Coinciding with our previous discussions on kinship, unplanned pregnancy, reproduction, and prenatal testing—this week’s readings on abortion bring the entirety of our class discussions full circle. Faye Ginsberg, in her book Contested Lives, The Abortion Debate in an American Community, explores the main arguments behind both Pro-Choice and Pro-Life activists in the small town of Fargo, North Dakota. Through extensive research on the national history of abortion throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Ginsberg is able to take an educated and wholesome view on how abortion grew to be the heated and controversial topic it is today. Further, through years of immersion and ethnographic research, she is able to tell the story of the rise of the abortion controversy in Fargo, which she refers to as a “grass roots setting”. In doing this she attempts to “show how the consciousness of ‘big issues’ is constituted from and in people’s everyday lives” (pg. 61). Finally, through various interviews with pro-life and pro-choice activists she sets out to analyze how their lives and experiences have shaped their perception of the abortion debate and how this reflects in their current activism (pg. 133).
Throughout Ginsberg discussion on the controversial nature of the abortion debate, she establishes three themes of the pro-life movement that have been seen as a result of American culture. First, that abortion is a response to “irresponsible sexual behavior” (pg. 9); this sexual behavior had historically been known to be acceptable among men but extremely shameful amongst women, and thus abortion serves to provide women with a way to cover up their shame. Secondly, that in America we devalue the dependent human. Our devaluation of the dependent person, as a society, is rooted in our view of what it means to live out a normative lifestyle. This affects people like the elderly, the young, the sick, the impaired, and the unborn child. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, both sides agree that there is never a perfect time for having children, but that life is not always perfect. Shirley, a sixty-three-year-old pro-life activist, tells Faye a story about how in 1980 her congressman sent her a letter congratulating her on her daughter Jane being teacher of the year. Instead of seeing this as a kind gesture Shirley got upset, in her words “It was very inconvenient to have this daughter…we thought we needed other things besides a child. And had abortion been available to me, I might have aborted the girl who was teacher of the year. What a loss to society that would have been” (pg. 173). Shirley seems to be asking a bigger question that she thinks her congressman, and thus our national policies, is blatantly ignoring by being pro-choice: who has society lost as a result of giving women the chance to choose, especially since—for most women with unwanted pregnancies, there is always a better alternative in the form of abortion. The last theme she explores of the pro-life movement is how our current culture, based on capitalism, globalization and dramatization, is affecting the common person and the trends of society. Most of the women Faye interviews talk of this in light of the work force and how they feared leaving their jobs to be a mother to their children, but Shirley talks about the rise of television drama and the values (or lack of values) that it was instilling in the younger generation of American women.
On the other side of this argument, and one that I would say she delves into much less, is the pro-choice movement. In her research on the national history of abortion in America, Faye found that the legalization was a push that came mostly from doctors; this push came not as an attempt to help women, but as a way to regulate the practice of it and thus put more money into the pockets of doctors qualified to do the procedure. Upon speaking to activists in the pro-choice movement of Fargo, Faye found that the common theme seen among all of them was involvement in the feminist movement—their involvement in this movement helped them to establish their female identities as adult women. One of the women, Janice, talks of her passion to the pro-choice movement as a way to combat the American culture that, in itself, is creating the necessity for abortion: “it’s restrictions on abortion coupled with failure of sex education and a general social milieu that points to sexual activity as some means of personal fulfillment…that leads to the increased rate of unwed parenthood among young women” (pg. 161). This disparity between the health and sex education given to the younger generation and its consequences is a problem that is resolved through abortion. Although her analyzation of the pro-choice movement is supposed to be based on life stories, it instead analyzes in great depth the role of the feminist movement on the pro-choice movement. Feminism is about so much more than womens’ rights for their reproductive lives but many of the women in the pro-choice movement found their ‘adult feminine identities’ through their involvements with feminism. Another woman, Jan, said that she regrets to say that her believe in the pro-choice movement is not based on her disagreeance with the fact that life begins at conception—of this it is assumed she agrees—instead her belief stems from her feminist view that “the very most fundamental right [for women]…is the right to bear children…to not be able to control that single most unique part of us would devastate our entire sense of independence in every other aspect of our lives” (pg. 168).
