The notorious South Dakota bill to protect the all-important right of rapists to breed, and to ensure future generations for family pedophiles is raising eyebrows and blood pressure. Mine, too. It's also raising questions.
Is pregnancy resulting in giving birth to unwanted children a suitable punishment for sex?
Does an unwanted child live a life of gaiety and happiness?
Do wanted children wind up as shown here, as sweet little babies with two black eyes?
When the government forces maternity on a woman who has already decided she is unable properly to care for the child, what happens to the kid? And why don't rightwing blowhards care?
Because they're greedy selfish bastards, really. Which is why when I ran into one rightwinger's blog here that tried to spin this thing the other way, it was pretty darn funny. Well, sorta.
He insists that planning a family is "selfish."
Now, I'd bet that this person is probably a conservative Roman Catholic, and if that's how he wants to live, that's fine with me.
My problem is his attempt to dictate to me and others how we must live--which is according to his religious rules.
I'm Buddhist. I'm not after his mousetraps. I'm not ridding his house of Raid. I don't use mousetraps, and I don't use Raid. But I'm not in this guy's face about it, and he definitely is in mine.
Trying to make laws to force women into having kids that won't be well-cared for is irresponsible, and cruel. Making laws that support childbearing in loving conditions is hardly selfish, but responsible. Suggesting, like Preznit Toad-Exploder, that that feti should have health care that expires upon birth is reprehensible.
The radical right wants to suppress the data that unwantedness leads to criminal behavior, but it's out there all the same: "estimates suggest that legalized abortion can account for about half the observed decline in crime in the United States between 1991 and 1997." {The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime, Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2001).
Where do child abuse and child neglect come from? Outer space?
From "The History of Child Abuse," here:
The Child as Poison Container
The main psychological mechanism that operates in all child abuse involves using children as what I have termed poison containers--receptacles into which adults project disowned parts of their psyches, so they can control these feelings in another body without danger to themselves.
In good parenting, the child uses the caretaker as a poison container . . . A good mother reacts with calming actions to the cries of a baby and helps it "detoxify" its dangerous emotions.
But when an immature mother's baby cries, she cannot stand the screaming, and strikes out at the child. As one battering mother put it, "I have never felt loved all my life. When the baby was born, I thought he would love me. When he cried, it meant he didn't love me. So I hit him."
Rather than the child being able to use the parent to detoxify its fears and anger, the parent instead injects his or her bad feelings into the child and uses it to cleanse his or herself of depression and anger.
One must wonder--just how many of those hysterically active in the forced maternity movement were themselves unwanted?
How many of those screaming for women to remain barefoot and pregnant have the slightest interest in improving economic and social conditions, so that children can be well-cared-for? How many are devoted to improving parenting and education? To improving the social climate?
As historian Lloyd deMause asks:
If war, social violence, class domination and economic destruction of wealth are really revenge rituals for childhood trauma, how else can we remove the source of these rituals? How else end child abuse and neglect? How else increase the real wealth of nations, our next generation?
How, indeed?
[update: this law has now been signed, story here, by the Governor, who is Catholic. South Dakota, The Coathanger State]
planned parenthood
child abuse
unwantedness
South Dakota abortion ban
24 comments:
Everything you say is common sense..but evidently..not common enough.
I thank god and greyhound that I am past childbearing years. I do it every single friggin time I see crap like they have been pulling since the Shrub took office. They are systematically destroying our right of choice while we sit and watch.
Wonderful post. I wonder if it isn't somehow tied up in their notions of 'suffering'. As in, Christ suffered so all must suffer. I think they equate life with suffering, so 'abuse' and 'neglect' and 'pain' are not even considerations.
I think it's less philosophical than that, more like monkey see, monkey do. Or monkey gets hit, monkey grows up, monkey hits his little monkey and tells it it's for the little monkey's own good.
I figure Mel must've been beaten pretty bad by Daddy when he was a kid--judging from the amount of noble torturee scenes in his movies. Grisly.
Look at the Talibangelicals--dogbeater Dobson, who advocates whipping infants--I'd bet his daddy beat the crap out of him.
