In Hawkings reading on reproductive choice “The Ecological Dimension” Ronnie Zoe Hwkins she discusses the matter of population and its affects on the environment and the concumption of nature due to over population and how abortion is an aspect of that in some places around the globe. I do believe that we eventually will be overpopulated if we aren’t already, I have heard of instances in some countries where they limit the amount of children to be born per family/household, and if you have twins to make you exceed that amount then you must give one of them up for adoption.
As far as population and nature consumptions is concerned Hawkins mentioned the reduction of nature consumption by decreasing the number of us that consume. I support that statement, but not under the circumstances of abortion. I do believe as humans many of us have a tendency to overuse and waste just about anything. In terms of being mindful of the overuse and over consumption of nature people need to care before they are taught how to reduce their waste and consumption. Otherwise, we would be teaching and giving information to those who do not have the urge to make that difference so all of us can have the free will and freedom to birth as many children as we please. I do not believe in abortion as a way to control population or to regulate population.
I support Hawkin’s “idea” of reducing nature consumption, but not in that manner. As far as the pro-life act is concerned we as women have always been told what to do with our bodies for what seems like forever, to take into consideration “on set movement, conciousness, ability to feel pain, and viability (Internet Encyclopedia of philosphy)” is something I agree with. Abortion is a very touchy subject, I do believe a woman should be able to do as she pleases with their body, but I also strongly believe that as women and adults we should hold the responsibility to use contracetption and be mindful of decisions when putting ourselevs in situations susceptible to pregnancy. However, I do believe that there should be a limit on the number of abortions a woman can have under certain circumstances, many woman abuse this option and have unprotected intercourse with numerous men and get pregnant time and time again and constantly get into the office for an abortion. It is difficult to decide or agree upon one way or another, there are so many ifs involved, what is ethical and what is not. In turn, I support Hawkin’s idea to manage over consumption of nature, but I do not support abortion as an option in order to improve the consumption circumstances or overpopulaion.
Annotations
Reproductive choices: The ecological dimension Ronnie Zoe Hawkins, the idea of over population having an effect on nature consumption and the fear of nature not being able to compensate for the over production of lives, possibly using abortion to gain control
Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy:Abortion, definition and circumstances of abortion.
Hello!
The statement at the beginning of your blog, “I have heard of instances in some countries where they limit the amount of children to be born per family/household, and if you have twins to make you exceed that amount then you must give one of them up for adoption”, is interesting because China, for example, has had the one-child policy.
The one-child policy began during the 1970’s following a ten year span of a two-child policy during the enforcement of the communist government that was to control the population growth. As of October 2015, the Chinese government changed this rule back to the two-child policy to combat some of the issues that the one child-policy had created.
Abortion is clearly widely accessible and supposedly there were a lot of voluntary abortions because of the desire to have a boy instead of a girl. However, there were also mandatory abortions if you become pregnant a second time, and there were also other mandatory birth control contraception and sterilization processes.
Although it obviously addresses population control – it does not fully give the woman 100% agency over her own body. There are additional issues such as a high population of elderly people, and an uneven sex ratio.
https://futureofworking.com/9-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-the-one-child-policy/
https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/13/health/china-one-child-policy-population-growth/index.html
Hi Juliana,
I do see where you are coming from with your personal beliefs and agreements/disagreements with Hawkins’s theory. While I personally share the opposite to your opinion, I definitely understand and recognize how abortion may not be a suitable means for population control. As you stated, we could simply learn as a society to consume less resources and live more sustainably in order to conserve natural resources. Another point you brought up with availability to contraception and family planning. In an article I found from Vox, environmental journalist David Roberts identifies that proper resources for female reproductive health rather than abortions in this case. Roberts provides that fighting for family planning such as contraception for all women, better family planning, and proper sex education would be a huge factor in limiting the birth rate (Roberts 1). In his writings, it is recognized that rather than advocating for more abortions, we can rather advocate for better reproductive resources and programs for women so they would not have to have unplanned pregnancies that lead to abortion (Roberts 1). Unfortunately, as Hawkins stated in her writings, most developing countries do not have the access to contraception such as birth control or other family planning services as the US or other countries have, which leaves abortion as a primary option in most cases (Hawkins 692). So in this case, maybe fighting for increased access for all women globally having reproductive rights and methods of family planning, we would not have a need for more abortions.
Source:
Roberts, David. “‘I’m an Environmental Journalist, but I Never Write about Overpopulation. Here’s Why.”.” Vox, Vox, 29 Nov. 2018, http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/9/26/16356524/the-population-question.
