What is narrative that we should be subjected to a narrow proscription of what gets to be called story and what does not get to be called story? Yes, what then is fiction because a story that I tell you is true before I tell it, even if all of it is a lie, is accepted as non-fiction; and then, vice-versa, if what I know to be the truth and nothing but the truth so help me that I tell you is a fictional story, that I tell you so you can have no equivocation over accepting it as a fiction, what then does that make it? Fiction, of course. Now what is true and what is the Truth (and note the capital ‘T;” it is important, it is significant, it is signifying . . . you should be able to get this without much explication . . .); of course, we could—or is it that we should—ask ourselves just where memory fits in this explicating fiction and non-ficfion—and how much of non-fiction is fiction? I am not trying to be coy.
[more on fiction, non-fiction, story and telling and fictional truth]
I do want you to tell me what memory is, what I think it is, what I imagine it is, what OI know it is, what I do not know it is . . . and so again we return to What is it but fiction? If not entirely, then partly, although how much partly we do not ever consider, do we? How many conflicts do you have in your life with others very close to you when facing contrary accounts of what you are so sure you remember? You know what I nam talking about. Do you let it go? No? You go to the video tape you have in your head? The one you have assumed is you mind remembering, recollecting, recalling—they are all not the same things, you know, the three of them: to remember, to recall, to recollect. What do you know? How much do you know with certainty? What is it that I know? Can I know something? I do not want to end with doubt, doubt and more doubt. You are supposed to begin with I know nothing to be able to determine what you do know, what the limits of knowing are, where knowing begins or ends, what it is we can call knowledge. I am sure that knowledge is possible, and I this only because I have not succumbed to cult of doubt now pervading our culture; a place where doubt, that is, doubt first and ultimately doubt, is the highest wisdom.
Fiction; the essay—what is it we call the essay? To essay is to try, to put on trial in the mind with thought. Speeches as essays; letters as essays; journal entries as essays? Not always. Sometimes? How often? Essays in fiction, fiction in essays, essayistic fiction, fictional essays. I am not going to sort this out for you; I have not sorted it out for me.
You do know that I am a fictional editor, don’t you? That is, even if it is what we call non-fiction, a true context, it is a persona I wear as the editor, even if it is me the editor of the in-the-world review I edit and publish, but this is not, and now the the person and the persona have been conflated.
Persona, person, personality, maskality; the masks I wear. Here then is the story as entitled above. All titling an entitling; what is this story entitled to, for, as . . .
Bailing out, bailing out; the plane’s going down in flames. If my airliner were going down in flames, I’d most likely be dead soon. Airlines never think parachutes are practical. Maybe they’re not; but the White Star Line did not think it needed enough life boats for all the passengers—that too was impractical because of space, because of greed; how is it we do not see that the flip side of greed is being cheap. [greed of WTC]
Poor people who are cheap are only wishing they were rich so they could be greedy. Being cheap is the only way poor people get to be greedy. But that’s not why White Star Line did not have enough life boats on the Titanic. It did not have enough life boats on the Titanic because very simply, Money has always said “fuck the poor,” and the British especially so when the poor were Irish Catholic.
How are women in the world in a better position than Irish Catholics were on the Titanic. (The British are real pieces of shit—what do you think I think the Russians, the Chinese and the French are? Can you imagine what I think of Americans? What do you think—if it is thinking that you do [because randomly passing images in the mind is not thinking, nor is playing ping png with pros and cons of ideas, nor is playing hop-scotch with the Truth . . .]—yes, what do you imagine I think of Republicans and Democrats . . .).
Prefatory Remarks Made by a Man
Who Has Been Made to Stand for a Chorus
for an Imagined Play in an Imagined Theater
Here we have four speeches by a man–and yes, a man, not a woman–four speeches delivered on four separate occasions, but composed together as one essay and subsequently divided into four separate presentations, each time to a mixed audience of undergraduates, graduates, professors and other university staff who may have attended these talks sponsored by the undergraduate Women’s Studies Club, itself adjunct to the Women’s Studies Program on campus, which campus is irrelevant, and herein becomes part of the fictionalization of this piece: where is everywhere, more specifically, anywhere. The speaker had insisted that they have the reputation of having good food and good drink.
