I was 23 years old the first time I ever read about a woman who killed her own child. I was in the middle of reading Tony Morrison’s Beloved. In this story a former slave is on the run, and upon being threatened by slave-catchers with her children’s capture and subsequent enslavement, kills one of them, an infant named Beloved, without hesitation. In the aftermath, the woman is deemed unfit to be a mother, her home is haunted by the ghost of her baby, and her other children are taken away from her.
I think the large majority of unplanned pregnancies occur from a casual attitude towards sex and contraception. Although abortion will remain widely available in most of the country, I hope women will be more serious when choosing when and how they engage in behavior that may make them a mom.
We hold men responsible for unplanned children. I don't know how we reached the conclusion that women shouldn't be held responsible too.
I agree with the point you're making broadly. However, the "original sin" was Roe. Legally, it was judicial legislation that went against the laws of 49 states at the time. Worse, it served to polarize the debate around the issue in a way that allowed a lot of pro-choice activists to hide behind the ruling versus engage the issue thoughtfully and meaningfully. It is my belief that many states would have over time naturally gotten to laws similar to that of modern day Europe and the entire issue would today be way less tribal in nature.
Interesting. I also see past the moral snobbery of this matter and see it primarily as an economic question. What I don't know is the extent to which the number of abortions any potential mother might have that decrease her ability to carry an infant to term subsequently. It would be an interesting datapoint to add to the discussion. Nevertheless, I insist that human beings have an inherent right to make life or death decisions whether or not these are wise decisions. Anybody can declare at any time that some other person makes them fear for their life (or livelihood, or lifestyle). These are the consequences of liberty.
So long as we are expecting a government to subsidize life, in the terms you state, then of course we are putting prices on human heads. Same with Basic. This, it seems to me, goes in the opposite direction of liberty. It's one thing for an individual to assess the worth of their own life. It's another thing to have that established at the national level. It does truly establish the price of life.
I am encouraged by women in the Third World who have babies outside of hospitals. I always remember this because my own parents were born at home, in the projects, in the 1930s when birth certificates and such were not always available for Coloreds.
I think the large majority of unplanned pregnancies occur from a casual attitude towards sex and contraception. Although abortion will remain widely available in most of the country, I hope women will be more serious when choosing when and how they engage in behavior that may make them a mom.
We hold men responsible for unplanned children. I don't know how we reached the conclusion that women shouldn't be held responsible too.
Amazing piece Chloe. Profound, politically generous, and bracingly honest all at the same time.
I agree with the point you're making broadly. However, the "original sin" was Roe. Legally, it was judicial legislation that went against the laws of 49 states at the time. Worse, it served to polarize the debate around the issue in a way that allowed a lot of pro-choice activists to hide behind the ruling versus engage the issue thoughtfully and meaningfully. It is my belief that many states would have over time naturally gotten to laws similar to that of modern day Europe and the entire issue would today be way less tribal in nature.
Interesting. I also see past the moral snobbery of this matter and see it primarily as an economic question. What I don't know is the extent to which the number of abortions any potential mother might have that decrease her ability to carry an infant to term subsequently. It would be an interesting datapoint to add to the discussion. Nevertheless, I insist that human beings have an inherent right to make life or death decisions whether or not these are wise decisions. Anybody can declare at any time that some other person makes them fear for their life (or livelihood, or lifestyle). These are the consequences of liberty.
So long as we are expecting a government to subsidize life, in the terms you state, then of course we are putting prices on human heads. Same with Basic. This, it seems to me, goes in the opposite direction of liberty. It's one thing for an individual to assess the worth of their own life. It's another thing to have that established at the national level. It does truly establish the price of life.
I am encouraged by women in the Third World who have babies outside of hospitals. I always remember this because my own parents were born at home, in the projects, in the 1930s when birth certificates and such were not always available for Coloreds.