Advertisement

Abortion pp 203-224 | Cite as

Beneath the Surface of the Abortion Dispute

Are Women Fully Human?
  • Sandra Harding
Part of the The Hastings Center Series in Ethics book series (HCSE)

Abstract

Feminist theory and politics have emerged from within two great traditions in Western moral, political, and social thought.1 They have emerged from liberalism, which assumes that conflicts between the timeless and universal natural rights of rational individuals should be adjudicated within the free market of social contracts. And they have emerged from Marxism, which assumes that conflicts between the socially determined needs of “animals who labor” are created by divisions of labor in the social relations of production.

Keywords

Social Order Social Experience Feminist Theory Domestic Labor Marxist Theory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Mary O’Brien, The Politics of Reproduction(Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1981); cf. review by Sandra Harding and Shakuntla Bhaya, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8 no. 2 (1982), pp. 361 – 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Heidi Hartmann, “The Family as the Locus of Gender, Class, and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 6, no. 3 (1981), pp. 383–385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. For key discussions of the feminist epistemological issues, see Jane Flax, “Political Philosophy and the Patriarchal Unconscious: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on Epistemology and Metaphysics”; Nancy Hartsock, “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism‘ Sandra Harding, ’Why Has the Sex/Gender System Become Visible Only Now?” all in S. Harding and M. Hintikka, eds., Discovering Reality: Feminist Perspectives on Epistemology, Metaphysics, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1983)Google Scholar
  4. D Smith, “Women’s Perspective as a Radical Critique of Sociology,” Sociological Inquiry 44 (1974), pp. 7–13.Google Scholar
  5. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex( New York: Knopf, 1953 ).Google Scholar
  6. Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex( New York: Knopf, 1953 ) p. xv.Google Scholar
  7. For key arguments favoring these alternatives, see Jack W. Meiland and Michael Krausz, eds., Relativism: Cognitive and Moral( Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  8. James C. Mohr, Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of National Policy, 1800–1900(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978 ).Google Scholar
  9. Data supporting and explanations of this claim can be found in the papers in M Blaxall and B Reagan, eds., Women and the Work-place (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1976)Google Scholar
  10. R Pollack Petchesky, “Antiabortion, Antifeminism, and the Rise of the New Right,” Feminist Studies 7, no. 2 (1981), pp. 206–246; Hartmann.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eli Zaretsky, Capitalism, The Family, and Personal Life( New York: Harper and Row, 1976 ).Google Scholar
  12. Phillippe Ariès, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life(New York: Knopf, 1970)Google Scholar
  13. Carol Brown, “Mother, Fathers, and Children: From Private to Public Patriarchy,” in L. Sargent, ed., Women and Revolution( Boston: South End Press, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  14. David Solomon, “Philosophers on Abortion,” in E. Manier, W. Liu, and D. Solomon, eds., Abortion: New Directions for Policy Studies( Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1977 ), p. 162.Google Scholar
  15. David Solomon, “Philosophers on Abortion,” in E. Manier, W. Liu, and D. Solomon, eds., Abortion: New Directions for Policy Studies( Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 1977 ), p. 162.Google Scholar
  16. A notable exception is Judith Jarvis Thomson, “A Defense of Abortion,” Philosophy and Public Affairs1, no. 1 (1971), pp. 47 – 66.Google Scholar
  17. John Finnis, “The Rights and Wrongs of Abortion,” Philosophy and Public Affairs2, no. 2 (1973), pp. 117 – 6145.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Michael Tooley, “Abortion and Infanticide,” Philosophy and Public Affairs2, no. 1 (1972), pp. 37 – 65.Google Scholar
  19. Sandra Harding, ed., Can Theories Be Refuted?: Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1976). Google Scholar
  20. W. V. O. Quine, Ontological Relativity and Other Essays (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969)Google Scholar
  21. T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: Chicago University Press 1970).Google Scholar
  22. Donna Haraway, “Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society4, no. 1 (1978), pp. 21–60, shows how cultural influences have shaped both the best and worst of biologyPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. A Jaggar, “Human Biology and Feminist Theory: Sex Equality Reconsidered,” in C C. Gould, ed., Beyond Domination: New Perspectives on Women and Philosophy(Totowa, N.J.: Littlefield Adams, 1983), criticizes the nature—culture dichotomy itself.Google Scholar
  24. S Harding, “Does Objectivity in Social Science Require Value-Neutrality?”, Soundings60, no. 4 (1977), pp. 351–366Google Scholar
  25. “Four Contributions Values Can Make to the Objectivity of Social Science,” in P. D. Asquith and I. Hacking, eds., PSA 1978, vol. 1 (East Lansing, Mich.: Philosophy of Science Association, 1978)Google Scholar
  26. “The Norms of Social Inquiry and Masculine Experience,” in P. D. Asquith and R. N. Giere, eds.,PSA 1980, vol. 2 (East Lansing, Mich. Philosophy of Science Association, 1980).Google Scholar
  27. Petchesky makes clear the inseparability of these issues. See also Zillah Eisenstein, “Antifeminism in the Politics and Election of 1980,” Feminist Studies7, no. 2 (1981), pp. 187 – 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milton Friedman, quoted by Solomon, p. 171.Google Scholar
  29. Zillah Eisenstein, The Radical Implications of Liberal Feminism (New York: Longmans, 1979)Google Scholar
  30. Susan Moller Okin, Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1979).Google Scholar
  31. Cf. Sandra Harding, “Is Equality of Opportunity Democratic?”, The Philosophical Forum nos. 10, 2–4 (1979), pp. 206–223.Google Scholar
  32. Esther Spector Person, “Sexuality as the Mainstay of Identity: Psychoanalytic Perspectives,” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society5, no. 4 (1980), pp. 605 – 630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. See the essays in Lydia Sargent, ed., Women and Revolution( Boston: South End Press, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  34. Frederick Engels, “The Part Played by Labour in the Transition from Ape to Man,” in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Works( New York: International Publishers, no date ), p. 359.Google Scholar
  35. Mary O’Brien, “Reproducing Marxist Man,” in Lorenne M. G. Clark and Lynda Lange, eds., The Sexism of Social and Political Theory: Women and Reproduction from Plato to Nietzsche( Toronto: Toronto University Press, 1979 ). See also Note 2.Google Scholar
  36. Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (Berkeley University of California Press, 1984).Google Scholar
  37. Rosalind Pollack Petchesky, presentation at The Feminist and the Scholar, Barnard Conference, New York City, March 1980.Google Scholar
  38. Sara Ruddick, “Maternal Thinking,” Feminist Studies 6, no. 2 (1980), pp. 342-367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975)Google Scholar
  40. Carol Gilligan, In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Hastings Center 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Harding
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations