Media & Human Rights & Gender Issues Posted by Oaktown Girl, 09 May 2007 05:07 am

Give Me Your Children: Every Single One of ‘Em

By Seattle

So I was listening to National Petroleum Radio as Oaktown Girl calls it the other day and heard the news that once again, the never-ending debate over abortion had been ratcheted up a notch due to a recent Supreme Court decision. Nothing sets my teeth grinding like that topic, except possibly driving behind very slow drivers from other nations on Beacon Ave. South in south Seattle when I’m late. I’m late a lot… But I digress.

The never-ending debate over our unwanted children is how I consider the abortion issue. Viability, pain thresholds, visible proof of life, murder, God, responsibility, God, did I mention teeth grinding? I feel the blood pressure rising in my temples just thinking about it - that happens way too much nowadays too - and I’ve come up with my own solution to the issue of our unwanted children. ‘Cause that’s what we’re talking about. Children their parents don’t want. We’ve got a lot of live ones in that category.
Not just in the US. It’s a global, human issue. Unwanted progeny.

Another National Petroleum Radio article a few days later described the living conditions of children in orphanages in Russia. Painful stuff, if you care about kids. Children left tied to cribs, fed, but not changed, not interacted with. Literally left to rot. Better off alive or dead? That’s the real question, isn’t it? And what always bothers me about the “pro-life” movement is the way they’re all about saving life until 2 seconds after the child exits the vagina, after which they plain don’t give a good Goddamn. Societies that give a damn don’t let children fall through all the cracks that exist in our country and many others. Children - the renewable resource. Bear a lot, loose a few. Crass? Uncomfortable? Sure. But way true.

I have two sons, so I’ve talked to the older about what I call the current human dilemma of scientific progress versus the human libido. I tell him that the brain is way behind the current news on sanitation, nutrition, medical advances, etc. So the brain tells the human to reproduce early and often so that we can lose one child to the tiger, several to disease, infected wounds, and rotted food, several more to natural disasters, and let’s not forget wars with maybe one or two left to survive to adulthood and do it all again. That’s where the brain is.

Of course, we don’t need to reproduce at the rate the brain pushes us to anymore - but it’s an old habit and hard to break. And we’ve had lots of sanctioned and unsanctioned options for getting rid of unwanted children for quite a while. Undoubtedly since the concept of “unwanted” got paired with “child” many a human age ago. So what to do? Those who proudly wear the badge “pro-life” would tell us it’s all about control. No doubt about it, they are right - it IS about control; something a large segment of our population has demonstrated for time out of mind that we chose not to exercise.

The abortion question, focusing on life versus murder, is not addressing the real issue. No woman who’s had an abortion really thinks in the terms that the abortion debate utilizes. She’s under pressure. The pressure usually comes from 3 sources: the father, family, and society at large. She’s probably felt that sinking feeling in the pit of her stomach when a man she thought she had some emotional connection with told her he didn’t want their child. She may have looked at her financial situation and knows she won’t be able to support a child. Her parents may have threatened to abandon her. Her relationship may have been frowned on by society at large. These are the women the debate is focused on-not the rape victims etc that are trotted out for display.

At it’s most basic level, the abortion debate is about controlling others. So I say to hell with showing pregnant women their unborn fetus on ultrasound. Let’s take it one step further. Let’s say every pregnancy test includes a genetic test. No child shall be called fatherless again. Then let’s go out and locate dad and all the immediate living relatives - that would be grandparents, aunts and uncles. Let’s corral them in a conference room at the abortion clinic and they can all look at the picture of the fetus. Then let’s pass around a legal document to be signed by all present swearing responsibility for the emotional, physical, and mental development of said child to adulthood. But let not the meddling and controlling stop there. Let’s assign a government watchdog to follow that child through to adulthood and ensure there is no abuse. Abuse equals child removed from home and ALL relatives who signed that form pay child support while someone not related to the child raised him/her. I anticipate that this will generate quite a few jobs. Always look on the bright side! Every child will be born and cared for and I will never have to hear the abortion debate again. Hallelujah, praise the appropriate Deity!

Trackbacks

Responses to “Give Me Your Children: Every Single One of ‘Em”

  1. on 09 May 2007 at 8:35 am 1. Seattle said …

    I was amused to find myself driving behind a huge truck this morning on my way to work. On the back door was a sign that read “It’s not a choice, it’s a child.” As I passed it, I found it was owned by “Covenant Transport” and their logo was if I remember rightly, a blank map of the US with a blank scroll superimposed. Hmmmm.

  2. on 09 May 2007 at 8:50 am 2. christian h. said …

    Seattle, thank you so much for this post. I completely agree that as a political issue (as opposed to a personal one), abortion is about keeping control of women’s lives. Or more precisely, of poor women’s lives (rich ones can just go to Canada, after all). See also Oaktown Girls comment here: clearly the “no compromises on life” crowd is making all kinds of compromises.

