With yesterday having marked three weeks until we "celebrate" the 41st anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I found the inspiration to prove that satire is not a dead art.
There is a certain number among our society, who, in working for the common good of all mankind, have formed themselves into a rabble of quasi-organized groups. Being part of their work, however, the term “mankind” is no longer fit in such a society, but rather should be adjusted to “all peoples, regardless of race, color, creed, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation, living on warming planet Earth.” But, lest I digress further, I must needs inform my audience of these certain groups of unique individuals.
These benevolent groups are at work all around us, undertaking a great task for the good of the downtrodden women and children of this nation. Their task could be no more noble, no less monumental, and, free of any self-motivation, is out of the boundless goodness of their pure hearts, beating for the plight of mothers and the lowly state of their offspring. Their calling is this: “to make every child a wanted child”. Truly, on the surface, it appears that Mother Theresa, Mahatma Gandhi, and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. must stand aside in the annals of history to make room for these unsung heroes. But when one digs into the method of these most generous and sacrificial lovers-of-humanity, it seems it is slightly flawed. These remarkable citizens are daily in the trenches, ridding our society of unwanted children. While this is certainly a noble cause in the great quest “to make every child a wanted child”, if I may propose an alternative to such a method, I believe it will be found satisfactorily more efficient and beneficial to both mothers and our nation as a whole.
The mistake of these of these amiable people is that they have not given these unwanted children a chance to see if they will become productive or useful. While we durst not deny any woman an opportunity to terminate her child before it has been born, it would behoove them to allow them to grow up long enough to evaluate them and develop their own thoughts on the child. It is at this juncture that this proposal comes into play. While I can claim the credit for such an ingenious improvement to our current strategy, I must not make it seem that it was strictly out of the profound basin of my intellect. I take inspiration from the great writer Jonathan Swift, who, having one foot in England and another in Ireland, developed a brilliant solution to the problem of overpopulation in Ireland. But such an issue is but a botheration when compared to this work: “to make every child a wanted child”. Because there doubtless are unwanted children slipping through the cracks of our current system even as I pen these words, let me proceed to my proposal with no further delay.
It has been noted by me that the great majority of mothers who have children love their children. It is in my proposal, therefore, that all mothers should (but, as aforementioned, not must, bear any children conceived). Upon which, as is customary, the children become their property and responsibility until the child comes of age and moves away, ready to one day, perhaps, start this process anew. It is most necessary, yea, it is essential, that we must continue in our storied tradition: “to make every child a wanted child”. This is precisely why the time in which the mother may decide on the existence of her child must be extended for as long as a child is a dependent of its mother. The current model, though clearly prescribed with the best of intentions, falls short in its goal; for what if a child that is wanted at birth becomes unwanted later in its life? A mother must be able to freely exercise her rights as a woman, and such rights, inclusive of those such as burning one’s brassiere in the streets, must needs also be inclusive of making the determination of when her child has life.
This is truly a much-improved solution that cannot be argued against with much merit. For what person wants to live another day if they are not wanted? What human would move past the sentiments of one person to live a productive life for the betterment of society? More important is the question, what mother must be plagued with the burden of raising a child she does not want? I see only one solution. A mother should deliver her child, and begin to rear it up. If at any moment she determines she no longer wants the child, she can choose to terminate it. This must be a right for the female population for as long as a child is in the household.
Upon spelling out my proposal to one certain man, he was taken aback, and gave me numerous criticisms; those that may be found in the recesses of a clear and rational mind I shall attempt to answer, so that no one will be left against such a solution to a flawed though well-meaning system currently in place.
The first question raised by this gentleman was, “What of the children? What do they think?” I did, with no little difficulty, manage to restrain my laughter at the naiveté of such an inquiry. The children do not get a voice. They get no say in whether they are wanted or not. It is not their decision. This is no small matter for such narrow minds as his, as I determined he must be, being of those who are against the rights of women. Nevertheless, not wanting to appear rude, rather to appear knowledgeable of my new-found position (contrasting many who favor the current system), I gave, in addition to what you read above, this reply: “This is a matter of what is best for the mothers of these children, but, of a surety, it is also for the benefit of these children. I wish for them to be wanted; if they are not, why should their negligible lives continue? Rather, their mother should be able to terminate them when she sees fit.”
