Via Bridget Crawford of Feminist Law Professors, here’s another chance for me to play Crankypants about the idea that the only possible, conceivable option for single pregnant women is — whether by abortion or adoption — to get it over with as quickly as possible so you won’t ruin your chance to be dependent on a man.
Crawford quotes New York Times
[E]ach year, social pressure drives thousands of unmarried women to choose between abortion, which is illegal but rampant, and adoption, which is considered socially shameful but is encouraged by the government. The few women who decide to raise a child alone risk a life of poverty and disgrace.
Nearly 90 percent of the 1,250 South Korean children adopted abroad last year, most of them by American couples, were born to unmarried women, according to the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs.
So! How much reproductive choice is there in a country idea of keeping and raising a child is both so inconceivable and intolerable that the economic and social costs of doing so — for the mother and her child — is effectively punishment?
Oh, did you think I was talking about Korea there?
Remember, I’m not saying there should be no adoption. And I’m sure not saying there should be no abortion. Nor, for that matter, and I saying unplanned pregnancy ought to be no big deal. And I’m especially not saying that if we could somehow overcome the social and economic obstacles of single motherhood then single motherhood would become everyones magical preferred choice over abortion or adoption. Because bwhahahaha. Wouldn’t that be making universal assumptions about human nature
I’m just pointing out the gaping chasm in ostensibly “pro-life” logic with it’s absolute intolerance of social transformations that would be something other than a social, economic, familial, personal, and relationship disaster to be single and pregnant in the first place. Let alone single and a mother after.
Submitted by 3246 (not verified) on Sat, 2009-10-17 10:25.
I agree that there's a huge gap between pro-lifers' rhetoric and the actual support they're willing to give single mothers on the level of public policy.
But I don't think they always believe that it's "a social, economic, familial, personal, and relationship disaster to be single and pregnant in the first place." There's also a narrative of redemption that they often invoke when the single, pregnant woman happens to be one of their daughters - white, Christian, and middle-class. Think of Bristol Palin and how conservative, religious Republicans had apparently no trouble embracing her.
I'm not saying it's desirable to be held up as an example of doing the "right thing" and not aborting, but it's definitely an alternative to seeing unwed pregnancy as an unmitigated disaster. And I get the impression that this reaction is increasingly common.
Submitted by 3246 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-10-19 00:59.
I´d like to throw in a completely different perspective on ¨unwed pregnancy¨.
I currently live in Spain, in Basque Country to be exact. The region is important because it is the weathiest region of Spain and there are a lot of different types of social security payments that are available here and not in other regions, or more available here than in other regions.
Recently, I met a 40 woman who is pregnant. She is single. In fact, she broke up with her partner to have a child because she wants and child and he doesn´t. The public health care system covered the invitro fertilization process, and she will have government support in the form of social security payments in order to raise the child as a single mother.
It´s all about control.