Hi Juliana,
I see why you wouldn’t agree with Hawkins’ idea of controlling population through abortion, but at the same time I don’t think that is what she means. I think that what she is saying is that abortion is a way of reducing population, but not that this should be the absolute method for population control. Her saying that abortion is the absolute method for population control would be a little extreme. What she is trying to point out is that abortion can help alleviate this problem, therefore, abortion is not so bad after all. Also, a very important point in the reading was that abortion is often related with women’s disconnection from our own nature, but that in fact part of our nature is making decisions for ourselves and for others. Therefore, our nature does not only depend on having children. Part of decision-making is analyzing the pros and the cons, and in terms of the environment, abortions can help save our planet since we already are so overcrowded (even though women don’t necessarily think about it this way when they decide to have an abortion, they usually do it for other reasons). Also, bringing more children into this world sometimes means putting them through suffering and poverty because we lack resources. These are the things that she is trying to make people aware of when she says that abortion can help with population reduction.
Hi Juliana,
I understand where you are coming from on your position to not support abortion in the sense of a method of population control. However, I agree with Natalia in this case, because I don’t believe that Hawkins was intending abortion to be the main method of population control in her argument. I don’t agree with your point about seemingly picking and choosing / limiting the amount of abortions a woman is allowed to have. Because I believe abortion should be an unalienable right for women no matter what (given proper regulations, of course). Women should be allowed to have as many abortions as they need during their life time. Coming from an eco-feminist point of view, I believe that it really does make sense to utilize abortion in the way that Hawkins describes. Not only is it a way to control the population (even though it may be a drop in the bucket, it IS something), but also a way of conserving and looking after life on this Earth, as it already is (i.e. the people seeking abortions, how it effects their well being and state of mind, nature and how / what we consume, the consumers…).
Hey Juliana,
I agree with your notion of prioritizing birth control over abortion. I can’t imagine why anyone would prefer to have an abortion over utilizing birth control, but I can see why some people might end up being repeat patients in abortion clinics. In some parts of the world women have less liberty than in America over their reproduction, and as Hawkins points out many aren’t utilizing birth control as much as abortion, relative to a developed country, as a result of where they live. “Women, bearing an increasingly large burden of poverty, are increasingly seeking to limit their family size, but frequently, for institutional or social reasons, they are denied access to the means for doing so” (Hawkins). While in some places women enjoy easy access to preventative birth control measures and abortion, some women elsewhere may only be able to utilize the latter, if anything. With proper education and assistance in acquiring birth control, woman can be responsibly planning head to avoid an unwanted outcome, instead of getting an abortion to correct the unintended pregnancy or having the baby and adding to the increasing population.
It seems like we are getting close to being fully booked here on Earth, but that may not necessarily be the case. As you said, humans do tend to be wasteful, at least here in America. Hawkins cause of concern isn’t specifically the physical number of people on Earth, because even with 20 Billion people we would physically be able to live and not be on top of each other in terms of space if we were to distribute more evenly. The pressing issue is instead the strain we put on Earth’s resources in addition to the destruction of nature and disruption of wildlife. “Estimates of the maximum number of people the planet’s resources will support with intensive management vary widely, and depend on a variety of assumptions” (Hawkins). Although she does note that the estimates are made assuming intensive management, which I assume to mean careful use of resources, she mentioned the estimates vary and depend on predictions, which we are able to steer away from. This could mean ditching fossil fuel and finding alternatives to things we depend on. If we can change our lifestyles and become more aware not only how we are expending resources, but also how to regenerate resources and opt for more sustainable options in the place, we can accommodate more people on the planet. That would involve getting people to care about the impact they make, as you had said.
I think your views on abortion are not uncommon, being that you agree with women taking into consideration morally relevant points like on set of movement and viability while also believing that a woman should do as she pleases with her body. Many people are not comfortable denying women the freedom to have control over their bodies, but at the same time think we should not take abortion lightly. In some states, women are forced to have an ultrasound before an abortion in an attempt to get them to consider the life of the fetus and the morally relevant points re brought to center as the fetuses current state is being shown. I found a Time Magazine article by Eliana Dockterman Will Looking at an Ultrasound Before an Abortion Change Your Mind? The article looked in to the efficacy of the law in preventing abortions, and as it turns out, it wasn’t very. Apparently, you don’t have to see the images, but 42.5% decided to, even though more than 90% were highly certain they wanted the abortion. “The 1.6 percent of women who viewed the sonograms and decided to carry their pregnancy to term all had medium or low certainty about the procedure when interviewed before the ultrasound” ( Dockterman). What this shows is that viewing the ultrasound only was meaningful enough to change the mind of those who were uncertain to begin with, and only a portion of them, far from the 90% percent that had been falsely claimed to of had a change of heart. These laws could assist women who are undecided in making a decision by helping them consider their baby in a medical setting with professionals to guide them, and answer questions relating to the morally relevant breaks and where their child is at in relation to them. The requirement could be viewed as an undue burden to many women who have made up their minds already, but to some who are struggling with finding direction, it is a catalyst to helpful discussion of something that is deeply important.
https://time.com/469/will-looking-at-an-ultrasound-before-an-abortion-change-your-mind/