Abortion was never followed by the word “debate” until history allowed in recent centuries—The debate itself, like abortion, has evolved to represent not just its literal action, but also what it symbolizes in a society that is often framed by black and white extremist controversy. The abortion debate is not necessarily about the referendum of the meaning of motherhood, as Luker (1984) argued, or about women’s sexual liberation. Although both of these are significant aspects, the underlying truth of the debate lies in its ability to revolutionize the definition of womanhood.
The concept of motherhood has been the nagging mechanism encircling the woman’s role in the political spectrum . It was up to the woman to give birth to sturdy republican sons and superior citizens in order to further advance society. Mothers’ jobs as “citizens” were private and described as “inclusive” and “intimate.” A childless woman was a “menace to social purity and national stability” (Pateman, 1992). As women moved further from the private sphere to the public, so did their societal awareness. Abortion challenged the archaic gender ideas that were so deeply ingrained into a flourishing world greedily drunk on newfound success. The challenge meant that “motherhood” and its conceptualizations were no longer a primary role, but a mere life option (McMillan, 2007). Women, then, could become individuals. As Luker (1984) says, “Abortion therefore strips the veil of sanctity from motherhood.” So why does the debate not center on this concept? –The focus is only half-hearted. Those women who share pro-life and “family moral” values have faith in their role as woman equals mother, but for a pro-choice woman, individuality and full life potential represent the centrifuge of her having the choice—not avoiding giving birth. To clarify, evaluating motherhood is only evaluating one path of a woman’s life, as would be evaluating fatherhood in a man’s, no matter the meaning.
On the opposite end of the dilemma lies the imitation of the male image to accomplish equality. This is not necessarily demonstrated via the second wave of feminism with the increased access to contraception and encouragement of sexual freedom, although equality was the goal sought within the movement. The liberators questioned the private and public boundaries of citizenship (Charles, 2000). Although little impact was made by the movement to motivate the liberalization of abortion laws, these liberators were often sited as the maintainers of the state of affairs. What they did accomplish was to push the national image of abortion from a medical issue, regulated by physicians, to a personal rights issue, regulated by the individual woman (Luker, 1984). A quote from Trebilcott’s Mothering: Essays in feminist theory (1984) indirectly demonstrates that sexual freedom is also not the center of the debate, however:
“Men don’t rear children because they don’t want to rear children. It is men’s advantage that women are assigned childrearing responsibility, and it is in men’s interest to keep things that way.”
If the center of the debate relied on solely on sexual freedom, the debate would exist between the oppression of the male image on woman’s sexuality and would have to ignore the population of women who favor conservative family values. These women could be grouped alongside the men-suppressors, but their argument remains more coincidental with the argument that motherhood is the primary role.
The evidence of the debate is in the definitions of abortion and womanhood. Abortion has endured a long history, but the history of its controversy is fairly new. The Roman Empire considered the child in a woman’s belly not a person. In colonial ages, abortion was forbidden only after the stage of quickening, when the child could be felt inside the stomach. It was not until the Christian church pushed for the rights of fathers and until physicians in the 19th century described abortions as “criminal” that controversy arose. Criminal abortions were labeled so because women were “committing a crime of ignorance,” due to their unconsciousness of the advancing field of science and medicinal discovery (Luker, 1984). The evolution of abortion has now progressed to not women of being ignorant to science but to values and morals. Men still represent freedom and women still represent subordination (Charles, 2000). Men still represent dominant citizenship and women still represent the producers of these citizens. At one point and still to some at this point, woman means mother—The following quote from the European Journal of Communication (2006) exhibits this argument:
“The crisis of masculinity created by shifts from industrial to post-industrial economy left many men without their traditional place in society. Working-class men were no longer able to fulfill their breadwinner roles. The newfound awareness was denigrated as the role of middle-class fathers and was often portrayed as ‘human incompetence’ and not as an equal partner in a relationship.”
The quote suggests that mean fear the equality of women because contradictorily they will become inferior. The abortion debate is often quoted on as a debate of values and morals, the same elements women who believe it is sanctity are portrayed not to cherish (Pateman, 1992). But is it a morals value, or an argument over the allocation of power? Humankind has evolved and continues to evolve at an outstanding speed, all the while suppressing women to be the second sex. Slowly women have begun to transcend from second to equal—They as a sex and as a gender are evolving. At one point the definition of a woman did mean mother. Abortion has attempted to redefine the woman as human. Therefore, motherhood and sexual freedom are merely just two opposite sides of the center of the argument, which discusses what a woman should be. Abortion symbolizes the portal to a complete evolution. Abortion symbolizes the portal to power.
Extending further into the debate that revolves around the meanings of femininity, the murky depth becomes exposed. The depth reveals a fuel for the argument—a fuel that seems to exist in a manner of simplicity: a power struggle. The role of men as societal superiors for all of time is marked by their duties of citizenship and the construction of male-dominated intellect. An interesting theory called womb envy reveals an underlying truth to the male psyche: the want and jealousy of being able to give birth in order to produce more of these high-quality “Republican citizens” (Trebilcott, 1984). Their power derives from their feeling of uselessness—They have a desire for immortality. Abortion has the strength to cut off this immortality. Men and some women (who still believe men to be the “breadwinners”) fear the descending from the superior role. Ultimately abortion can give women an insurmountable power: to be able to give life and to take it away all within one body and mind, elevating them to the highest evolution that is seen as godly. To have this power would supersede the powers that men possess.
To conclude: abortion is a debate about the definition of the woman, whether she is a mother or is a potential human being. The dispute is fueled by a gender power struggle that escalates with the evolution of the female. The meaning of motherhood and the element of women’s sexual freedom lie on opposite sides of the contest and characterize arguments that support what each side defines as a woman. The debate encompasses Freud’s “Biology is destiny;” The debate encompasses who women can be and what power they can have.