Faye aims to provide a holistic view of the abortion debate in America, although her argument is compelling, I think she fails to really provide an adequate view of both sides of the story. She greatly analyzes the lives and history of the pro-life movement but only skims the pro-choice movement. The majority of her research into the pro-choice movement is instilled in the feminist movement and how that impacted women’s lives. This failure to provide the multi-faceted view on abortion that she set out to provide takes agency away from her and her argument, though does not take away or affect the story she has told and the lives she has let us into.
Dominique,
I really enjoyed your summary and analysis of Faye’s work, as your points were clear and concise and I found myself agreeing with and understanding everything that you said. I also really appreciated your last paragraph, including your opinion on whether Faye’s work was credible or not. I would agree with your statement about the bias with the pro-life movement, and reading her work made me a little annoyed because I wanted to read more about the pro-choice perspective after having read so much about the pro-life perspective.
That being said, I would have liked to see something about Thompson’s work, especially an opinion/analysis of her bold violinist analogy to the decision of abortion. In my opinion, her analogy was persuasive and I found myself thinking it made complete sense. However, taking a step back, I found that the analogy was way too simple and emotionally detached when compared to a mother and a fetus. Being pregnant is way more complicated and many other factors are involved with it, such as economics, co-parenting issues, disease possibilities and so on. In terms of emotions, a mother and a “potential” fetus cannot be compared to an actual living stranger and a woman, there simply is no comparison for how a mother feels for her child, born or unborn.
I do, however, agree with Thompson about the main issue with abortion being the time line; when is a fetus alive? When does someone have the right to live? Who decides which life, the mother’s or the fetus’, is more valuable? Overall, integration of Thompson’s work into Ginsburg’s work would have been appreciated.
Finally, in terms of Ginsburg, I agree with your highlight about abortion being a primarily “feminist” issue. Most women interviewed were in the same socioeconomic pool, and all women were trying to promote feminist values. However, these women clearly had different thoughts and ideologies about how to advance these values, which is what I found most interesting about this week’s readings.
-NB
Dominique,
I thought you had a great introduction to Ginsberg’s book. You outlined her approach and methods to her research which was nice to understand the background of the book. In addition, I thought your blog was well written, easy to follow, and gave a good outline to Ginsberg’s book. Overall, I enjoyed the reading this week, and the blog post you wrote.
I enjoyed reading about American culture for this week. We have spent majority of the class talking about other countries and foreign cultures. However, even though we think we know the ideas formulated in our own country, this book was a reminder of what Americans believe and how these beliefs and values are expressed. The three themes of the pro-life movement shed light to the basis of the belief. However, I disagree with Ginsberg’s claim. I don’t think you can categorize the many pro-life arguments into three themes. There are other arguments that don’t fall under these categories, such as advocating for the unborn. The other themes Ginsberg claims seem to degrade human life, which I don’t think is always representative of pro-life advocates.
Dominique,
I thought you brought up a great point based off Shirley’s comment that she “might have aborted the girl who was teacher of the year” (173). This question of lost lives is a difficult argument for pro-choice individuals to deny, but it simultaneously puts women in an unfair position. Like you mentioned, this is because when women seek abortions they are usually doing so because they are not ready to be mothers and this is an alternative solution. It is possible that aborted fetuses would not have grown up to be teacher of the year, but instead grown up impoverished and not had enough resources. In my opinion, my previous statement is also wrong to say because we should not stereotype reasons women seek abortions. Like in “Magical Progeny” by Swasti Bhattacharyya, the idea of a case-by-case basis in bioethics is very important in the question of abortion. Each women’s experience with this decision involves their own life circumstances, which ultimately influence decisions whether to abort.
I think there is a flaw in the logic of the pro-life argument that a problem of abortion clinics is that they are “’for-profit’ …an industry unto itself, making millions of dollars from the misfortunes of women, are part of their more general critique of the increasing materialism of America life” (56). American healthcare as an institution is for-profit, making billions on overpriced pharmaceutical drugs and surgeries. Abortions should not be separated from this and ridiculed. It is a valid argument that money is being made based off women’s misfortunes, but is that not all of healthcare? Making money based off the sick? In order to make this claim one must consider all of the services in healthcare that are for-profit.
Hey Dominique,
I think you did an excellent job summarizing the reading as well as outlining her main arguments. It was clear and easy to follow.
