I WAS puzzled when I read an opinion piece in a local online news portal titled: “A requiem for women’s rights in America”, where the author Laura Tyson, a former chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during former US president Bill Clinton’s administration, justifies unrestricted right to abortion.
Her article was written in regards to the latest decision by the American Supreme Court in overturning the ruling in Roe vs Wade, that established a constitutional right to abortion in the year 1973.
If one reads the entire article carefully, the author’s justification for abortion is on the grounds that it helps social economic advancement of women to be on par with men.
Instead of arguing that women rights should not be compromised in spite of motherhood, the author takes a simplistic view of focussing on the burden of motherhood.
According to the author, “decades of research show that reproductive rights and healthcare determine women’s participation and advancement in economic life. Some of the most distinguished labour economists in the US submitted an amicus brief in the Dobbs case, summarising much of this evidence for the justices.
“During the past half-century, the right to abortion has had a significant impact on women’s labour-force participation, wages and educational attainment. It has reduced teen pregnancies, the number of children in single-family households living in poverty, and the incidence of child neglect and abuse.
“It is well known that there is a significant professional penalty (in terms of wages and career advancement) associated with motherhood. Male and female earnings evolve similarly until parenthood, after which a mother’s expected earnings fall by 15% for every child she has, while fathers’ earnings remain largely unaffected.”
The author seems to think that due to the nature of motherhood, the earnings and upward mobility of women have come down. If this is the logic, then it is not just about the unborn life. Taking care of the sick and elderly would also be a burden to the economic empowerment of women and man since they have to sacrifice their career goals.
The solution here does not reside in doing away with motherhood through abortion, it is about correcting an injustice by advocating equal opportunities, besides rewarding mothers for their unique contribution and sacrifice to the growth and rejuvenation of a nation in bearing and giving birth to a child that has every right to life. This also requires reassessing the social economic ideology that is very much rooted in individualism than common good.
The author should provide evidence from a wide array of sources to explain her support of abortion instead of picking and choosing data that supports her assertion. It should not be merely based on the quantitative aspect of data, but also the qualitative aspects to justify her stand. The issue is not merely about the percentage of who agrees or disagrees with abortion, since the issue has a complex reality.
For example, there are women who want to keep their pregnancy, but due to poverty and lack of opportunities have made it difficult to support their child. This can be ascertained from qualitative interviews where actual conditions, needs and wants of pregnant mothers are assessed.
Many men and women are not aware of the life stages of embryonic development but have been asked to support abortion for ideological reasons.
What is needed is supporting women during their times of difficulties through solidarity instead of making them take the easy way out of terminating a pregnancy in the name of gender rights.
The fundamental problem with supremacy of individual rights is the tendency to deny the reality of the inherent different biological functions of man and women.
The very foundation of society is built on a complementary nature of biological roles of man and women. When this is rejected, society becomes fragmented and reduced to regressive individual rights thinking that causes polarisation, which is clearly prevalent in the American society.
What the author has not mentioned is that there is a great number of noble women around the world or even within America who do not agree to such blatant disregard for the right of life of an unborn child.
Popular democracy supporting abortion does not make it right. Even Adolf Hitler was popular among the German population during his time, which does not make him right.
The issue of having children has a familial, social and spiritual dimension that cannot
be reduced to so-called individualistic
women rights.
The problem with the US is its respect for human rights is centred on an individualistic, self-centred “my body, my rights” ideology instead of the broader conscience related to objective truth that respects the foundation
of society.
While certain conservatives proclaim the right of an unborn child, at the same time, they support war and destruction that takes away the right to life of citizens of other countries.
Certain liberals who adhere to the supremacy of individual rights do not comprehend that the right to life is the bedrock of all other rights, which has a strong social-spiritual dimension.
It is regressive, myopic and immoral to purely perceive life from a self-centred individualistic agenda, what more where wealth and progress justifies the termination of a pregnancy. The right to life transcends individualism.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
