Ronnie Zoe Hawkins holds what could be seen as a radical idea concerning abortion. She sees abortion as being a needed form of birth control in order to limit the population and to curtail global destruction. I wholeheartedly agree with her.
When looking at abortion from an ecofeminist perspective, there are two sides to the argument. On one side is Hawkins view and on the other is the idea that nature must be left how it is, that a pregnancy must be allowed to continue. Ivone Gebara calls this view “lofty, tender and idealistic” (Gebara 132).
Our planet is overpopulated and with each additional human being on this planet, it is additional damage to our home. As I write this it is 11 AM and according to the world clock, there have already been 100,000 more births than there were deaths. So far this year there have been almost 17 million more births than there have been deaths.
As this overpopulation continues to grow an ecofeminist must look at the state of the planet. Without abortion this would be even worse. Hawkins states that in 1986 alone, the population grew by 82 million. There were 54 million abortions performed that year according to her statistics. So without abortion the population would have grown by 136 million people. That is for one year alone.
Humans cause destruction to this world that we live in. We funnel toxins into the air and destroy the forests all in the name of profit. What will happen once all the forests have been destroyed? Once all the plant life dissipates? The earth as a whole will be unable to breathe. With each birth our world becomes more and more overpopulated. So why should we force women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
Gebara describes the ecofeminist perspective as one that wants life for all beings but she knows this is not possible and so therefore comes to the conclusion that “we do not want to struggle to uphold principles at the cost of unnecessary suffering of fully developed persons” (Gebara 134). She puts a humanist perspective to Hawkins argument. While both are ecofeminists, they look at the topic of abortion from different perspectives. Hawkins looks at the fact that abortion curtails our ever growing population in necessary measures. “Our connectedness with all other life on this planet reinforces the need for abortion” (Hawkins 693).
These two women agree on the need for abortion and this two sided view of this argument is what I agree with. Hawkins can tend to feel clinical when reading as she points out how “abortion plays an important role in limiting the ecologically damaging effects of the human population” (Hawkins 692). What she does though is distance herself from the human suffering that necessitates abortion and instead focuses on the damages to the earth that humans inflict upon it. Why I brought Gebara into this argument is that she adds that humanity to this discussion as she focuses on the human need for abortion. The lives of the humans that abortion affects, rather than on the lives of the plants and animals living on this earth that Hawkins stresses.
Works Cited
That was very thoughtful and well written. I agree with both writers as well, although I move closer to the humanitarian aspect of the need for abortion. The concept, however, that abortion is a medical procedure and private health choice for the individual seems to me the most important aspect of the argument. And maybe that ship has sailed. Maybe the argument needs to be of a more global nature, much like Hawkins writes. Yes, abortion curbs population growth, and yes, until we treat nature with the respect it deserves women will continue to suffer from the lack of access to abortion and birth control. But I believe that until women are over 50% of the seats in political office, and probably board rooms across nations, this will continue to be a controversy. And are we, as educated women and feminists, grasping at arguments to convince the other gender that abortion is necessary? It seems to be so to me sometimes.
If we look at Norways political system today, three out of four of the top positions in government are filled by women (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/norway-government-latest-women-three-most-senior-roles-ine-eriksen-s-reide-erna-solberg-siv-jensen-a8012396.html). And they’re getting shit done. Quickly I might add. Clearly this is the agenda that should be on everyone’s mind and heart. Especially with the Covid19 crisis we’re facing now and the lack of leadership at the top. I would guarantee that if Elizabeth Warren were President right now, we’d most like be in a much better place. She’d have a plan for this and she wouldn’t have fired the rapid response section of the health department. My main argument still stands – until women have majority rule, abortion will remain on the table.