Then, the torture triplets--Cheney killing his defenseless quails for fun, Bush and his toads--& god knows who brought up Rummy.
You really should read the posts you comment on, sendme. Read the whole thing, and you'll find that statistics point out that as the abortion rate rose, the crime rate fell.
Gee, why would that be? Because little unwanted feti that are born to mothers hostile to them don't have very happy lives. They are neglected, abused, and grow up to do bad things to other people.
then there's that whole "global overpoulation thing." I am pro choice, and I will even go so far as to say that the planet is working overtime to reduce the human population by every means it can. Disease, natural disaster, man-made disaster- all of this is thrown at each other, and still we breed like rats and brag of our prerogative to do so. If there are too many rats in the box, they start to eat each other. Extend the metaphor as long as you like.
Dear sendme: I do advocate adoption. There are thousands of babies in the US who desperately need to be adopted due to abuse and neglect. If there is such an outcry about terminating pregnancies, why aren't these people out adopting all our needy children?
My position is: safe, legal, rare. Very rare would suit me fine, thanks. Even very very rare.
I am strongly pro-birth control, and strongly pro family planning.
I think random parenthood is idiotic.
I think the government forcing people to bear children against their will is actually bad for the children, who are therefore born with three strikes against them. Who are then mistreated, abused, neglected, resented, and grow up to treat other people badly in their turn. You know--rape them, kill them, rob them, all those things.
I think every child deserves to be loved and wanted. You got a problem with that?
Welcome, Darwinita.
Hail, dusty, Neil.
Kvatch: that "selfish" line has to be the lamest spin of all time.
Really wonderful post NB, and really good questions...I am very worried how many Coathanger states will be cropping up now...scary....
And yes, I don't understand why people wanting to be responsible for their bodies and children and the world would be viewed as "selfish"....
Thank you for your good work here....it matters.
Hi, e4e -- did you visit that guy's site? Worth a peek.
Let me get this straight: we should be in favor of having unwanted children to raise the voter registration rolls to combat wingnuttery? Are children objects, for the status, use, abuse, and exploitation of adults?
Couldn't we say the same thing, that the Catholic Church is not in favor of abortion because they need to keep their numbers up? Every sperm is sacred? Yet on the left I think we try to stick more to the facts versus joining those that would spew hateful things to bolster a position.
And actually I just looked at adoption stats this morning- the lists are long for white blonde kids, sure. But long lists to get disabled kids? I have worked with dozens of them that have been waiting their whole childhood for adoption. This argument is not based on fact. There are thousands of children all across America- on lists to be adopted for years. And the stats I read this morning came from a Catholic social service organization and they certainly have no motive to lie, do they? A pro-life organization might try to make your argument but the evidence is so contrary that they don't.
The idea that people supporting reproductive liberties are "celebrating" abortion seems to presuppose a view that it has no meaning. That we go to work, stop at the store, get coffee, have an abortion, then go celebrate.
NB, thank you as usual for a well written, thoughtful post and for making the point about the destiny of these children, where are all the pro-lifers when these children are neglected, hungry, abused? Suddenly these precious babies become trash used by welfare mothers to get bigger checks. Suddenly once born these babies become a drain to society, higher taxes, damn school buildings, blah blah blah...
And lastly, why don't people have a problem with killing pregnant women AND their unborn in Iraq? Why not also consider the slaughtered pregnant women and their unborn in Africa? God forbid we stop a rapist's sperm from implanting in the womb of an American.
Perhaps we should use white phosphorous. Y'all get on board with that.
Lilly--Well, that's just the thing.
Bubble Boy and his American Taliban pals have no problem with Iraq war post-partum abortions, do they?
Ummm, I was unwanted and adopted. PLEASE stop speaking for us!!! You cannot assume we will all be neglected children. The biggest wrong done to the children here is that abortion is cheap and adoption super expensive. If you cared so much for the poor, you would be working to get that reversed rather than trying to stop some state from excersizing its choice. Or is choice only OK when its yours?
The rape and incest reason is brought up so much and it is the biggest con going. Abortion is being used as birth control. Much more often than not, unwanted pregnancy is a consequence for a choice already made. Haven't we had enough of people trying to escape the responsibility for their actions?
