it doesn't remove the fact that reproductive rights are generally regarded as key in development circles. Educated women with access to medical resources that empower them to control the size of their families tend to work, have fewer children later in life, and be more invested in their children's education and well-being. It's just better all around for any society in terms of our education, our economy and our standards of living.
But even if reproductive rights weren't a cornerstone of development strategies, bodily autonomy and the freedom to choose would still trump it for me every time.
1. 'Reproductive rights' i.e the use of most Contraceptives are great and I doubt anyone here would refuse to give them their full endorsement, if women want them, they should have them, and together with their partner they should use at least 2 forms simultaneously to ensure they don't get pregnant.
When two forms are used together, I have yet to experience or hear of any surprising pregnancies.
but contraceptives should not be associated with Abortion as we know it, and what we are discussing here. They are worlds apart.
2. Smaller family size historically and naturally comes
after the attainment of greater economic prosperity and NOT before, according to Hans Rosling a UN statistican.
As sad as it is to talk about, it is in poor couples interests in undeveloped countries to have as many children as possible. As child survival rates are low compared to us living in developed countries, and if you want children to survive to adulthood, you'll naturally have more children.
Also since most undeveloped countries don't have pension schemes, bigger families essentially fill the pension role for the parents.
Both these points are further elucidated by Hans Rosling the UN statistican who has worked in Africa for over 20 years.
To bring this to a personal relatable level, These are some of the very real pragmatic reasons why big families likely existed in both our families histories. Similarly these reasons still exist in some regions of the world and thus it is perfectly understandable that big families still exist. There is a clear need for them.
3. But it appears you are incorrect when you equate small family size to
causing development.
There are many cases of Family size being very small in a lot of undeveloped/developing countries.
A perfect example would be in say Russia and most eastern European countries, Russia & Romania for example have some of the highest rates of abortion in world, and that has been the case for some considerable time* , and both countries are still considered quite undeveloped countries, not to mention Russia has one of the highest crime rates in the world, despite women having complete ''control'' over their reproduction.
Also of note is Russia's population size is in a steep decline, which is further putting strain on their economy**
*
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1869009.stm
**
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/988723.stm
Furthermore how could a father or mother be ''more invested'' in their child's well being when they have a job? jobs that eat up most of their free time? That doesn't follow at all.
I think it essential for at least 1 parent to stay at home, with perhaps a part time job at most. Whether that be the stay at home Father or Mother it doesn't much matter, but
leaving children with nannies while both parents work is a recipe for disaster, and at the very least child estrangement.
But even if reproductive rights weren't a cornerstone of development strategies, bodily autonomy and the freedom to choose would still trump it for me every time.
Body autonomy...there are two lifeforms involved, therefore
autonomy doesn't come into it.
Unless I'm mistaken, there are two lifeforms,
two individual human DNA codes present involved in pregnancy that of the mother and developing child, so I can't see where
autonomy comes into it at all.
Freedom, liberty, choice, democracy. All concepts that appear from the outset, that no bad can come from them. but is all choice, democracy and freedom inherently good?
What about negative freedom? and what about the famous example of the very democratic voting for the philosopher Socrates to be executed? Or another infamous example, democratic Germans voting to overthrow their constitution and appoint a tyrannical dictator in the 1930s?
Perhaps these concepts aren't so pure afterall? therefore it stands that there is such a thing as too much freedom, too much democracy, too much choice.
Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow-Isiah Berlin.
Pregnancy and abortion are public, not private, matters-if it were a private matter then there would be no need to exact laws or have debates on the issue. What happens to the developing child once it is aborted? Who funds the abortion clinic? etc. - All Public issues.
If that hasn't convinced you, another example of why it is a public issue is that the developing child growing inside her is not her's to do with as she wishes. Is she allowed eat the aborted child? I don't think so.
Here's an extreme, but useful, argument that perfectly demonstrates that pregnancy is a public matter.
Imagine a mother wants to have the baby, does
not want an abortion, but instead, for whatever reason, wants simply to torture the growing baby, of age, say 8 months.
To let such a woman do so would be repugnant to the very bedrock of humanity, and in such a case the woman's liberties/freedoms should rightly be restrained to prevent the child from being tortured.
Now if you agree that mothers shouldn't be allowed to torture their developing babies, in a case like this, that their pregnancy had forced the public to intervene, pregnancy thus is in the public sphere and not soley a private matter.
A private matter on the other hand would be where for example, she was just cutting herself etc. which she is perfectly entitled to do as that is a private matter.
Both stark examples but I think they serve the point.
No one should have the right to exterminate another human lifeform regardless of the stage of development, degree of sentience, how much money they have in the bank etc.
For morality to be taken seriously at all this must be the first tenet of it.
Whether you wish that away by calling the developing human as a ''mere mass of cells'' or overinflate it as a potential Beethoven in the making.
No matter which way you look at it, it remains immoral.
As ever I welcome criticism. If my views are shown to be flawed then I'll be the first to accept that and thank whomever took the time to point them out to me.
I am opposed to the politically correct point that one must respect everyones opinions. If I had the opinion that the sky is a marmalade sun beam created by elves as respect to the unicorns of the clouds of bambam.
I would hope others would point out that it is not and my opinion is nonsense, instead of tip toeing around and respecting my groundless opinion.
Now, I'm not equating pro-choice to the realm of complete nonsense, I understand where you are coming from, however I will continue to try and logically show that it is not in the realm of sound moral standing.
