I'd like to take the time now to write about my last bit of reproductive justice activism at Clarion. This is going to be a long one (what's new?)
First of all, let's talk about rape. Not only is this necessary background information, but it's also a big deal. 1 out of 6 women in the United States will be a victim of rape. 1 out of 4 female college students will be victims of rape.
There is no way to tell if you are going to be a victim of rape. Contrary to popular belief, the rapist is usually somebody you know quite well (your boyfriend, husband, friend, family member), and not some random guy lurking in the bushes at night with a knife.
Unfortunately, there are some people out there who can't even agree on the accepted definition of what rape is. They would rather blame the victim, by believing that a woman invites violent sexual assault if she "dresses a certain way," or goes to a party with alcohol, or dares to leave the house alone at night, or visits an ex-boyfriend's home. (here's a hint: Nobody asks to be raped.)
After a woman has been raped, any victim's rights advocate will tell you that one of the first steps toward healing is the act of giving control & autonomy BACK to the woman. It's up to her whether or not she will face him in a court of law. If she finds herself pregnant as a result of the attack, it's up to her whether or not she will keep the pregnancy. After all, she's already had choice taken away from her once-- when she was raped. The ethical thing to do is to restore her bodily autononomy.
The most fanatical fringe of the anti-choicers are leading a crusade against pregnant rape victims in their "no exception" philosophy -- a philosophy, which, although ideologically consistent, is morally bankrupt at its core.
Perhaps the most well-known of the speakers in the rape apologist noise machine are Rebecca and Tony Kiessling, who tour churches and colleges with their "Conceived in rape" story. (Feel free to look up their web sites and read Rebecca's story - although I refuse to link to it on my blog.)
Toward the end of my last semester in Clarion, I found out that Rebecca Kiessling was being sponsored by Students for Life to present her story to the students, a story which is especially designed to shame and guilt-trip rape survivors. As always, I decided to channel my outrage into a constructive, literary form... by writing a letter to the editor of the Clarion student newspaper. (Oh, and I also managed a very small protest which DID manage to attract several members of the audience.)
Here is my letter:
Dear Editor-in-Chief,
I am writing in response to a recent event hosted by Students for Life, featuring Rebecca Kiessling (who says that she was “conceived in rape,” and now opposes abortion under all circumstances.) I am quite familiar with Kiessling’s narrative and believe that her anti-choice philosophy on abortion is immoral.
Kiessling has been making her living by capitalizing on tragedy – her mother’s tragedy of rape – in order to further oppress women in similar situations. This event was, at its core, blatantly meant to shame and blame rape victims and their advocates.
Consider this: A victim of rape has already had choice taken away from her once (she did not choose to have sex), and should she find herself pregnant as a result, the “pro-lifers” want to take choice away from rape victims again (by forcing them to carry to term whether they like it or not).
This position is abhorrent because it takes away dignity from the woman by re-victimizing her, reducing her to an object once again. To the rapist, she was nothing but a sex object; to people like Rebecca Kiessling, it is implied that a woman is nothing but an incubator. Several people left halfway through Kiessling’s talk because they were too disgusted to hear any more.
They found her position arrogant and her tone hyperbolic. I can understand why.
Not every pregnancy conceived in rape is destined to become another Kiessling, or the next Heisman trophy winner, or the genius who will cure cancer, as she would lead you to believe.
Even without the possibility of abortion, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists reveal that approximately one in four pregnancies will end in natural miscarriage.
In other words, even without abortion, there is never a guarantee – biological or otherwise – that every pregnancy will result in a live birth. It’s extremely telling that Kiessling is able to self-identify and sympathize with the human embryo (which does not have the capacity for sentience or suffering) more than she is able to self-identify and empathize with actual persons: women.
Her position values the existence of embryonic life over the life of the woman. This is extremely shameful and sends a degrading message to women everywhere. If she is really so concerned about embryos, then why isn’t she traveling the country lecturing people about miscarriage (spontaneous abortion)?
It just seems really transparent to me that she would rather shame and blame rape victims about abortion. Finally, there are those who believe (myself included) that forced pregnancy/birth is rape. So, by not allowing a victim to choose whether or not she will carry to term, it is like being raped a second time, but throughout a period of nine months.
Any victim’s rights advocate will tell you that healing begins when you give autonomy back to the victim. Victim’s rights advocates trust women with choice and autonomy, unlike rapists, and unlike Kiessling.
