Sian

Not for weak stomachs

I just finished a conversation in which two things were discussed.  First, we talked about the most recent supreme court nomination, and whether he is likely to overturn Roe.  I think everyone--whether they voted for, or against Bush--knew the deals that were being made a couple years back.  Yes.  Roe is going to be overturned.  So, ladies, let me pass on a valuable peice of information, just in case you ever need it.  Canada is north, and it'll do in a pinch.  And those nifty birth control pills?  They double as morning after pills, if you're desperate and living in a theocracy.

And, on a related topic, we discussed Andrea Yates, who has been given a new trial.  (This is something I missed.  The other person brought it up.)   Andrea drowned a bunch of her kids in the bathtub a few years ago. 

Now, personally, I have no problem with retroactive abortion until the child reaches the age of 18, but the real question is what impact one will have on the other.  Is there a correlation between the availability of abortion and the likelyhood of holding your kid's face underwater?

There's certainly no shortage of mothers who kill their babies.  Intentionally or unintentionally.  And, of course, I'm not talking about the idea of abortion.  I'm talking about drowning your five-year-old, or leaving your newborn face-down outside in January (that one's local.)  Or in a public restroom's trash can.  Just type "infanticide" into google.  The punishments for these women aren't anything like they would be, if they did the same thing to a stranger, or an adult relative.

We are living in a time when there is so much disposable income that it is possible to raise every child.  Even the poorest people in our society are able to sign up for WIC and foodstamps and raise even the most horribly deformed and retarded children.  However, the investment in time, and lost opportunity can still be incredibly high, and not every child becomes a doctor or lawyer and supports its parents in their old age.  Some children need care for the rest of their lives.  Some children interrupt their parent's education, or their lifestyles.  And some parents wish to raise children who have a better chance.  But we are living in a decadent time, and we can afford to raise that child with the fetal alcohol syndrome or the irreparable heart defect for as many years as nature and medical science can provide.

So, the bottom question that came up, between Samuel Alito and Andrea Yates is whether  it's a part of human nature to be able to kill your child.

It is interesting that Andrea Yates was charged in only 3/5ths of the "murders" she committed.  She was charged in the deaths of the oldest two, and in the death of the only girl.  The 2 and 3 year olds were ignored.

Why?  They certainly weren't any less dead than their older brothers.

The insinuation, of course, seems to be that they were less alive.

There's a very good possibilty that all of human civilization is firmly rooted in the first moment a woman decided to kill an infant because she had to finish harvest and didn't have time for that nonsense.

And I can't be the only person in the whole world who watched Sophie's Choice.  There's certainly something to be said for being able to kill one child to save others.  Did anyone ever really doubt that she would make the choice?

Andrea Yates will probably get her insanity plea afterall.  Not, of course, because she is insane, but society wants to believe she is.  Society wants to distance itself from the thing she did.  Society does not want to admit that drowning five children could not only be sane, but advantageous.

Society would like to sit down at the table and feed its kids macaroni and cheese and not say, "I, too, am capable."  We like to believe in the permanance of children.  That the perfect, Gerber-baby angel child in front of us is one of a kind and irreplaceable.  That nothing could ever happen to us and our families that would make killing our children the preferable option.

But Abortion, Infanticide, Murder...  all of these are parts of human nature.  To say, "I could never have an abortion, drown my baby, shoot my neighbor" is a way of saying "I have never been in a position where it would be sufficiently advantageous."  You could.  You would.  If the neighbor had the medicine your child needed to survive, you would kill for it.  If you were young, and poor, and fifteen, you most certainly could have an abortion, or leave your child in the trash bin.  If you and your five children were starving, in a gulag or just a famine, you would most certainly carve up the baby like a rack of lamb.

It's just human nature.

Which isn't of course to say that we shouldn't do everything in our power to avoid this.  After all, I close my front door to keep the deer from wandering in, too.

So, we've given up the right to abortion.  We have, you know.  Roe is over.

Roe is over, and now, teenage girls will have to salvage their lives in whatever way they can.

So, does it matter?  Does it really matter all that much whether Andrea Yates had her kid currettaged out of her body, or if she held his head under water until he stopped bubbling?

And do you think we can get used to it?  Do you think we can say, with the same detatchment, "She went to Canada" and "She smothered her four year old with a pillow?"

posted by: SianNorah at 17:31 | link | comments

Comments:

Archives

today
October 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005