Abortion has pretty much always been a touchy subject, I have my own strong opinions on it, and considered myself familiar with most of the main views on the subject. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy lays out what it considers the 3 main views on abortion to be (I agree with it, and this was generally my understanding of the discourse). The first main view is called the extreme conservative view and is generally that abortion under any circumstances is bad, the second is the extreme liberal view which is that abortion is always acceptable, and the 3rd is moderate views in between. What I liked about what Hawkins describes in “Reproductive Choice: The Ecological Dimension” is that it doesn’t really fit into any of the above (though of course I am sure most people would consider it an extreme liberal view). All of the above views, argue either in defense of the fetus or in defense of the mother, Hawkins is the only argument I have come across that is in defense of the environment.
I was particularly attracted to the segment labelled “Environmental Consideration in the Abortion Debate: Population, Poverty, and Environmental Degradation”. As I have mentioned in past blogs entries I am a libertarian, many of my friends are communists (I don’t mean this in the “I’m a red blooded American that loves bacon and guns and hates triggered commies”, I mean that they are actually Marxists-Lenninists) so we often argue about population growth. They argue that there really isn’t a population crisis, and that it is simply late capitalism and billionaires sucking up all of the resources (I think there is some truth to this argument personally, but I think it is too general and a one size fits all answer). I have been aware of our growing population and the threat that is causes, but Hawkins said it in a way that I hadn’t considered before. She said “from a size of less than one billion throughout all of our previous history, over the last two centuries the human population has shot up to somewhere between 5 and 6 billion people”. When it comes to my concerns about overpopulation, I have never believe that government programs for population control (such as forced sterilization, or limiting the number of children people can have) but I do believe that we should make sure that people (especially women) have control over their bodies, and have access to contraceptives.
I also think we as a society need to change. I think throughout the planet humans view women as baby incubators. Throughout their lives women (and even men to an extent) are constantly being pressured to procreate. As children girls are given baby dolls (some event that mimic child rearing by having the doll eat fake food, cry, and even soil itself. Adolescent girls are often encouraged to babysit or even take on some of the roles of caregiver in their own family. Then as soon as they graduate high school the questions begin “when are you gonna have kids?”, “you two would have such beautiful babies”, “when are you gonna settle down?”, etc.
Works Cited
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/854209
It is interesting to me when I hear people asking when someone is going to ‘procreate’ or ask why they haven’t already. For myself, I understand why a woman would choose not to have a biological family. I didn’t until i was 34 and I didn’t think I ever would. I just happened to meet someone that changed my mind. Not in his convincing arguments for having children, but because of the sheer fact that I loved him and wanted to share the bigger picture of ‘family’ with him. This mindset that all women must be pregnant is now quite repugnant to me. I have two daughters, 30 and 28. There are no plans in their future for children. My youngest is considering adopting or being a foster parent because she sees the trauma children go through that are taken from difficult environments.
On the discussion of right, left or center abortion debates, I honestly believe it’s entirely up to the pregnant woman and her doctor. Nobody else need insinuate their demands or desires on them. If it were left up the the individual as a health issue, which is supposed to be private, we wouldn’t be having this decades long debate.
As far as Hawkins argument that women are directly tied into nature and nonhuman mistreatment, I am in full agreement. I never looked at why third world countries were having so many children. I knew it was, in part, because of the myths surrounding birth control and the lack of adequate education regarding it as well as not having access to it. What I didn’t realize was the other reasons. The fact that it takes so much longer to find clean water and food sources and so it takes more people to take care of all daily needs. That is a real eye opener. They probably have a mortality rate that’s fairly high among young children as well, due to disease, starvation, etc.
I have to say this class has blown my mind. Thanks for always being interesting in your posts. I appreciate you.
Hi Nick,
I agree with Tari that your posts are usually rather interesting. I find myself commenting quite often on your blogs. As far as the question or the pressure that society puts on women or couples to have children, I agree that needs to stop. I am careful not to talk to my adult children in those terms. I always say “if you decide to have children.” Also, I have drilled it into my daughters that waiting until they are established with a career, education etc before they have children will empower them. Being empowered as a woman who can take care of herself and a child should she chose to have one liberates her and allows for self reliance, which I think for any adult brings happiness or at least fulfillment.
I believe that abortion is a personal decision and is one that the woman who has to carry, birth, and care for the baby has to make for herself. I am also dumbfounded why this topic is always on every politicians agenda. It’s a personal decision that is none of the governments business to interfere in. There are too many children who are born to mothers who don’t want them and those children end up having a very challenged and difficult life. It’s unfair to that human being. Every life deserves love, respect and protection, and if you cannot provide that then don’t have a child.
As far as the environment and population, I agree that we need to do something. Educating women in the global south, as well as providing women’s healthcare could help. I read a very interested npr article https://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change
wherein a philosopher in Baltimore speaks to his classes about being responsible for the environment and not having children, or limiting the number people have. This all as a way to help stave off the effects of what human kind does to the environment. His philosophy is that while having a child doesn’t hurt the parents or the family necessarily, it does hurt the rest of humankind. By bringing one more resource using human into the world, you are furthering the negative impact on the environment for everyone around you.
While I don’t believe that anyone should be told that they cannot have children, it’s a good idea to educate young people on what kind of impact having children has on our environment. To be fully aware of the affects before you decide to have a family is a responsible approach to climate control and saving the environment. I appreciate that you take a pragmatic approach to abortion and realize that it’s a woman’s personal decision. A lot of men over 30 I find tend to have really conservative views. Even some try to advocate for the fathers perspective. Some male family members have asked me what about the fathers rights? Men do not have rights when it comes to a woman’s body. The decision to have an abortion is fully a decision between the woman and her doctor. Once a man can carry a child and give birth, then he can make the decision himself. A woman is under no obligation to consult with the father since it’s her body that must grow nurture and deliver the life. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22457999.
Thank you for the compliment and response Tonya. I think the attitude you are taking towards your kids in regards to having children is great and in and of itself does a lot to combat over population. I think the truth is we are having too many children, but the silver lining is that, I think that number will greatly decrease with education. If we have only the people that truly want/are prepared to have children the world will be a better place. There will be less people using up resources, better parents for the children that do come into this world, and happier adults who don’t end up in a situation that they do not want to be in.
Nick,
I really like that you pointed out that society the world over tends to view women as incubators. I believe this is one of the biggest problems with the patriarchy is that women’s bodily autonomy is taken from them and for this reason I have a hard time agreeing with Hawkins. I am incredibly pro-choice, I take the more liberal view where I believe a woman should be able to have an abortion whenever for whatever reasons. I’ve never had to make that decision myself but I’ve had many close friends through the years struggle with that decision and I have seen what that decision entails. I know that women put a great deal of weight on their decision to terminate a pregnancy, What I have a hard time agreeing with Hawkins is the underlying idea of population control. While she doesn’t necessarily spell this out, she leads to it. That appears to be the next idea when it comes to reading her work. The damage to the environment isn’t being caused because there’s more people, the bulk of the damage is being done by corporations. Late stage capitalism that is only focused on it’s profit is what is causing all of this environmental damage. The blame shouldn’t be being placed on the backs of the poor and people of color, it should be being placed on those large scale corporations that lobby government officials in order to dump their toxic waste and destroy forested areas, all in the name of profit.
Hello Kiera, thank you for the thoughtful response. I take your point but don’t quite agree with it. I don’t agree with population control as an oppressive tool controlled by a government, and I don’t think Hawkins advocates for that either. I think it is true that under the right economic planning there are enough resources for everybody but I don’t think that level of economic planning and cooperation is possible with an authoritarian government being in place. Plus there are plenty of non-capitalist countries like Venezuela and China, that are massive polluters as well. I see profit as something that is a part of human nature, and regardless of who owns the means of production there will always be bad actors doing things for greed.
Hi Nick,
I find it so incredibly refreshing to read your work. You have such an open perspective on life and reproductive issues. I especially like how you pointed out that many people view women as ‘baby incubators’. My grandparents were talking the other day and, they are very against abortion. They said if you don’t want babies then you shouldn’t have a boyfriend or a husband. It was such a close-minded, ignorant view of the world. I find it incredibly commonplace.
While I didn’t necessarily like or agree with Hawkins article, I did agree with several points. Her article was accurate regarding the impact of over-population on our economy and environment. I just felt that veered more into a persuasive route.
Hey Nick,
As a libertarian, I assume you must be pro-choice, as I couldn’t imagine you supporting anything that restricts someone’s right to choose what they do with their body. It sounds like you and your friends have some interesting conversations on account of your political beliefs. I agree that just blaming the climate crisis on billionaires is a one size fits all answer, as it basically makes them the scape goat and allows someone to justify their environmentally degrading actions because they are apparently inconsequential. I decided to look up who is to blame, and, not to say that the common man’s impact and the rapidly increasing population are to be looked over, but as it turns out your friends may be somewhat right. I found an article by Tess Riley of the Guardian titled Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says. The title pretty much says it all. The article gives a deeper look in to the damage however. “The report found that more than half of global industrial emissions since 1988- the year the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established- can be traced to just 2 corporate and state-owned entities” (Riley). So even within that group of 100 companies, who I assume are wildly profitable to being with, there is an “elite” 25 who do as much damage as the remaining 75. It’s like there’s an inner circle to the inner circle. Any company with this much impact must raking it in, and could possibly consist of the billionaire’s your friends mentioned.
The fact that people view woman as baby incubators as you said makes a class like eco-feminism all the more relevant to help dispel that notion. Of course some women are completely happy being mothers, but others have much different aspirations and it’s unfortunate to see their role in the world diminished. Jessica Valenti touched on this in her article, in which she tries to rally pro-choice activists to stand up against the ideals she believes her opponents have in mind for women. “The pro-choice movement needs to put the opposition on its heels, and make what some in the “pro-forced birth” movement say what they’re really thinking: that it’s more important for women to be mothers than go to college; that the ability to support existing children, to have a job that pays well or to pursue a career path we love are inconsequential realities compared to embracing our “natural” role as perpetually pregnant; that a woman ability to incubate a fetus trumps any other contribution to society that she could possibly make” (Valenti). We live in a day and age where people are breaking chains that previously bind them, as you see things that you wouldn’t normally expect years ago, such as a dad staying home and watching the kids while a mother works, or women participating on the front lines of our military. I am glad to see these gender roles being dismantled, but unfortunately that is something that may have to come gradually, as it can be so engrained in us that people may not know they are reducing woman to bay incubators by asking the questions as you said. If our society reduces the pressure on women to have babies and provide other meaningful life paths, the rate of the population increase will not be slowed somewhat.
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10/100-fossil-fuel-companies-investors-responsible-71-global-emissions-cdp-study-climate-change