I do recall the medieval Everyman, but then that, I have assumed from time to time, but never persistently past the time of its arising, that Everyman should really have been Any-man, as I have alluded here above in the reference to anywhere. But even more specifically, it should be any person, even if the woman contained by the boundaries of any text were to bleed to death from a botched abortion, presumably an illegal one thus one that was not medical practice but some other form of bodily invasion more akin to alien probing or rape of one kind or another—and there are many kinds. This would be about any person, as it is this anyone that I have attached myself to, here, the presenter, the speaker, the writer, who he may be is what he is by context given, the one who does.
Yes, everyman is any-man, is any-person, the compound is imperative here, and we must note the connotative distinctions between ‘man’ and “person,’ although in Anglo-Saxon, ‘man’ meant what we mean by ‘person,” so then we have man and person and mask, what ‘person’ means in Latin, ‘persona,’ as in “dramatis personae.” My mask, my character, my personality; my manhood my personhood; what then is a person if all of these or only some of them, any one of them at any time—I go for all, all at once.
So here we have four speeches delivered by someone somewhere on some university campus in America at some time in the near past, to another group of someones present gathered by some students who are members of a group on this campus funded by the college they are or were attending.
[The day and date are no longer important; in fact, they never were important—except, perhaps, they could be important to someone somewhere at some time, concerned fort he historicity of what is said and how and to whom when.]
When I was a boy and my father and I were avid followers of NASA and the space agency’s progress to the moon, I learned that in every command capsule there was a rather conspicuous red button to push if the mission should need to be aborted on the launch pad. Less than a decade after this, the Supreme court majority decision in Roe versus Wade established a woman’s legal right to have an abortion, although no red button was forthcoming.
In the seventies we had too many discussions and not enough argument about a woman’s right to choose an abortion, a right I did not oppose, a right she had always had in spite of legislation to the contrary. I would eventually come to the position that it is not the law that gives a woman the right to choose, that that right exists in spite of the law. What the law does or can do is provide legal sanction, thus hopefully legal protection, thus a loosening of the grip that social conventions might impulsively tighten around her, and in our contemporary political climate, a hard rain is about to fall.
To choose to end a pregnancy has always been a dilemma, and after Roe versus Wade the number of rocks and hard places did not quickly lessen. If a woman had come to the point where she had to make a choice, though, at least after Roe versus Wade, she was not a criminal for choosing one way, and was expressing free-will if she should choose the other. To have a baby or not to have a baby . . . the Right to choose also frees the woman who wants to have a baby.
Pro-choice is not only a position for a woman who wants to have an abortion. The legally sanctioned right to choose an abortion honors, fore-mostly, a woman’s right to choose, which may be to have the baby, as it is also to have an abortion. Having a baby became more about a woman’s choice than her obligation as a breeder after Roe versus Wade.
All women choose between having a child and aborting the pregnancy when the choice arises to have a baby or not, although not quite as easily or safely as missions to space.
There have always been ways to induce miscarriage, some of them frightening and almost concentration camp like in manner, others just dangerous, but choice is always elemental. The idea that an induced “miscarriage” has not always been an option is a mistake. The difference in a legally sanctioned abortion is the matter of safety. It is the difference between having a parachute and not having a parachute when the plane is going down in flames. Of course, this is not practical in contemporary commercial air travel, but fighter pilots still have parachutes and ejector seats to save their lives. This is the idea.
Presumably, under sanction of the law, a woman now has the option to safely end her pregnancy, where before she did not. Our medical establishment assures us of the safety involved, yet more women die annually from medical malpractice than from breast cancer. Another essay is needed, one addressing the persistent second class status for the still second sex.
