“The Fundamental Right to Choice”

This week, contributing writers responded to last week’s anti-abortion article in The Amherst Student. The response article entitled, “The Fundamental Right to Choice,” refutes many claims made in “Stand Up and Defend Life,” asserting first that fetuses -unlike newborn infants and college students -do not have “bodily autonomy and independence.” Therefore, the writers argue, abortion cannot be likened to murder, as was claimed in the anti-abortion article.  Their primary assertion was that drawing parallels between the termination of a pregnancy and acts of murder, such as the Holocaust, undermines both the rights and pain of sentient human beings.

The writers also acknowledged that “Stand Up and Defend Life” at least brought a feminist issue to the forefront of Amherst College’s consciousness. The article celebrated the responses to the original article for engaging the campus in an open debate, yet the suggested that perhaps respect for the anti-abortion choice was not necessary:

“…You don’t need to be polite in the face of an argument for your rights to be taken away. You don’t need to respect an opinion if it continues the systemic oppression of every person capable of being pregnant.”

What do you think? How restrained (or n0t) should debates of this nature be?

Reactions to The Amherst Student’s anti-abortion article?

An article in the February 15th edition of The Amherst Student entitled, “On the Issues: Stand Up and Defend Life,” delineated various arguments against abortion. The article touched upon a range of points -likening the termination of pregnancy to Stalin’s regime, questioning what the world might be like if Steve Job’s mother had terminated her pregnancy, and drawing parallels between the destruction of a bald eagle’s egg and abortion. (Let us here imagine that bald eagles are not in fact endangered species). However,  the article rests primarily on the argument that abortion is murder, as the writer “believes that life begins at conception.” Fetuses’ right to life, writes Kaake, necessarily outweighs a woman’s right to her body. The logic suggests the quantity of “lives” produced, and not the quality of lives lived, is most important in determining whether a woman is allowed to terminate a pregnancy. Kaake maintains that abortion is immoral and should be illegal even in cases of incest and rape that result in pregnancy.Kaake argues that abortion, like slavery, casts a darkness over American history and is “one of the greatest evils”  this nation has ever seen. (Kaake does not seem to recognize how he essentially posits women as slaves to their own bodies and humanity by forcing them to carry out unwanted pregnancies. )

He suggests a number alternatives to abortion: public high  schools could offer child-care services to encourage teenage mothers to carry out pregnancies and support them in raising children once they do; women could give their babies up for adoption, “giving the gift of parenthood to people who have the time, love and resources to care for and raise a baby.” Moreover, he writes, communities could increase their awareness of teenage pregnancy and support of young motherhood.

What is not addressed in the article, however, are any policies the writer might imagine for preventing undesired pregnancies in the first place. Although he seems quite taken with the many alternatives to abortion once a woman learns she is pregnant,  he seems unconcerned with preventative measures that could and should be taken to steer women from being forced to make such decisions at all.

The 9th Circuit has rejected CA’s Prop. 8!

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has narrowly rejected Proposition 8, the 2008 ban on gay marriage in the state of California. While the ruling is no doubt a step in the right direction to secure equality for all citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, advocates should prepare for an impending legal battle. Proposition 8′s backer, ProtectMarriage, will have two weeks to appeal to the circuit court and 90 days to petition Supreme Court review. Carefully crafted wording, however, which limits the decision to California alone, may have guaranteed the controversial proposition’s ban.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop8-20120208,0,7729505.story

Komen rescinds its decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood

Following national outcry over Susan G. Komen’s decision to cut funding to Planned Parenthood as an organization under investigation, the foundation refined its criteria for approving grants. In a statement, Komen announced that from now on, funding shall not be cut to recipients for political reasons and that only criminal activity will disqualify organizations from receiving Komen funding. Despite the clarification of its support for Planned Parenthood, one should take note of the massive national support Planned Parenthood received when it appeared that women’s health was under attack. The controversy has called into question the public’s year-round support for women’s reproductive rights, as private donations came flooding in only as Komen funding was cut.

Susan G. Komen Foundation cuts its funding to Planned Parenthood.

While some decry the Komen decision, others point out the media attention Planned Parenthood has received because of it. Studies have shown that lower income women are more likely than their affluent counterparts to be diagnosed with breast cancer, yet it seems that the former are put at even higher risk with the recent Komen decision to cut its funding to Planned Parenthood for preventative screenings. What do you think?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/susan-g-komen_n_1247262.html

WAGS Talk

Welcome to the Women’s and Gender Studies Blog WAGS Talk. This is the place for you to discuss the work you are doing in your WAGS classes or to share news, ideas, and thoughts about women’s and men’s lives in context, and  gender in its contexts.