Thanks HB for pointing me over to Darwintha's site- very interesting....It so odd to me that a discussion of children and taking care of women's bodies would turn into such a heated discussion, and some less informed and heartless than others...wow...
Thanks continuing your path of educating and advocating.....
I worked PEDS and ER I can tell you firsthand what babies and children that are not loved looked like and still look like. And I used to have help take such photos as well.....it never leaves your soul...so I do understand why you post you such photos, they do speak....
Hey, Xerxes, were you really? Or are you just bullshitting us?
If you bother to read the thread, you will notice that I strongly advocate adoption. And that I think termination should be safe, legal, and rare.
Hope no one you know and love gets incested or raped and made pregnant, Xerxes.
At the core, the "selfish" viewpoint comes down to this:
"You childless people get to spend all your disposable income on yourselves, while we have to spend most of our money on our kids."
As with most things, it's about the money.
What a load of crap, Mr. Daveo.
Selfishness is foisting your personal religious beliefs upon others via supporting government-forced maternity.
Selflessness is about caring about the actual welfare of the actual child.
That unwantedness leads to criminality is beyond question. That's bad for everyone. Unwantedness leading to child abuse and neglect is the means to that end.
Take a look at that little infant above, buddy. That's not photoshop. That's what mommy and daddy did.
So tell me--are wanted children treated that way?
Just askin'.
You Taliban-Americans are so clueless about raising children. Feh.
Safe. Legal.
Rare.
I can't believe last night's post did not make it on here. What a bummer.
Yes, I was adopted and by definition, unwanted. I wonder if you put half the energy into helping adoption as you have for abortion issues. It would be grand to see a good article about American adoption markets.
As for rape, incest and mother's health, all statistics I have ever seen report these comprise a very small percentage of abortions. Even so, do not all laws banning or limiting abortions contain concessions for these cases? Abortion, without question, is being used as birth control for the lazy.
That "Government forced maternity" comment really gets me going. How about taking responsibility for a choice already made. I'll never understand why people call this a choice issue or claim women should control their own bodies. These people have already proven they are NOT responsible with their bodies.
And yes, wanted children are treated this way. Child abuse is not about the state of being wanted or not, it is about adults with control and dominance issues. Child neglect usually has to do with adult substance abuse. I have a hard time with the fact you would show this poor bruised child, a victim of physical abuse, but fail to show the results of a 2nd or 3rd term abortion, with burnt or mutilated bodies.
Safe, legal, rare. What's your problem, Xerxes?
The South Dakota law specifically prohibits abortions in the case of rape and incest. You ok with that?
Choosing to have intercourse is not the same as choosing to have a child.
Force people to give birth to kids they don't want and can't care for, the kids wind up abused and neglected, and, having had bad things done to them, go one to do bad things to others. Deal with it.
My problem? Its not rare.
Goodness. Our host has taken my first-time post in entirely the wrong sense.
"What a load of crap, Mr. Daveo."
I am a childless person, by choice. I have been on the receiving end of the "selfish" argument from time to time. My post was to elucidate what I understand to be the background to this argument, in my experience. Clearly, I was not clear.
While many of my opinions on political questions have changed over the years, I have been pro-choice since jr. high school. And I still am, very vehemently, as I expect you will be pleased to know.
I had hoped that my original post might have conveyed a certain irony. I think it does, but irony is a tricky thing.
In any case, I will gladly disregard the remainder of your reply, although being called a "Taliban-American" was a notable first for me.
(Incidentially, I'm an "athiest-Canadian". Wow, were *you* off.)
Please pardon my failure to understand your irony, then, sir.
In the Bushist fascist world it becomes harder and harder to delineate irony from actuality.
My apologies.
Apology accepted. Partly my fault, anyway; as I said, I could have been clearer.
As for the other, Spider John Koerner has the best advice: "Don't let the bastards wear you down."
Peace.
Word.
That lovely commenter..sendmenoflowers..has no blog but lots of bs to spout eh?
figures..
Post a Comment