Hamlet’s dilemma is to be or not to be, which is also any woman’s who has to decide if she is going to carry her pregnancy to term or not and thus choose to terminate it. Hamlet did not raise the issue of having a parachute or not having a parachute because there were no parachutes. There were the equivalents of life boats in the sailing of the time. When a woman wants to have a baby, tries to have a baby, gets pregnant and has no apparent dilemma before her, she has chosen not to abort.
To bail out or not to bail out is always a question. When the plane’s going down in flames, it would be great if a parachute were available. It’s sensible; it’s rational; it’s reasonable to expect our culture, our civilization, to support a woman’s inalienable right to choose. However, this is not the case in America today. I do fear the Republicans. What was that we used to say back in college? If the people want to go to hell in a handcart . . . .
Well, we are on our way to this; I am sure there are those of you who have greater optimism as I am sure that there are those of you who have greater pessimism. What then do I say about we then must do? What world do you want to live in? I do not want to live in a world where there are too few life boats, that’s all.
[The same topic. The same intensity. The same speaker to a similar audience. Is he preaching to the choir? How is preaching to the choir not integral to the preacher’s sermon?]
When I was an undergraduate for the first time, there was an argument in college that went as follows: You can’t tell me that a fifteen year old girl is ready, emotionally or psychologically, to have a baby; that it might not be a stress in these ways too much for her to handle.
Pregnancy was traumatic. I understood this argument. I too felt the emotional power behind it. I was sensitive to it, or so I assumed; perhaps I should say I was not insensitive to it. The former and latter, sensitive and not insensitive are not the same thing. Nonetheless, a pregnancy for a fifteen year old girl in any middle class home or community would be traumatic, perhaps as much, if not more, for her parents.
I am not so sure it would be equally devastating for girls in other communities, or from other economic classes, but let us assume that bourgeois mentality and morality have pervaded, which is not to say that ethics and morality (and they are not synonyms) only exist among those of the American middle class. I am sure there are a plethora of responses from parents or elders of any back ground, some of them sane and reasonable and others quite irrational and frightening.
If there were no boy to marry, this would pose a problem for a girl who was of any religious or cultural tradition, or economic or educational status, for how far have we come in this world from the condition of women in society since Ms. Wollstonecraft wrote her Vindication of the Rights of Women?
The fact that any girl who was accepted to Harvard, let us say, and who also became pregnant at 18 would be a shock for any family is easy to understand; the presumption that any girl accepted to Harvard as an undergraduate might make an acceptable candidate to any one of number of top tier PhD programs in whatever field she was to choose would increase the anxiety. What is her pregnancy at 18 going to do to any of her family’s imagined prospects, if they were in fact pinning their hopes of future advancement on the daughter graduating from Harvard, whether fairly or unfairly?
No one is going to assume initially that the girl can easily, or if at all, complete her education once pregnant. I am not going to argue against the merits of the perception, only present that the perception exists. For some it would be horrible.
If there were a boy to marry and marriage ensued, I presume any parents who would have been shocked ethically or morally or in their sense of propriety would suffer a lesser shock. The matrimony that might ensue could soothe their previous embarrassment, but any parents with aspirations of the daughter’s self-reliance or career advancement as a result of her advanced education beyond the B.A. would not be assuaged by the baby having a father present. I am not herein considering the psychopathic, whereby a woman’s, or a girl’s, life or limb is in jeopardy, from those who say they love her when she becomes pregnant without marriage. Emotional trauma correspondent to the level of ostracizing a girl would endure from her community would have to be measured separately. I make no assumptions for how progressive all of us are; history is anything but progressive.
