Abstinence
is an interesting topic, too: virgins unto the day. Somewhere along the way it became very
important to me to know myself, my body, my future. Having the ability
to express my sexuality at a certain point became something essential
to me, the way water is essential for our survival— it was the
currency of an adult. The idea of waiting to confine this desire to
marriage began to feel inconsistent with honoring who I was becoming.
This is not to say that I didn’t value sex or feel it to be
a sacred thing, but I realized that the sacrament for me had to stem
from consent, from knowing myself, from knowing my lover, that I was
not a vessel waiting to be filled and laid claim to by the male body
or an institution. I could choose if, how and when. “It”
was part of my being – and, man, back then I was sexy. In retrospect,
marriage itself seems to cause a lot of sexual relationships to fail.
Ideally, a sexual relationship is something one should feel free to
enter into; marriage somehow cuts off the idea that the self consents
to merge with the injunction that it must. Choice seems much more
sacred and honorable than obligation. I can think of another bumper
sticker, “Another Mother For Ownership,” of one’s
life, one’s choices, one’s being.
So again, one can ponder the idea of choice. As women, we have
the ability to freely enter into what we value, what we create.
As I got older and my hypothetical thinking extended into early
adulthood, I realized that once I had some form of economic viability
of my own, I could never have an abortion. At some point, we become
responsible— we begin to feel the weight of what could be
as deeply as what should not be. Yet, our lives can change, either
for good fortune or ill. Mothers are vulnerable economically and
remain so while they raise children and thereafter.
Biological fathers are able to turn away without a backward glance—
perhaps their blind member chooses for them. Maybe it’s obvious,
but they don’t have to consent to the flesh within. Nothing
stays within them to grow, so they have an option to walk away.
I would argue that to be on a level playing field, women need this
same choice— women need to be able to separate the womb, isolating
their reproductive function from their economically, emotionally,
and humanly capable selves, just as men now have the right to do.
Equality demands nothing less. The alternative would of course be
a social system and culture that demanded equal time and contribution
from fathers in all aspects of child rearing, from conception to
adulthood— or a system where women are simply constrained,
confined by their biology to destinies not of their own making.
I can see the flip side: that life is so sacred, that even a small
cluster of cells has human potential— a process not driven
by the mother, but by divine providence. I can see it. The Roman
Catholic Bishop of Washington, D.C. was on the radio today saying
that the “right to life” is the most important issue
because you cannot have human rights unless you first have the chance
to be alive. The Church opposes birth control, still, he said. In
other words, the gates of life must always be open— damn the
life of the mother.
Hey, I wanted to yell at the top of my lungs: have
you ever not slept for two days? Giving your life to god is
not the same as giving your life to a child (I’d like to think
a deity would be much more developed physically and emotionally).
Who are you to tell me that I have to serve the creator and Life
no matter what? Poverty, injustice, the ill health of women enduring
multiple childbirths without cease, none of that matters in the
Bishop’s view— none of it. But it matters to women.
Owning their bodies, owning their time here on earth, matters as
much to women as to men. This type of individual freedom, or ownership,
demands that women are able to control their reproductive lives.
Meanwhile, President Bush wants to create an ownership society
for everyone except women. |
