Abortion has been a heavy topic that has often swirled around in the world of politics often narrowed to this dichotomy of pro-life or pro-choice. But what we don’t really see is this idea of women’s right to her own body. We are led to believe that pro-choice is the giving a women the option to have control over her body, but what it does not tell you is the fact that a women’s body is still politically not her own within this category. There are many restrictions that still come out of this idea of pro-choice. In Backlash and Continuity, Rachel Roth talks about how “the law has typically regarded women’s bodies as men’s property.” (Roth 344) Roth gives us a timeline view of reproductive rights of women through-out time, beginning with the huge achievement that came from Roe v. Wade, granting women the authority to decide whether to carry a pregnancy to term. Even with this success, we still see an area of grey with reproductive control over women. We still find ourselves being questioned on our reproductive rights over the fetus’s right, as if as a women we are just vessels for life, but not considered humans.
A couple things that really disturbed me with Roth’s history of reproductive rights is the history of sterilization. Roth informs us, “the eugenics movement succeeded in institutionalizing and sterilizing masses of “unfit” persons, ranging from developmentally disabled individuals to sexually promiscuous women…the legacy of sterilization abuse continued…shifting primarily to African American, Native American, and Puerto Rican women.” (Roth 347) This overwhelming fact that white privilege is clearly being presented to us. We are all human beings, with just different physical traits that are completely shallow, yet we allow shallow minded-ness cloud our judgement which lead to such despicable actions over specific groups of people. Similarly with the 5 year hormonal contraceptive Norplant, that is surgically implanted under a woman’s skin. The Norplant program, Roth explains through the words of the programs champion Senator Ehlers, was “developed strictly on the standpoint of rights—every child has a right to be born normally.” What this doesn’t allow is a women’s right to her own fertility. Norplant was often surgically implanted into women because of their history. Roth also shares with us, “legislatures quickly entertained measures to give AFDC recipients cash bonuses for using Norplant or to make it a condition of receiving benefits…” (Roth 348) Instead of giving women the option, they used it as a way to corner a women into getting the implant through the choice of offering or taking away benefits/cash bonuses. I highly doubt that if men were the ones to carry pregnancies these issues with reproductive rights would not be an issue and would certainly not have such a fight with fertility rights.
Aside from reproductive rights, there is a whole different issue within the same subject. Homosexual partners and their rights to marriage, a family, and equality within society. I recently read an article on what it means to get married. The overwhelming fact that was clear is that marriage is based on love. When two people are in love, they get married. With Partners as Parents, Charlene Gomes discusses homosexual partners and their rights of marriage and to be parents. Gomes points out, “privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples but denied to gay parents include legal recognition of the parent-child relationship for children born during the relationship; recognition of parental status under the Family and Medical Leave Act; access to child support when the parental relationship ends; the right to petition for visitation and custody after the dissolution of a relationship; and adoption and fostering parenting.” (Gomes 409) These privileges are huge when it comes to legality rights as a couple and as a family. To fight a couple who want to get married and raise a family simply because they do not fit in this cookie cutter ideal of what it means to be a couple politically.
What’s tragic to learn is that if you are a homosexual couple trying to start a family, it is much more difficult for you to adopt or even to have access to a surrogate within many states with the argument on whether or not a same-sex couple is fit for a child and the debate on biological parents having custody over the adoptive parents. A very interesting fact that Gomes points out in her article is that “because heterosexual couples are often preferred placements for adoptive children, many gay and lesbian couples willingly adopt (children with physical or mental disabilities).” (Gomes 410) Gomes then brings up the argument of same-sex couples being considered unfit to parent yet they are usually the ones who adopt the children that need the most care. A huge concern comes from this idea that same-sex couples raising children gender-confused children or even raising children causing children to “become” gay. We are faced with this heterosexual ideal that our culture upholds as being the “norm” and also this fear that the gendered structure our society upholds will be threatened because of same-sex couples. This dominant ideology of gender, gender hierarchy, gender roles and gendered ideals are threatened when we think of homosexual couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples, but what our society doesn’t choose to see, is how this gendered ideology we live in is a way to classify people and keeping people casted in a lower classified category from others. The whole gendered system and dominant culture we live in victimizes groups of people, stripping them of their rights.
On a different note, I absolutely loved the film Obvious Child. I enjoyed how open she was about her sexuality as a sexual women, revealing many of her own personal problems with her current boyfriend and discussing even their intimacy issues. You do not find women who are open with talking about who they are sexually and how they are with their significant others especially in front of a room of strangers. Aside from this you see a very realistic view when she finds out she has been lied to and cheated on by her boyfriend and her supposedly best friend. After a drunken one night stand, Donna finds herself pregnant and decides to get an abortion. Donna is very sure of herself when making the decision although it is quick. I loved how supportive her mother was when Donna tells her that she is pregnant and is going to get an abortion. Her mother is not only supportive but she also shares her experience with getting an abortion after becoming pregnant with her college boyfriend, which had to be done by “back-alley” abortion because of it being illegal during the 60’s; but assuring her daughter that it was the best decision of her life. Another thing I love about Donna was that when it came to talking about herself and her decision to get an abortion, she spoke about it very personably while keeping the positive attitude and shedding some comedy to it. Not to say that abortion is not a serious matter because it most certainly is an extremely serious matter to be considered. But a women should have the right to her own fertility/body and should not have to feel ashamed for the decision she feels she must need to make. There are many reasons as to why a women would feel she wants an abortion and to take that right away is simply an injustice. Another thing to note, the guy Max who is the father is supportive for her during this serious matter. He is informed during Donna’s stand-up comedy act, to which he leaves during, but when it comes to Valentine’s Day (the day of the abortion), he shows up to support her and then takes care of her afterward.