We do have to see that if the girl were of a bourgeois family–and by this I mean an upper or mid level middle class family, where one or both of the parents are university educated, perhaps where both or at least one has a post-graduate degree–the expectations would be for her to go to college, and not just college, but as aforementioned, graduate school. A pregnancy, even if there were a boy to marry, would be an impediment to her going to college and then to graduate school, at least in some minds. Of course, the economic aspirations of the girl’s family would be stunted, cut off; and this might be especially frightening to a family with bourgeois aspirations who are not yet bourgeois, or bourgeois by proxy through the social advancement of the daughter, who is now “with child.” Ah! With child. No embryo can be called a child if the argument sides with pro choice against con, can it? Yes, it.
Under any of the aforementioned circumstances, medically induced miscarriage would certainly be less traumatic, or as many of the so called middle class arguments in favor of pro choice would go. I am not as certain as some of these who support this line of reasoning. I do not assume the only traumatic thing for a woman in this predicament is to have a baby she does not want. Even when choosing an abortion under the best of pro-choice circumstances, there is loss.
Women, after having an abortion, have felt in a way quite similar to women who have suffered a miscarriage of a baby they have chosen to have. When life begins is not invited here. This is not support for those who are against the pro-choice position. I am not arguing for or against a woman’s legal right to choose. Again the right precedes the law; the law gives the guarantee that the right of the woman is protected and supported by the legal justice system, thus supported by the government bureaucracies,. thus a normal mainstream event.
Do you imagine that you have thought all there is to think about on the issue of safe medical procedures when the choice of terminating a pregnancy arise—and it is the issue of safe medical procedure because the legality or illegality of abortion is not going to either eliminate the need for them or the wish for them if illegal, nor is it going to proliferate them if otherwise made legal.
A legal abortion or illegal abortion does not give nor remove a woman’s Right to Choose; her right to choose is apart from whatever the law says. The law cannot give her rights she has irrespective of the law. The law can only help or impede her acting on her rights.
Creating a social context (I did have to bite my tongue not to say matrix) where we honor a woman’s basic human right to choose, and where respecting and protecting a woman’s unalienable right to sole proprietorship over her body are sane and reasonable to all rationally-minded persons in our society, seems the only right solution for what some see as dilemma where others see the choice between bearing the embryo-fetus-child and having an abortion as lacking in predicament, whether they are on the side of pro or con. But my question is this, and I feel that it is most important to present–do we think that a girl who might not be emotionally and psychologically fit to endure a pregnancy is able to an abortion?
If I am not mistaken, a pregnancy and a birth are both natural occurrences. I have not yet assumed that an abortion is also natural, unless that is what we are saying, that the natural flip-side of pregnancy and birth is abortion. I do not know if this is viable. Disputing the validity of abortion being a natural occurrence as are pregnancy and birth is not by necessity a pro or con argument.
In the ways that biology and psychology are connected, interconnected, mutually influential, I am not so sure that abortion is a natural occurrence in the same as let us say getting pregnant is–even by artificial insemination, pregnancy is still more natural in the ways drawn herein. I am, though, a bit puzzled by anyone who claims that abortion must be made available to a young girl because we would be saving this girl emotional distress by doing so. Does anyone who puts forth this argument listen to what he is saying when he says this: abortion saves a girl the trauma of a pregnancy.
Legislation that sanctions a woman’s right to choose an abortion is put forth to ensure that it is safe, if it is chosen. The argument presented above, inferring that an abortion may or may not be as traumatic for a girl as a pregnancy is not a rebuttal for abortion, but one against what others see as a crucial point in their argument. The best argument for legislation to get behind a woman’s right to choose is to ensure a woman has a safe choice and not a horrible dilemma (safe and antiseptic have become motifs in the pro-choice argument).
The choice is between safe and unsafe abortion because abortion has been and will always remain an option for anyone so inclined. Dilemmas will always exist; problems can ensue. However, with the legal right to choose, abortion presumably will not be the nightmare it was before Roe versus Wade. And before Roe versus Wade, the options before a woman, likely a girl, were nightmarish. But then there were not enough lifeboats on the Titanic, and the dearth was felt by steerage. Parachutes and lifeboats, however, of whatever variety, have always been available for the rich.
