Ricia, of Impetus Java House, our passionate neighbor to the North, has posted one of the best commentaries I have seen on the new South Dakota law stripping women of the right to an abortion (my phrasing is intentional, their basic rights are being denied by an unjust governor and state). Thanks Ricia... as a male I appreciate your insights into the gender politics of this decision (I recommend everyone check out the original post as it is loaded with important insights and sources)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Excerpt from Double Expresso #2 - State concern for Women
Interesting that economics and social status, do not entire the fray when speaking to the "interests of the pregnant mother". Men and father are not mentioned either. It is the duty of the state to protect a woman's fundamental role as a Mother, is what they mean. But men are on their own I guess. Family and parenthood and all that women-stuff.
The assumption that the state has insight on any individual's relationship with potential parenthood, is absurd. The state is a political thing & concept. Soon to be parents are individual people. The typical focus on womens role as Mother (not as a Person) surrounding reproductive rights, is deliberate and in keeping with the popularized anti-abortionist profile. This particular strain of 'Mother' has a desirable moral status in society, a Woman does not. Therefore women need someone elses moral compass to keep them properly informed and gallantly protected from making their own choices.
As for the duty of the state? As usual, there is no mention of replacing current options and creating more options. No mention of state support, programs, community initiatives. Let alone that of repairing social-economic potholes, pay equity, implementing paternity and maternity leave policies, improving childcare or health services. And, how will this dutiful state manage the stark increase in orphans (that already crowd into foster homes and adoption agencies), how will they deal with the resulting maternal deaths, suicides, etc ...?
No. The explicit focus here is only upon revoking what choice there is for women whom are already pregnant, to ensure that they remain pregnant (regardless of their circumstances). Not before they are pregnant, not after they give birth. Just upon conception. And the state wants the j-u-s-t-i-c-e system to rule on their behalf (not on the behalf of individual women).
Isn't it possible to assess the needs and possible solutions surrounding reproductive rights and issues that isn't about how-to-control women? Is the state willing to force men into parenthood too? Let us imagine them speaking to men of their reproductive rights and responsibilities... Or, is that just too messy...?
No comments:
Post a Comment