I may have to start a series if this sort of thing continues. Consider yourself warned, New York Times.
The latest subject of my wrath? A recent entry in “Bloggingheads,” the video series at the Times in which two people face off on a political issue of interest. I don’t usually watch the videos, because I have this strange mental block about video content that I can’t really explain, but I occasionally do, and I also read commentary about them, and every now and then I am goaded into actually viewing them. When I heard that there was an entry from William Saletan, anti-choice anti-feminist extraordinaire, talking with Steven Waldman about paying women to carry babies to term, I just knew that I had to watch, even if I was a bit late out of the gate with the watching.
I have a problem with men talking about restricting women’s rights, kind of like I have a problem with straights talking about restricting gay rights, whites talking about restricting black rights, and so forth. I think it’s great when a movement for civil/personal rights is inclusive, and it should be, but I do not take kindly to being told what to do by people who are never going to be in a given situation. And that means that I am pretty turned off by men talking about how pregnancy should be, because they are never going to be, physically, pregnant.
The basic premise of the video is that since stupid sluts who get themselves knocked up whine about money being an obstacle to carrying the baby to term, obviously, the solution would be to pay women to carry babies to term when they experience unplanned pregnancies. And, of course, to give up the Precious Life for adoption, because stupid sluts who get themselves knocked up are obviously not worthy of children.
There are so many problems with this proposal, I honestly don’t know where to begin.
Let’s start with the premise that economics is the only reason that women get abortions. Economics can definitely be a factor, and in fact many of the anti-choice laws which have been passed have prevented abortions by making them economically unfeasible for some women. (Like forcing women to return for abortion appointments, rather than getting same-day care, which is not possible for women who are afraid of losing their jobs, or restricting access to abortion so heavily that only women with some socioeconomic freedom can realistically access it.)
But when a woman gets an abortion because she knows she can’t afford a child and because she knows that the social services network will not support her, that doesn’t necessarily mean that she wants to be compensated for carrying that child to term so that she can give it up for adoption. The argument that women should “just adopt” is cruel and heartless, suggesting that women don’t feel connected with their children, and that a woman should be happy to be given money to carry a child for nine months so that someone else can raise it. Someone who is, of course, the Right Kind of People.
In fact, there’s a whole adoption industry which does just that already, with women basically being paid to carry their babies to term for someone else. And there’s a lot of entitlement which goes with that, like the assumption that mothers who give their children up for adoption somehow owe other people their children, or that they should not have the right to change their minds. Infants as commodities.
Let’s also talk about the fact that by suggesting that women should take money to carry babies to term, rather than terminating unplanned pregnancies, we are exposing women to risks. Pregnancy is dangerous. It’s also expensive. The proposed $1,000 “don’t abort” benefit wouldn’t cover prenatal care for a woman who was uninsured, let alone ensure that the mother had proper nutrition, and was able to labor and deliver in a safe, caring environment. Carrying a child for nine months is not like storing someone’s kitchen table in your attic while they’re on a tour of Europe. It’s a commitment. A very real one, with very physical consequences, like the potential to lose your job because you’re pregnant (it may be illegal, but it happens), the risk of developing gestational diabetes, or RH incompatibility, or any number of other problems. Those are real risks. $1,000 does not compensate for those. It does not even begin to compensate, especially when the pregnancy involves emotional distress on top of all of the physical, economic, and social problems that can arise.
I also heartily dislike the idea that we should be bribing women to serve as baby incubators, rather than promoting comprehensive prenatal care, labor and delivery care, postpartum care, and pediatric care for women and children. Rather than saying that all women and children should be valued, this proposal suggests that only those children at risk of abortion should be valued, in keeping with so-called “pro-life” values. Why don’t we worry about real issues like women with insurance policies which specifically exclude pregnancy, lack of prenatal care in many rural areas, uninsured and underinsured children who are deprived of health care, an education system in the toilet, a totally messed-up approach to labor and delivery from conventional care providers? Why don’t we worry about our woeful sexual education, and focus on preventing unplanned pregnancies? Maybe once these issues have been addressed, we can talk about cash for babies. Until then, stick your “common ground” where the sun don’t shine, anti-choicers.
