During the 12 th century, most societies did not recognize birth control methods as a way of reducing unwanted pregnancies. As such the rate of unwanted pregnancies especially among poor women was very high. It is during this time that Margaret realized that unwanted pregnancies led to more problems for the women and the society. According to Margaret, women needed the freedom to when it came to child birth, how many children they wanted to have as well as determine the spacing between their children. In her opinion, when women gave birth to very many children, they were unable contribute economically to the betterment of their families. This was so because their economic capabilities were limited. At the same time, unintentional child bearing reduced the dignity of a woman through increased poverty, abuse, alcoholism and joblessness or inability to work. Increased unplanned child birth put the woman in a constant state of uncertainty, taking away her productivity hence leading to increased poverty. Unplanned child bearing hence affect a woman economically, socially and emotionally. Issues affecting women especially those related to their reproductive health should be addressed to ensure that women are healthy and productive. By So doing women across the world are empowered. This has however not been the case since women in most societies are still not able to make decisions regarding their reproductive health without influence from external factors.
During this century, birth control was not only a socially unaccepted practice but was also illegal. In 1873 for example, the Comstock Act passed by the United States Congress allowed mail carriers to confiscate any contraceptives they found in mails and parcels. The United States government was not for the idea of birth control since the belief was that the woman had a duty to the state to bear healthy children. In 1916, Margaret, a nurse and sex educator, broke the law and opened the first birth control clinic in Brooklyn, one of the riskiest things to do at that time. Her desire to educate women on their sexuality and sexual rights led her to do open the clinic against the law. She was arrested under the Acts regulation. She went ahead to fight her conviction and almost won the battle when the court allowed contraceptives if prescribed by a physician. In 1938, Margaret played a key role in helping end the Comstock Act, allowing women to make choices on how many children they wanted to birth hence leading them to sexual freedom.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In comparison to the eugenics argument, Margaret arguments seems to look deeper into the eugenics argument and understand that frequent birth beats the logic or arguments put across by eugenics. Eugenics, through their campaigns wanted to save a race through elimination of the unfit. They emphasize the mating of healthy adults only to sire healthy children and the sterilization of the unfit to prevent them from having off springs. As such, Margaret’s argument and the eugenics argument are similar in that they advocate for betterment of the society through reproduction (NYU, 2003). The difference is the method each argument chooses to use or advocate for. Margaret’s argument is hence not only feminist but also in one way supports the eugenics argument. According to Margaret, the “fitness or unfitness” of an offspring is largely influenced by the mother’s fitness (NYU, 2003).In her opinion a mother who continuously gives birth to children is not in a position to sire healthy and fit children. This is because continuous child birth wears a woman’s body out. It does not allow the body to recover from a previous child birth and replenish elements required by the next baby for growth. The implication is that with time, a woman starts to give birth to children who are not as healthy as the eugenics advocate for.
Whether a parent is sterilized or uses birth control methods, the end goal is that the mother reduces her chances of increased child birth or giving birth to “unfit” children. Other than eliminating “unfit” off-springs birth control methods allow a woman to be economically viable in that she has time to work and be productive. A woman who is constantly bringing up children does not have adequate time to be economically productive. This explains why women who give birth to children they cannot sustain economically end up living in poverty. Once exposed to poverty, other social and health problems arise leading to poor standards of living. Such women become victims of unemployment/joblessness, poor living conditions, hunger and poverty, diseases and are exposed to crime and abuse.
Debates around birth control are still heated even today. Certain religions do not advocate for the same. The Catholic Church for example is against child birth control and abortion denying its female members the freedom to make their reproductive decisions. Doctrines of the Catholic Church stipulate that Christians were commanded by God to fill the earth ( Brian & Brian, 2020) . Such debates have led to different laws especially surrounding abortion and other methods of preventing unwanted child births. The question of whether a woman should be guided by societal standards, religious standards or go for what they believe is best for them has been the bone of contention among feminists, religious leaders and the government. This is the reason why birth control is still not as common in certain countries around the world especially in areas where women are yet to attain their sexual freedom from cultural, religious beliefs and government laws ( Brian & Brian, 2020) . Most of these countries have continued to drag behind economically which is the case in developing countries where child birth rates are still high.
Other than the fact that affected women in these countries are not able to contribute to their countries’ economic growth increased population as a result of unplanned pregnancies also plays a role in the slow economic development of the countries. This is so because such governments have to keep budgeting for huge poor populations leading to a vicious circle of poverty and hence poor economic development. Birth control and reproductive freedom can hence be looked to as a tool that has played a key role in bringing equality between different races (both blacks and whites) and classes. When it was introduced to the Black Americans by Margaret, most of them felt that the idea of contraceptives was meant for the “whites” and the “rich” and introducing it to Black Americans would most likely lead to population decrease and hence extinction of the race.
Most critics have looked at Sanger’s argument as being racist. However, propagators of the idea saw it as a way through which Margaret aimed at reducing racial and classical differences between “White Americans” and “Black Americans” while reducing the gap between the rich through empowerment of Black American women who were often poor. In a nutshell, powerful influence such as reproductive freedom has been seen to reduce poverty levels among women and their families hence invalidating the fear that the poor would one day outbreed the rich and the lesser stock would take over the county. This is so because such freedom brings with it the power to decide what is best for a woman and the society at large.
In conclusion women empowerment is a topic that has often been looked at as being feminist. However, issues affecting women often affect the whole society at large. Empowering women is hence not an option for countries and societies that want to solve most of its social and economic problems. When women are given the chance to make decisions regarding their bodies, their careers are enhanced and families live better life. The impact to the society is hence positive.
References
Brian Clowes, P., & Brian Clowes, P. (2020). Margaret Sanger, Racist and Eugenicist, and the
Birth Control Review . Human Life International. Retrieved 6 March 2020, from https://www.hli.org/resources/sangers-birth-control-review-part-i/ .
NYU. (2003). Margaret Sanger, “Birth Control and racial betterment” The Birth Control Review,
February 1919 3(2), 11-12 https://www.nyu.edu/projects/sanger/webedition/app/documents/show.php?sangerDoc=143449.xml
