Hawkins-abortion-environment. An open-ended view.

Abortion-:   expulsion of a foetus naturally or by medical induction from the womb, before it is able to survive independently.  (Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary.)

The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed. (Mahatma Gandhi)

No one addresses the role of men in the abortion debate. I put this question to Georgia’s governor, and Ed Setzer-author of Georgia’s new abortion bill. (No reply)

Hawkins posits the beneficial effects of abortion on the environment. Frantz posits the harmful environmental effects on a pregnancy resulting in abortion.

“Usually when we think of abortion, we focus on criminalizing abortion, the fetus’ right to life, and the mother’s right to choose. And we neglect prominent and important issues. People’s influence over the environment can identify environmental factors which influence the evolution of pregnancy.” (Frantz, Ancuta 158) Ronnie Hawkins argues environmental considerations are relevant to the abortion debate…” (690) Dr. Paul Ehrlich in “Does Abortion Help Save The Environment?” stated that approximately 97percentage of the earth’s land surface is empty-there is no shortage. Ehrlich argues that analysts state that the world’s population may max out at 8billion between 2040 and 2050, then plummet significantly. The Food and Agriculture of the United Nations stated there is plenty of food for everyone, and a relatively high population create large markets and cheap goods. Those with no access to food are from corruption, war, or bad economic policy. (Does Abortion Help Save The Environment?)

Hawkins argues that the maximum persons the planet could accommodate varies, but the link to population growth, poverty and environmental degradation are documented. The poor she writes, live on marginal land with deforestation, and overgrazing and further exacerbating their poverty, which results in their migration, and the start of the destruction again. (690) The population in the developed world though less in growth, cause more stress and consumption of global resources from 15percentage to more than 100 hundred times compared to citizens from poor countries. Pope Francis when asked, stated that “concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion. To blame climate change on population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.” (Lerner. Adam)

What are the effects on safe abortions in some poor countries when American aid is tied to no abortions, by government or other agencies, as in The “Mexico City agreement” signed in 1984. Some can lead to infection in the body, or death. Hawkins fail to (1) address some problems with safe abortions, like infertility (secondary), serious health complications-even death, depression or guilt.  (2) the population decline of some countries, like Andorra-3.6% from 2010-2015, or Japan-0.12%. (Dillinger, Jessica) This results in fewer care facilities, care givers, and accessibility for the elderly. China realised this and changed the one child only policy. (3) natural disasters wipe out large numbers of populations annually. Ehrlich reminds us “the cause of the problems of poverty and environmental degradation is not overpopulation. And the unborn is not the enemy.”

Sources.

Ehrlich, Paul. Does Abortion Help Save The Environment? whyprolife.com 2011

Lerner, Adam. What does abortion have to do with climate change? You’ll have to ask Pope Francis. Politico.com June. 2015

Dillinger, Jessica. Countries With The Biggest Population Decline. WorldAtlas.com. Mar,2018.

Frantz, Ancunta. The Link Between Environmental Factors and ABORTION. Romania. University of Iasi. July 2015.

Annotated Bibliography.

Frantz states that “studies conducted on the issue of environmental influence over pregnancy revealed unexpected results. In China, a study proved that the exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons for a pregnant woman can lead to miscarriage. (160) “The risk” Frantz continues, “is higher for those living near intense car traffic.” (160) This study was replicated in California. Women living with in an area of 50metres near an intense circulated road increased the risk of spontaneous abortion. (160)  The toxic environmental impact is far reaching. Women experienced high rates of spontaneous abortions in Russia after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Women in countries like Finland, Hungry, and Poland were also exposed to contamination, and loss. The effects lasted for 18 years. (Frantz) Weather and holiday, Frantz linked to abortion. “Among young people, summer and Christmas see a peak in sexual activity and increase in abortions in February and late summer.” (161-162)

 

2 Replies to “Hawkins-abortion-environment. An open-ended view.”

  1. Good morning Bridget!

    You bring up a good point on abortion pertaining to “selective consumerism” to which I wanted to elaborate further.

    The abortion topic takes on a rippled effect of sorts, “selective consumerism” being one of those sorts and I think this is such a huge issue in our society because we are living in a “material world” which causes over-consumption in many areas: food, clothing, housing, medical, and the list goes on. As this is happening, we will run out of recourses, this means that families would lack the ability to provide, leaving poor people to feel the brunt of these hardships.

    Hawkins makes the example that Third World countries are suffering, not just because of the children being born in those countries per-say but, because of “the environmental toll taken by each new human born within the “developed” world will be much greater than that of one born elsewhere. By the same token, those of us living in the industrialized nations can lower our overall destructive effect on the natural environment both by reducing the number of nature consumption and by reducing number of us that consume the planet’s precious resources” (Hawkins, 692). This is a valid point because just here in the US, our consumptions are different base on what we need, like energy and fuel is a big deal here; whereas, water is an even bigger deal in Third World countries. This means the more children we have the more resources we will need, and the more we will have to rely on Third world countries to provide.

    Therefore, abortion and pregnancy prevention should be left on the table for women to decide, and I think both need to be restructured by women. This means proper education in different facets such as the term of pregnancy or; should a woman be allowed to abort. How and why women have abortions should not be decided by a government made up of predominantly male as we have it in the US. Women being policy makers should be from groups of women (regardless of country) with empirical sources.

    1. Mary.
      While reading your reply, I thought of the high numbers of infant deaths in less developed nations. Most of these women have many children to ‘replace’ children, much like in earlier times-before slavery, for helping on the farm, for old age security, and for the ones who died in infancy-‘replace’. Then came slavery-to continue it. Hawkins did not remember that when she wrote her piece, these children in less developed nations were dying in large numbers.
      bb.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *