Squicked out, Pissed Off

It is pervasive and inescapable. I find it in my web browser, in my subway station, on the placards they hold outside the clinic, at large displays on campus or downtown, on a roadside billboard, and even posted on a truck which drives around the conferences I attend. They use it as an argument, a primitive tactic which uses shock and disgust as a replacement for meaningful discourse. It is a mockery of our intelligence and an assault on our senses.

Mangled, dismembered fetuses, in a pool of thick blood and tissue, reaching their hands skyward as though seeking salvation. This is both the mascot and the secret weapon of the anti-choice industry. And it seems to work fairly well, too. It evokes a deep, guttural reaction and tries to guide us to the conclusion that if we find these images uncomfortable then we must also be uncomfortable with abortion. Faulty logic, but nonetheless very powerful. Some pro-choicers argue that these pictures are hoaxes, misrepresentations, or over-dramatizations. While this is likely true, it shouldn't matter. I would like to argue that even if abortion is truly as "gory" as they would have us believe, that does not make it wrong. Visual aesthetic is not a requirement for something to be ethically defensible, and, as explained below, repulsion is an illegitimate measure of virtue.

The human response to blood and gore is universally one of disgust. This is the reason why we feel grossed-out at the site of a deep wound or when watching surgery on TV shows, why some of us become queazy at the mere sight of blood, why many of my fellow medical students feel ill after the first day in the cadaver lab, and why well-meaning partners often faint in the delivery room. The response has nothing to do with right or wrong - it is merely a natural, physiologic reaction. To our evolutionary ancestors, the sight of blood meant almost certain danger and it was actually advantageous for us to become frightened, faint, or even ill. This response primed us for "fight or flight" and prepared our bodies for imminent injury by lowering our blood pressure to avoid massive bleeding or even causing us to "play dead" by fainting onto the ground. Anti-choicers have harnessed the potency of this vestigial reflex to instill doubt and outrage. While many of us see the inherent flaw in this method, it is often difficult to explain why.

Enter the word "squick"

I was recently introduced to the term "squick", and fell in love with it instantly. Squick refers to the physical sensation of repulsion, but does not imply a moral component. It allows one to describe a feeling of discomfort that is entirely separate from any form of judgment. Squick is a noun, but can be used as an adjective (squicky) or a verb (squick out or squicks). It is believed that this word developed within the BDSM community as a way of communicating "I find this personally unappealing but I don't see anything wrong with it".

Squick is a word that the anti-choicers don't want you to know because it completely dilutes the power of their fetal pornography. It reinforces the idea that our instinctual, biological responses do not define nor reflect our internal beliefs and ethics. It allows us to express discomfort without compromising on our convicitons.

And while they may be able to force their images into our lives, we can force the meaning out of their images.