On the Cultural Roots of the Abortion Debate

We have been wrangling with restrictions upon abortion as a contraceptive procedure throughout my life, with many lawmakers now hoping to overturn the landmark Rowe v. Wade decision of 1973, thanks to a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court, and the chance of it becoming a super majority in the next few years. Georgia and Alabama's new draconian measures have been in the news, with Alabama's getting the most attention, because it vows to jail insubordinate abortion providers with up to 99 years in prison. Abortion is currently pretty restricted in most states. Indeed, of the many state legislatures which have agonized about the plight of fetuses, few, it seems, have shown the same solicitude when it comes to the needs of young children, their family life, or even their education. Alabama, for example, hasn't shown much concern for public health for years. Even prenatal and postnatal checkups for young mothers aren't on lawmakers' radar in most states, which might prevent miscarriages, or reduce infant or maternal mortality. Only the first months of viability keeps them up in the night. After that, ladies and gents, you're on your own, unless corporations, churches and charities want to step in.

The conservative ethos is, We won't worry about your family's welfare, because that is a private matter, unless you are receiving public assistance, or violating our laws. If you receive assistance, you are a parasite, unless you are a big corporation promising jobs. If you violate laws, we will lock you up and throw your family to the wolves. Unless, of course, you are a big corporation who may have just made a little mistake because of anti-business laws passed by our liberal colleagues, like violating labor, environmental or campaign finance laws. No big deal. 

Well, let's take a broader view of our culture. What messages are given to females from girlhood? Don't have sex until marriage, but don't be too prissy, or guys will think you're gay or frigid. If you do have extramarital sex, just don't get pregnant. Perhaps you got pregnant because you got intoxicated, forgot pills, and he didn't want to use a condom. After all, how else will a male get sexual satisfaction, unless a potential partner has clouded judgment? How else will one's shyness be overcome, except with drugs and booze at bars and parties? Billions of dollars are spent on reinforcing this unsubtle meme, rightly or wrongly. It keeps the legal drug and alcohol interests in the black, after all, and employs people, after all.

If you get pregnant, don't expect the father (if known) to stick around. It's cool to have a baby, since celebrity role models celebrate it. You can do it all by yourself, like other wealthy woman have. On the other hand, poor single moms are blamed for society's ills, because they either are on public assistance, or their kids are neglected, according to persistent memes. Single motherhood will also adversely affect your sex life, especially if you can't get your girlish figure back. And what if you can't get reliable babysitters (like your parents or grandparents) to watch your progeny while you get some much needed me-time? How many workplaces are openly hostile to the needs of working mothers, like having a breastfeeding break, or staying home with sick kids? We haven't even gotten to kids with medical or special needs. 

Oh, and let's back up. You, the mother-to-be, are told your child may be born with birth defects. You may be told that there are physical risks to being pregnant or giving birth, very much a reality in the past, still something of an issue today, especially in developing countries. You may have health issues yourself. And we aren't talking about women who already have families, maybe even spouses, who may have issues with unplanned pregnancies. In spite of all these potential challenges, most women give birth. Some use contraception. Some get abortions. Society stigmatizes this last group. It's always the woman's responsibility to maintain the social order. If not, mostly male lawmakers will see to it that abortion providers are barred from the practice, morning after pills are unavailable, and offenders are punished with jail or everlasting contempt.

My solution? One option is to pay women to have babies and give them up for adoption, if they aren't up to assuming this superhuman task, because of some of the reasons I have mentioned. Pay them, even if the guy decides to actually take responsibility as their father, and the mother wants to retain custody. At least give them some inducement not to create another dysfunctional, single parent family. Offer free life skills counseling for all prospective parents. We should also make it cheaper, and less burdensome to adopt, and address issues when the biological parents choose to be part of their kids' lives. With all of the divorce going on, it can't be that much different at whose house the children split their time. Are kids any more likely to be kidnapped by biological, or non-custodial, parents? It seems like its becoming a moot point, with so many spouses not staying together anymore.

It would be far cheaper to do these than to continue to waste public funds fighting heavy-handed legislative measures in court, even if they make legislators look good to their conservative, church-going constituents, and allow them to parade around like cocksure roosters. Again, as I have said, this steadfast defense of alleged principle flies in the face of routine cuts, or freezing of increases, to funds to other government programs which would benefit the young. 

Another option is to fund voluntary sterilization of both sexes. No eggs and sperm? No problem. Involuntary sterilization we associate, of course, with the bad old eugenics era and fascism. It didn't work out so well in India in the 1970s, when Indira Gandhi tried to impose it, either. This runs afoul of some religious sensibilities, certainly. Yet, since so many rankle at exploding populations, especially among ethnic minorities, it may offer a solution to a society always allergic to criminal activities of the bored youth it refuses, or cannot, care for. It would be far easier, however, to make birth control options more widely available, such as self-administered abortifacients. After all, we use pills, shots and elixirs for everything else, don't we.

Option 3? Buy, or subsidize the purchase of, sexbots for the kind of irresponsible and predatory males prone to impregnate females. Develop sexbots which are sophisticated enough to give such people a challenge, so they won't get kicks from stalking and assaulting real women. It might at least take some sex offenders out of circulation. Less public intoxication and abandonment issues, too. 

What is more, we shouldn't stigmatize women who simply prefer the company of other women, or want to raise children on their own. Make sperm donations available, and cheap. The ideal is for both parents to be there, in the home, co-parenting. One would want the couple to at least be of two genders, according to cultural history. That this hasn't been the case, especially with both parents staying married and healthy enough to raise their biological children to adulthood, is well-known. Deviation from the ideal may be greater today, perhaps, with marriage being less fashionable, same-sex, transgender and infertility issues being more prominent.

Anyway, I'm sure the paternal state will continue to police women's wombs, hound men away from households getting assistance, lock up fathers for non-violent offenses, and do all the meddlesome things which libertarians find absurd, just to make sure no one looks soft on crime. Sometime, though, sane people will have to decide that our sexual culture is so severely messed-up, that encouraging unsafe, back alley, abortions, poor reporting of such procedures, and unwanted children--in other words, a return to the good old days of, say, Dickensian England--is hardly a panacea. Giving people freedom, and then taking it away, is hardly conducive to the legitimation of governance. Carrots like bribing unwed parents to marry and/or stay together, encouraging adoption, providing free counseling, care throughout the natal cycle, less-restricted access to other forms of birth control, will help. 

More appreciation of the matronly figure, and motherhood, in public and at work, will work some wonders. Anything promoting fatherly attachment, male duty to support spouses/partners and families, shared visitation, should be a bipartisan issue. Parenthood, in general, should be pervasive in public discourse; not how great it is to be unattached, and orgasmic. Sex-positivity, partner bonding, and better education about family structure and reproduction, I think, are all crucial to a healthy society. Hooking up and stoner sex are not part of a healthy society; anymore than pornography, prostitution and glory holes are. Sexbots and sex toys are necessary evils because, frankly, some people need something extra that is non-violent, and non-reproductive. Otherwise, they will continue to perpetrate their deviant fantasies with the innocent. We don't need to hopelessly wring our hands about sexual harassment, battery and STDs. Science can come to the rescue, if we let it. Family values, though in a broader and more enlightened sense, may yet prevail if the subject is reclaimed from the dark confines of our creaky culture wars and championed again by social progressives. Otherwise, the fundamentalists will triumph. Then, heaven help us all.