When we defined ecofeminism at the beginning of the semester, I assumed that analysis would comprise of fifty percent women, and fifty percent with an environmental focus. Reading the Ronnie Hawkins article for this week, it’s clear that my ratio is not one that everyone favors. While I do think that Hawkins makes some important points about the sustainability of our planet, I would like to add that he neglects to consider women in his ecofeminist approach to abortion, and he only considers the environment. I overall agree with what Hawkins has to say, supporting her overall, but I do think that this is more of an ecological approach rather than an ecofeminist one.
So lets start breaking down this argument. In Ronnie Hawkins’ Reproductive Choices: The Ecological Dimension, she states that one of the most important issues surrounding abortion and overpopulation is due to the standard of living, and how our low standard of living effects the planet. She states, “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.” (690) This was the closest idea in the article to focusing on women’s issues, and it was still primarily focused on the planet. While I think there is a lot of value in this idea, I do think that it undermines the impact abortion, and children can have on people’s lives. While there are plenty of sources saying that people should not get abortions, our society has little to no support available for these babies once they are born. While thinking about the planet is important, feminism needs us to consider that people who get babies forced upon them, with no choice for anything else, who are the most impacted by this discussion.
Another big point that Hawkins makes is about overpopulation. I’ve provided a graphic of what scientists think about the population, as many people have theorized that overpopulation isn’t a real issue as population will come to a natural equilibrium at approximately eleven billion people. 
This does significantly affect Hawkins’ argument, as much of his argument revolves around overpopulation’s impact on the planet. She specifically talks about the impact on the soil, and on the ecosystems, but not about the humans that are effected on the smaller scale. While it’s important to consider these problems, abortion is easy enough to argue on an interpersonal scale, as the impact is has on everyone involved can impact a life so dramatically. It feels dehumanizing to see this argument taken away from the individual and put toward a more massive collective.
Overall, I think Hawkins provides some important insight into humanities impact on the planet through just existing, but this idea neglects how abortion and human lives impact each other. Hawkins considers abortion on the worldwide scale to be valuable, but on the interpersonal level I would argue that it’s even more important and worth fighting toward a pro choice society.
It is true that Hawkins does talk a lot about how the enviornment is affected by humans way of living as well as why women being able to have abortion with help our world ecologically. Yet it does seem that Hawkins does not pay much attention at all to the emotional and personal aspect behind the reasoning for abortion. He focuses a lot on the damage that humans have done to the Earth because of overpopulation. He focuses mostly on putting the damage caused on those living in industrialized countries such as America. Which does seem kind of ironic considering America is not considered a third world country, yet she says those living in poverty are using marginalized land leading to deforestation. Clearly we can say humans all over the world no matter what conditions they live in are having some negative effect on the ecology. You make a good point that Hawkins seems to be focusing more on the ECO part of ecofeminism. Where as more realistically an ecofeminist view on abortion would consider more than just the impacts on the enviornment, they would be focusing more on the issues women have when considering abortion. I personally believe Hawkins makes an interesting point as to why abortion should be accesable for all women all over the world in order to protect the enviornment and other animal speicies. I think he somewhat relates to the personal feelings of women when she talks about how women are more often wanting to have smaller families. Women, especially in less industrialized countires, want smaller families because it is becoming harder for them to provide sufficient support for their families due to deforestation and soil eroison. They need rich soil in order to grow food for their families and trees in order to provide fire to cook food and warm their homes. If we think about this aspect we can see the more ecofeminist perspective here.
