The Controversy Surrounding Abortion

There are many views on whether abortion is acceptable or not. Many of the arguments are controversial and involve overlapping issues such as ethics, morals, feminism, class and environmental concerns. I myself have hard time agreeing with the choice of abortion but nonetheless do agree that awareness of all arguments of the issue is essential toward understanding all points of view. It is worth exploring each person’s own ethical and moral sense of how they feel about abortion whether it be an extreme conservative view, extreme liberal view, or a more moderate view (Gordon). Gordon explores the moral and legal aspects of abortion in his text.

Focusing on moral and ethical debates Gordon looks at “personhood “ as a means to determine whether a fetus is a human person and if so does it have the legal right to live? I tend to look at this from the “modified standard argument” that the fetus is a human life form rather than from a “standard argument” that addresses the fetus as a human being. It makes more sense to me that a fetus is human life form rather than a human being because it is a form of life. It should be considered life. Women have the amazing ability to give life.

“Personhood”

Intertwined in the text are the different situational circumstances involved in determining if a fetus’s life should be determined by human rights or by a women’s choice. Each group see’s a different morally significant break in the rationalization of the choice to have an abortion. In other words when is it appropriate to morally have an abortion? For example a liberal view would suggest there is a morally significant break at birth. “This means that it is morally permitted to have an abortion before birth and morally prohibited to kill the offspring after birth.” (Gordon). From a moderate viewpoint the ability to suffer is the parameter to determine a morally significant break, which is at about six months. Extreme conservatives believe that the fetus is a person and prohibit abortion justifiable by the assumption that abortion kills human beings. Gordon argues that a fetus is not a person and lacks personhood because it lacks rationality and self-consciousness and therefore lacks “quasi rights” (Gordon). Further explaining, “The fetus is by virtue of his genetic code a human life form but this does not mean that this would be sufficient to grant it legal and moral rights” (Gordon).

Gordon also highlights pregnant women’s right to self-determination, privacy, the right to physical integrity, and the right to live as possible justifications of the choice to abortion. In addition he address’s circumstances from a feminist point of view such as rape, endangerment of the women’s life, serious mentally or physically disabled fetus, and financial and social response that are out of the mothers control and further intrude on her rights as a women. Also important to note in Gordon’s text is the discussion of law and abortion. Does good policy rest on moderate views as he suggests? Or should it be more to the liberal or extreme side? Gordon agrees with Gert who states, “No one thinks that what the law decides about abortion settles the moral issue” (Gordon).

Are you Pro-choice or Pro-forced birth?

In line with Gordon’s evaluation of women’s rights Jessica Valenti argues that abortion is about women’s right to equality. Further expanding the right of women to live, have integrity, and be allowed privacy Valenti references Kathy Pollitt’s book, “Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights” stating that women should indeed have the choice to have an abortion in order to make it possible for them to pursue a career and have the same rights as men. We should have the same rights as men; and men should have the same rights as women.  Comparing ourselves to men  has a tendency to divide us rather than make us equal.  Men and women have different qualities that make them unique and that’s what I think should be the focus. A main component of feminism is advocating for equality so how can we be equal if we; men and women are constantly divided by what they can and cannot do? To be clear, Im not suggesting women are equal to men in our society. Valenti further creates inequality by dividing women into “pro-choice groups” and “pro-forced birth” (Valenti) groups playing each against each other further creating animosity instead of sisterhood among women. She makes her argument against pro choicers clear when she says, “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 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’s ability to incubate a fetus trumps any other contribution to society that she could possibly make” (Valenti).  I do not think women should have to choose between education and a career or motherhood but instead think we should come together to change out-dated policies on a government level that make it difficult to do so and find solutions and create work-family policies to improve a mother’s ability to have both if they choose to. Some women are happy being mothers, some want a career and, some want both. My point is we should work together to achieve equality for men and women (men also face inequality in some instances).

Ecofeminist Perspective on Abortion 

Ronnie Zoe Hawkins presents an ecofeminist perspective on abortion provides the some links between environmental problems, poverty and population growth. Hawkins suggests that we need to have some form of “human population limitation” (Hawkins 691) in order to escape environmental degradation. Hawkins maintains a stance that, “At the present time, recognition of our connectedness with all other life on the planet reinforces the need for abortion” (Hawkins 693). I don’t disagree that there is an issue with population control but also I don’t think this is the sole issue. It is everyone’s responsibility (not just women’s) to ensure a healthy environment.   There are issues contributing to environmental degradation on the private sector such as unregulated corporation waste practices and violations of environmental laws that are already in place that should be taken into account. For example P&G’s “climate commitment” only applies to what are known corporate greenhouse gas accounting as scope I and 2 emissions (Axeirod) but, “But they’re only a fraction of the true impact of P&G’s operations” (Axeirod). See the website for further information on greenhouse gas emission cover-ups. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/josh-axelrod/corporate-honesty-and-climate-change-time-own-and-act.

Works Cited

Axeirod, Joshua. NDRC.org. 26 February 2019. 5 March 2020 <https://www.nrdc.org/experts/josh-axelrod/corporate-honesty-and-climate-change-time-own-and-act>.

Gordon, John-Stewart. Abortion. 5 March 2020 <https://www.iep.utm.edu/abortion/>.

Hawkins, Ronnie Zoe. “Reproductive Choices: The Ecological Dimension.” Contradictions: Controversies in Feminist Social Ethics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1993. 690-693.

Valenti, Jessica. “Abortion isn’t about the right to privacy. It’s about the right to equality.” The Guardian (2014).

Annotated Source: Axeirod, Joshua. NDRC.org

Author Joshua Axelord explores the growing environmental concerns attached to the deliberate dishonesty of big corporations. He details how corporations like P&G use unethical tactics to portray they are not contributing as much greenhouses gases, but they actually are by not including all the information to the public. He agrues there needs to be government involvement that will hold big corporations accountable and lessen their power in todays world with policy change.