Paul Andrew Bourne, B.Sc. (Hons); Dip. Edu.
The World Health Organization (W.H.O) is to be lauded for its involvement in the advancement of women’s ‘rights’ in the context of reproductive choices, and its effort in the coinage of a conceptualization and an operationalization on the phenomenon that is important in social research. This organization coupled with the United Nations (U.N) has extensively researched numerous population issues in different areas of this world. They have spearheaded a number of conferences to which policy papers have been fashioned; and issues have germinated that will address many of the socio-cultural biases against particular groups. Those institutions have tackled many of the inequalities in societies; and the social settings of people are transforming as the political hegemony institutes measures to alleviate many of the inequalities that are brought to their attention from W.H.O and UN.
. . . 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 (W.H.O)
W.H.O’s monograph on reproduction is the basis upon which this article is written, which is within the context of freedom over one’s bodily functions concerning 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 that subsumes the ‘right’ of females over their bodies was fashioned. 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 Nations, 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 concerning prenatal restrictions. From WHO’s perspective on the UN’s monograph, reproductive health is only justified when the female has the freedom of choice to determine her fertility and other bodily functions voluntarily. This is complex as there is a 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 UN’s Conference in Cairo on the reproductive ‘rights’ of women. Intertwined in this discourse is the Catholicism viewpoint on the matter, transcending the particular rights of females. Induced abortion is a pejorative conceptualization when mentioned attracts discrimination, ostracism and even violent attacks on 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 to 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 reasoning implies dishonesty that is likely to ignite fury that may result in ‘death’ as against critical analysis. A number of authors forwarded ‘ideational’ that social pundits have ‘long’ recognized the associational relationship between religion and a ‘diverse range of social behaviours’ (Knodel, J et al, 1999). They cited that ". . . religion is frequently cited as an important part of the explanation of group variation in marriage patterns and reproductive attitudes and behaviour" (p.149). Goldschieder (1971) concurred with Knodel et al (1999) that demographic, social and economic composition of religious groups largely account for observed differences in reproductive behaviour. Knodel, J et al. (1971) made an analogous argument that particular theological attributes are justification certain position on reproduction. With this reality, there is a direct association between religion and anti-abortion. Such an ideography implies that reproduction is ‘matter up to God (Allah). Furthermore, this highlights the slant taken by many religious peoples on contraceptives and contraception.
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 forms of discriminatory socio-political socialization that blatantly remove 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 repressive in light of 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 compromises 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 empathize, 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.
In our societies, the social reality is that there are many unwanted children who are suffering and hurting because of negligent parents. This begins from the inability of poor women to terminate pregnancies owing to the high cost of ‘black market’ abortion and the illegality of the matter coupled with the constraints imposed 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 accompanied by state psychological care for the female.
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 from medical practitioners coupled with the financial resources for the operation and the after care but the poor are felt with the unwanted children. 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 measures that will address those imbalances and protect the average citizen.
Works cited
Goldscheider, C. (1971). Reproduction, Modernization, and Social Structure. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Goodkind, D. (1999). Should prenatal sex selection be restricted? Ethical question and their implication for research and policy. Population Studies. 53 (1). 49 – 59
Knodel, J et al. (1999). Religion and reproduction: Muslims in Buddhist Thailand. Population Studies. 53 (2). 149-163
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).