Month: November 2019

During a class discussion at our table, we were thinking about what the pro-life side would think about this book. We first were thinking about if they would agree with the points made about abortion and also about the views about women and babies. We were thinking that they would as the points made by Aunt Lydia in particular, are logical and make sense even if I don’t personally agree with them. 

I also wondered if a religious person with pro-life views, specifically more fundamentalist Christians,  agrees with the use of religion in this book. Since the view of religion is so twisted and manipulated in order to fit with the beliefs of the society would a religious person agree with the points made? Would they like the use of the religious aspects or would they consider it blasphemous? Also if a religious person agrees with the manipulated religious aspects would that mean that the aspects of religion that the person believes in could also be manipulated to fit what the views of this pro-life side think?

Hypothetically, if the religious side of thinking, in regards to pro-life and fundamentalist views, believes a twisted view of religion then that would mean that by that side referencing the bible when talking about the pro-life debate would have been twisted to match that view. Also, the bible has constantly been read and had the meaning deciphered, not always in the correct way. 

A bible verse often used alongside the pro-life movement is Deuteronomy 30:19 “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.” The specific part ‘Choose life so that you and your descendants may live.’ has been taken literally in regards to keeping the ‘descendants’ alive referring to the children which obviously is a big argument with the fetal right, arguing against the ‘unnecessary murder’.

During class we planned two debates, with one being about Abortion and the other being fetal rights. I was arguing for the proposition side believing fetuses should have rights.

During the first debate on abortion, the prompt was ‘Is abortion morally wrong?’ Many points were brought up to do with the rights of women and how they would be taken away with the lack of choice that would come with making abortions illegal globally, these were made by the opposition side. The proposition side, against abortions, were making points to do with religion and the child. Even though both sides argued well, the opposition side won. Most of our class are pro-choice so obviously, there might have been the pre-conceived opinions influencing our choice.

During the second debate on fetal rights, the prompt was ‘Do fetuses have rights?’ The opposition side was bringing up points to the fact that they believe the fetus should have some sort of rights but ultimately giving fetuses rights would affect the rights of the women negatively, they were arguing about the rights of women being more important. They brought up points about the stages of development in the fetus, one key point is that the fetus shared similarities to a chicken fetus so why should we consider it a developing human with rights. The proposition side, the side I was arguing for, brought up points to do with how the stages of development didn’t represent the value a human being should have and that the fetal rights will give fetuses equal rights like that of the women, also including protection against drug and alcohol abuse during pregnancy. At the end of the debate, the proposition side won. This was against the true opinion of the audience as the majority doesn’t believe in it. The reason we won was our arguing skills, specifically the reply speakers speech. It was hard to argue for something I don’t believe in but it was good to get a different perspective on these issues. I also learnt a lot more about the development of fetuses in the womb and the anatomy of the fetus.

Linking these debates to the Handmaid’s tale, there is a lot of connection to choice and freedom. Since the Gilead society is very restrictive it linked to the pro-life movement. In the Gilead society, they are focused on having children which I assume would cause stigma on abortions, they mIght even be illegalised but they are not fully mentioned in the book. The society also is religious, or at least portraying religion in a twisted and manipulated in order to fit with what the people in control want. So the arguments made on the anti-abortion side to do with religion would be somewhat applicable. The main purpose of the society is to have children so having abortions be legal would be counterproductive.

The quote “There is more than one kind of freedom, said Aunt Lydia, Freedom to and freedom from” (30) applies in some way. The entire debate about pro-choice or pro-life which would link to the fact that the women in this society are affected by the ‘type of freedom’ that they would have. When Aunt Lydia says ‘freedom to’ she is referencing to the ‘days of anarchy’ where women were independent and responsible for their money, jobs, sexual freedom. Though on a more negative side the abuse they got from men (catcalling, sexual assault, rape, inappropriate behaviour) which all of this they now have ‘freedom from’ but by completely isolating them and making them be in a lose-lose situation with men having the upper hand. This was like a brainwashing technique for them to accept this situation. Since the pro-choice argument links with rape victims and the children due to this situation it links with the ‘freedom to’ side, with it linking to the days before the societal shift. 

Also, Serena Joy before the societal change was advocating for women to work and not fall into the gender norms of being housewives and mothers but now she is trapped doing the very thing she was against. 

The real-life connection between the book and these issues that we are facing nowadays is interesting. This would be a good topic to discuss in the IO as there are many links with the book with gender equality and what women face.