On 9 Chickweed Lane the series on the young woman’s pregnancy continues. You would have to have been following the series to know that over a year ago they had a series on the grandmother during World War II. She herself got pregnant with the child of her wartime love, though she ended up marrying someone else. The story has now circled to the granddaughter who thinks she is pregnant these many years later. In the comic above, the grandmother suddenly remembers herself in the same situation as her granddaughter and gives her what she most needs at that point. She needs someone to love her.
But, this lets me bring up a point. There is more about real life in this situation than most people realize. I know more than one family in which the above story is a true story. I know some good middle and upper class families in which it has not skipped a generation, but in which the story above has been repeated in each generation. In every case, the families are good, responsible, even church-going people.
I bring this up because our running stereotype in this country is that families that have generations of pregnant single women who get married after becoming pregnant are and must obviously be immoral families who do not properly teach their kids or do not really “follow Jesus”. If they are multi-generational, then they must be poor and under-educated. They may even be regularly taking your hard-earned money by way of the taxes that go to them. You see, the common perception is that “nice” girls from “nice” families can make mistakes, but if it goes more than one generation (maybe two) then they could not be a “nice” family. Unfortunately, statistics do not quite show that, nor does my personal experience as a priest. The reality is that unexpected pregnancies can not only happen in any socio-economic level, but do happen at any socio-economic level, and even generation after generation.
The problem is that as long as we hold that stereotype, our preaching will be inadequate, our Sunday School training will be inadequate, and our planning as a culture will be inadequate. More than that, when we use that stereotype as an excuse to vote against any social program that might help people in a low socio-economic level or that might help women who find themselves pregnant so that they are less likely to think of an abortion, then that stereotype is responsible for our indirectly helping to make the decision to abort an easier decision. Before someone brings up adoption, while that is a solution, it also makes me hesitate.
We need to be cautious in how we present the adoption alternative. If we are not careful, we can end up saying the same thing that pro-choice people say, but just with a different solution. “Don’t let an unplanned child ruin your life, just get rid of it.” We do not want to present adoption as another alternative that allows you to get rid of an unwanted child. I would rather encourage women to keep their child, and have enabling social programs that permit that to happen and that still allow the women to have a future. I am for schools that have daycare for the children of children. I am for programs that allow a woman to finish her schooling and have a productive career with which to support her child, like the nursery in stafford
The problem is the stereotype. As long as all we keep using is poor women on welfare who are having multiple children as our stereotype excuse, so long will we be impeded from coming up with solutions that we can present along with our opposition to abortion. And, frankly, if some of the solutions do involve government, there should not be a problem with that. You need only check the decrease in the vehicular death rate as a result of government regulation about lap belts, shoulder belts, air bags, crushable hood and trunk compartments, collapsable steering wheels, safety windshields, etc., to realize that government involvement has many positive sides to is. We benefit from many types of government involvement. It is time for us to stop pretending that it is not so. And, it is time for us to put aside our stereotype in order to come up with reasonable programs that help women without leaving the responsible men relatively unscathed.
I would be in favor of a law that forces genetic testing of an unplanned child (after birth) and of any possible fathers in order to force the father (or the family of the male minor) to pay strongly from pre-natal care through high school graduation. Almost all anti-abortion groups talk only about the woman, her must-be-prevented wrong choice, and the consequences. It is time to start talking about the biological father and his consequences and to push that as hard. I suspect that it would not be too difficult to enhance already existing laws to make it easier to identify the father and to force him (or his adult family) to pay the consequences. Those type of laws, along with enabling programs, can go a long way to keep a woman’s life from being destroyed by an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy, particularly while the biological father so many times gets off fairly scot-free. Let’s not be like the Roman Catholic healthcare programs that forbid contraception while permitting Viagra. Daddy needs to have a part, even if it is only financial, and daddy needs to be part of the anti-abortion conversation, along with enabling programs for the woman.
I was 17 when my oldest son was born. No one should feel sorry for me as I have had a good life and have a wonderful wife, 3 children, a great daughter-in-law, a great son-in-law and the sweetest best 5 grandchildren in the world.
It never entered my mind not Rostand with my then girlfriend and future wife for an act we both participated in but I pushed hardest for. Sadly, that attitude is an exception today and could not agree more with Fr Obregon about the need to hold fathers accountable. I am certain that amoung other things the absence if the father has greatly contributed to the deterioration of the family and American culture.
However, when I was 17 I had a bright future. I wanted to be an architect. Instead I began working full time. I know others have attended college and been successful in similar circumstances but both of us came from families of limited means and it just never worked out.
What a difference it would have made in our lives if I could have worked part-time and attended school full time.
The world might have more beautiful buildings.
Father Ernesto, you know better than this. You even write about holding fathers responsible, yet you refer in your opening paragraph to a young woman who “got herself pregnant.” No, she didn’t. Getting pregnant takes two people.
Also, being pro-choice (NOT PRO-ABORTION), I take exception to the idea that “Don’t let an unplanned child ruin your life, just get rid of it.” is an attitude we would be comfortable with. Abortion is a serious decision, not some minor bump in the road of life. I and the pro-choice people I know, are very much in favor of supporting expectant mothers in alternative decisions–proper pre-natal care, adoption, support, child care and job training for mothers with young children, and access to contraceptives to prevent pregnancy in the first place. It seems more often to be the “pro-life” contingent that has problems with funding care for mothers and babies, particularly if those mothers and babies are low income, dark skinned, or both. I would love to see every child born loved and wanted, and abortions safe, legal, and rare–mostly performed in cases putting the physical or mental health of the mother in jeopardy, or when an infant would be born with devastating medical problems. Why can’t we work together toward that goal?
Ah, so you are saying that in fighting one stereotype, I used another stereotype! Well, I guess that proves that I am a sinner. You are right, many pro-choice people do not speak in terms of “just get rid of it.” And, since the blog post was aimed at pro-life people, I will argue that I do agree with you about the necessity to “fund care for mothers and babies.”
However, on the “got herself pregnant” remark, I would point out that given the rest of the blog post, it should have been clear that I do believe that it takes two. I probably should have put those words in quotation marks to emphasize that I was stating it the way it would have been said back then.
Thanks for recognizing that. There’s a great deal too much stereotyping of the “other” on both sides of the debate.