things that make us uncomforatble, things that should be illegal, and more important categories.

There is a very interesting discussion on bitch PhD on people who express discomfort with certain categories of abortion. The esteemed Dr. B denounces people who say "I'm pro choice, but I'm comfortable with ____" (third trimester abortion, abortion for convenience, etc.) Bitch thinks that such sentiments show distrust for women's ability to make moral decisions. The discussion picks up on this post at Sappho's breathing, and has a good comment board.

But there is something very very wrong with the way the whole issue is being framed. The debate is about two categories "things I feel uncomfortable with" and "things that should be illegal" Part of what Bitch is doing is rightly pointing out that discomfort can't be legislated. But the rhetoric of the situation is all wrong. For starters, there are things which I don't just feel uncomfortable with, but actually know to be motherfucking wrong, but which I cannot morally legislate or use any coercive means to change. The standard example I use in classes is my former roommate Pete, who called is own mother a cunt. His own mother. because she wouldn't give him for free an old car she wanted to sell. What can I do when I hear Pete call is own mother a cunt on the phone? Say "Dude, don't call your mom a cunt." That's about it.

There are more serious examples. I think that eating meat is one of the gravest wrongs of modern society, but my moral right to legislate such issues is quite restricted. (My academic project for the summer is to more carefully delineate this.)

Dr. B might say at this point that I am emphasizing my abstract concerns about potential moral categories over people's real lives. I don't think so, though. Basically, I am worried about situations where any attempt to developed a nuanced position is viewed as treason. Have you ever spend time in a community where people keep trying to one-up each other for how environmental they are? or anarchist? or Punk rock? It fucking sucks. It sucks because you are made to feel guilty for thinking. It sucks because it breeds purges and witch hunts. It sucks because the truth sometimes does lie in the middle.

The whole reason why we cannot use coercive measures to enforce all aspects of morality is to allow for reasoned discussion on difficult issues. Ultimately, this is exactly what the religious right does not want. Standing up for open debate is always a blow against fundamentalism.

Another reason why it is important to engage in moral debate even when issues of law are not at stake is that people need to be able to discuss what they should do without having to discuss what they have the right to do. In classes on abortion I often ask students to consider the advice they would give to a loved one in facing an abortion decision. The assumption in these discussions is that the abortion would be safe and legal, (an idealization from the real world, to be sure.) Even with this assumption, there are things that need to be thought about.

The human experience is simply impoverished if we imagine that there is nothing besides what the law allows and are completely random decisions among the options that the law allows. We are left little creatures of whim. "I think I will eat a hot dog." "I think I will call my own mother a cunt."

In the comments Bitch suggests that questioning the morality of some abortions is not a neutral act, because it gives the right the opportunity to introduce ideas like conscience clauses for pharmacists, etc. On the one hand, she is right. It is not a neutral act, because the environment has become so polarized. On the other hand, we would all be better off if it were a neutral act. At the very least, we need to create a social space where these issues can be discussed.

One final thing that deserves its own post but won’t get one. If you are going to make something a litmus test for being a good feminist, abortion is a pretty decent choice. But here’s a better one: access to birth control and reliable information on sexual health. Many feminists say that the worst disaster of the Bush administration would be overturning Roe. v. Wade. That would suck, but something even suckier has already happened: the spread of abstinence only education all over America and in fact across the globe.

Now you might be thinking: oh, this is the “if people only had access to birth control, we wouldn’t have to deal with abortion” line. Its not. In fact, according to the book I am reading now access to birth control can actually increase the abortion rate.

The problem is that restricting access to birth control and decent sexual information hurts far more women, and hurts them far more deeply, than restricting access to abortion. About 1.5 million women need an abortion every year, and would suffer without one. But abstinence only education has completely screwed up the minds of a whole generation. And in Africa, it *kills* thousands of people every day.

Abortion became a political issue as a reaction to the feminists movement of the 19th century. (Did you know there were no abortion laws in the US before then? Did you ever wonder why the bible never mentions abortion at all?) The anti-abortion movement is entirely an attempt to control women’s sexuality. If my sisters will allow a man to offer a suggestion, I would say that you keep to focus on the core issue. Don’t let a symbol of sexual autonomy get in the way of protecting the rest of sexual autonomy.