But what is “reproductive justice”? To help answer that question,
perhaps we should first ask: Who is guilty of the injustice? For Fluke,
it’s her school that “creates untenable burdens that impede our academic
success.” But of course it’s unfair to say that an institution, by not
covering the cost of some product, implicitly creates burdens for its
female students. My employer, by not covering my preferred allergy
medicine, doesn’t create my burden of allergies. My allergy problems are
internal to myself. They are, so to speak, natural problems I live
with, ones I cannot label as someone else’s fault. Unless I were
futilely to blame, say, God or nature.
But I would argue that underneath it all, advocates of “reproductive
justice” do blame nature. Nature is the true obstacle to these women’s
idea of justice.
Fluke might not put it this way, but radical feminists who cling to
terms like “reproductive justice” and “reproductive freedom” are really
trying to beat the cards that nature dealt them. They want sexual
license outside the scope of what nature provides as the healthiest
course—sex with one person for a lifetime. They object to the reality
that sex can naturally lead to babies, creating burdens that research
shows they’d be best suited to bear with the help of a husband.
Underneath sexual liberationists’ wish to overthrow patriarchal
traditions of marriage and religious institutions’ principles of sexual
ethics, there seems to be a wish to overthrow the most stubborn
foundation of all—nature herself.
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5242
No comments:
Post a Comment