Hey Peter, I love your post this week, I can tell you’re really passionate about this topic and you’re able to convey your thoughts in a very comprehendible way, which isn’t always easy. I give you props for that. In the first paragraph of your post you refer to Hawkins as a ‘he’ and while you correct yourself in the following content, I think it’s important to point out that this is an easy mistake. Her name could be described as unisex and therefore assuming either gender would be valid. I did a little digging to confirm, she is in fact female. Which is not surprising considering the topic, I do look forward as we move on with this semester to see if any readings/ecofeminist thoughts will be written by a male. Now in regard to the actual topic. I agree with all you stated and argued for. Upon doing my own post I made it adamant that I agree with Hawkins but I based it off that fact that overall she classifies as ‘pro-choice’, how can I argue with that? But you bring some really interesting and valid thoughts to this discussion. I have to say, you’ve totally swayed my way of thinking around this topic. I realize now that it’s not simply about whether one chooses to be ‘pro-choice’ or ‘pro-life’. It’s about the circumstances in which they came to choose their ‘side’, and the reasons surrounding this choice. Near the end of Hawkins’ paper she writes, “the United States, one effect, however indirect, of the termination of a million and a half undesired pregnancies per year has been to reduce that toll [environmental destruction]”. This is so impersonal and so emotionless. I wonder if her number of ‘undesired pregnancies’ counts for all the women who were forced to get an abortion by abusive partners or had to terminate the pregnancy because any number of medical conditions, or out of sheer fear of countless things. I wouldn’t classify these as ‘undesired pregnancies. Peter, your thoughts this week were extremely well put together, and honestly thank you for opening my eyes to a rather important aspect of this conversation.
Hi Peter!
Truthfully, I thought roughly the same about the word ecofeminism and after reading Hawkins essay on being pro-choice for the sake of the environment, my ratio had shifted a little more with hers. Now that I have read everyone’s blogs and really thought about the problems people have with women making choices for their own bodies, I am back to that 50/50 mark or maybe a little more for women. Hawkins huge point which you mentioned is without abortion as a form of contraceptive, population size would see substantial growth. With these new children comes new mouths to feed, humans to support, land needed for homes for their families when they’re older. Eventually we will have no more Earth or space on Earth I should say to support these new humans. Abortion is a touchy topic and Hawkins was able to express her points on abortion with facts rather than opinion. I like that you included a chart of the population growth as well as mentioned how abortion can already be argued on an interpersonal scale. I agree with this completely. For me, I believe women have a right to do with their bodies as they please. Especially because sometimes awful things happen such as rape, and no women should have to carry a child coming from that if they did not choose to do so on their own. A point I have been bringing up a lot is how Hawkins speaks of the problem’s ecofeminists are faced when it comes to abortions. She mentions how masculinity comes into play and how women may be inferior to men when it comes to getting an abortion. She then goes on to say another problem is how one may lack respect for the interconnectedness of nature when supporting abortion. Bringing me back to her main points; in destroying the Earth and overpopulating it, aren’t we lacking that respect as well?
Peter,
like the previous comments stated, I admire your passion, it seeps through the words of your blog. And I agree. I think what Hawkins presented was more surface level material. She clearly avoided the emotional implications and the mental affects that haunt many women considering abortion. But I think that is the kind of perspective required when considering the welfare of the global environment. Hawkins talks about “reducing the amount and nature of our consumption and by reducing the number of us that consume the planet’s precious resources.” (692) I would say that this statement makes her sound inhumane, as if she were talking about any species other than her own. She felt that this was the appropriate approach. I feel, however, that her argument could have been made stronger if she included real testimonies from women at the front lines of this debate. Like you said, include the voices of the ones who are impacted the most.
Hi Peter,
I really loved your intake on Hawkins. You gave me a different light to look on. During the reading I was so convinced that the earth needs to be healthy and remain alive before we consider to hold a child long term. Though I myself 100% believe we need to consider the lives that are going through such a detrimental part of their lives. I know a lot of woman who really don’t want to have abortions but they are forced to because of their personal situations. So I really hate when someone feels someone is heartless for going through with abortion because that’s a huge decision to end a life you’re bringing into this world. It’s sad but I love how this reading didn’t have me focus on the aspect of bringing life into this world might be detrimental to our planet and I think it gives people another sign of support when they are making their decision they can think hey maybe I’m not just helping my situation I’m benefitting the earth? I don’t know it makes more sense in my head. Though the way you used the chart also showed me that she cares more about thing’s that help her article. I wish she would’ve at least tried to add the feeling of the human being that lives on the earth she cares/talks about so much.
Good read, good blog. Thanks love.
xx Gossip Girl