Paul Andrew Bourne, B.Sc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
The W.H.O must be credited for its involvement in advancing women’s ‘rights’ more so in the area of freedom of reproductive choices, and its effort in the coinage of a conceptualization on the phenomenon. This organization coupled with the United Nations (UN) has extensive researched population issues. They have spearheaded a number of conference to which policy papers have been fashioned and issues have germinated that will address many socio-cultural practices against particular groups. Many of the inequalities in societies have been tackled by those institutions; and the social settings of people are transforming as the political hegemony institutes measures to alleviate many of the inequalities that are brought to there attention from the W.H.O and the U.N.
“ . . . Address the human sexuality and reproductive processes, functions and system at all stages of life and implies that people are able to have a responsible, satisfying and safe sex life and that they have the capacity to reproduce and the freedom to decide if, when and how often to do so” (World Health Organization, (W.H.O).
The monograph of W.H.O on reproduction is the basis upon which this article is written, which is within the context of freedom over ones bodily functions in regards to reproduction. Reproduction in the human kingdom is simply not a matter for the external agents but is the primary responsibility of the involved parties. With this ‘right’ given to the humans, should prenatal terminations by women be the choice of governments or pro-life activists? The conference held in Cairo, Egypt, in 1994 documented a number of discriminatory condemnations meted out to women, globally, and so a formulated position on reproductive health was fashioned that subsumes the ‘right’ of females over their bodies. The United Nation (1994) wrote that:
“The International Conference on Population and Development is not an isolated event. Its Programme of Action builds on the considerable international consensus that has developed since the World Population Conference at Bucharest in 1974, 3/ and the International Conference on Population at Mexico City in 1984, 4/ to consider the broad issues of and interrelationships between population, sustained economic growth and sustainable development, and advances in the education, economic status and empowerment of women. The 1994 Conference was explicitly given a broader mandate on development issues than previous population conferences, reflecting the growing awareness that population, poverty, patter of production consumption and the environment are so closely interconnected that none of them can be considered in isolation.
From the perspective highlighted by the United Nation, the Conference was an international ‘consensus’; and this, therefore, should bind countries. History has shown that there is a proclivity for legislators to institute measures that uphold and protect ‘citizen’ rights, and this relative stance is questioned in regards to prenatal restrictions. From WHO’s perspective to the UN’s monograph, reproductive health is only justified when the female has the freedom of choice to determine her fertility and other bodily function voluntary. This, therefore, is complex as there is sophisticated political system that determines prenatal choices, and this is an ethical issue, so why do many people condemn abortionists?
The pro-life activists continue to forward a perspective that condemns prenatal choices of females despite the formulated stance by W.H.O and the Cairo Conference (United Nations Population Division) on the reproductive ‘rights’ of women. Intertwined in this discourse is anti- view point of Catholicism on the matter, transcending the particular rights to females. Abortion is a pejorative conceptualization, which at the mentioning people discriminate, ostracize and even violent attach pro-abortionists. The condemnation of this issue lies in the perpetuation of the silence of governments and their ideographic of pro-life. Abortion is moral issue. It is fallacious reason offer someone the ‘right’ of reproduction coupled with the restriction to abort a foetus. When the discourse of abortion begins, oftentimes, the first monologue is the ‘taking of a life’. This is dishonest reason and one that is likely to ignite fury as against critically analyzing the phenomenon.
Goodkind (1999) forwarded a position that was endorsed by the Programme of Action in the 1994 UN Conference on Population and Development that reads:
“to eliminate all forms of discrimination against the girl child and the root causes of son preference, which results in harmful and unethical practices regarding female infanticide and prenatal sex selection” (p. 49).
This call is primarily against all form of discriminatory socio-political socialization that blatantly removes the inequalities against women and suppresses their freedom of reproduction. Governance within many societies masked discriminatory polices against females because of traditional norms. The cultural preferences of pro-life activists form the bedrock of government decrees on abortion. Oftentimes the bans on particular issues are not only repressible the post-1994 UN Conference on Population but initiate a ‘black market’ prenatal decision of women that is harmful and highly costly. This situation discriminates against poor women, and further fuels conflict between pro-lifers and abortionists. Post-natal discriminatory policies are not only suppressing the ‘rights’ of women over their bodies but contravenes the UN and W.H.O charter on reproductive rights of people. On the other hand, the formulation of legislation that stipulates conditions whereby abortion is possible contrives the reproductive ‘rights’ of the woman. This situation only gives credence to pro-lifers who condemn abortion, even though there are instances when a woman is raped and the same players empathizes, and even endorse an abortion.
Goodkind (1999) advanced a perspective that highlights the dialectic in reproductive freedom. He argued that on one hand a woman has the ‘reproductive rights’ while on the other she needs to have a medical pundits deliberate over a foetus termination. Goodkind (1999) forwarded a stance that showed how ‘pro-choice advocates’ have managed to craft condemnations on ‘prenatal sex selection’, and in the process made legislators favour made decrees against abortion and prenatal sex selection. It is ironic that a moral matter becomes a legal one. There is ethical ambiguity on the matter of abortion, which is where the problem begins.
The social reality is there are many unwanted children in our societies who are suffering and hurting because of negligent parents. This begins from the inability of poor women to termination pregnancies owing to the high cost of ‘black market’ and the illegality of the matter coupled with the stipulated conditions by the statutes. The backlash is social deviance by the unwanted person. Restrictions on abortion must be coupled with social welfare programmes that will provide for mothers who would have opted for a foetus termination. This must be accompanies by psychological care for the female by the states.
The political sanctions against abortions are predominantly associated with the maintenance of the status quo, and not a protective mechanism of the foetus. As the hegemonic class in any society is able to acquire the necessary consensus, form medical practitioners coupled with the financial resources for the operation and the after care. Abortion, therefore, is a ‘poor’ woman’s constraint, to which child rearing becomes costly. The government should, and cannot, be indifferent to inequalities but must formulate measure that will address those imbalances and protect the average citizen.
Works cited
Goodkind, D. (1999). Should prenatal sex selection be restricted? Ethical question and their implication for research and policy. Population Studies. A journal of demography. (Vol.53, No. 1, March 1999). Houghton Street, London: Population Investigation Committtee.
United Nation (UN). (1994). United Nations population information network (POPIN)
UN Population Division, Department of Economic and Social Affair. http://www.un.org/popin/icpd/conference/offeng/poa.html. (Date viewed, 15 September 2005).