I know this can be a very personal topic, but I would have enjoyed seeing more of your opinion or perhaps more references to others opinions you have heard in the past. I think this could potentially give more perspectives and “sides” to the story. Since we have been talking about so many religions and disciplines, it would be interesting to think about the influential role religion plays on this topic as well as the correlation it may or may not have to the feminist movement. For example, her background in Anthropology as well as the impact of race would be something I would have touched on more.
I find the point of how the foundations of pro-life vs. pro-choice are not actually that different to be fascinating. This is particularly where I think various disciplines/religions would play an interesting role in answering the “why” question a lot of us may have. I also think the stereotype of women to reproduce and that it is their duty to do so is a major influencer of this topic. I think the idea of control is very interesting in relation to abortion perspectives and that it drives a lot of the mixed views. While some people may see it as a loss of control, others see it as a gain of control.
Fundamentally, I found her perspectives to be very interesting and brining forth a lot of ideas I never thought about earlier. Thank you for your post.
Hi Dominique,
Thank you so much for your well-written summary and analysis of Ginsberg’s work.
Your introduction was very good and to the point. However, I think it would have been better if you defined what Pro-Choice and Pro-Life meant for someone who really does not have any background knowledge about the abortion debates like me. In addition, I thought it would have been better if you included your analysis about the critical role of women’s political activism, since the book did not simply speak about the abortion issues. For example, the author put emphasis on changes of female domesticity since World War 2 such that there are more American women in the wage labor force, and the erosion of the domestic sphere so that it is reduced more to procreation and childrearing.
I agree that Ginsberg failed to provide an equal point of view of both sides of the story. As I was reading the book, I strongly felt that Ginsberg was Pro-Life activist due to the great amount of writing on this topic in contrast to another. In addition, like you stated, the author emphasized that “the legalization on abortion was a push that came mostly from doctors, as a way to regulate the practice and put more money into the pockets of doctors for the procedure.” This might be part of the reason for legalization, but I disagree that the doctors were the major reason for the approval of abortion in this country.
Hey, Dominique
Thank you for writing this week blog. I like your blog a lot because I think you did a great job to summaries the article. The article is telling us the national history of abortion throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. How we perceive abortion largely influenced by our life experiences. Ginsberg pointed out that there is never a perfect time for having children. I do agree with that. However, I also believe that before having children it is important to accumulate some resources for the next generation. Unfortunately, in the modern society, most of the women Faye interviews talk of this in light of the work force and how they feared leaving their jobs to be a mother to their children. I feel it is sad that these women have to think in this way. As you mentioned, I think Faye fails to really provide an adequate view of both sides of the story. She mainly analyzes the lives and history of the pro-life movement but only much focus on the pro-choice movement. I want to see more stories on pro-choice movement.
Hey Dominique,
Thank you so much for your blog post. I really enjoyed reading your thoughts and analysis.
Ginsburg uses procreational stories to highlight to dichotomy between prochoice and prolife activists. I feel that Ginsburg demonstrates well the tension between a woman’s domesticity and workplace aspirations/attitudes. I found it interesting that the prolife activists considered leaving the workplace to have a baby to be a feminist position. I also noted the differences in age where many prochoice subjects were born a decade earlier than the prolife subjects.
I think it might be important to also take into account the time in which Ginsburg wrote her book, 1989. Ginsburg exhibits some optimism when writing about the civilness of the initial confrontation between both sides. Her book is published before various violent protests, one example being the 1991 Operation Rescue where troops joined activists to destroy local abortion clinics. It is also important to note that the Women’s Health Organization’s clinic is no longer open. The only abortion clinic open in North Dakota is the Red River Clinic, which was opened a decade after the book was published in 1998.
Hi Dominique,
Great work connecting Unit 8’s readings with those of our past classes- views on kinship, unplanned pregnancy, reproduction, and prenatal testing are ultimately related to aiding pregnancy/conception, while this week’s readings examine the reversal of that: the choice to (or not to) end a pregnancy. It’s all too easy to get caught up on the polarized debates surrounding the perspectives of pro-choice individuals and pro-life individuals, so much so that we stop taking note of the actual arguments presented by either side. These arguments are evidently quite nuanced and much richer than those of us on one polarized end of the spectrum care to admit or even consider. In Contested Lives, The Abortion Debate in an American Community Faye Ginsberg aims to capture these nuanced views on abortion.