  3. on 09 May 2007 at 10:11 am 3. Seattle said …

    What the whole Right to Life movement fails to take into consideration is the human resentment factor. Assume all these children are born and raised by their parents-who didn’t want them. Even say we follow my idea and put a watchdog on each child to weed out overt abuse. The parent who slaps a smile on their face for a child they were forced to have is not doing that child justice. The term bastard doesn’t mean just born outside of marriage; it means unwanted. Save up for therapy now…and I mean on a societal basis-in a society where we still for the most part don’t acknowledge mental health care as a basic right. Life yes, a good life, well, not on MY dime.

  4. on 09 May 2007 at 11:07 am 4. James Killus said …

    I for one, eagerly await the day when every unwanted fetus can be surgically removed and forceably implanted into the womb of some pro-life individual.

    Actually, I don’t. I’ve known too many who are miserable mothers to the children they already have.

    Still, we must find some extreme policy to advocate, else we are not being faithful to the spirit of WAAGNFP. Pehaps people should be licensed to have children and all unlicensed fetuses should be aborted by law. No, too Chinese. Perhaps we should kill every first born…no, too Mel Brooksish.

  5. on 09 May 2007 at 11:33 am 5. Seattle said …

    Wasn’t it Sting who mourned somewhere in his liner notes the difficulty of coming up with an original thought?

  6. on 09 May 2007 at 11:42 am 6. Seattle said …

    You need to read more science fiction. You missed the mandatory uterine implant after a woman’s first period option-only to be removed after passing a licensing process including the committment of an also licensed partner. You can thank Lois McMaster Bujold for that one.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lois_McMaster_Bujold

  7. on 09 May 2007 at 12:13 pm 7. James Killus said …

    You need to read more science fiction.

    No. I. do. not.

  8. on 09 May 2007 at 12:20 pm 8. Oaktown Girl said …

    James - you’re not alone. I’ve certainly entertained fantasies about mandatory uterine implantation upon “pro life” women, but then that unfairly burdens the women over the men. And of course the children of this policy would overwhelmingly suffer.

    But I am convinced a large, vocal, and organized campaign of “how many children have you adopted?” would be truly useful, not just a “gotcha” tactic. Why? Because the excuse these people would offer for not adopting would be financial. OK, fine. You don’t want to raise children in poverty, but it’s just fine for OTHER people to do it.

    Anyway, I think that’s our opening to a REAL discussion about economics and poverty and families. Maybe we could actually move toward a real reform over our current system that actually punishes people for working, or for having an available and responsible father in the picture because it takes away the assistance they need to keep them above the poverty line and/or allow them to attend school.

    (More later, I’m at work).

  9. on 09 May 2007 at 12:36 pm 9. Seattle said …

    LOL I understood they were working on a method for implanting fetus’ in the male small intestine a while back. The opportunities there are breath-taking…but unfortunately they all come back to the same problem: adults (and seeming-adults) forced to produce children just don’t do a very good job of it.

  10. on 09 May 2007 at 12:51 pm 10. spyder said …

    Weirdly, the closer we come to the Kurzweilian point of singularity and the moment of transhumanized consciousness, those with the dough will be those in the know. Thus, this whole sort of discourse seems to me to be about keeping the theocrats at bay, minimizing their vicious and irrational attacks on women and on the poor of the whole world, while we try to out wait them for the future to arrive. An enlightenment thinker would consider that the premise by which those who hold the belief that a zygote is a fully realized human being, is a personal matter, and possibly a matter within the congregational community; but it is not reasonable, nor rational, to inflict such beliefs upon others by fiat.

    We cannot accept people trying to tell us that their religious beliefs need be the law of the land, especially when the manifestations of those beliefs consider that killing in the name of their deities is just fine with them, though they proclaim to be protectors of life. That degree of hypocrisy deserves the ridicule it receives.

  11. on 09 May 2007 at 1:15 pm 11. Oaktown Girl said …

    Absolutely, spyder. Liberal radio talk show host Bernie Ward (KGO 810 AM San Franciso, M-F 10pm -1am) is very good about making the point that the so-called pro-lifers are NOT pro-life, they are Pro-Birth. And after the baby is born, to hell with it.

    I think I heard him (Ward) tell a story recently of how he confronted a “pro life” woman about the right-to-lifers’ terrible track record of advocating for children after they are born. Her answer was that after they are born, it’s “up to God to provide”. So I guess her God is powerless while the baby is still in the womb. Sounds like a pretty weak-ass God, if you ask me. I’d love to tell her that in person, by the way. (And then I’d preach the Gospel of Lord Astaroth and the One True Way of Gojira to her).

  12. on 09 May 2007 at 2:21 pm 12. Seattle said …

    I understand there are a couple of groups trying to promote adoption among the believers to address this very complaint(Pro Birth vs Pro child), but the response has been rather underwhelming compared to the numbers needed. I don’t think the organizers are framing the argument appropriately. Put your money, time, and energy where your mouth is-and show us all just how much you’re willing to sacrifice to save a soul.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18442334/

  13. on 09 May 2007 at 2:57 pm 13. James Killus said …

    Actually, “pro-lifers” are generally not even pro-birth. If they were, no pro-lifer would ever allow “exceptions” like for rape or incest. In fact, those allowing such exceptions are the majority of those holding anti-abortion sentiments.

