Super Subjectivity of the Fetus and the Christian View

We talk a lot about dichotomies in our WGSS classes, and that applies to the way our country seems to be growing increasingly divided between liberal and conservative groups.  A consequence of this is the way political issues are represented as only having two sides.  As Susan Bordo points out in her article “Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body,” this is also true for reproductive rights; the conversation is centered around abortion and only takes the form of pro-life versus pro-choice.  

Bordo emphasizes the importance of expanding the conversation to include more struggles with reproductive justice than just the right for a woman to be able to choose to have an abortion.  One of the points that really stood out to me in this article was the way Bordo points out that our society revokes the bodily integrity of pregnant women.  Breaches of bodily integrity often take place because they are in the interest of the fetus.  She writes, “In this culture the pregnant, poor woman (especially if she is of non European descent) comes as close as a human being can get to being regarded, medically and legally, as a “mere body,” her wishes, desires, dreams, religious scruples of little consequence and easily ignored in (the doctor’s or judge’s estimation of) the interests of fetal well-being” (76).  

Why does our culture justify ignoring the bodily integrity of pregnant women when we are so clearly pro-bodily integrity in all other cases?  (Bordo cites multiple examples of our legal system insisting on the bodily integrity of people in non-pregnancy related situations.  An interesting point was brought up in our class discussion that I think helps to answer that question.  The point was that since our culture attributes super subjectivity to the fetus (more on that later), we feel a moral obligation to protect it and speak for it since it can’t speak for itself.  Since much of the conservative influence in politics is related to Christian beliefs, I think it is fair to suggest that Christian beliefs about childbearing and motherhood may have something to do with this as well.  Consider this excerpt from lifeunited.org, a pro-life website:

“Our sinful nature naturally leads us to consider choices in view of what seems best for our lifestyles, instead of what might help “the least of these.” Abortion is not just a mere “issue,” it is a matter of life and death. A biblical view of abortion and other life issues reflects a deeper, soulful respect for the divine perspective of what it means to be human. When we value human life as God values it, we then understand which choices help protect life and avoid the shedding of innocent blood.” 

Although this passage is aimed specifically at the issue of abortion, the philosophy can be applied to the super subjectivity of the fetus that Bordo is concerned about.  A key point in this passage is the distinction between innocent blood and sinful blood.  The sinful blood belongs to the selfish mother who might dare to choose based on “what seems best for [her] lifestyle” rather than sacrifice autonomy over her own body for the godly work of childbearing.  This idea perpetuates the notion that the woman’s bodily integrity should be overlooked for the sake of the fetus.  The language used here is also telling of the way many Christians believe that the mere connection of sperm and egg is a person, and that life is sacred and ought to be protected.  The latter is not something many people would disagree with.  The problem arises when we start to attribute more value to a clump of developing cells labeled “life” than we do to a grown human with experiences, feelings, desires, and beliefs.  

Another important aspect of this Christian belief is fear of God’s wrath.  The same website that authored the above quote writes, “Psalm 106 also mentions God’s anger over a nation that had been disobedient, and had shed the blood of the innocent.”  No one wants to shed the blood of the innocent, especially if it means a one way ticket to Hell.  The implication made by the language used here is that a pregnant woman who chooses not to carry her pregnancy to term doesn’t have a deep respect of the divine perspective or value human life.  If we accuse women of these qualities, it is no wonder many people tend to side with the “innocent blood” - the fetus.  

Bordo writes, “The disturbing fact remains that increased empathy for the fetus has often gone hand in hand with decreased respect for the autonomy of the mother” (86).  Ultimately, in this view a female fetus has more rights while in the womb than she does when she has grown up and gotten pregnant herself, and Bordo and I both think that there is a serious problem with that.