The three themes you highlighted in your second paragraph are a great way to focus your argument and provide a roadmap for your readers to understand the main ideas you have extracted from Ginsberg’s book; great job! Your point on dependency is definitely a valid one, as American society is typically structured around an individualistic mindset, one in which being independent is championed over needing to depend on others. The very essence of pregnancy complicates that individualistic mindset, as babies are highly dependent on their mothers during pregnancy (of course) and for many months after birth and considering that women also enter a liminal space of dependency throughout later pregnancy and shortly after giving birth. The point on how our society is structured in ways to warrant abortion (i.e. women fear losing their jobs due to pregnancy or fear not having the money/time to take care of their children) is ultimately justification that pro-life proponents use to support their views. However, I would ask: wouldn’t the set up of contemporary society be the true issue here? Pro-life proponents tend to call out those who support the right to choose abortion as being against “community values” (Ginsberg 70) when it seems that some of those very ‘community values’ upheld by society actually put women in a position where abortion seems like the only viable option. Discrepancies between maternity leave and (usually lack of) paternity leave here in the United States come to mind. Unfair societal set up, such as lack of paternity leave, reinforces the woman as the primary caretaker of her infant and discourages the father from taking off work to help out the mother. This, and other discrepancies between the aid men and women receive, may become a factor in why a woman may chose not keep a pregnancy.
Dominique – good job writing such a strong post!
I really like the way your post is laid out – beginning with a general summary of the piece before diving into the main arguments that are tied to being pro-life or pro-choice. Your explanations of the main themes are very solid and I found myself agreeing with your interpretations of Ginsburg’s words and analysis. I felt that her work presented a clear bias towards the pro-life activists, primarily in the depth of her investigation. As an anthropologist, I would have expected Ginsburg to do a better job of being objective .
With all this in mind, you did not mention the other reading, Judith Jarvis Thompson’s “A Defense of Abortion”. Thompson’s article was totally different than Ginsberg’s in the way that it was overtly an opinion piece. I think this article required some close reading in order to piece together Thompson’s somewhat sporadic, pro-choice argument. Instead of directly stating the reasons for being pro-choice, Thompson refutes the commonly used pro-life argument. She then supplements these oppositions with various analogies such as the violinist, the box of chocolate, the tiny house, etc. I understand the intention of using analogy to break down difficult themes, but as I was reading, I felt that a majority of them failed to encompass the gravity and intense emotion associated with pregnancy. Not sharing a box of chocolates with a sibling does not compare to sharing a body with a fetus.
I would be interested to know your thoughts on “A Defense of Abortion” and if you think that it strengthens the areas where Ginsburg’s piece is lacking, specifically with the pro-choice debate.
Overall, I think you wrote a very effective blog post. Your summary sentences in the first paragraph were concise and wrapped up the major points of the book. In your second paragraph I’m a little confused on what you mean by the “dependent human”. I can take an educated guess from context, but when I first read it the term meant something different to me. Maybe you can add a sentence here to clarify the term and also tie it in directly to the abortion debate.
You made good use of quotations from the book which helped back a lot of your arguments. I was glad you mentioned how Ginsburg didn’t cover the pro-choice movement as thoroughly as the pro-life movement and used evidence to support your claim. This made me wonder if individuals are capable of creating comprehensive and unbiased ethnographies or if our own perspectives will always get in the way of being impartial.
Hi Dominique,
I thought your post was a very well constructed summary of Ginsburg’s book. However, one thing that I thought was missing was a more in-depth analysis of your personal take on the subject. I do agree with you that Ginsburg focused heavily on the pro-life side of the argument, and gave unequal attention to the pro-choice side. Although I enjoyed the book and found her points interesting overall, I do wish she had developed the pro-choice perspective more and presented the point and counter-point relations between both sides.
Additionally, I thought her views on the topic seemed to be implicitly biased in that it was obvious while reading that the author was pro-choice. That being said, I personally did not see that to be a downfall of the writing. Given that she is an ethnographer writing on one of the most sensitive topic’s in American culture, I think it’s important that she makes her own identity and subjectivities apparent to readers while attempting to unpack the subjectivities of a group she does not personally identify with. To me, it seemed that Ginsburg was well aware of her own identity when approaching this topic, and used that to her advantage to give her readers a better understanding as to what lens the abortion issue was being observed through.