The choice in becoming a mother or not is entirely up to the woman, and I trust that whatever decision she makes is the right one for her, in her process of reclaiming her life and her dignity.
-Sincerely,
Emily
http://www.clarioncallnews.com
Now, I am more than certain that my letter upset the delicate brainwashed sensibilities of the anti-choice crowd, seeing as how the president of Students for Life at Clarion found it necessary to recruit trolls from Students for Life of America (on facebook) to literally flood the comments section of my opinion piece. I was met with the usual trite one-liners and emotionalist claptrap that these unthinking individuals often use as "arguments" to back up their authoritarian philosophy. But, hey, why not open up the floor for discussion, I thought. And I took the time to respond to each of them in kind.
But what really stood out to me was the fact that Rebecca herself actually bothered to comment. Oh, and her brother, too.
Hi Emily,
My name’s Becca and I hope you are having a really great day. After reading your letter I wanted to bring up some points to you.
I am pro-life and pro-choice. Most people might see these two terms as oil and water, but we have misunderstood the definition of life and the definition of choice.
Scientifically speaking, life begins at conception. Philosophically speaking, life is a rare opportunity to grow and learn more about yourself, other people, and the world in general.
Regarding choice, I am pro-life precisely because I am pro-choice. Choice is a wonderful gift that we implement hundreds of times a day.
Obviously any woman who has been raped has been robbed of choice. I’m not going to say that two wrong’s don’t make a right, or any other cliché phrase or concept like that. I’m simply going to say that ideally people are fully informed when they are making such a huge life changing decision such as abortion or keeping the child.
Unfortunately, women’s clinics and abortionists are not fully informing women about the choice they are about to make. They take advantage of an already vulnerable woman and exploit her further.
Furthermore you argue “Finally, there are those who believe (myself included) that forced pregnancy/birth is rape. So, by not allowing a victim to choose whether or not she will carry to term, it is like being raped a second time, but throughout a period of nine months.” Clearly we have different definitions of rape. Do you know anyone who has been raped and has kept the child and felt like she had been raped for 9 months? I would appreciate you telling me if you do.
- Rebecca
Do not be fooled for a moment that Ms. Kiessling is also "pro choice" and simply wants to nicely persuade women in uncertain situations. No. Let it be known that it IS the ultimate goal of her movement to overturn Roe v. Wade, with no exception. Let is be known that it IS the ultimate goal of her movement to force women with unwanted pregnancies to give birth against their will, no exception.
Here is my response to her:
Rebecca: “Unfortunately, women’s clinics and abortionists are not fully informing women about the choice they are about to make. They take advantage of an already vulnerable woman and exploit her further.”
This quite simply is not true. Women’s clinics are medical facilities that give patients factual information AND offer counseling before any decision is made. They send home patients with a workbook if they seem at all indecisive. Crisis Pregnancy Centers, on the other hand, are non-medical proselytization centers that frequently lie to women about made-up health risks associated with abortion (such as the debunked “breast cancer” myth). Unlike women’s medical facilities, CPC’s scare and coerce women into carrying to term (through stalking, shaming tactics, and bribes).
“Do you know anyone who has been raped and has kept the child and felt like she had been raped for 9 months?”
Any rape victim who has MADE THE CHOICE to carry to term would not say that she had been raped again for 9 months, since she came to such a decision of her own will. Once the government, or any individual entity takes that choice away, and forces unwilling women to give birth – that is absolutely comparable to being raped for 9 months.
- Emily
Although Rebecca's position is unsettlingly ignorant, it was her brother's comments that I found even more grating, with the usual overtones of misogyny. This is his
2nd comment, in response to one of my replies. You are welcome to read the 1st comment, and all of the others at the Clarion Call web site. Bolded sections are my emphases, not his:
Emily: “Just as some women may achieve healing from carrying to term, there are as many, if not more women, who achieve healing through abortion. Women are not a collective hive mind and do not all react the same (emotionally or physically) to unwanted/unplanned pregnancy. That is why the choice to become a mother or not must be respected either way.”
Tony: Thank you for your response. You are correct; I do not have any information on women who were healed by their abortion. And maybe that is a problem. Frankly, in the few years that I have been reading books, articles and various web sites regarding the issue of abortion I have yet to come across a woman who says adamantly that she is glad she had an abortion and achieved healing through it. I cannot say there isn’t such a woman, or women, but I have not happened onto any evidence they exist. However, there is plenty of evidence that women are hurt emotionally, physically and spiritually by abortion.
