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
0 Yorumlar