At Night, Alone, I Marry the Bed
Some men have always appreciated a woman that just keeps to silence and assume her role, like a peg in a hole. Much has been done to pressure women into roles that fit to the "better" constructs of society, one being motherhood. Of course this means to imply a family life and that any decent person is a part of a family. This in itself is a false dilemma, and only means to eliminate the possibility of a woman pursuing her own passions apart from any other. For some it's a scary world to have single women running around endeavoring after a career, not seeking a husband, and no kids in sight, the latter entails that her pursuits on such matters become more accessible. I have no issue in considering a woman to carry a sexual appetite just as ravenous as a man's, and both parties have many risks to consider in the STD department, but the man can escape the possibility of becoming pregnant. For this essay I will consider how child bearing doesn't have to be the fate of a woman, and that abortion should be considered a justifiable form of birth control, and left for the woman to decide.
Many opponents of abortion consider there to be no respectable alternative to pregnancy, and that as soon as you become pregnant you have to go through with it. A large portion of this objection consists of the idea of personhood granted to the fetus, but we'll consider that later. I'll first concern myself with the woman's choice in the matter compared to a man's discretion. Let's consider the woman who in fact practices safe sex, and becomes pregnant despite the use of a condom. It's false to say that nothing else can be done, because there is indeed an option available. The woman doesn't have to be a mother, but our history has revealed that most societies like to associate the woman with motherhood. There is no logical premise linking the two notions together other than romantic superstition.
At Night, Alone, I Marry the Bed
Some men have always appreciated a woman that just keeps to silence and assume her role, like a peg in a hole. Much has been done to pressure women into roles that fit to the "better" constructs of society, one being motherhood. Of course this means to imply a family life and that any decent person is a part of a family. This in itself is a false dilemma, and only means to eliminate the possibility of a woman pursuing her own passions apart from any other. For some it's a scary world to have single women running around endeavoring after a career, not seeking a husband, and no kids in sight, the latter entails that her pursuits on such matters become more accessible. I have no issue in considering a woman to carry a sexual appetite just as ravenous as a man's, and both parties have many risks to consider in the STD department, but the man can escape the possibility of becoming pregnant. For this essay I will consider how child bearing doesn't have to be the fate of a woman, and that abortion should be considered a justifiable form of birth control, and left for the woman to decide.
Many opponents of abortion consider there to be no respectable alternative to pregnancy, and that as soon as you become pregnant you have to go through with it. A large portion of this objection consists of the idea of personhood granted to the fetus, but we'll consider that later. I'll first concern myself with the woman's choice in the matter compared to a man's discretion. Let's consider the woman who in fact practices safe sex, and becomes pregnant despite the use of a condom. It's false to say that nothing else can be done, because there is indeed an option available. The woman doesn't have to be a mother, but our history has revealed that most societies like to associate the woman with motherhood. There is no logical premise linking the two notions together other than romantic superstition. It was Mary's duty to give birth to and care for Christ, and so shall the rest of the women in the world be the carriers of children for all time. Funny how this tall tale fits this situation so adequately, God hands her down a child without considering whether she wanted it or not, and then he leaves her to it without His aid. My mistake, it was Gabriel that God sent to inform Mary of His metaphysical sperm injection, the almighty must've been busy flooding another landscape inhabited by the very people he created. This is not to say all men tuck tale and run, but some carry a God complex in thinking they have any say over a woman's fate. Men may carry the worry if they choose to become involved with the pregnancy, and there after if they stick around to be a father, but they still will never have the opportunity to experience the wonderful majesty that is childbirth; the screams, weight-gain, vomit n' all. Birth also carries the risk of death seeing that unpredictable complications may arise. None of the struggles of birth evades the mind of a woman upon knowledge of pregnancy, and it's not too difficult to foresee the further complications that will arise after the birth, both economic and physical. Jacobson states just the same in that, "...each woman weighs the decision in the context of her own sense of fairness, ability to care for a child, and personal circumstances and needs." Opponents wish to rule out the idea that a woman can exist with her own sense of contextualizing, and it isn't within her right to have considerations the deviate from the plan that society has decided works best for her. Jacobson also notes how tensions may arise from women having the ability to alter gender roles in our society by creating alternative options to motherhood, and this may be incentive for men to support a pro-life clause. I personally find it to be quite crude to contort any person into one's personal idea of fate when in the manipulator's mind he knows there are alternatives available. Abortion may not be the most pleasant of options, but like any form of birth control it enables a woman to decide what will not be included in her future.
Before I proceed to Jaggar's piece, let's consider a hypothetical that may shed some light onto the absurdity of the pro-life clause for the reasons given above. Let's consider x who wishes to have the last apple on a table, and before even reaching to grab it he's imagining how juicy and tasty it will be. The future is so agreeable and attainable if it weren't for y stepping in and grabbing it before him. This is the reality of others. I can't conclude that there would be a situation between x and the apple minus y, seeing as this would leave x to have a relationship with an object in the world. For me, a good part of relationships consists of reciprocation, and this includes the ability of one of the players to refuse to reciprocate. If x were to behold the apple and before biting it were to ask the apple if it would prefer another fate I would love to see a universe, that wasn't of the animated sort, that could produce such results that would entail the apple's objection. Even if y weren't a part of the scenario, x would project himself onto the world so as to manifest an effigy similar to an imaginary friend, because for his efforts to carry validity there must be another by which to effect or be effected by. How may one steal if there's no one to steal from? So if we are to reinsert y so x may partake in human relations, it might be viewed that it's in his best interest to ensure that y is controlled so as to prevent her from taking the apple. By doing this x has returned to isolation in that if y is stricken from having choice, she is no different from an object. As was noted with the apple, relationships aren't possible with objects, so his quest has become absurd. However x can always prefer to be in a world all his own and be content with isolation, but this in all isn't possible seeing as he will become his own object, his eye will focus on himself as a being outside himself to be viewed. These notions stroll more through the abstract, but I couldn't help but indulge into the phenomenological implications that may arise when dealing with oppression.
