Abortion: Is a Woman A Person? by Ellen Willis brings important attention, that is often overlooked when debating the morals of abortion, to women and their rights. The problem with antiabortionists, or "pro lifers" is that when they argue against abortion they hardly if ever mention the woman or her rights. "In their zeal to preserve fetal life at all costs, antiabortionists are
ready to grant fetuses more legal protection than people," (Willis, 390). There is nowhere in our constitution where it states that a fetus is a person, nor can our country's best scientists agree when the exact moment human life begins, so in the end antiabortionists are defending the potential and forgetting the life that is already existing, which would be the woman's who is a human being with rights.
A great example that Ellen Willis brings up that shows how forgotten women can be in the whole abortion equation is a piece written by Gary Wills where he compares the snail darter's right to life and the killing in Vietnam to abortion (Willis, 390). Not only are there flaws in his conclusions, but there is even a bigger flaw to his whole piece: Not once were the rights of women spoken of or even touched on. You cannot argue something without thinking about the bigger picture and the context, which in the case of abortion would be the woman and her rights. What antiabortionists need to take into consideration is why women have abortions and also the consequences and implications to the the mother and potential child when a pregnancy is forced to term. Forced pregnancies could harm the woman's body or mind, and the child would be in an atmosphere where the child is not wanted. This could lead to neglect or abuse of the child. Forced pregnancies would also push women to taking matters into their own hands which could include ending the pregnancy themselves or seeking illegal abortions that are not safe and could cause serious health issues or even death.
Another important point Willis made was comparing abortion with self defense. This was a take on abortion that I have not heard of before and after reading her explanation on how abortion is clearly self defense it made complete sense within our society's context. Even though feminism has brought men and women closer to equality, there is still a gap that has yet to be breached. Our country still functions within a patriarchal structure where men are still deemed to be dominant in politics. Our congress and leading positions in large companies mostly consist of men. There is still unequal pay between genders, with men making more. And the list can go on as Willis writes: "We live in a society that defines child rearing as the mother's job; a
society in which most women are denied access to work that pays enough
to support a family, child-care facilities they can afford, or any
relief from the constant, daily burdens of mother hood; a society that
forces mothers into dependence on marriage or welfare and often into
permanent poverty; a society that is actively hostile to women's
ambitions for a better life. Under these conditions the unwillingly
pregnant woman faces a terrifying loss of control over her fate," (Willis, 389). So what I do not understand is why a topic such as abortion that solely affects women is being decided by the government which so happens to be made up of mostly men. This is taking a choice that affects a woman's life and putting her fate in the hands of men, which again is limiting the rights of a women. What this comes down to is how women are seen and treated in
our society. If women were solely considered equal, this whole argument on
abortion would no longer be brought up or questioned because it is a
right women should have to freely express their sexuality.
Questions:
How can you argue against abortion without mentioning women? Shouldn't women be the one's making decisions about abortion and not men...since men aren't the ones needing the right to abortions? If pro life people are so focused on the fetus, and potential life, than why aren't they thinking of the environment that the fetus would be born into? Is it really better to have an unwanted child that is vulnerable to neglect and poverty instead of giving women access to abortion?
Thoughts on Questions:
If people who argued against abortion with mentioning and considering women's rights there arguement would probably not make sense or it would be weaker than ignoring womens rights and using something as awful at killing in Vietnam to compare it with. Women need to get into congress to make decisions concerning women to be fair, the problem is getting congress equal of men and women. I think pro life people do not think of or I'm not sure if it even comes into their minds of the bad environments the potential children could be born in. Maybe if they considered such aspects to banning abortion their views would change.
Abortion: Is a Woman a Person? by Ellen Willis relates to Thirty-Four Years Old Today by Pam Houston because Houston writes about how she cannot imagine a world where she did not have the option to decide what to do with her body and in Willis' text it talks about how the antiabortionists are trying to change the world into just that. Houston brings up great points on how she cannot fathom how the senator of Kansas could make her carry a pregnancy for nine months and raise the child for 18 years because that is such a personal and life altering decision she should be able to make, not some senator. Houston talks about different people she knew including herself, who have had abortions and some of the aftermath to their choice, but she draws an important conclusion that how in the end, the way a woman feels about her choice, or how she is living her life does not matter. What matters is she had the choice. And the choice is the right all women should be entitled too and that is what the antiabortionists that Ellen Willis writes about are failing to see.
No comments:
Post a Comment