Hi Kiera
I really like how you integrated Ivone Gebara’s more “humanist” view on how abortion can impact our ecosystem versus Hawkins more practical view. Although I disagree with abortion I can see how pro-choice can affect the population problem and in turn, ecosystem problem in a positive way. It is easy to see that abortions will decrease the population therefore according to Hawkins decreasing the threat to our ecosystems resources and our subsequent survival. I would argue that teaching the existing population how to live in a sustainable way is equally effective. Beyond that I think laws and legislation will have to change to enforce new ways of living to combat ecosystem degradation. You pointed out that Gebara’s view of abortion made your knowledge of what Hawkins addressed more clearly. I think it’s interesting how we can identify what our stance is on something when we expand our understanding based on more literature and research. Although I don’t believe there is a human need for abortion for population control I do understand why people see it as a solution. I also think it’s just as important to consider other alternatives. Abortion and birth control have always served as a form of population control disguised as a women’s right to choice (sometimes unknowingly) to women to cause birth defects, and infertility. The reverse affect is taking the right away from a women who wants to have children. I think we, as women need to take responsibility as a whole both environmentally and socially and personally in order to address ecological concerns.
Hi Kiera,
I really enjoyed reading you post this week. I think you explained Hawkins argument very well and brought in a similar argument that connected to your discussion perfectly. Like I stated in my own post I can definitely understand where Hawkins is coming from because there are so many facts to prove the negative impact that population growth has on the environment. If people considered this when in a position to have an abortion it would bring a lot of awareness to the over population on this planet. Gebara’s perspective can be connected to Hawkins but there is definitely definitely some differences in opinion between the two. Hawkin’s view is definitely something to consider, but I think people are more likely to understand Gebara’s view. Like you said Hawkins view is very radical. You can tell that Hawkins is very passionate about the environment and the conditions of all wildlife. She says ” With the direction of habitats and the fragmentation of populations entire species are dwindelng and disappearing as a result of human activities” (Hawkins 691). That sentence makes it clear that human population growth is becoming an issue and it is having a negative impact on the rest of nature. Though her view might be hard for some people to understand it is definitely something that can be taken into consideration.
Hi Kiera,
To answer your question that you posed on my blog… I do not believe that the government should step in to control population in the form of sterilization or any form of force. I think that the government could entice families to limit the number of children they have by offering tax incentives. Like the tax incentive currently in place; the earned income credit that in rewards families for having multiple children. Perhaps if a couple has no children their tax break is the highest and then reduces per child they decide to have. Perhaps even taxing couples heavily that choose to have more than two children. I think those ideas would work in controlling the population.
I read an interesting article https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-and-sustainability/ , about population sustainability and how the US government ignores the population conversation by focusing on immigrants. By putting the focus on immigration it fails to notice the population among Americans themselves. In the UK this issue is in the public and is calling for measures to reduce the birth rate. The bottom line is that we have to do something about the condition of the environment. “Already the earth is experiencing harsher droughts, fiercer storms and higher sea levels”(Engelman).
I think that while abortion is a viable option in controlling population in parts of the world. It is in my opinion irresponsible to use it as birth control. If it is used as a last resort option, then I am completely on board. Regardless, population control is a must in sustaining our resources and even reversing some of the damage we’ve already done to the earth. Like you pointed out in your blog post, the earth is slowly suffocating and will become uninhabitable one day if we don’t so something quick.
There’s a philosopher by the name of Travis Rieder in Baltimore, who teaches population control to his classes. He also believes very strongly that the best way to save the earth is to stop over populating it. https://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change. Since I don’t think that it’s effective to simply ask people to consider limiting their family sizes, I do believe that several factors are and will contribute to making a difference. 1) incentivizing couples to have smaller families with tax breaks or income incentives. 2) The more gender equality that we see the more women will enter into male dominated careers. These women will likely decide to wait to have children and when they do, they have limited numbers of children. 3) legalized abortion available to all women, free of religious or societal judgment 4) more education on sustainability, global warming and ecology. I believe these faculties will naturally create population control.
I do agree with both writers as well, I am more so leaning towards the side pertaining to the humans affected by abortion. However, I do believe that both are very important I do not believe that abortion should be used to control the population, if you are under normal circumstances and being irresponsible during intercourse knowing you are not prepared or able to care for a child you should not be having unprotected sex. I do believe if everyone held themselves accountable and responsible for their actions the population rate would not be as high and neither would the nature consumption rating. I appreciate you sharing both aspects they are both very important.