human. No unmarried, unsupported, ill-educated woman in her right mind would choose to get pregnant that many times, and I was not in my right mind.

It’s a good thing that I could make one good choice in the midst of that hurt, and that one good choice was to abort. I remain grateful, profoundly and unutterably thankful, that the choice to abort was legal, readily available, and relatively affordable. For these reasons, I remain proudly, staunchly and violently pro-choice, and woefully inadequate to the task of facing my ideological opponents with any semblance of grace.

Comments

[Selena Kitt]

We all hit our heads against the wall over and over in some way... the reasons vary, the action might look different, but it's the same. I wish someone could have given you the support you needed at the time. Hindsight, of course, is 20/20. Everyone always quotes Maya Angelou: "When you know better, you do better." But the reality is... sometimes we know, and we don't do any better. And some of us take a damned long time to "get it." Been there done that... in so many ways... again and again and again. You're not alone.

[ajooja]

Your unflinching honesty is so greatly appreciated. I hope the idiots don't hassle you too bad.

[Cyrano Q]

Difficult one, this. Personally, I'm anti-abortion, as I think most people are really, when push comes to shove. However, I'm also violently pro-choise, as it's usually the least-bad solution to a non-ideal situation.

Our choice, when tested, was not to terminate (a decision we've never regretted, thankfully). Others would have chosen differently. I'm glad they have that right.

Thanks for a truly thought-provoking post.

[Anastasia]

While I can accept the choice, that is, and can subscribe to the pro-choice group, I also think 'and what a choice?' (in the sarcastic sense). I think it's a shitty choice that women have to make, or agonize over time and time again. The term pro-choice doesn't make the choice any easier, and no one is in the position to judge how many is too many, each circumstance is as individual as the other individual women have relationships with.

The mere sight of pro-lifers is enough to make me retch now, as it was more than ten years ago when I fronted up to the clinic myself. Every pro-lifer, in my opinion, is a huge social hypocrite: to vehemently call women murderers over a less than 12 week old fetus (most abortions take place within 12 weeks), and yet, the same middle class pro-lifer, or bourgeoisie don't really give a rat's toss over fully formed babies, who die as a result of starvation and/or poverty within their own countries, or beyond them. How many of these people protest over crack babies? But, they line up outside abortion clinics, calling women they don't know (don't know the circumstance, story, lead up to the agonizing decision) murderers, and that will always sit in my gut like a chancre, and I must admit I'm not sympathetic to those pro-lifers, and their causes, but at the same time society (most governments), don't really give women that many options, except the pro-choice option. It's yet another issue women have to wrestle with.

I don't think it's ever 'safe' to discuss abortion, without obtaining some response from the other camp. There will always be a percentage of people who are uncomfortable with abortion, because it conflicts with the notion of women as bearers of life, or nurturers. I've lost count of the times that I've omitted the abortion from my relationship history tete-a-tete with prospective partners, and even if asked directly, I'll change the subject, or react, answering the question with another question: why ask that question, why is it necessary to our relationship? And I've become that way, because of the lessons I've learned in some relationships. Abortion never goes down well I guess, and I don't know why. Maybe it's because abortion, regardless of the choice, is a reflection of a dysfunctional society, filled with ambiguity and contradiction, and many people don't want to admit to that.

[rt]

Oh, I love love love you. Thank you for speaking up about something that many women have a hard time discussing, period; most women I know who do speak up feel they can only publicly discuss one abortion. (I personally have never been in the position, as years of being a lesbian avoids the need for BC. It was weird to have to think about it again when I met my current male partner.)

Fuck anyone who criticizes you for your personal choices. And I'm glad you're not in that same self-loathing space.

[Nitecaller]

there is no good choice when a women is pregnant and is traped. one must live with either a child or an abortion, I do not know that as man, I could actually do either.

Women are strong with either choice.

[anonymous]

A touching article. Brave of you to share your feelings and agonies about this socially conflicted subject. I think it's necessary for people to read this kind of stuff. Thanks.

[joy]

honesty is so freeing. and being as honest as you are indicates a confidence of self that few have. it's one thing to have the acceptance of the world ... but that satisfaction is fleeting and superficial. its far more worthwhile to accept yourself. you sound like you've been open to truly learning and growing through all of your life experiences ... and the world is chock full of people who steadfastly refuse to be so self-examining of their own. i admire you. and until any of the negative voices out there have walked a mile in YOUR shoes, they hardly have a right to chime in at all.

[saratoga]

Hi CG-

A very well written and emotionally rich piece.

Is it too weepy to express a thanks for sharing?

*huggs*

-saratoga

[Jsn]

Beautiful writing.
Abortion and any decision regarding life, sexuality or death is dissonant with the ideologies of authoritarianism vs. individualism, and just as importantly, personal worth. The debates will always rage in the war between moralism and self determination. Personally, I say to hell with the moralists.
I give you props for being so unabashedly candid. Your courage to reveal what is potentially humiliating, if not mortifying, is your greatest asset. Unfortunately, even in good faith, your candor will always be a target for those self-righteous gits who incessantly prove to be hypocrites.

