Reproductive Rights

Friday, November 4, 2011

Alyssa Janks 11/4/2011

In Betsy Hartmann’s book, Reproductive Rights & Wrongs, she discusses the idea of population control. In Hartmann’s opinion, population control is simply wrong, for several reasons. She details these reasons throughout her book and backs them up with research and case studies, which will be discussed later in the blog. She even states that this policy is “antiwomen” (Hartmann, xviii). However, she clarifies that she is not antiabortion. She believes that women should have the choice whether or not they want to have more children. Furthermore, she details that in most cases, it is not as clear-cut as it seems or as the media may portray it to be. For example, there are many cases of families who have many children that are healthy and well fed. Then, there are also families who have only one or two children that are poorly fed and malnourished. To summarize, Hartmann believes that “what is needed is a genuinely prowoman alternative which challenges both the population control and antiabortion positions and which guides family planning, contraceptive research and health policy” (Hartmann, xviii). Furthermore, she believes that the forceful use of contraceptives or other measures to prevent population growth is a violation of basic human rights (Hartmann, xix). Hartman states that the philosophy of population control rests on three basic assumptions. This blog will focus on only one to keep the scope narrow and specific enough to allow for a more detailed examination. This assumption is that “rapid population growth is the primary cause of the Third World’s development problems, notably hunger, environmental destruction, economic stagnation, and political instability” (xix). 

As I mentioned, we will focus only on Part One of the book which analyzes the causes and consequences of rapid population growth. This will help to put the population problem into perspective. Hartmann's basic framework is that an alternative to population control, a more prowoman policy must be developed and implemented. She states the widely accepted “truth” that many believe and that is often portrayed in the media -- the idea is that there are too many people and too little resources to adequately feed and cloth the population. However, many of these analyses are old and outdated and have not taken recent technological innovations into account. I would agree with many of Hartmann’s points, they are thoughtful and well supported. She makes the point that it is difficult to generalize on a global level; the population growth differs from country to country. I think this is something that has been repeatedly mentioned throughout our readings in this class – we must analyze things on a specific level. If you generalize, you will miss key points that could help solve problems. One of her key points is that ignorance is an issue. This correlates with the former point. For example, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm wrote that the US should stop giving relief funds to African countries since “such aid would ‘merely multiply empty stomachs.’”

She analyzes from the point of the Third World. Hartmann has conducted first hand research to dispel the ideas that the greater the population, the less food for all. In fact she states that “food supplies are not fixed and can be influenced by population growth in positive ways,” as well. Hartmann’s analyses are filled with facts and evidence making it is hard to disagree with her stance. As discussed in previous seminars and blogs, the media has a huge influence on the general population and their thoughts and beliefs. Because the media has stressed the idea that population growth must be controlled, it is something the people believe. However, even the basis of Hartmann’s analysis is difficult to argue. Individuals should have the choice to decide what to do with their bodies and their families. She believes that instead of population control, policies must be changed at the most fundamental level. In a world where there is more than enough food for all and yet there are countries where many are starving, I would be hard pressed to find someone who disagreed with this statement. Hartmann makes a valid argument throughout her Part One of her book, Reproductive Rights and Wrongs.

Today's Clip: 

This discussion reminded me of happenings in the United States. In the US, there is an extreme dichotomy between the rich and the poor. Despite the fact that the level of poverty does not compare to the level of poverty in foreign countries, there are still issues that need to be addressed. For example, the US government pays farmers not to produce crops, yet there are people starving in this very country, not to mention around the world. This uneven distribution of funds and government resources is definitely in need of a policy change. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/01/AR2006070100962.html

After reading this book, I have several questions. First of all, how relevant and current is the information presented in the book to our world today? It was originally written in 1987 and updated 1995. I realize that there are still famines today, simply opening up to a news website will tell you that, but there are deeper issues than that. What is the best approach to easing the burden? Would it be most effective to focus on what Hartmann’s ultimately defines, that is, instead of focusing on hunger as an issue, should we try to implement policies that are more prowoman and the rest will fall into place?