Despite a March Break, I am completely swamped by work, so I’ll make this post short. Just before Break, Jumbos for Life, an organization whose e-board I am on, hosted Serrin Foster, the President of Feminists for Life. It was a great event, and I approved of Foster’s pro-life message. Counterintuitively, however, I do object to one major portion of her discussion. Foster argued that the fact that women feel “forced” to seek abortions due to lack of support (material, emotional, accomodational, etc.), reflects a defect in our society. She posited that the pro-life movement should focus on alleviating the concerns of the mother, by providing them with the money, resources, accommodations and support that they need, and that this should nearly eliminate abortion.
First, let me begin by saying I don’t oppose a private effort to support pregnant mothers, in fact I laud them. But, I reject the implication that this is a necessary step to eliminating abortion. Foster’s unintentionally seems to depict a sort hostage situation: women wouldn’t kill their babies if only we would give them certain things. (It’s a twist on the typical hostage scenario of “give me what I want or I’ll kill your kid,” it’s “give me what I want or I’ll kill mine.) At any rate, I don’t believe society should have to bribe any individual not to commit murder. I approve of supporting women who have already chosen to keep their children, in a charitable manner. But, any quid pro quo strikes me as repugnant and as leading to perverse incentives.
On a lighter note, Tufts Republicans is bringing its annual speaker next Monday @8:30 in Barnum 008. David Horowitz will be speaking on the necessity of academic freedom as well as his own personal journey from leftist radical to conservative bulwark. I am greatly looking forward to this event and hope to see lots of people there.
-Mike