[Sabina]

It's hard to write about this when even the pro-choicers are judgmental, so thank you-- I think the more people discuss issues and experiences openly, the more acceptance these issues will eventually receive.

Have you ever seen the movie "Speak Out: I Had An Abortion"? I recommend it.

[Calico]

It was your choice to make every time. And every time it was the right choice because you made it.

[saratoga]

CG-

At the risk of entering into a debate on this subject, two thoughts occurred to me after my initial comment.

First, I think abortion becomes a legitimate social concern if/when public funds are used to pay for it. Pregnancy is usually a volitional act, unlike, say, contracting typhoid or suffering some uncontrollable medical condition. If paying members of society are asked to pay for the abortions of others, where pregnancy was a choice, I think those members of society deserve to have a say in whether they have them.

Second, rather than have national laws which either prohibit, or explicitly allow, abortion, I would prefer it be a state-level issue. Then those for whom the issue is extremely important can, a la Nozick, freely associate, perhaps in a state in which they are the majority, and legislate the issue their way. Those who desire another view may do likewise, and both groups of believers may enjoy a peaceful conscience where they reside with respect to this issue.

The federalization of this topic has always left me uncomfortable, regardless of which side I am on.

-saratoga

[Jen]

Thank you. It has taken me many tries to say this, but thank you for making me feel like I am not alone. I've had three. It is excruciating sometimes. At least once a week I think about how I don't deserve to ever have a child or ever be a mother. It keeps me awake, it keeps me asleep, I have inertia.

People pass judgement without ever knowing why. To people (in the general sense, of course), it never matters how much emotional or physical pain a woman has gone through in the process. One abortion will get you pity (you know, with a good enough story), two: a slap on the wrists , but three or more and you just haven't learned the lesson.

[And, to the person who decided it should be a state level issue (Saratoga), have you ever thought of poor people? How, if they live in the middle of Texas and have no money and abortion is illegal in said state, do they ever get somewhere it is legal? Abortion busses? Volunteers? I don't use Texas for anything other than size, but it could happen in the smallest state. Money is an important factor, because it costs (and not society either, saratoga). Clinics are not necessarily supported by insurance or society...children under the care of the state and without viable parents, however, are.]

I remember the last time. I cried "I'm sorry" over and over and over again. I do hope I have learned the lesson.

Again, thank you,
Jen

[rt]

saratoga, by your logic, wouldn't the right to have a baby be up to each state? I mean, public funds are used to pay for schools...

[saratoga]

rt-

Actually, you raise a logically consistent point. Of course, I would find that a heinous intrusion of the state upon my or others' lives. But you clearly understand the principle involved- one needs to be careful in soliciting the state, a/k/a society, for services, lest one have the state making some of the antecedent decisions.

I have argued, for argument's sake, in debates, that public schools, while available for all, should not be free, as that is a subsidy to some, but not to all citizens.

Jen- Yes, I have thought of that. And it's precisely my point. Why should we all pay for the volitional acts of those who cannot, literally, afford the consequences of what they do?

This is as good a topic as any to make an interesting point about a glaring fallacy rarely pointed out. To wit, those who would politically allow maximal free choice of behavior by people, and, therefore, not want state interference, seem to often want the state/society to also pay for many of the consequences of those choices.

Logically, in order to fairly allocate limited resources, making that request is practically begging for society to end up proscribing some behaviors after all.

It boils down to the question of who should pay the costs of behaviors when there are 'negative externalities,' i.e., a person behaves, but can't pay for all the consequences which may negative affect others not involved.

I raise these questions because having children/abortions are obviously tremendously personal decisions, and, yet, so often trigger mandatory negative external costs to others in society.

We don't live in a society like, say, China, where having more than 2 children was considered improper.

But, hypothetically, what if, by state, or at the federal level, it was legislated that the first 2 children (or abortions) were 'free,' but more than that had to be paid for on a fully-allocated basis?

No, I don't really want this. I'm just interested in where logic takes one when considering a combination of a fairly wealthy, permissive society, and extensive personal freedoms of behavior.

-saratoga

[Anastasia]

To your below quote, Saratoga:

"First, I think abortion becomes a legitimate social concern if/when public funds are used to pay for it. Pregnancy is usually a volitional act, unlike, say, contracting typhoid or suffering some uncontrollable medical condition. If paying members of society are asked to pay for the abortions of others, where pregnancy was a choice, I think those members of society deserve to have a say in whether they have them."

~~~

Aren't a state's citizen's, including women requiring an abortion, paying taxes? Isn't it their democratic right? If they are contributing to a state, financially by way of work and taxes, then they have a right to expect proper medical treatment: even if it is an abortion. Besides this, even an unemployed woman (not paying taxes), if a nation proclaims its democratic, and believes in democracy, then every citizen has a right to options, just as infertile people have a right to use IVF and genetic technologies/eugenics to create their 'ideal' fetus.

Frankly, I don't see the logic of your statement. It's as though you have nullified the other part of society, namely women who work, pay taxes (ie contribute to public funds), who do - at some point in their life - seek an abortion, for reasons that shouldn't be judged by others.

Volitional?

There are plenty of cases where pregnancy is not volitional (in terms of the very definition of the word: a conscious choice). In establishing moral definitions (because that's what you do with your statement), you more or less say that certain people shouldn't be entitled to a medical service 'just because (in your view)' it's volitional.

And what of rape victims?
And what of contraceptive failures?

And even if a woman chose pregnancy, for her partner to reject it, she has every right to make the decision she makes, even if it includes abortion. Why should women be continually penalized for their sexuality, by neo-conservatives?

[saratoga]

Anastasia-

First, I specifically avoided any mention of political affiliation. Or on which side of this question I would be.

I merely wanted to explore open-minded considerations regarding the actions.

Second, just because, say, a citizen who routinely chooses to litter, and creates negative externalities, also pays taxes, does not mean that citizen has the right continue to behave in a way which creates extra costs for other societal members without their express consent.

To me, your position contains that obvious logical fallacy.

As to volitional, it was expressly included to avoid the always-complicating questions which you mentioned. In truth, those are rarely so numerous as to really be a subject for this sort of inquiry.

Having expressed myself sufficiently, I will now leave this worthwhile topic.

-saratoga

[chelsea g]

Saratoga, if you had spent one minute as a poor and unexpectedly pregnant woman in rural Washington, Wyoming, Idaho or the Dakotas, where access to clinics is extremely rare and the culture surrounding them punishing, you'd reevaluate your argument.

We as a society do things for other people; that's what a society does. You can't equate aborting pregnancies with litter--if you want to discuss false analogies, you should really start there. Personally, I'd be delighted to know that my tax dollars were going to benefit the health care of women, as well as that of men. I'd deeply prefer my tax dollars went to benefit people who can't afford or don't have access to a full range of medical treatments--including abortion, but also including contraceptions, low-cost or free drugs, pertinent medical testing, and so on. I'd certainly prefer knowing my tax dollars have gone to helping people live longer, healthier lives than to a long, pointless, immoral war that only bleeds our country's budget, lowers our global standing in numerous ways, and helps only the incestuous industrial military complex.

Seriously, public funding for abortions is equal to public funding for streetcleaning? You need to look at that concept long and hard.

chelsea g

[badinfluencegirl]

i am lucky that i have never been placed in this situation although i have been foolish many times....

i did hold someone's hand when she had hers...

i'm sad no one held yours and i'm sadder still that a group of sex positive women would do that but people are not so pleasant to each other always.

[Anastasia]

Saratoga,

But the point is, even if you omit it, the political ramifications will always be there, and the state cost will only increase in the time it would take for citizens to be given the suggestion you make.

The moment you bring the state in, regardless of your wish to create a closed-system hypothetical (’avoiding political affiliation‘), political affiliations enter. Abortion should not be a political issue, for politicians to call the shots: they don’t carry the fetus, they aren’t faced with an agonizing decision, and they aren’t faced with a possibly dismal future (financial, personal, psychological or whatever else: these things, too, affect a society or nation, or state).

In response to the ‘negative externalities’ of your second part, then we’ll all wait to see what a state ‘decides’, and should they say, ‘hell no we’re not paying for abortions,’ then thousands of unwanted fetuses (yes fetuses, because that is what they are in the scientific embryological sense) to reach full term, for them to be shoved into foster homes, or adopted out (and many are placed in foster homes, because adoption is a bureaucratic process that can take years to finalize), but in that time these children will incur additional costs to that state. So I don’t see your logic, full stop. If these children are shoved in foster homes, then there is further cost to the state, due to potential abuse, leaning toward delinquency, so once again I don’t see your logic, especially in the current economic climate in the United States, with the question mark hanging over the credit crunch and possible recession, and I don’t say this in a patronizing sense. This has been a reality that has been discussed in numerous financial publications.

There is health, education, clothing, food and shelter: the state would still have to provide these costs if adoption wasn’t readily available, and for those citizens who don’t want to bear the cost of abortion, are they ready to be adoptive parents? Are they ready to depart with further funds, in order to prohibit or restrict abortion - to add more thousands to their populations?

It’s one thing to say, citizens shouldn’t have to pay and certain women don’t have a right, but the reality is complex, and doesn’t need endless circulatory debates, when a situation is clear: if a woman has the right to vote, then she has the right to choose, and the state she supports financially is obligated to provide medical services.

If states follow your proposition, then we immediately return to the days where women sought backyard abortionists, and for any western nation to do that, not only would it be embarrassing, but it would be anti-democratic and heinous. In the United States, it would mean class action lawsuits - more costs.

[ji!!]

Thank you for saying these things. I've had three abortions and I've never been able to tell anyone that because I feel like it's too many. And yet, when you say it, I'm not thinking, "That's too many; she must be a Bad Person." I'm thinking that I'm glad we had a choice. So I'm going to try to stop feeling like a Bad Person for having had three abortions.

You are very brave. Thank you for writing this.

[Raphael]

At least you've lived to tell the tale. And that's the important part.

Parents leave such a mark on us for better or worse. Sometimes that's a burden in and of itself.

[faith]

i cried.