Holy. Crap.
A woman named Irene Vilar has published a memoir detailing the 15 abortions she had over 15 years. She identifies these abortions as "self-mutilation" that stemmed from a deep pathology:
Yet, in Vilar's deft hands, her story of serial abortions mostly bypasses the volatile abortion rights standoff, instead plumbing her "self-mutilation," her "pregnancy fantasies" and multiple suicide attempts, her conflicts over submission and control, and, ultimately, her healing. She wants to steer readers to a subtler point: that abortion was, for her, an addiction, a warped and tragic vehicle to assert control over her life.
This woman's personal story involves abusive relationships and childhood trauma. I have no place, no interest, in questioning her assessment of how she coped with that trauma. Abortion isn't the right answer for everyone, some women may go on to regret their abortions, they have the right to feel however they would like, but individual regret isn't grounds for limiting access to abortion. Unfortunately, it's rarely perceived that way. When discussing her memoir, Vilar observes:
"It could be a pro-choice extreme...It could be an argument for abortion foes."
Ya think?
I don't have a problem with Vilar's story. I certainly don't have a problem with the fact that she goes on to become a mother and that motherhood is a healing experience for her. I am firmly pro-healing. If Vilar was deeply troubled before, then I'm GLAD that she is now at a better place. But I direct your attention to the title of the Washington Post Article about her memoir: "An Addiction That Only Motherhood Could Cure."
Holy. Crap.
I can't believe the Post suggests that this story could bypass the politics of abortion and engage both sides, and then gives the article THAT fucking title. (Though to be fair, titles and articles are usually written by two different people.) Implying that Motherhood is The Fix for a woman crazy enough to have multiple abortions is so incredibly inflammatory. I strongly doubt that Motherhood was what "cured" Vilar. If she did have a pathological need to conceive and then abort, then her healing had begun long before she carried her pregnancy to term.
By publishing her life story, The Personal has become The Political for Vilar. I haven't read her memoir, I've only read the Post article about it. Her story could quite possibly add nuance to the abortion discussion, which would be awesome. I am just so incredibly disappointed that, at this early PR moment, the coverage has already reduced her story to THAT level.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Having Babies Made Her ALL Better.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16903
That is a disgusting headline!
Not to mention...(full disclosure: I haven't read the book)...from what I've heard about the book, most of her abortions were not actually her choice. She was coerced into them by her then-husband. She actually wanted to be a mother from the start. (Hence all the pregnancies.) From this perspective, her story actually plays quite well into pro-choice rhetoric. However, this article proves how the whole thing can also sound like a pro-life argument.
In cases like this, I'm not sure how I feel about "the personal is political"--especially when SHE is not the one who is politicizing her personal life. I think it's intrusive and wrong for either side to hold her pain up as a talking point. (Not that you were doing that--it's just a general observation.)