Abortion, veganism and the death penalty: Why Santorum’s ‘all life is sacred’ stance is contradictory

Recently, Rick Santorum said in an interview with Piers Morganthat if his daughter were raped, he would forbid her from having an abortion. His fervent anti-choice stance deems any abortion an act of murder, no matter how a foetus is conceived, and instead pregnancy must be accepted as a gift from God to be cherished. There are many anti-choicers who would deem abortion excusable on the grounds of rape and incest, but one thing I will say for Santorum – he is at least consistent.

Or is he? In the same interview, Santorum was confronted with the contradiction in his beliefs that all life is sacred (therefore abortion is murder), but the state can choose to kill someone who has committed a crime. He answered, "I would say when there is certainty – and there are occasions when there is certainty – that's the case when capital punishment can be used." Life is sacred…unless you’ve definitely committed a crime, in which case, an eye for an eye.

It seems that rather than following an absolute belief – the sanctity of life – Santorum is simply offering up Republican™ views in order to appeal to voters, or because he doesn’t believe in the sanctity of life and hates women instead, which I tend to believe.

I am pro-choice, and oppose the death penalty, and am vegan. I have been accused of being as dogmatic in my views as Santorum – I am a Feminist™ therefore pro-choice, a Bleeding Heart Liberal™ therefore vegan – without considering that a vegan lifestyle which involves the avoidance of killing and suffering directly contradicts my acceptance of abortion. How can I wax indignant about people killing animals and supporting capital punishment when I would be quite happy to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy?

The answer is that I do not believe, as Santorum purports to, that all life is sacred. This is not the view underpinning my vegan lifestyle, or opposition to capital punishment. What underpins the former is the belief that killing for nothing other than greed or pleasure is morally wrong; what underpins the latter that killing in a system that defines murder as legally and morally wrong is contradictory, barbaric and shows a level of violence out of step with the values of our society.

So, can I apply these statements to abortion, and come out of it unscathed? People do not have abortions in order to feel pleasure or out of greed, in the way they kill animals in order to tantalise their tastebuds, and for no other reason. In fact, people have very good reasons for having abortions, such as mental health, financial constraints, emotional un-readiness for parenthood, health issues, or the desire to have bodily autonomy.

We punish those who murder because they cause a huge amount of suffering. A murder victim leaves behind distraught family and friends, because the person they killed has, in their life, established bonds and connections, engendered emotions, created art, made people laugh or simply improved someone else’s life just by existing. The same is true for victims of capital punishment.

An unwanted foetus, by contrast, has not made the same impact on others’ lives. It is not, in the fullest sense of the word, alive, or conscious. We ensure this by restricting abortions beyond the 24-week mark, where the line becomes very blurred. Ultimately, the life and well-being (bodily or emotional) of the fully-conscious and developed person whose body is being transformed to house a collection of cells which may, one day, become a baby, is the priority.

This is not to shy away from the facts. Although in the early stages of pregnancy a foetus is, as I have said, not truly a person with rights and hopes and dreams, an abortion cuts off a potential life, and many argue that the only way to look at this scenario is, if not murder, then killing. That’s fine. Because killing the foetus growing in my uterus, with no suffering on its part and minimal on mine (because abortion is proven to be much safer than childbirth), is preferable to being forced to give birth to a baby I don’t want (if you want proof of that, then here it is).

Therefore, relying on the maxim ‘all life is sacred’ provides a dangerous license to actually inflict suffering on people. Instead, why not try the maxim, ‘I’ll try to avoid killing and suffering when it is not necessary.’ This is, if anything, the belief underpinning my world view. Abortion is necessary, for a vast number of reasons. A plate of steak, for many of us, is not; nor is state-sanctioned murder. Nor is a country rules by Rick Santorum, for that matter.

'A Game of Thrones' - where are the kick-ass androgynous queers? (Or, why the fantasy genre and feminism don't always get along)

I was a massive fantasy fan as a youngster; my tenth and eleventh year were more or less spent entirely in the pages of the Deltora Quest books and Garth Nix’s Sabriel trilogy, and the obsession continued to The Edge Chronicles and Catherine Webb’s novels until I ended up reading every single one of beloved Terry Pratchett’s Discworld books. Having not picked up a fantasy book since, I thought I’d give George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones a whirl. Since being made into a hit TV show, people have been raving about it. I have to say, as a re-entry into the fantasy world after a long hiatus, it disappoints.

The book does some things well. Martin exposes the reader to a vast world with a rich history without overwhelming, whilst paying enough attention to detail to allow complete absorption. Certain characters (Eddard Stark and Tyrion Lannister) are intriguing and well-drawn, and the novel certainly had pace. However, I couldn’t help being annoyed by certain aspects of Martin's world. This is because since following Sabriel and Lirael on their kick-ass journies through Garth Nix’s world, I have become what some might term a raging feminist. So here are the problems I have with A Game of Thrones:

Who uses the word ‘wenches?’

  I know that if you set your fantasy novel in a vaguely medieval-Britain-esque era, there will be certain linguistic quirks your characters might display. Doesn’t mean you, the author, have to do. There’s a reason why the fantasy genre is so often parodied – saying things like ‘on the morrow’ sets you up like a prick. So, yeah, one of your Winterfell knights might call women ‘wenches,’ but I’ll get pretty pissed off if you keep calling them that.

Why is it always medieval-Britain-esque?

  It’s a given that most fantasy novels of A Game’s type are set in a time without electricity, but with lots of castles, swords and battles. But…well, I’d like something new. Thanks.

