Friends,
Today, two fellow FemWord authors and I went to listen to a pro-life speech given by a self-proclaimed "feminist". The speaker, Erika Bachiochi, structured the speech around the personal experiences that made her transition from a pro-choice college student to a pro-life married Catholic with 5 children. Her address tackled the most controversial issues possible; in 45 minutes, she summarily dispensed with all opposition to divorce, contraception, sex before marriage, and - most notably - abortion.
While a seemingly educated woman - she obtained a master's in theology from Boston College and a law degree from Boston University - her rhetoric was 100% party line, no more and certainly no less. Some of her arguments crystallized the omnipresent and seemingly uncrossable abyss between the pro-life and pro-choice camps. Her assumptions were frustrating and she seemed completely unwilling to consider alternate positions, in spite of having been vehemently pro-choice in college herself.
Erika started the debate by saying that she was going to argue the case of abortion from a non-theological standpoint. Statistics about perpetuating cycles of poverty, single-parent homes, and depression were loosely thrown around. She suggested instead that society should become more 'motherhood friendly', so that there is no stigma or social consequence for a woman having a child. I think that this is a great point, and I initially appreciated that her speech was not ostensibly centered upon Catholic dogma. But when I brought up the fact that there are countries - i.e. in Scandinavia - where abortion is legal *and* maternity is supported with access to child-care, generous financial support, and excellent parental (i.e. maternal AND paternal) leave, all of her carefully constructed statistics, social arguments, and policy points went out the window. Her response? A fetus is a baby and a life, and abortion shouldn't be legal because we can't kill babies. *sigh* It's funny that, no matter the debate, no matter the arguments that are used to dress up one's position, the fundamental point of contention is always the same.
Erika didn't just discuss abortion, though. Her views on contraception were, well, "Don't Use Contraception", even in marriage, in spite of this: (98 percent of Catholic women use contraception banned by the Church). I found this segment of her talk much more insidious and harmful than her typical abortion mantra. It should be noted that she was speaking to the epicenter of the Catholic community on campus, the 40 most devout Catholics on campus ( about 30 of whom were young women). She said that, when a married couple has no desire to have a child, they should abstain from all sexual activity - no surprises there. Her premise was that, when a couple followed this tenet of the Catholic faith, a man could respect his wife by allowing her the choice to abstain from sex. She continued to say that, when contraception was available, a man wouldn't necessarily show his wife the same respect. One of the other editors of TheFemWord asked Erika whether she was implying that men, with the option of contraception, would force themselves upon their wives. She hemmed and hawed, and ended by saying that she *hoped* that men with access to contraception wouldn't do that...though her tone of voice, raised eyebrows and overly-dramatic side-glances to the rest of the audience were clearly meant to imply that contraception leads to unwanted, forced marital sex. In other words, spousal rape. Her scare tactics were truly deplorable, and while I can respect a couple's decision not to use contraception choice, I cannot under any circumstances condone scaring a room of women by suggesting a preposterous link between contraception and rape. Shame on her.
Her divorce argument was standard. Studies show that children of divorce have problems with depression, self-esteem, poverty, blah blah blah. Similarly, abstaining from sex before marriage was a textbook "why buy the cow" argument.
There was a facet of her speech that I've neglected to explore, and that's how she considered herself to be a feminist in spite of her Catholic dogma. I think I'll save that for a later post.....
Peace for now,
mittens
No comments:
Post a Comment