More on Rights: Reproductive Rights
When one listens to "pro-choice" or liberal feminists speaking about why abortion should be legal, one often hears the argument that a woman has reproductive rights.
Of course, what they really want is the right to have sex (without consequence), but it extends more than this, too. There is a birth control pill for men that is in the works. This sounds like a great idea for me. But there is at least a portion of feminists who are opposed to the idea of a male birth control pill, because they claim it violates a woman's reproductive rights. That is, if a woman wants to have children, her sexual partner could be taking the pill without her knowledge, denying her right. Or he could lie about taking the pill, thus getting her pregnant and violating her reproductive rights.
I ask, since when did reproduction become about women only? Doesn't it take two?
Some "pro-life" feminists (They do exist.) have pointed out this single-sided idea of reproductive rights. They note that legalized abortion can give men more power over women in that men are often the ones pushing for abortions.
Besides, the problem I have is with the idea that reproductive rights are solely female, there are other issues at play here.
One is the idea of rights in general. I have stated before that the idea of "rights" stems from a deistic world view.[1] They are assumed to be a part of our being created imago dei. Rights must be granted. They can be granted by a creator, or they can be granted by a government. But reproductive rights are not listed in the DoI, nor the Bill of Rights, nor any religious holy texts. They are not "self-evident" to any nondeist; they are not a part of the image of God to most (if any) deists.
But I see a trend in today's dominant world views to link sexuality to humanity. This arises in the abortion debate and in transgender issues as well as in disabilities -- which I shall cover soon in another entry. This trend is to posit (indirectly) that if one cannot have sex, he or she is somehow not a complete human. I find that a very foolish belief if not a very dangerous one....
Of course, what they really want is the right to have sex (without consequence), but it extends more than this, too. There is a birth control pill for men that is in the works. This sounds like a great idea for me. But there is at least a portion of feminists who are opposed to the idea of a male birth control pill, because they claim it violates a woman's reproductive rights. That is, if a woman wants to have children, her sexual partner could be taking the pill without her knowledge, denying her right. Or he could lie about taking the pill, thus getting her pregnant and violating her reproductive rights.
I ask, since when did reproduction become about women only? Doesn't it take two?
Some "pro-life" feminists (They do exist.) have pointed out this single-sided idea of reproductive rights. They note that legalized abortion can give men more power over women in that men are often the ones pushing for abortions.
Besides, the problem I have is with the idea that reproductive rights are solely female, there are other issues at play here.
One is the idea of rights in general. I have stated before that the idea of "rights" stems from a deistic world view.[1] They are assumed to be a part of our being created imago dei. Rights must be granted. They can be granted by a creator, or they can be granted by a government. But reproductive rights are not listed in the DoI, nor the Bill of Rights, nor any religious holy texts. They are not "self-evident" to any nondeist; they are not a part of the image of God to most (if any) deists.
But I see a trend in today's dominant world views to link sexuality to humanity. This arises in the abortion debate and in transgender issues as well as in disabilities -- which I shall cover soon in another entry. This trend is to posit (indirectly) that if one cannot have sex, he or she is somehow not a complete human. I find that a very foolish belief if not a very dangerous one....