The old gender problem

  So, here’s the thing. If I were to create my own new, fantastically detailed world in which anything could happen, I would GET RID OF OUR GENDER STEREOTYPES. I mean, JESUS, it’s not actually medieval Britain. You could have done anything with your world, Mr. Martin, you could have had kick-ass warrior princesses and relationships in which people respected one another; hell, you could have created androgynous super-queers who fight each other then fuck each others’ brains out afterwards.

   My point is, it’s so boring to just revert to gender roles like the ones evident in A Game. Despite the fact that there are some decent female characters, and they don't conform to gender roles so restrictively that they just cook, clean and fuck, the pickings aren't great. The existence of brothels and prostitutes is far too often remarked on, and even the loyal Eddard is unfaithful to his wife. As for the sex, I actually yelled out “Oh come ON” when Dany fucked the guy who had just essentially bought her, and repeatedly had sex with her until she was in pain. Oh and she’s THIRTEEN. Christ. And the only girl who displays any sort of kick-ass attitude is Arya, who spends half the novel being told she needs to do needlework instead of learning to defend herself. Yes, she eventually gets her way. But it's hardly a gender revolution. And don’t get me STARTED on the stupid harpist guy who is so weak and unmasculine because he carries a harp rather than a sword. Gimme a break.

The concept of the Other

  Again, a massive missed opportunity to transcend prejudice here. The Dothrakis are the Other to the Seven Kingdom-dwellers’ Self, the barbarian cousins of the civilised west (sound familiar?) Yes, Martins allows us an insight into their culture through Dany, a culture she embraces. But why make them so barbarious? Eating horse-meat (gasp!), selling each others’ women, raping each others’ women…they are not presented in the same empathetic way as the (let’s name it) white folks are. And that pisses me off.

  I guess these are all minor annoyances in an otherwise decent fantasy novel. At the same time, they ruined my reading experience. Why can’t fantasy novels like this engage in a more experimental way with the ‘otherworld’ challenge of creating a new world that is familiar yet utterly foreign to its readers? Good fantasy not only does that, but comments on our own world in a subtle, thought-provoking way. Unfortunately, A Game of Thrones falls into the trap of all material marketed at straight white men – it’s too straight, too white, and just doesn’t appease the feminist inside me.

Mr Blackwell, Misandry and Loose Women

     Following the dishonourable dismissals of Sky Sports presenters Andy Gray and Richard Keys, it was inevitable that discussion of sexism and inequality would follow in the national media. And, equally predictably, the old myth was let loose that women are turning the tables on men, and subjecting them to sexism which goes unnoticed or ridiculed in daily life. Cue a flood of dubious statistics and tenuous conclusions which serve only to hinder the progress to equality in the workplace.

   In fact, I have a perfect example. Those of you who picked up the Independent’s daily digest, ‘i’, on 28^th January may have encountered Luke Blackwell’s article. ‘Women still often get the raw end of the deal – but is it more acceptable for them to be sexist nowadays?’ he asks in an article which not only fails to answer that very question, but opens with some schoolboy logic. Let’s hear him out first, though:

A 2006 study carried out by the Institute for the Study of Labour think tank discovered that while women suffered sex discrimination when applying for engineering jobs, men were victims of sex discrimination when it came to applying for fields such as accountancy, computer programming and secretarial work.

It seems women are not the only victims in the sexually unequal workplace; this is an important point. He continues:

And 18 months ago, US employment law firm Peninsula carried out a survey which suggested that four out of five men had encountered female ‘sex pests’ at work and that employers tended to take sexual harassment cases from men less seriously than from women.

Damning evidence, I’m sure you’ll agree. Women should be ashamed of themselves!

   Except, of course, we shouldn’t, because Mr Blackwell has failed to draw the real conclusion from his statistics. If men are being discriminated against when they apply for certain jobs, who is doing the discriminating? The interviewer. A person of, we can assume, fairly high rank. If men are making complaints of sexual harassment, who are they complaining to? Their bosses. Who, again, are obviously high up the office pecking order.

    In the very opening of this article, Mr Blackwell reminds us: ‘Women still…face glass ceilings in the workplace and are woefully under-represented in Parliament and in boardrooms across the country.’

   So, in these accounting firms where men are failing to be hired over their female peers, and in these workplaces where men are failing to have their complaints of sexual harassment heard, who are the people more likely to be the architects of this? The ones in the boardrooms. The ones interviewing applicants for their businesses. The ones, therefore, more likely to be men than women.

    To suggest that men are being discriminated against, therefore it must be women doing the discriminating, is illogical. Sexism does indeed go both ways, and both genders participate in it, as can be demonstrated by switching on programmes like Loose Women which is mind-dribble of the lowest order, and receives regular complaints accordingly. This does not indicate, as Mr Blackwell would have it, that the world has turned upside down and women can now spew inane, sexist drivel on TV with no rebuttal. Instead, it reminds us that we still hold expectations about gender, whether conscious or unconscious; women just aren’t engineers, and men just don’t do secretarial work. And women enjoy watching other women screech and cackle about meaningless crap on daytime TV.

    No one advocates gender inequality. No one wants to be subject to sexual discrimination. Most men don’t think women are inferior; most women don’t think men are Neanderthals. The struggle for equality is not confined to one gender; don’t insult the intelligence of either with tales of ‘reverse sexism.’It isn’t OK, and it will change. Just don’t get sucked in by misinformed arguments to the contrary.