If every woman is macrocosmic to the universe of being as I hold to be a priori true, then every galaxy of argument for or against the legal right becomes irrelevant. She is. Her choice is. What happens, happens for her and to her and to no one else. Is the embryo a someone? The fetus is what? Where does personhood begin is going to be a matter of faith for a while, so we are going to have clashing metaphysics for a while. I am not here to argue, as I have already asserted above, when life begins.
I know there are cultures where a child has to undergo a ritual initiation into becoming a human being and before this his parents have the right of life and death over the thing the child is in the eyes of the culture. I am not here to justify or condemn cultural practices in the social context in which they have arisen, but there can be no allowance for any cultural practice or religious law that enforces misogyny here in the United States, or places a woman at the whimsy or fanatically narrow minded religiosity we see across the world in some religious contexts.
A man being allowed to kill his sister for eloping is not the same thing as a woman choosing to have an abortion, and part of the problem is, it does not take Muslim Theocracies to produce men who act on the impulse to control women and seek to put them or keep them in second class/second sex status socially; we have it right here at home in our own homegrown Christian Fundamentalists.
[ What more is there to say about him, about who he is, what his name is, what his educational background is, or what his ethnicity is, his religion, his politics, his epistemology, if you will, what are his philosophies, and that should be made plural?]
All the women on either side of the Pro-choice issue do not countermand a woman in any of her decisions. They do not outweigh her. How could they; I already hold this truth to be self-evident, each woman is macrocosmic to her gender/sex, to humanity, to society, to all institutions seeking to levy their weight against her. If we could prove there was or was not a personhood present in the fetus, then what would we have to say, on either side of this issue? Are there not more than just two sides here. If we remember the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, we again will realize that the working poor, the immigrant poor, the minority poor, the poor poor are not worthy of parachutes; parachutes of all kinds and forms are expensive, they cost a lot of money to make. Just ask the builders of the Titanic.
I am an old fashioned humanist that believes in a universal human nature that is not only worthy of protection but mandates our protection. We are obliged. Yes, humanity demands noblesse oblige from every human being toward every other human being. The simple separate woman facing this dilemma is everything in this; she is every thought, every choice, every fear, every emotional pang, every anything else she might feel. No one can feel for her–embryos cannot feel it for her. What can the fetus feel? Does medicine tell us?
All the arguments for or of the psychological effects of abortion are mute before her singular solitary irreducible voice. Only she faces this; only she can choose. This seems simple enough to say, but remains difficult for us to believe. Just look at much of what you hear at Republican rallies, and the mud that gets slung around the issue of abortion and what has been coined in perfect propagandistic pitch, Pro-Life.
But actions do speak louder than words, and the near simian rallies of the Republicans are scary enough, but when Donald Trump leads in most polls concerning Republican candidates, that is horrific. Words are all we have to defend a woman’s right to choose, which is every human’s right to choose. I cannot take up arms against what is no longer the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party but the mainstream of the Party itself––all of this the by-product of decades of systematic under-education and raising semi-literacy as not only literate-enough, but literacy to emulate and praise, but then we live in a country where a rose by any other name becomes something else.
Abortion is a woman’s parachute, if not her lifeboat, yes, those same things denied to the passengers of steerage on the Titanic and why there were so many deaths–the lifeboats were filled by class first, and no one thought to have enough for everyone on board. Screw the Irish Catholics, must have been the collective unconscious mandate in the minds of contemporary Englishmen. Let’s do the same to women because legislation must be punitive first and punitive last and provide nothing but lashes between. Yet, we point to Women and Children first as if we have not simply offered a rebuttal of a kind but made the refutation supreme.
Of course you know that the “bell tolls for thee.” Why would I assume that you do not know that? Why should I assume that you do? That in itself speaks volumes about me, does it not, what I have said herein at the close in these epi-logic words afterwards; that is, if you were wondering who I am, who I might be, could be if, would be somehow when, where . . . ?
And yet, every woman is an island unto herself, no? [ ]