Why both sides' arguments are wrong considering what we understand and consider true about modern biology. Both sides seek to dehumanize the woman's body. Being intimately familiar with the exploitation of Black Women's bodies, I can and will call it like I see it. One side actively allows this exploitation by assuming entitlement to women's bodies and their reproductive capabilities. The other is a slippery platform for Eugenics sterilization as a socialized norm or unchecked, unconscious, cultural bias. No one, but a Black Woman, can comprehend what the experience at a hospital or in society is like for a Black Woman of Color.
Why is reproductive freedom even a question?
This controversy actually opens up the bigger conversation about laws, who made them and they're validity given the unchecked biases that create, enforce, and rely on them.
I'll put this in terms that one might call philosophical folklore of the Modern Black Woman of Color.
1. The main point, a biological matriarchy, the mother gives the blood and bone to create life in her nature. The mother can produce semi mothers and laborers. By construction, the laborers do not undergo the change cycles in preparation for creating life, so excess energy resources can be dispersed to other physical developments suitable for labor intensive purposes. (This in not simply a male/female construct, semi-mothers can be male/female children, elderly, disabled, any non laborer or mother is a semi mother. The ideas is that the reduction in labor capacity forces a new pattern of thinking and problem solving that is more like a mother. One does not enter the state of a mother until one has begun to create a fetus inside their womb)
(edit/contribution by dngresearch 12/14/2023: One does not enter the state of a mother until one has begun to create a fetus/seed/egg inside their womb; fetus is to a seed and an egg or a chicken as sperm is to pollenate and a bee or a bird or a rooster as pollinators)
2. Personhood vs Privacy? The point source own the derivatives. Only through science are we able to see and understand some biological truths, such as the ability to support a fetus outside of the womb. However, knowing does not constitute entitlement. Access, does not constitute entitlement. Thus the person, the mother, retains entitlement to all that derives from her. This extends to all forms of information regarding her as an independent living or dead person, i.e. information entities that relate to her in any way, shape, or digital form.
3. Personhood, outside the womb as a laborer or semi mother independent instances of the person now exist. One does not need to touch the mother to access the new living person.
Anything short of these 3 postulates seeks to dehumanize the mother.
Yet, the socialized frameworks we live by, in most cultures, were based on fallacies created by biological, cultural, and environmental biases, and the optimization of civil rights is the only working method for modern progress in societies to date.
Therefore, biases must be legally accounted for. But, to what extent? Well if holistic comprehension is the goal, then one must stop compartmentalizing enough to take in new information and relate their own knowledge, experience, and lack of experience to the bigger picture of a global ecology and a global economy which now literally connects everyone regardless of culture. Adding, optimizing, is the only option and to refute something is to say it can be disregarded. However, that's not true, nor is it consistent towards holistic comprehension. If something is displaced/detrimental, then provide the correct placement for the optimization of biodiversity.
This Social Justice World War will not end until we start celebrating Environmental and Social Justice, normalizing cultural diversity, and supporting Environmental and Social Justice as a collaborative global industry.
Leave a comment