<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

 
My Humble Proposal

FOR SWIFTLY RESOLVING THE PROBLEM OF FREELOADING CHILDREN BECOMING A BURDEN TO THEIR HARDWORKING, SELF-SUFFICENT PARENTS WHILE EXPANDING PERSONAL FREEDOMS

INTRODUCTION

In America, and a majority of other nations, there are citizens whose sole purpose is epitomized by the word “freeloader”—one who is able to self sustain, but instead “mooches” off others without reciprocating, much like a parasite feasts upon its host. These freeloaders weaken society and diminish the personal freedoms and liberties of the “hosts” to which they attach. Whether the hosts of these freeloaders are parents, relatives, friends, or the government, without a doubt these parasites are an inconvenience if not a significant burden. To truly describe the parasites of which I speak, I devised a term which I shall use from this point on: FEITUS, meaning Freeloading Entity Inconveniently Taking Up Space. My term does not apply to those temporarily “down on their luck.” A man who loses his job and lives with his aunt for a short period of does not embody the term FEITUS. A forty year old professional couch potato “mooching” off his elderly mother does. These FEITUSes, while not the most pressing problem facing humanity, are an inconvenience easily removed.

My proposal concerning the solution to the problem of FEITUSes is common sense at its finest. After reading my solution, reasoning, and plan of action, the American government will have no choice but to enact my proposal.

Before I make my proposal, I must clarify to whom my proposal applies. The solution I will present applies only to the parents of a FEITUS. While constructing my proposal, I decided to limit the solution to parents for a few simple reasons. 1) The debate of the government’s role in caring for its citizens is long standing and long winded. I do not wish to justify or condemn the government’s care for a FEITUS for I have neither enough time nor enough ink. 2) While a friend or relative can choose to take care of a FEITUS, a parent may find denying care more difficult. Many times parents believe they have an obligation to help their child at any time under any circumstances. Now that my restrictions are clarified, I can continue with my proposal.

PROPOSAL

I have been assured by a dear friend of my family that her life would be emotionally and economically sound if, given the chance, she could have aborted her son, a product of faulty birth control, who is the embodiment of the term FEITUS. With the health—emotional and economical—of my dear friend and every other parent of a FEITUS in mind, I propose expanding a woman’s right to an abortion in two ways: removing any restriction on the age at which the abortion is performed i.e. allowing first, second, and third trimester and after birth abortions, and expanding the abortion right to a both parents after the child is born.

REASONING

While abortion-on-demand is still a controversial topic in the United States, one must be a realistic. A woman’s right to an abortion was legally established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade when Roe, a resident of Texas, wanted an abortion. At that time Texas only allowed abortions to save the mother’s life. The Supreme Court of the United States decided in a seven to two vote that a woman’s right to an abortion was constitutionally supported by the right to privacy ruling of Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965 (The Supreme Court Case). One may disagree with this ruling and attempt to change it, but one must acknowledge the ruling as law until the ruling is changed.

My proposal seems to lack compassion, but I assure you, I propose nothing more than to expand an individual liberty already established by our courts. I have compassion for the parents of a FEITUS just as the Supreme Court has compassion for pregnant mothers. In their ruling on Roe v. Wade the opinion of the court states:

The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying [abortions] altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. [emphasis mine] Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. (Roe v. Wade)

The Supreme Court clearly takes the future of the mother into account as I have in my proposal. While Roe v. Wade justifies my concern for the future well being of a FEITUS’s host, there are ethical questions left unanswered.

Even those strongly in favor of abortion might find disgust in the idea of killing an innocent human being after their birth, especially years after birth. My only response to this disgust is to ask, “What’s the difference?” Current U.S. law allows abortions through nine months. Is a fetus carried nine months (just before birth) any different from a baby only hours old (just after birth)? If there is no difference, can a new born baby be aborted? A ten month old? Eleven? Where is the line drawn? Abortions at one week, nine months, or twenty-seven years are essentially the same and must be treated equally under our law.

To fully understand why abortion-on-demand is essential at any age, one must look at the arguments abortion advocates use to further their cause and determine why people want abortions. Of course, there are medical reasons why abortions are performed, but I am not searching for the justification of necessary abortions, but the reasons for elective abortions.

Abortion proponents argue that the government does not have the right to determine what a woman does with her body; thus, if a woman wants an abortion, she can have one. I understand the premise of this argument, but at the same time, I am perplexed. Obviously, the issue cannot be simply what a woman does with her body. Americans allow restrictions on their bodies every day. One cannot do drugs, sell one’s organs, run around naked, sell one’s body for sex (in most places), or intentionally put one’s self in harm’s way i.e. seatbelt laws, speed limits, etc. The reason so many women want abortions-on-demand cannot simply be for “abortion’s sake” as the “my body” argument would have one believe. The idea of abortion as intrinsically valuable seems a bit far-fetched to me.

Amidst my research, I found the reason so many people want abortion—the same reason the Supreme Court uses—right under my nose. I simply asked my friend Google® why women have abortions, and the answer “magically” formulated before my eyes. According to a study by Akinrinola Bankole, Susheela Singh and Taylor Haas, 91.8% of abortions in the U.S. (between 1987-88) were performed due to some inconvenience to the mother’s life (i.e. would disrupt job, cannot afford a child, wish to postpone childbearing, relationship problems, etc.), while only 8.9% of abortions were performed due to danger to the mother’s life, danger to the fetus’s life, or other reasons (Bankole “Reasons”). The vast majority of women receive abortions simply because they do not want the inconvenience of a child. If such a large number of women receive abortions due to inconvenience, this must be the real reason abortion proponents’ fight so desperately for the right to choose. I now ask, “Why not extend the right to an abortion beyond birth? Is a FEITUS lying dormant in its mother’s living room any less of an inconvenience than a fetus lying dormant in its mother’s womb?”

I shall now briefly turn to the second part of my proposal which would allow both parents the right to an abortion. This part of my proposal seems rather necessary once the true reason for abortion has been established. Obviously, a FEITUS is as much of an inconvenience to the father as to the mother. If the mother of a FEITUS passes away, for example, the care of the FEITUS rests solely with the father. I contend that if the FEITUS is an inconvenience, the father has every right to an abortion. Moving on…

PLAN OF ACTION

The United States Congress must pass a bill extending abortion-on-demand beyond birth and allow a father the right to an abortion. Once the bill is signed into law, a new era of personal choice will dawn. Either parent, when faced with emotional, physical, or economic hardship due to a FEITUS, can simply call a licensed physician and request an abortion. The physician must carefully evaluate the parents and the FEITUS, determine if the abortion is safe, and use ONLY United States approved abortion methods. To deter from the approved methods may result in cruel or unusual punishment for the FEITUS. The following procedures are approved methods of abortion in the United States:

(TIP: Before a licensed physician performs an abortion in your household, please be sure to lay down plenty of plastic. Some of these procedures can become fairly messy.)

Digoxin Induction: Once the FEITUS is asleep, the certified physician uses a large needle to inject a lethal chemical into the FEITUS’s heart. To save money, I suggest using any household chemicals such as bleach, ammonia, or paint thinner.

Saline Abortion: This method closely mimics the previous method, and differs only in chemicals used. The doctor uses a needle to inject a saline solution into the FEITUS’s lungs causing severe burning and irreparable damage to the organs.

Abortion by Neglect: The FEITUS is simply cut off from food or water and allowed to starve to death. I would suggest allowing the doctor to sedate the FEITUS first making this process much easier.

D & X Method: In order for this method to be used, the FEITUS must be heavily sedated. Once the FEITUS is sedated, the physician uses scissors to open a hole in the back of the FEITUS’s skull. A vacuum, preferably a Wet/Dry ShopVac®, is used to remove the FEITUS’s brains (How Abortions are Done). If you do not own a ShopVac®, any Hoover® or Oreck® will do.

Thus far I have used the term FEITUS only to describe individuals living at home as a burden to their parents with the potential to get up off the couch or out of bed and go to work. I see no reason why the term and, thus, my proposal cannot be extended to include those without the potential to be functioning members of society. Those living in a vegetative state, dying of an incurable disease, and the mentally handicapped fit all the criteria to be termed FEITUSes. In the same way a mother or father may abort their couch potato son or daughter, parents should be allowed to abort any other vegetables they have living at home or burdening them elsewhere. Think of the burden lifted from the parents of handicapped son or daughter if the FEITUS is aborted: no more expensive medicine, no more giving up free time to care for a child who will only burden others for the rest of their life, and no more stares from strangers as the parents take the FEITUS in public view.

CONCLUSION

I assure you, with utmost sincerity, if this proposal is enacted I have nothing personal to gain. Currently, I am childless and hope to stay this way for quite some time. In composing this modest proposal, I wish only for the betterment of society, for the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. I submit my proposal for judgment by man and God, and I know both will make the right choice, the only choice in their judgment of my work.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?