For He Who Says He Should Have Never Been Born: Some Thoughts on Abortion
I was sitting at the table nibbling chips, my hair slightly messy. As I waited for my meal, I scanned the restaurant, appreciating the artistry of the paintings on the walls. My mind was full of thoughts, but I couldn’t help but overhear a table of diners discussing abortion rights. My first instinct was to concentrate on anything else. It wasn’t my conversation, but I couldn’t shut out the sounds of the discussion and what I heard was thought provoking. One of the men at the table was saying abortion rights, or the lack of them, doesn’t just affect women but also affects the men who are legally responsible for the unborn child. This observation can go both ways. Some men may not consent to an abortion while others may push the woman to have one. This man offered this point to illustrate why the law shouldn’t be changed to ban abortions: he viewed it as an issue of a father’s right to not be a father. I didn’t mean to eavesdrop, but the way he presented abortion piqued my curiosity, so as I waited for my lunch special to arrive, I continued to contemplate the pieces of conversation that floated over to my table. The speaker at the next table brought up his own life as a child of a single mother with a father who never paid child support. Because he was born, he suffered a difficult life. However, his story of poverty and struggle had a more positive conclusion as he managed to convince the estranged father to pay for his college education, by virtue of threatening to sue for the unpaid child support. As he continued, he connected his experience to the social ill that is so rampant in L.A. county and many other places: young men irresponsibly impregnating women while unable to support the children financially or emotionally. His primary example was the area’s “cholos” who lead lives of crime. Abortion rights make it possible for young women to bow out of difficult, life long entanglements with these men while offering the women the opportunity to get their shit together education and career wise so that they can later become stable, loving parents rather than burdened and resentful.
I do understand his point, but his point would have never been conveyed had he been aborted. It is fact that children who grow up unsupported and are raised by the angry and bitter develop deep rooted emotional and behavioral problems. They suffer. The statistics also show overwhelmingly that children in fatherless households are far more likely to engage in crime, drop out of school, and develop drug addictions. It’s not because most single mothers don’t do everything in their power to provide a safe and loving home but rather parenting is a two-person job. Both the mother and father take on archetypal significance in the human psyche and our relationships with them tie intimately to our sense of worth, our models for reality, and what responsible, loving, and balanced relationships are like. Still, there are many well-adjusted individuals who grew up in a single-parent home. Human beings have the strength and potential to overcome life’s difficulties, even the ones that seem hopeless and unceasing.
Even though I agree with the man’s point about the problem of fatherless homes, aborting the children isn’t the answer. I concede that the impregnated young women will have more difficult lives, at least for a while, and that their chances of finding a supportive life partner decreases. The same is true for the young father if he stays around. Making an immature mistake and then finding oneself with what people call “a life-long sentence” can inspire dread and regret, but it isn’t the child’s life that is the problem. It’s the person’s attitude. As difficult as it is to say, as much as people don’t want to admit it, taking personal responsibility for our actions and transforming our narratives has a more positive affect on human life than dodging our responsibilities and opting for an easy way out that is only an illusion. I have known many young women who have had one or more abortions, and they always regret it. They develop emotional problems afterward that simply don’t go away. There are always the women who say they don’t care, but it’s easy to ignore the elephant in the room and put on an apathetic face to the world while drowning one’s sorrows in whatever reality replacement is at hand.
More to the point, prevention is important. While morality suggests these young people practice abstinence, the reality is that most will not for a variety of factors. It could be naivety or curiosity, but the social climate that has trivialized life-long love and physical connection is part of it. So long as the culture normalizes extroverted sexuality, society must deal with young people thinking that there is nothing wrong with casual hookups and exalting the pleasures of the body without any deeper thought. That is why young people should have access to birth control and condoms. I am not in favor of creepy sex ed classes where adults give pointers to young people or introduce them to ideas about sexuality that they wouldn’t have otherwise thought about, and I think that birth control is a bad idea health wise. However, as far as the medical community knows, temporary use of birth control usually doesn’t have dangerous, irreversible, long-term effects. Most people take mainstream medicine as the authority on health, so if they trust the narrative on vaccines and pharmaceuticals, then they might as well trust the narrative on birth control. For those who view western medicine as advanced yet deficient, the birth control idea may not be compelling. An alternative to birth control is the condom. Some people view condom distribution as encouraging young people to have sex. Nevertheless, it would be better if young people could purchase or obtain condoms anonymously if they have need rather than spreading disease and impregnating people.
Whether or not birth control or condoms are available isn’t as important as changing the culture. Young families should be supported rather than stigmatized. Offering career oriented or household-oriented education options in high school is one step forward on this path. Another is challenging the idea that it’s best to marry and give birth later in life when the conditions are just right since this viewpoint is actually harmful for women. While waiting for better conditions is a responsible approach, many people wait too long as they can’t quite make their situation ideal. Then they find that they are infertile or that impregnation is difficult. Another option is popularizing the idea that we should only sleep with people we wouldn’t mind raising a family with. Another is for families to be more accepting of unplanned pregnancy and making sure these young people have more help. There are spiritual and charitable organizations out there which will do everything in their power to help, so informing young families about these organizations is important. Maybe the 4.0 G.P.A. teen with an unplanned pregnancy won’t be able to directly enter college and swiftly pass the bar, but perhaps family life should be more important that the college and career anyway. Far too many women are bombarded with the idea that motherhood is a waste of talent and that not pursuing college and career is oppression. Age inevitably creeps up, and some of these women find themselves middle aged and regretting that they didn’t put family first since they may not be able to conceive. They defied nature in a way that can not be taken back even if there are expensive medical impregnation options that will work for some couples.