    The underlying sentiment is one of control, with head movies of dead babies covering for the basic anger over the idea of women having uncontrolled sex, disconnected from breeding. The control over male sexuality is less direct–after all, “boys will be boys,”–but the idea is that the boy will “do the right thing” after impregnating his sweetie, unless, of course, it’s an inter-racial impregnation, and then it’s assumed to be rape, and abortion is necessary.

    The hatred of pornography and male homosexuality is part of the package; in both, male sexuality is no longer under stereotypical control for breeding purposes.

  14. on 09 May 2007 at 3:13 pm 14. Oaktown Girl said …

    “Pro birth” referring to the fact most people who take on the “pro life” label only care that the child is born and have no concern about the quality of life after the birth. And “pro birth” to point out that if they were really “pro life”, they’d be against the death penalty as well, which few of them are. (The argument being babies are “innocent” and adults are “guilty”).

    And yes of course, it is all about control, specifically of female sexuality.

  15. on 09 May 2007 at 4:10 pm 15. The Constructivist said …

    You all read Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower, right? Well, it’s kind of an apocalyptic CA novel, so it’s right up you West Coasters’ alley, or highway, or whatever. Read it! Anyway, in it, the protagonist tries to start a religion called Earthseed (other planets, baby!) to give people hope and a mission. She died before she could finish the series, but it was shaping up to be a great comeback to all cyberpunk and all space exploration/colonization sf. I’ll try to mention it in my next Figures for Global Capitalism post.

    My idea is that the WAAGNFNP endorse the “every sperm is sacred” line and push every government to take “be fruitful and multiply” a lot more seriously by sending out billions of rockets with a bunch of frozen embryos and robot caretakers on each (for when it finds a habitable planet to land on and terraform). I mean, think of all the potential human life we’ve wasted over the millennia by not doing this already. No wonder God is pissed at us.

  16. on 09 May 2007 at 4:18 pm 16. Seattle said …

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18569939/

  17. on 09 May 2007 at 4:19 pm 17. Seattle said …

    That’s “freeway” by the by… ; )

  18. on 09 May 2007 at 4:32 pm 18. Seattle said …

    Oh, it’s beyond “every sperm is sacred”. Considering the sperm count generation possibilities, we might well be able to outnumber the stars and galaxies fairly quickly. The actual limiting factor would be the number of ovum we could harvest. But it certainly has possibilities as an over the top approach. Quite a kick start to the space program, that’s for sure.

  19. on 09 May 2007 at 4:43 pm 19. Oaktown Girl said …

    The Minister of Justice cannot support an “every sperm is sacred” platform because even joking about that nauseating degree of phallic worship makes her sick. And an ill MOJ is no good to anyone.

    She might, however, endorse a “Male masterbation (to ‘completion’) is punishable by death” platform. That ought to get us some media exposure and put the fear of Gojira into ‘em.

  20. on 09 May 2007 at 4:57 pm 20. Seattle said …

    Ouch. Ok, heading out for the evening. I throw the conversational doors wide open.

  21. on 09 May 2007 at 5:04 pm 21. Oaktown Girl said …

    Thanks for your post today, Seattle!

    Oaktown Girl
    Minister of Justice
    WAAGNFNP

  22. on 09 May 2007 at 8:02 pm 22. JP Stormcrow said …

    …by sending out billions of rockets with a bunch of frozen embryos and robot caretakers on each (for when it finds a habitable planet to land on and terraform).

    They were flying Mother Nature’s
    Silver seed to a new home in the sun

  23. on 10 May 2007 at 12:44 am 23. The Constructivist said …

    Ah, freeway! Back home we got the Thruway, but I knew it wasn’t that, at least. Thanks, Seattle!

    Oaktown Girl, how about “every egg is sacred”? Those damn sperm can fend for themselves. Bootstraps and all.

  24. on 10 May 2007 at 8:27 am 24. spyder said …

    So this popped up this morning…. seems somehow appropriate to the thread:

    — from Black Agenda Report

    “I was led to believe really, that Reagan was possessed by demons. Frankly, I do believe Reagan at that time as much as Bush today was indeed possessed by the demons of manifest destiny.” - Fr. Miguel d’Escoto

    The Ronald Reagan library was the perfect location for the recent Republican presidential debate. The gruesome words of the Republican presidential candidates seemed to come from a séance communing with Reagan’s departed spirit.

    All the candidates believe in the manifest destiny of white men to do whatever the hell they want, namely keep brown people and women under control. Their ideology can be summed up in 50 words or less:

    Americans have the right to kill.

    Americans love God, married couples and pregnant women.

    War is good.

    Ronald Reagan was a saint.

    Muslims, especially Iranians, must die.

    Taxes are bad.

    Fetuses are sacred.

    Immigrants are bad.

    Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are evil.

    There you have it, Republican ideology in a nutshell.

  25. on 10 May 2007 at 9:20 am 25. Oaktown Girl said …

    Thanks, spyder. Here’s the link for that, everybody.