VI. Bodies

In Ronnie Zoe Hawkins essay “Reproductive Choice: The Ecological Dimension” Hawkins explores the environmental implications of reproductive autonomy. Upon reading the introductory paragraph I was looking forward to reading about this, but was quite disappointed in Hawkins approach to the topic and the argument she provides. Hawkins argument seems to essentially blame people in the global south for their own exploitation at the hands of western imperialism and capitalism, inaccurately assessing the problem, and through this assessment concluding that a potential solution to environmental problems would be reducing the size of poor families – its very *white feminism* meets blatant eugenics.

"A growing number of poor people are forced to make a living on 
increasingly marginal land, with resultant deforestation, 
overgrazing, soil erosion, or an assortment of other environmental
problems further exacerbating their poverty and often leading them
to move on and repeat the process elsewhere." (Hawkins 690)

This is a BOLD statement when just 100 companies account for over 70% of the worlds emissions, through their violent exploitation of resources and destruction of land and whole ecosystems, for profit. Hawkins acknowledges that this is forced, yet somehow comes to the conclusion that the burden should be placed on these people to make changes. Poor people in the global south, while being the least responsible for environmental destruction, feel its consequences the greatest. More importantly, Hawkins herself acknowledges for a brief moment that “consumption of world resources and stress to the global environment generated per capita for citizens of the industrialized nations relative to those of poor countries ranges from fifteen to more than one hundred times as great.” ONE HUNDRED TIMES MORE, yet despite this acknowledgement, Hawkins continues to explain that “for us living in industrialized nations” a more appropriate solution than further reducing family sizes through abortion is to just reduce our consumption. Poor people in the global south are forced to make a living on what limited land is left because the rest has already been claimed and destroyed by Western capitalists and imperialists who directly benefit from and ensure the continuation of the poverty these people experience and the exploitation of them and their resources. Through her own subtle counterarguments, Hawkins makes it clear that the issue here isn’t a lack of resources, but a pervasive system, upheld by rich (white) western people that refuses to equally distribute them and utilizes them at a deadly rate.

Making abortions accessible, safe and FREE for all people, everywhere, is an important goal, however, when its motivated by the hope that it will be used as population control it becomes a dangerous tool added to the arsenal of weapons historically used to further oppress and attempt to eliminate groups of people. Throughout history and presently we’ve seen many instances where doctors utilize coercion or simply perform procedures without patient consent regarding sterilization and contraceptive devices on groups of people considered “less desirable” to society – poor people, POC, incarcerated people, people with disabilities and physical or mental health conditions, etc. (and the intersections of these populations is of course no coincidence). In the United States, incarcerated people are coerced into agreeing to sterilization in exchange for reduced sentences. You can read more about that here. In Mexico and Canada, during routine exams and other procedures doctors serving primarily indigenous populations have inserted intrauterine devices and sterilized patients without their consent – a practice thats believed to be occurring beyond these countries and is quite simply a genocidal act.

These indigenous Mexican women had IUDs inserted in them without their knowledge. And they're not the only ones. pic.twitter.com/d5LhxS4EhV

— AJ+ (@ajplus) January 16, 2019

Greater universal reproductive autonomy and access to corresponding services, particularly abortion, could indeed benefit the environment, but framing it as a tool to serve this purpose, to control population size, and to reduce the resource usage of poor families in the global south it becomes a slippery and dehumanizing slope that opens these populations up to even greater exploitation. Fewer poor people will not have any even mildly significant affect on the environment while violent imperialist capitalist nations like our own, with a military thats the greatest perpetrator of environmental pollution and destruction, and corporations driven by global exploitation, still exist. Based on Hawkin’s philosophy, a more effective solution might be giving abortions to these people who are most invested in this destructive system, so that they and their families can hoard less disgusting amounts of wealth and resources, and if we’re lucky – die off before future generations can continue to wreak havoc on the world, both people and the environment.

She touches upon the cultural and economic motivations for having children, and the lack of autonomy some women have regarding this choice, leading to a higher risk of experiencing poverty. This is a valuable conversation to have, but not in the context proposed by Hawkins.