I was reading an article the other day featuring an argument between Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Senator Tim Scott (at a Senate Banking Committee hearing) on abortion… and yet another wonky point popped up in their debate. Senator Scott referred to himself as “a guy raised by a black woman in abject poverty”. He apparently mentioned being thankful to be there. Beating the odds, as they call it. And to that I say, to him, and others like him, that’s all fine and good, but can you imagine what your childhood might have been like if your mother DIDN’T have to raise you in abject poverty?
Why is it so far-fetched to consider the fact that if you are meant to be born, you will be, and vice versa?
Plenty of pro-life folks like to ‘shoulda woulda coulda’ their way around human life, but they seem to be unable to grasp the concept that there are people who may not feel ready to have a child, and that they, maybe, just maybe would like to have a child on their terms, or maybe not at all. That potential baby that might’ve been born will still be born, if they are supposed to. Everyone here has a purpose, do they not? So why does it make sense to force someone to have a child when they were raped, or when they are at risk of dying, or when they are homeless, or when they will have to raise the child alone and not be able to provide for them? These same folks crying about the unborn babies haven’t opened orphanages or provided scholarships for the hypothetical children they are violently defending. They haven’t made it easier for those of us with wombs to achieve a fulfilling, financially stable way of life in preparation for us to make our own choices regarding our own damn bodies. So why should they have a say in the lives of others?
The people who have the power to write/change these laws will always have access to the rights they are infringing upon.