MediaGirl has written a comprehensive diary on the case of Gabriela Flores that is on today's recommended list at DailyKOS, as well it should be. In the comments, Moiv mentioned the case of Regina McKnight in passing. Someone else expressed surprise, saying that they did not know about the McKnight case. The rest of the discussion was more of the same old same old argument about Republicans, women hatred, pro-lifers, politics in the name of God, Casey's pro-life stance, and how the country is in the hands of a cult ever since the ascension of George W. Bush.
I admit that my reaction to all this was anger. Angry at the expressed suprise. Angry at the fact that we're still saying all the same things and spouting the same party lines, all focused on abortion. And angry that the only thing that even generates this much rage in progressives where women's reproductive rights are concerned is abortion.
When in fact Ms. Flores' abortion dilemma would likely not exist at all had we just gotten 1/2 as mad, 1/2 as determined, and 1/2 as dogmatic about Regina McKnight and another woman named Cornelia Whitner.
Her entry is long, but well worth the time. In it, she raises some highly valid points about the various manifestations of "choice", and includes case histories that some of you may be unaware of (as I was). As with so many good posts, it's hard to quote without losing something in the process, so get the rest, study up, spread the word.
2 comments:
I'm entirely sympathetic to these tales, and agree that the way some women use kids as a meal ticket is about as abhorrent as it gets.
However, here's the thing --
Who gets to decide who should and shouldn't "be allowed" to reproduce, and why? It's the proverbial "who's watching the watchers" question. I don't know about you, but I literally cannot conceive of any elected or legislative body that I would ever trust to make wholesale judgements like that.
It's one thing to discourage the meal-ticket-baby thing, it's another thing altogether to criminalize women that for that and other "poor choices during pregnancy". Smoking is a great example. There's overwhelming evidence that shows pregnant women shouldn't smoke, right? Ok, great. So we create laws that punish pregnant women who do. Except.... it's entirely possible to smoke, like, one cigarette a day, for example, and not cause any harm at all to the baby (just ask the generations of kids whose moms DID smoke). Do we throw the one-a-day women in jail too? This is the problem with trying to legislate Thou Shalt Nots, especially as it pertains to reproductive choices. In an attempt to dissuade bad behavior, or go after the real contemptible minority, we risk unfairly treating the majority and pretty much shitting all over their right to self-determination in the process.
As for who gets to decide -- I don't want someone like Dobson deciding who's a suitable candidate for parenthood, anymore than I want to leave that decision to David Duke. And in this political climate, it's the Dobsons of the world that carry political capital and are as likely as not to end up in a legislative position. The slippery slope from "protecting children" to "social control" is much shorter than we think, IMO.
The scenarios you describe sound like funding and resource problems with social services, to say nothing of the completely absent "rehabilitation" element of our criminal justic system -- things which absolutely need to be addressed, but not with proscriptions on who can and cannot have kids and under what circumstances they'll be deemed "worthy". It would be attacking the problem from the wrong side of the issue.
Incidentally, did you follow this link re: "crack babies"? Interesting stuff.
Sorry, GC -- I didn't get back to this right away, and now I'm a little pressed for time. Follow the original story link and read through the discussion. The concerns you raise are addressed there more comprehensively.
Post a Comment