My back hurts constantly, but even worse when I pick up my much-desired child. He’s over 25 lbs now, and I dread what the next years until he’s able to climb up into an acceptable car seat on his own are going to be like.
I work part-time, and thank heavens Germany made my pre-pregnancy employer give me that option. One of the major factors in MLM prevalence in the US are the absolutely abysmal job prospects for anyone who can’t work full time - that is, many mothers of young children. My friends with preschool age kids who work full time only manage it because they have expensive daycare open from 7am - 6pm, pay nannies, and/or have spouses with less-intense (or no) jobs. This, of course, is only realistic for women with well-paid jobs.
And if one of you wants to respond, “adoption,” please remember the aforementioned physical wreckage, plus work-related difficulties. Germany encouraged my employer to let me stay home the six weeks before my due date and insisted I do so the right weeks after the birth, all at just about my previous net pay.
I don’t think that “slavery” is too strong a word for forcing someone to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, but others can call it “indentured servitude” if that makes them feel better.
Whereas enslaved men were often forced to work fields in America, enslaved women were forced to give birth to their rapists’ babies. Forced birth and slavery go hand in hand.
Fitting now that the New Confederate States of America (read: Gilead) can be distinguished by how eager legislatures are to force women to give birth to their rapists’ babies.
Until the US is at least there, adoption is not really a free, uncompelled choice in forced-birth states like Texas.
I have a dear childhood friend whose birth mother was a college student who went through with the results of a foolish accident. I’m glad she did, because I love my friend, but I’m also glad that it was her choice to make; in late 70s Austin, she could have easily gotten an abortion. She was able to choose the adoptive parents, and got what she wanted for her baby: a well-off but childless Catholic family just far enough away to be unlikely to accidentally meet.
That's the trouble though - unwanted pregnancies are either accidental, forced on the mother (in cases of rape), or too dangerous to continue due to unforeseen complications. That's more like waking up and finding you're medically tethered to a person that now depends on your body for survival and less like the pilot example.
What's really damning of the "pro-life" movement here is their general opposition to contraceptives - sometimes including condoms. It's pretty clear that the main goal is to control sex, not preserve life.
In the case of the trolly problem, the law has always favored self preservation. It’s a non issue.
For accidental pregnancy, It’s widely accepted that the other party (males) can only reliably choose whether or not to have sex. They have no choice in the matter post-pregnancy.
I see no reason women can’t be held to that same standard.
I say this all as someone that is pro-choice. But I always prefer to be principaled in my reasoning.
The problem with this is that now the burden to prove rape is on the mother. Before she could just get the abortion, no matter the reason. What a women considers rape and what the government considers provable rape is vastly different, to the point where proving rape in court is neigh impossible (I’ve seen the process up close) unless there is damning evidence like video and a confession.
So relying on rape as some sort of exception really means that women who were raped will never be able to prove to the government’s satisfaction to that fact, and will be forced to carry their rapists baby to term. He said she said doesn’t rise to a preponderance of the evidence, let alone “beyond a reasonable doubt”.
I guess we should thank the GOP for just sidestepping that issue and going straight for the most extreme position possible of banning abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. Makes these questions a little more straightforward.
That said, my position is more nuanced. Personhood starts handful of months after conception as far as I’m concerned.
I guess what I would say in general is that we’re talking a lot about when personhood begins, but I don’t think we’re talking enough about when personhood ends. To me, personhood ends when the government forces you to do something with your body that you don’t want to do. In that moment you are not a person but in fact owned by the government.
But let me counter with another hypothetical: if we had a contraceptive device that could safely and reliably turn a woman's reproductive system on/off at the flip of a switch would "pro-life" advocates support it or oppose it?
The only thing that matters here is what the mother wants.