The prevalent yet flawed attitude in the media is that a career is what makes life worthy and that child bearing is a prison sentence. Without the negative anti-family attitude supported by mainstream cultural forces, we can come to embrace the idea that being the head of a family is a true vocation, a duty that serves one’s community, and expresses gratitude towards one’s heritage. Family life isn’t the stereotype of unfulfilling days, changing diapers, and suffering through obnoxious children’s programming if the parents are open to their vocation and are willing to make the time to share meaningful experiences with their children, such as bonfires in the backyard every week or weekly park outings. Traditionally, motherhood required both smarts and spiritual proclivity. A mother not only nourished and minded the children but instructed them on ethical conduct, their cultural history, and their spiritual heritage. She played an integral role in their socialization which hands down contributes to success later. The mother also tended the children as physick. She facilitated emotional development and kept the house clean all while the husband worked and represented the family in civic affairs as well as provided the home with companionable leadership and logical guidance.
I already sense the cringing of the “I Want a Wife” feminists who would rather defy nature than reign the domestic sphere. While I don’t think women should be denied any civic rights the husband enjoys, I definitely challenge those who screw women over in the name of rights — the like of whom encouraged an economic system reliant on both men and women which in turn raised property prices and has inflated the cost of living all while introducing new expenses like paying for day care so that strangers come and care for the family’s children rather that their own mothers. While convenient, the norm of outside childcare trivializes the importance of family, suggesting that any person is just as good as any other when it comes to raising children. It is true that there are many gifted care providers, but the utilitarian attitude toward childcare obscures the power of blood bonds and the psychic nourishment provided from the child’s biological parents.
Still most would argue a dual parent household is a privilege that many poor parents can’t muster, especially when many men are all too willing to run from their own poor decision making, responsibilities, or fears. The children shouldn’t be the ones who pay with their lives even if they are conceived under trying circumstances. For each man weakened by the heaviness of a less than ideal life, there are still more who discover how the spirit can triumph above the dismal. Just think, the man at the restaurant would have never been born nor his opinion conveyed if abortion were his mother’s choice. Instead, she bravely chose life despite the adversity on the path, and the world is thus enriched by his presence.
The media makes it seem like life is all about stuff: the cars we drive, the clothes we wear, how big our T.V. is, and seldom is gratitude expressed for the miraculous conveniences of the modern age that are almost universally available, such as refrigeration, washing machines, the telephone, let alone the Internet. People often views conveniences and luxuries as basic needs despite thousands of years of going without. Still, these days, the hierarchy, many suppose, has more to do with the identities we build from objects rather than the identities we establish in the family from nuclear to the greater family to the nation. I can’t help but disagree. Strength as a people yields more than convenience culture and the convenience killings that go along with it. I would even argue that a culture so self-centered as to see a healthy new human life as expendable is Dystopian. It is anti-life. The implications extend beyond a simple birth to how we should live our lives in general. The mainstream attitude is to give in and pick the easy way out rather than pick that which is sacred and rise above. As products of our age, it’s a dilemma we all contend with whether we are talking about debt, fighting tyranny, or even selecting healthy food to eat. No one is above the existential perils convenience culture poses, but we can all make the choice to struggle for the greater good.
Change the culture, so young people view starting a family as normal, family life as worthy and gratifying, simplicity as satisfying, and life beyond the screen, which shapes so many of our views, as infinitely empowering if one exercises the choice. Make it so women can stay home and provide the bounty of the mother archetype while still being able to operate comfortably with periodic babysitting from the rest of the family. If a woman wants more than that, the west still has all doors open for her, but let it not be said that a family is a closed door. Encourage civic engagement within the home. Let children come to know their fellow families all as part of one cooperative society unafraid of challenging the oppression of the modern mythos, and help those souls living from a place of pain and dysfunction rather than trivializing what great fulfillment can come from the family and life in general.
All this being said, sometimes compassion is imperfect. I do think in cases of severe risk to life and health, abortions should be viewed as life saving medical procedures. In cases of rape or incest, an early abortion can prevent greater tragedy. I say this with regret knowing the counter argument is that life is so sacred that abortion should never be contemplated and that adoption is the solution, but these types of pregnancies were forced on the women against their will like in a nightmare. To alleviate their suffering, they should be able to have an accessible early abortion option, and there should be enough education available that they make this choice before there is a heart beat. The women who suffer through rape or incest may not view the life created from the rape or incest as sacred after all. They may even be atheists and view all life as so much matter. Regardless of the circumstances, our society should prioritize a perspective shift and fight against the idea that souls should be disposed of like yesterday’s garbage.
