Sunday, March 29, 2009

feminist philosophies

I'm reading Feminist Philosophies" and am currently on the essay "Mother/State/Foetus Conflicts" by Christine Overall "

The cornerstone of foetal rights advocates position is the belief that the foetus has a right to life... and the claim that it is alive and a human being. She agrees that the foetus is alive and a human being, but this is where she loses me:

"Although foetal-rights advocates stress the alleged right to life of the foetus, they say virtually nothing of what I believe is another, but more covert set of assumptions: that the foetus has the right to the use of the pregnant woman's body, that that right should be legally protected, and hence that the woman has an obligation not to abort, and to permit any intervention in her body that is thought medically necessary for the sake of the foetus." *jaw drop*

Her supporting argument is a hypothetical example around the idea that though she has a right to life that doesn't give her the right to hook herself up to your body for days, weeks or months on end in order to cure or alleviate her life threatening illness.

"The reason for this is simple: for me to claim the right to the use of your body would be an assertion of ownership, and we know that slavery is wrong. Hence, even if the foetus does have a right to life, it does not follow that the foetus has the right to the use and occupancy of the pregnant woman's body."

I cannot believe this essay made it to print with the arguments above as the core of her pro-choice stance. She makes it seem as thought the foetus is an encroaching alien that has popped up out of nowhere and is demanding that it be accommodated, and that the poor put-upon pregnant woman played absolutely no part in its sudden existence. I am incensed that at no stage has she addressed the reason the foetus is "squatting" in the woman's body; while there are always exceptions, most women who find themselves pregnant own some of the responsibility.

This is a tough issue and after a LOT of thought I am neither pro-life or pro-choice. I believe a woman absolutely has the right to decide what happens to her body. I also believe in the sanctity of life, and if a woman has consensual sex she gives a foetus the right to her body. Therefore if she finds herself pregnant she has obligated herself to act responsibly.

It's irrelevant what anyone except what the pregnant woman think she should do about an unwanted pregnancy, and irrational arguments like Overall's undermine's the pro-choice stance and a womans right to should she choose to terminate.

2 comments:

  1. great post - i once read an article stating that the foetus hasn't developed any sensory cells by a certain point in development (i think it was up to 8 weeks). By arguing this point, one stance was that the foetus was just a lump of cells - therefore pro-choice got a nod. At the same time, these cells hold the secret ingredient of life - i.e. our DNAs, therefore had the potential to grow into something complex - therefore pro-life got a nod...

    it's a very very difficult topic to land on either side with - as you stated, to act responsibly and logically is the only way... kinda like the chicken and the egg... what's more valuable?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am tardy with responding to comments. I could never pick a side based on reason or morality because I agree with parts of both sides of the debate. I am however in favour of pro-choice legislation because only a woman and her partner have the right to make such a decision, and the law has an obligation to accommodate whatever direction they wish to go.

    ReplyDelete