What’s Really Best for an ‘Unwanted’?

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” — Thomas Jefferson

Just as it is the moral responsibility of nurturant parents to protect and empower each child equally, it is also the moral responsibility of a people’s government (of, for and by) to equally protect and empower each citizen. The children, as they mature, and later, as they become citizens, should benefit significantly from a balanced implementation of this moral responsibility. I say “should” because multiple variables affect the actualization of this responsibility and the well-being of children and citizens.

One key variable is caring. The benefits of actualizing this moral responsibility are maximized when parents and/or governments care deeply for all those for whom they are responsible. Funding/income/revenue is another variable, but caring is more significant than funding, and most other factors. Caring has life long psychological impacts. Funding is fleeting and just one of many helpful tools in life’s tool box.

So, to maximize the benefits of the moral responsibility to equally protect and empower our children and citizens, maximize caring and make sure the funding is available as needed to compliment that caring. Or to minimize the benefits, eliminate the caring and withdraw the funding.

But isn’t the latter just what many state Legislatures and Governors are doing to millions of American women? But what should one expect from right-wing authoritarians who only care about themselves and are making sure they keep what is ‘theirs.’ They cut school funding and enabled transfer of some of the available funding to for-profit corporations. They rejected Medicaid funding, among other hateful acts, and now they want to force women to give birth to children in states where caring is a no longer a government goal.

And just how will forcing the delivery of an ‘unwanted’ alter the strong and natural tendency of women to care for a child – especially one from a pregnancy complicated by horrendous situations like rape or incest? Won’t resentment override caring? Won’t the lack of caring harm an unwanted for life and create a burden on society that could be prevented?

Is it morally right to bring an ‘unwanted,’ especially one created from abuse and later subject to other abuse, into such an uncaring world?

“Question with boldness even the existence of a God because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.” — Thomas Jefferson



This entry was posted in Human Rights Abuse, Protect & Empower. Bookmark the permalink.   |   Email This Post Email This Post   |  

About Andy Hailey

Vietnam Vet, UT El Paso Grad, Retired Aerospace Engineer, former union rep, 60's Republican now progressive, web admin, blogger.

3 Responses to What’s Really Best for an ‘Unwanted’?

  1. Mike Beck says:

    I think “No Care Perry” is a good moniker. He’s a farce.

  2. Hope Sanford says:

    Well stated. The abortion war has zero to do with anything but power/dominion over others. Empowering it’s citizenry could be accomplished by facilitating access to health care and quality education and legislating a living wage; Perry’s Texas has aggressively worked to crush all of this.

    • KIT JONES says:

      The author and Hope Sanford are correct. These children and their mothers are pawns of fascists interested only in their own enrichment at any cost to others. They care nothing for anyone, including themselves whom they must hold in contempt in the depth of night.