Half of the women who seek an abortion today will be there for their second, third or more abortion. Of the women who conceive as a result of rape only about 1 out of 5 of them will seek an abortion, the balance will likely give up to adoption. Of the about 3500 abortions done on any day only about 35 of them will be because a woman was raped and became pregnant. About 35 of them will also be due to incest. The remaining 3400 will be done primarily as a last resort birth control.
I for one believed women were smarter than that. I would have thought abortion as birth control would be unnecessary as women should be in tune with their own bodies and know when pregnancy is most likely to happen. I thought women were smarter and able to use other forms of birth control successfully and thereby avoid a pregnancy. I thought women, and men too for that matter, would be willing to do anything to avoid an unnecessary invasive procedure. I thought women were smarter than to end up in a bad sexual relationship with a controlling man who would insist that she get an abortion when he finds out she is pregnant. I guess I was wrong.
Pertaining to the bolded areas in the beginning -- obviously, he hasn't seen I'm Not Sorry. And obviously hasn't met anyone like my friends. There are plenty of women who are willing to speak up about positive abortion experiences. He just refuses to listen.
As for the last bolded areas - wow, incredible! There's that good, old-fashioned anti-choice misogyny. Tony Kiessling at one point thought women were "smarter than that" but has since concluded that all women as a collective hive mind are "dumb" and need to have all of their sexual and reproductive decisions controlled for them by theocrats like himself. Yep. Thanks for keeping it real and reminding me exactly why I am pro-choice.
After all that, Students for Life decided to respond to my letter with a rather bizarre hodge podge of half-formed thoughts and arguments, ghost-written by Rebecca Kiessling. I wish I was joking about that last part, but I'm not. Although her name does not appear on the letter, I am aware that the president of Students for Life collaborated with her to brainstorm ideas for a response. (Go ahead and read the letter in its entirety on the Clarion Call news web site. I'm not providing the direct link because I don't want to generate trackback traffic on my blog.) Anyway, I decided it wasn't even worth the effort dignifying them with a response, since they weren't even capable of maintaining a coherent main idea throughout the letter.
[ Actually, there IS one subject mentioned in their piece that I have been writing about and researching extensively for an upcoming blog entry: and that is the anti-choice tactic of co-opting the disability rights movement for their own purposes. Anti-choicers often mention the rate of abortions due to Trisomy 21 (Down's syndrome). What they fail to comprehend is that eliminating legal late-term abortion will not solve the problem of discrimination against disabled people. (in the same sense that eliminating legal abortion will not solve the problem of sex-based discrimination). Only education can reduce the rate of DS abortions and sex-selective abortions. (More on this in a later blog entry :) ]
When I mentioned in my letter that Rebecca Kiessling was capitalizing on her mother's personal tragedy, I was not exaggerating. She brings in about 1 or 2 grand per event (SFL at Clarion got a nice discount, though). Tony Kiessling also goes on church & college tours.
I just recently found out that he is coming to a speak at a church in my hometown. I saw a flier for the event at my workplace. It's sort of hilarious looking at the ways in which self-entitled anti-choice men try to claim legitimacy for their desire to control women: the flier introduces him as a doctor of chemistry at Mansfield University. You know, because if you teach chemistry at a public university, that must mean you know all about female reproductive biology and have every right to be a panty-sniffer, lecturing random women about their personal choices. It then went on to describe him as the typical authoritarian theocrat: president of Mansfield's Campus Crusade for Christ, leader of Bible study groups, Billy Graham worshipper, saved at the ripe young age of 11, etc. All of that is meant to say: "see! your uterus IS his godly business!" Misogyny: on tour now!
And just recently I learned that the Personhood Amendment folks in Mississippi are going to set up a "Conceived In Rape" tour (featuring Rebecca and Tony Kiessling, I'm sure) to push their political agenda. How much money do you think they'll rake in from this scheme?
Based on Rebecca's web site, it's obvious that she's been confronted by people who accuse her of being pro-rape, and didn't really bother to listen to them. She tries to shut down all intelligent conversation by insisting that anyone who questions her no-exception philosophy is just personally insulting her existence. So, as RH Reality Check writer Robin Marty asks, what can you say about a "conceived in rape" tour?