In Jaggar's article on the subject she takes the position where the choice of birth should belong entirely to the female carrier. She argues that it's the sole responsibility of the child's protector to have moral authority over decision's relating to either the fetus or the child. The protector is someone who makes all possible effort to provide for the child's every need, such as food, health, shelter, clothing, etc. The protector then is someone whose seeks to guarantee a child's right to life in every immediate moment. This is meant to strike absentee fathers, but is more directed toward the State and other third parties who wish to direct the welfare of individuals from afar. This is much meant to suppose that the State regulates affairs much like a king would. A king is best at deciding what's best for the people while not being a part of the people. The State takes no uniquely direct care of the child in question, but instead exists merely to support itself in that it doesn't take consideration of unique situations as they exist. The State's approach involves formulating Kantian-like maxims where the intrinsic value of a situation is thought to be more valuable than the consequences that might follow. Much like mine and Jacobson's argument made against pending fathers, the effect of the pregnancy and the care involved with child bearing in all it's forms is solely the woman's burden in that the State isn't guaranteeing the child's right to life in the terms stated above, it by no means fits the qualifications of protector, and thus has no moral authority over the decision to abort.
However, Jaggar's view does carry a technical snag. If the protector is someone who "...make(s) a genuine attempt to guarantee all of a child's needs, both before and after its birth..." then the pending mother who decides to abort may not be seen as the protector seeing as this role is filled by someone who pursues a child's right to life both before and after birth. I don't know why she would include this clause seeing as a paragraph prior she stated that "To be born, then, is only one of the necessary conditions for a full human life..." meaning that a right to life pertains only to those having been born. If she is to stick with the before birth premise, then would restrict all parties from laying claim to protector.
In class, there were students who found immediate disapproval of Jaggar stepping around any notion's of personhood on the subject. I wasn't bothered by her maneuver to simply assume that an unborn has not the right to life, but the instant question of personhood was proposed in class by the idea of infanticide (a word that apparently I can only pronounce on my better days). This objection is directed toward her notions of the State being inadequately associated as the protector. If her claim that the state should have no moral authority over a mother's decisions regarding her child's right to life, then no action should be taken against mothers who commit infanticide. For reasons other than for controversy's sake, I will support the idea that infanticide is permissible seeing as these objections are made on the basis to debase her grounds for refuting State authority, and not abortion. The infanticide objection implies a level of personhood to the victims in question, but if the objection is being made by those that are pro-choice then we have an obvious conflict of interest. Somehow the fetus, who we had no problem aborting, is a person only seconds from exiting the womb. We can claim this because infanticide is considered murder, while abortion isn't. How did this happen? Of course there will be those who exert that both are murder, which I will address as well, but for those in class that brought up this issue there was clear question begging in that personhood was implied without a definition being laid out for application. This also follows from ignorance by placing the burden of proof on me, a burden that I'm more than happy to abort by accepting that personhood is something beyond apprehension. Both my classmates, and pro-lifers (which my classmates may be as well) presume this issue to rest on the human status of the fetus/child, but any attempt to define what makes a person a person has been met with insurmountable barriers. Some will argue that personhood consists of simply being a living being, much like in the case of infanticide, the infant may not be a moral agent (which would rule out moral agency as a definitive constituent of personhood), but it's still a living being. It goes without saying then, that any harm done to a living being is wrong, but what of animals? Clearly animals are living beings and most of us eat them with little or no guilt, especially the Christian. Are meat-eaters murderers? What of us who walk on grass on our way to school? Plants are living beings, those transgressors should be brought up on charges of assault. This is not to demean any efforts by anyone who wishes to attempt to define personhood, but it's clear we're not there yet, and so any assertion of the matter into the abortion debate is clear question begging.
Both of the mentioned authors, I believe, made vital points regarding abortion and why it should be supported. The pro-life position is inadequately named in that it has not the means to define life, and instead looks to regulate and oppress women by restricting their choice, an element that an important factor towards life. This isn't to say that it is the only thing that pertains to the living, but it is what separates us from objects. null
Some men have always appreciated a woman that just keeps to silence and assume her role, like a peg in a hole. Much has been done to pressure women into roles that fit to the "better" constructs of society, one being motherhood. Of course this means to imply a family life and that any decent person is a part of a family. This in itself is a false dilemma, and only means to eliminate the possibility of a woman pursuing her own passions apart from any other. For some it's a scary world to have single women running around endeavoring after a career, not seeking a husband, and no kids in sight, the latter entails that her pursuits on such matters become more accessible. I have no issue in considering a woman to carry a sexual appetite just as ravenous as a man's, and both parties have many risks to consider in the STD department, but the man can escape the possibility of becoming pregnant. For this essay I will consider how child bearing doesn't have to be the fate of a woman, and that abortion should be considered a justifiable form of birth control, and left for the woman to decide.
Many opponents of abortion consider there to be no respectable alternative to pregnancy, and that as soon as you become pregnant you have to go through with it. A large portion of this objection consists of the idea of personhood granted to the fetus, but we'll consider that later. I'll first concern myself with the woman's choice in the matter compared to a man's discretion. Let's consider the woman who in fact practices safe sex, and becomes pregnant despite the use of a condom. It's false to say that nothing else can be done, because there is indeed an option available. The woman doesn't have to be a mother, but our history has revealed that most societies like to associate the woman with motherhood. There is no logical premise linking the two notions together other than romantic superstition.