"...One does not, it might be said,
increase a person's freedom simply by increasing the sheer quantity of
possibilities which he or she can choose from."
n Richard Norman
The issue of reproductive technologies in our
society today raises an interesting question.
Do they increase a women's freedom of choice or do they expand the power
of men and science over women. Is freedom to choose what they can do with their
bodies truly freedom. Freedom, as a
core, is the absence of external impediment.
In this sort of area can women
truly be free of external impediment, also is this truly freedom of
choice? "The range of physical
possibilities from which a person can choose at a given moment has no direct
relevance to freedom...Whether a person is free or not does not depend on the
range of choice." (Haylek 1960, p.12f).
This subject is so socially charged that a women could not possibly have
true freedom of choice but a choice which is basically decided for her, whether
it be by the limited choices made available to her by medical science or by the
men which are directly involved with them in the decision.
In order to truly understand this issue we must
look at it's core, reproductive technology.
This is a vast area to discuss because it ranges from artificial
insemination to abortion to contraception to genetic engineering with many area
in between.
Artificial insemination is the introduction of
sperm to an ovum artificially either inside or outside the female genital
tract. Abortion is the
"extermination of pregnancy before the fetus is capable of independent
life." Birth control is a huge area
of reproductive or contraceptive technology, in effect though all sub areas of
this main area deal with the prevention of fertilization of the ovum or egg,
also in some cases such as the condom it can stop the spread of disease. Genetic engineering is a new and extremely
scary technology which hopes to enable the precise engineering of an unborn child.
The previous examples are just some of the
areas of reproductive technologies but they are sufficient to cover the basic
scope of the issue.
What is freedom. In the Webster's dictionary the definition is
"The state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under
physical restraint". This is the
core of freedom but to truly understand freedom one must define it with much
more detail. two people who have concentrated their efforts on the subject of
freedom are Norman and Haylek. Norman feels that freedom is equated to the
absence of social pressure yet the possession of social and political power and
wealth. Haylek's version is much
simpler, he believes that freedom is "The absence of external
impediment" (Haylek 1960, p17).
Unfortunately Haylek is to general in his claims for this subject so
Norman's definition will be our focus.
Is it truly freedom of choice when a the
decision is morally effected. No it is
not, as Norman said, freedom is the absence of
social pressure. One can read a
newspaper everyday and see an article discussing a mob of pro-life activists
barricading an abortion clinic or reading an editorial surrounding the moral
dilemma of genetic engineering, in fact this subject is one of the most socially
charged. With so many groups hammering
their ideals at you, a truly "free" choice cannot be made.
Almost the only
area of reproductive technologies which could be seen as a freedom to women is
the area of artificial insemination. In
this choice there is no real moral issue, it is the creation of life therefore
society condones it, and her decision will not be influenced by social
pressure. In fact this area can help a
women give birth to a child who previously could not, and out of all the
decisions in the area of reproductive technologies it is the one least
influenced by men. A man can wish his
"wife" would have a child but if she is unable to naturally conceive,
it is her decision to be impregnated using this technology. In other words this area of reproductive
technologies is the most socially neutral, the influence of a man in her life
(if any) can be a strong one and therefore can effect the freedom the women can
exercise in this choice.
Abortion is not a freedom to women when
applying Norman's version of freedom. It
is the most socially fueled area of this technology and it is the most
shunned. If a women becomes pregnant and
wishes to have it aborted, it usually means that the pregnancy was not planned,
and society usually blames the women because in the mind of most people it is
her responsibility alone. This is the most ignorant of social beliefs but
unfortunately it is one of the most prevalent ones, thankfully this is changing
but unfortunately the process is a slow one. (A case where the pregnancy must
be aborted due to medical reasons is not truly a decision, more of a necessity
and therefore does not apply in this context.) It could have been the result of
many things such as the improper use of contraception, or as a worst case, due
to rape. In this case the decision does
not fall on the female alone, she is bombarded with opinions from many
different sources, the most influential in most cases is the male involved. There have been so many cases where a woman
has had an abortion because of constant coercion being applied by the man whose
child it is, or she has been pressured by an external source, and in no
definition freedom does this apply. The
decision, if it can be called that, is also politically influenced because
should she decide to have the child she might not be able to support it
financially and therefore might have to ask for government assistance and in
the minds of some politicians she would either become a burden or a
"poster child" which they can use to attain more social and political
power. The decision to go through with
this form of reproductive technology or termination is the hardest on a women
and quite often her freedom of choice is taken away by others.
Contraception is in some ways a means for men to
control women. The decision to use
contraception is not one which is made by the women alone. "The pill" for example is used by
some women to regulate their menstrual cycle and in this case it is often a
necessity and not a choice, but quite often a women uses this drug because of
pressure from males who do not wish to use other forms a birth control which
might inhibit them in some way.
Contraception is also used because more often than not sex is not used
for procreation and most men would not live up to their responsibility should
the women get pregnant in an unplanned situation and then the option of
abortion would become an issue and as discussed, it is an altogether unpleasant
one. Also the area of science would now
have power over the women because it first of all offers these options and
continually finds new ones. Through
social and political means they make money off of women. Contraception is not a true freedom for women
because it's use is influenced by so many different sources that a truly
"free" decision to use it cannot be made.
Genetic engineering is a broad term, in this
case we are looking at the area involving human reproduction. It is the newest of all reproductive
technologies and one which has stirred a plentiful amount of controversy. It's basic goal is to enable the
"building" of a human to exact specifications. If and when this technology becomes readily
available it will cause extreme moral dilemmas.
To use this, on one hand, would enable the elimination of birth defects
and certain diseases, but on the other it would eliminate nature from the
process of evolution. The choice to use
this will also not be a free one for women.
After all is a choice a free one when all of society is participating in
the technology you are deciding to use?
No it is not. Would a mother have
any choice not to use this technology?
No, if she chose not to when the majority of people were chose to, she
could quite possibly give her child a disadvantage in life. This decision could also have political
influence because a government could very easily push people towards the use of
certain types of genetic engineering by launching a campaign to prove it would
be the best for everyone should people use this.
Although the previous choice a women might have
to make regarding reproductive technology, at this point in time, has it's
basis in theory more than fact it should not be dismissed. In fact if one reads almost any literature on
this topic we see the same theories and fears emerge. Also this could very possibly be a technology
reserved for the rich, and those who cannot afford this would be at a major
disadvantage.
The examples of reproductive technologies in
this essay were sighted as a tool to display the power which men and science
have over women when in the area of reproductive technologies. In the definition of freedom used in this
paper we see that a person is only truly free when they are free from social
pressure yet have political and social power and wealth. All of the above "choices" have a
heavy influence from society and involve politics and money. Also stated was the fact that limited
amounts of choice can also hinder one's freedom and the scientific community
has offered only a few choices.
Reproductive technologies as a core science could possibly expand
women's freedom of choice but under today's conditions it does not. These technologies are still relatively
dangerous and allow for the manipulation of women by others such as men and the
scientific community.
-By David
Kinlough
Bibliography
Hayek, F.
"Planning & Democracy"
Funk &
Wagnalls. "Artificial Insemination, Birth Control, Genetic Engineering,
Abortion." Microsoft Encarta Ed. Microsoft Corporation. 1997 ed.
Norman,
Richard. "Does Equality Destroy
Liberty?"
No comments:
Post a Comment