Here are some of my favorite comments from the article (link above)-
The Realist Mom: And apparently devalues her own mother. Since her mother is only a worthy person for continuing a pregnancy resulting from rape. In this person's eyes, a woman who survives a rape but chooses to abort a resultant pregnancy is 'wrong' or 'bad'... let's say her mother had one child, then aborted a second pregnancy because it was created in a rape. She would consider her own mother a wretched person for doing this! Her own mom is only worthwhile because she had a baby in these circumstances.
I can't imagine how I would feel if my own daughter took it upon herself not only to broadcast my rape, but to make it abundantly clear that she would think me a terrible person for ending a pregnancy that was concived by rape.
Forced birth is RAPE: She could not say NO the first time, and the christian republicans want the right to keep her from being able to say NO again. She wanted to be able to say NO, a penis will not be in me, and use and abuse my vagina against my will. She wants the right to say NO a fetus cannot be in me, and use and abuse my vagina against my will. That is two times in a row she is not allowed to say NO in regards to her own life, body, and vagina. ~
~ Raped pregnant women and raped pregnant little girls have physical and emotional feelings; an embryo or fetus does not. And christian republican conservative pro-lifers are so vicious, so heartless about rape they want to torture a raped woman or raped little girl emotionally and physically for that that has no physical and emotional feelings.
Jennifer Starr: Could you honestly look a rape victim in the face and tell her that she should have no say in the matter? That some political activist or state legislator knows what's best for her and should be able to control her body against her will?
If someone is raped and chooses to give birth, that is their decision. But the most important thing is that the choice is theirs.
ack: I would have found a way to do it. I know without a doubt that the legality of the procedure wouldn't have mattered. I would have found a way, even if put me in danger. Pregnancy and childbirth were not possible. Hell, leaving my apartment wasn't possible for three days after the rape.
You may not have seen my post further down thread, but there is absolutely no way I could have handled a pregnancy. Some survivors can. I'm not one of them. And what you are saying here is that what I wanted, what I knew about myself and my situation at that time isn't important. That an embryo or fetus is more important than my future, than my mental health. What I hear is, "You are less important than a fetus."
The assault lasted five or ten minutes. They were the worst minutes of my life. The pregnancy would have lasted nine months. The birth would have lasted 8-48 hours. You honestly think that forcing survivors to undergo that is acceptable?
ack: I was raped in college. I'm not alone; 1/4 of college women experience an attempted or completed rape before graduation. I didn't get pregnant, thank goodness, but if I had, I know exactly what I would have done. I would have had an abortion. No questions, no pondering, no wondering if I could handle it. I couldn't. If a safe, legal abortion hadn't been available, I would have found a way to induce one. The only thing worse than those minutes of assault would have been nine months of pregnancy followed by childbirth. That doesn't make me a bad person. No one should be lecturing women and girls in similar situations about what the "right" choice is. We need to make that choice for ourselves. And NO ONE should be lobbying politicians to eliminate that choice for people when they have NO IDEA WHAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH, or whether we have the ability to cope with a pregnancy conceived in rape.
Survivors need choices. Rape is a situation in which the victim DOESN'T get a choice, so the process of healing consists of making options available and letting her choose for herself. Whether that's reporting, getting an exam, prosecuting, or anything else. Eliminating that choice for women and girls who have been assaulted would be incredibly detrimental.
tenya: The entire premise is incorrect, that it is insulting to say that someone's mother should have/have had the choise to abort. Of course I think her mother, my mother, my sister, so on and so forth should have the choice to abort. No, my conception wasn't the result of a rape, but I am still very, very glad my mother had a choice about her pregnancy. (I would honestly feel worse if my mother was saying "you know, the only reason I kept you was because legal abortion wasn't available" instead of the actual circumstance of "sure, I could have chosen abortion, I am not opposed to it and would have been supported in that decision, but I wanted to have you.") Of course if I had been aborted it would not matter, because I wouldn't exist and her life would have go on. She could have aborted because it was not the right time in her life to have another pregnancy, because of economics, because of physical limitations, because of any reason including "because I don't want to be pregnant" and I don't find that even slightly insulting.
Saying "I think your mother deserved the choice of abortion or carrying her pregnancy to term" really IS entirely different from "I think YOU, personally, should have been aborted."
Except to anti-choice advocates, the idea that all abortions are murder except when your conception was rape/incest, that is insulting. That somehow you would have been less of a murder victim based upon your conception. So yes, the people that she is out to convince are not pro-choicers, but rather people who already feel abortion is murder but are really uncomfortable when it isn't calling "irresponsible sluts" murderers but victims of crimes themselves. These people maybe already lean towards feeling it is unfair to force someone through a pregnancy and are hoping that couching it in 'taking responsibility for your actions' language makes it okay, and realize that doesn't work for victims of rape. However, Kiessling is hard at work to make this section of the populace entirely comfortable with forcing victims to carry their pregnancies because otherwise it hurts her feelings, and how can you look her in the face and insult her like that?
Jennifer Starr: And this is just a thought, but what if someone said to Rebecca "I wish your mother had never been raped like that." Would she actually take that as a personal insult?
Arekushieru: Compelling someone to make a sacrifice that no one else can incur or is legally/morally expected to do, IS Pro-Rape.
wicked: If my mother had not been given the choice to terminate a pregnancy before her pregnancy with me I would never have been born.
(not that it would matter for either her or me as I had little difficulty with these issues before I exsisted, and somehow think she was in the same boat visa vie that)
crowepps: What we are arguing instead is that an individual whose life has NOT been ended doesn't get to drape themselves at secondhand in a supposed 'tragedy' that happened to somebody else entirely and then carry on like a tragedy queen because somebody hurts their widdle feelings by making a statement of reasonable empathy and compassion like 'woman/girls who are the victims of sexual crimes deserve special consideration and the right to make their own choices'. I'm sure her feelings are just crushed if someone makes a statement like 'she's recovering from the rape and just really thankful she didn't get pregnant.' After all, that means the victim wishes she didn't exist and is rejecting her personally!
The extension of her argument is that her father's crime was justified because it resulted in teh wonderfulness that is Rebbeca. The extension of her argument is that we shouldn't jail any rapists because it might be "part of God's plan" for that rapist to be out preying on women and free to create a Rebecca. The extension of her argument is that any way at all of knocking women is okay because it may result in a Rebecca. Barf.
rfcnola: Will there be a special contingent for those "Conceived In Incest?"
To expect any woman to bear a child conceived from rape is criminally insane
C.L. Ward: I am a survivor of rape. Considering the legacy of thirty years of PTSD, I am just able to take care of myself. I would not have been able to care for a child conceived in love, much less an alien seed taken root from my rapist.
Actually, looking back on the 14 year old girl I was at the rape, if I had been forced to bear that child, I would certainly have committed suicide.
And finally, I'd like to offer some of my expounded thoughts on the matter, paraphrased from my comments on RH Reality Check...
Even without abortion, there was never any guarantee that Kiessling's mother's pregnancy would have ended with a live birth. She is not here with us today simply because her mother was "disallowed" from having an abortion. There are a number of reasons that she is here today, and not just because abortion wasn't legal. It is perhaps far more likely that she is with us today because of good genes (preventing a spontaneous abortion). If her mother spontaneously aborted due to "bad coding," so to speak, then Rebecca would not be here today at all. That embryo was not 100% guaranteed to become Rebecca Kiessling even with abortion totally out of the picture.
Saying that her mother had the right to abort the pregnancy that had the potential to become Rebecca is not the same thing - either philosophically or morally - as saying Rebecca "should be dead"now. Abortion does not murder a person (because an embryo is not a person); it only prevents a person from coming into existence.
Whether or not a rape victim chooses abortion - a stranger - does not effect Kiessling. At all. It is none of her business. The only pregnancy or potential abortion that could have effected her existence was her own mother's. And that's over and done with. Re-victimizing rape victims is not how you emotionally reconcile the fact that your mother wanted an abortion after she was violently assaulted.
We also have to consider that the nature of suffering is ignored by those espousing a no abortion/no exception philosophy. If her mother wanted an abortion, and DID have an abortion, it would not have caused any suffering to anyone. But telling every rape victim who wants an abortion that they are not allowed to have an abortion because their pregnancy MIGHT result in a person, will cause a great deal of suffering.
An embryo does not have a right to life that trumps the pain and suffering of a woman. An embryo does not feel pain, suffering, emotion, and is not even guaranteed to grow into a full-term infant. No person has the right to use my body sexually against my will, and no "person" has the right to use my body for sustenance against my will.
The rapist takes away choice once, the "pro-lifer" wants to take it away a second time.
No comments:
Post a Comment