05/02/2021
Introduction
For the latter half of 2019 and all of 2020, I always had one position that never changed: I was pro-abortion. Mind you, I want to differentiate this position from anti-natalism, because it is not as simple nor does it have the connotation of being all about reducing suffering. The pro-abortion position was the pro-death position.
Georges Bataille was the source of ‘justification’ for this latter position. I made an argument that sees the act of reproduction as an action of utility. It was off of this that I would argue the born child which results from this utilitarian reproductive act is nothing more but a function of a restricted economy, an already homogeneously coded discontinuous body from birth (as it is ripped out of continuity as it is ripped out of the womb), nothing more than future labor-power for the machine which is capitalism.
I would argue that the aborted fetus would be waste matter, the byproduct of unproductive expenditure, and therefore (I guess following an interpretation of Bataille which says we ought to expend) we ought to abort (expend) all fetuses.
I can think of a couple counter-arguments to the argument I have just lined out: 1. What if the pregnation was the product of an action which did not intend on producing a child? 2. Is the action of abortion not utilitarian?
The Teleology of Sex and the Sacrifical Act of Abortion as a Moment of the Ethical
The first major roadblock for any analysis of Georges Bataille and abortion is fully understanding the act of sex itself. From the start, sex is almost always teleological. Let me explain. Looking at consensual and intentional sex which does not have the intention to result in impregnation, we can see that it still has a telos, which usually has the end of pleasure. Looking at consensual and intentional sex which does have the intention to result in impregnation, we can see that it obviously has the telological end of reproduction. Rape, even, has a teleological end for the rapist.
In the case of sex with the intention of reproduction, I think it would be safe to say that the sacrificial expenditure of the fetus which is the act of abortion would be a sovereign expenditure. Looking at a few interpretations of Bataille’s ethics (for example, Michael Richardson’s interpretation (see page 2 of Georges Bataille: Essential Writings)), we can see the general trend that the ‘moment of the ethical’ takes place when in entering into sovereignty, continuity, or going into the realm/sphere of the sacred. In this way, one could say that abortion as the negation of utility, as an act of (ritual) sacrifice would be a moment of the ethical in that the abortion would be sacrificing the utility (function) of the process of reproduction which would make the aborted fetus waste matter. Though this may seem delirious, one could therefore say that those who have sex in order to reproduce ought to abort the fetus.
In the case of rape and sex which does not have the intention of reproduction, things get much more complicated. If we follow the logic of the normative claim made in the previous paragraph of this essay, one could say that the impregnated rape victim and those who are impregnated from negligence ought to give birth to the child as the abortion of a unwanted child would be an act of utility. This latter conclusion is what I must try to avoid. I think we the idea of abortion as an act of sacrifice will allow us to provide our answer out of this situation. The act of sacrifice is ultimately useless. But you may say that the abortion of an unwanted fetus isn’t useless as it serves an end. You would be sort of right, that isn’t a sacrifice per say. For Bataille, to sacrifice something is to take it out of the world of the profane, discontinuity, where it enters into the sphere of the sacred, continuity. In birth we are ripped out of continuity and thrown into discontinuity. Thus, abortion, would techincally be a sacrifice no matter what, as you are killing a discontinous being and just because it has a useful by-product (that being the alleviation of the problems the fetus would have caused) does not mean the act has that as a inherent teleological end. Thus, one could argue that no matter what, abortion as an act of sacrifice is a moment of ethical, of ethics. Now, even if we consider the fetus as a continuous being and not discontinuous, our argument still applies because essentially, as the fetus is ripped out of the womb, it becomes discontinuous in which the sacrifice of the fetus returns it to continuity.
Quotes
“Yet loss is the winner in the long run. Reproduction only multiples life in vain, multiplies it in order to offer it up to death whose ravages alone increase when life tries blindly to spread further”.[1]
“We must never forget that the multiplication of beings goes hand in hand with death. The parents survive the birth of their offspring but the reprieve is only temporary”.[2]
“Death and reproduction are as diametrically opposed as negation and affirmation”.[3]
“I said that reproduction was opposed to eroticism, but while it is true that eroticism is defined by the mutual independence of erotic pleasure and reproduction as an end, the fundamental meaning of reproduction is none the less the key to eroticism”.[4]
“Sexuality forms the domain of experience in which instrumental reason can gain a firm foothold, driving so deeply into the social psyche that it shapes the very core of the modern self — namely, one’s desires”.[5]
“Instrumental reason can demand that sexuality must be useful, which translates into the mandate that it must be reproductive. For example, the fundamental principle of Catholic sexual ethics (with which Bataille was well acquainted) is the sexual act must be natural. And the single criterion to determine this ‘natural’ status is the openness of the act to procreate”.[6]
“Sexual acts must not foreclose reproduction. They must be useful”.[7]
Bibliography
Bataille, Georges. Eroticism. Translated by Mary Dalwood. Penguin Group, 2012.
Winnubust, Shannon. “Bataille’s Queer Pleasures: The Universe as Spider or Spit.” Essay. In Reading Bataille Now, 75–93. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007.
References
[1]: Georges Bataille, Eroticism, trans. Mary Dalwood (Penguin Group, 2012), 232.
[2]: Ibid., 100.
[3]: Ibid., 55.
[4]: Ibid., 12.
[5]: Shannon Winnubust, “Bataille’s Queer Pleasures: The Universe as Spider or Spit,” in Reading Bataille Now (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007), pp. 75–93, 83.
[6]: Shannon Winnubust, “Bataille’s Queer Pleasures: The Universe as Spider or Spit,” in Reading Bataille Now (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007), pp. 75–93, 83–84.
[7]: Shannon Winnubust, “Bataille’s Queer Pleasures: The Universe as Spider or Spit,” in Reading Bataille Now (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2007), pp. 75–93, 84.