It was then asked of me when the cutoff age should be, being that some children leave the home when 18, and others never. I determined that it should be the mother’s choice to terminate her child until the child leaves the home, or until it turns 26, as this is the current end to childhood in the laws of our nation, as so determined in the Affordable Care Act.
Another laughable subject was then called to my attention, namely the cost of such a proposal. Once implemented, the costs would be negligible, especially when compared with our current system. It is so terribly expensive to dispose of an unwanted child as things are now, but under this proposal, they could be disposed of by any means available.
This, I understand fully well, can expose society to somewhat of a health risk, with an influx of healthy children ending up in garbage heaps, rivers, roadside ditches, and the likes. This is when the proposal becomes profitable. Do not dare denounce me for hoping to make a little for having been the brainchild of such a brilliant proposal. Under the current system, a fortune is made by industries. I simply want to provide a safe way to rid mothers of their unwanted children without exposing society to any additional safety threats. In addition, my proposal is completely safe for mothers, who need only drop their children off at a clinic rather than have tools, vacuums, or acid shoved up their birth canals. The emotional trauma is much less as well. They can have a chance to experience time with the child to be sure it is unwanted, and they do not have to experience its termination themselves.
The man I spoke of before finally urged me to at least consider fathers into the proposal, stating that they had as much a hand in the creation of a child as a mother. But I swiftly beat down his argument. As the reader has clearly observed, I care about women, and hence I want no fathers getting in the way of a woman’s right to choose.
A lady to whom I explained my proposal endeavored to tell me that the present means of disposing of unwanted children exists because there is a difference between those in the womb and those outside of it. To her I bluntly declared that she ought not to be so compassionate and that she was a bane to women’s rights. When asked to clarify, I thought it might be important to note this, lest anyone think I am some sort of monster for pursuing the just vision: “to make every child a wanted child.” I clarified for this dear lady that children in the womb meet all the signs of life- they have a metabolism, experience growth, respond to stimuli, and reproduce after their own kind. She countered that they cannot reproduce. “Neither can a five-year-old,” I said, “But is it not alive? It will one day have the potential.” They have their own unique genetic code, I told her, and all organs begin to develop and the heart starts to beat in the first trimester. It clearly has the appearance of a human. “But they are smaller,” she stated. “You are smaller than me,” I replied, “Are you less alive?” “They have to feed off their mother.” “Some babies feed off their mother, and are completely reliant on her. But they are alive.” I concluded (though I did not have to) by telling her that a baby conceived for 29 weeks, born premature, is considered alive, but a 30 week old in the womb is not. At what point does she think they do become alive? Clearly they are right before; they are moving. But they have been moving all along. I told her that her argument had no weight, but, alas, it fell on deaf ears.
Regardless of some opposition, my proposal has received plenty of support. I expected no less, as it should be every mother’s right to have a wanted child, and every child’s right to be wanted, regardless of age. The next logical step in bringing my proposal to fruition is the formation of a Political Action Committee and the commencement of lobbying. I am sure that with the proper amount of schmoozing, backed with a healthy amount of pecuniary resources, this solution to our issue with unwanted children can effortlessly be hustled through Congress. And the Supreme Court, already confused on its definition of precisely what a human is, being that a corporation is defined as a human, but a fetus is not, will doubtless uphold the constitutionality of such a law that works for society’s good.
Such benevolence- “to make every child a wanted child”- as holy a calling and pure motives it has, needs some tweaking done to it. I find this proposal wholly sufficient to rid of us the negatives associated with our current state. It is, verily, a solution in which our entire nation can stand behind. It is one which our leaders can discuss at golf outings, vacations, and funerals and be proud to explain to the rest of the world. Perhaps even Communist China will find something to its liking. I have no major self-interests in such a proposal. True, I mentioned making some money for myself, but I simply mean this as a career. I seek no fame, as I have already obtained it- with each writing I receive numerous responses from divers and sundry folks, most of whom wish to tell me where I have erred so grievously. No, I seek only for the rights of mothers to be fully represented, and “to make every child a wanted child.” Our system as it is now has flaws- what we need is a final (or rather, final, final) solution.