On my post about explaining abortion to kids in the context of American history education, in which I wrote that I would treat the subject as part of a unit on the changing experience of American childhood, I received a good question from "emma" in the combox. Here it is:
Do you also ask them to put themselves in the positions of their once-younger siblings, now grown older, and facing an unwanted pregnancy?
I gave a quick answer for the combox:
Emma, that's absolutely got to be part of their education, yes -- just as I ask them to put themselves in the position of all kinds of people facing challenges in life. I've tried to do that repeatedly as we've studied American history: asked them to put themselves in the place of marginalized people as well as in the place of people who've done terrible things. I've asked them to put themselves in the place of undocumented immigrants, in the place of people who supported immigration amnesty, and in the place of people who support strict immigration law enforcement -- so they can understand where everyone is coming from. I asked them to put themselves in the place of white antebellum Southerners and white antebellum Northerners and free blacks and slaves. Heck, a couple of weeks ago I even asked them to put themselves in the place of Richard Nixon. "Can you understand how a person could imagine that their political opponents were really *enemies?* And if you thought that, would it still be okay to lie and cheat to win elections?"
How else can "do the right thing, always" sink in, how can "never help people commit injustice, never" sink in, until you really understand that sometimes doing the right thing is terribly, terribly difficult? That sometimes contributing to injustice is terribly, terribly tempting?
I think it's a question worthy of highlighting for further discussion, don't you?
My point, in putting Roe v. Wade within a unit on the experience of childhood, is to point out that it affected the legal status of children primarily -- much more than it did the legal status of women. Of course, this only follows from the notion that unborn children are, in fact children; but I am sure the commenter understands that this is a fundamental assumption in my homeschool.
As with all my educational theories, we shall see how it plays out as my children get older and ask tougher questions. My philosophy about imparting the conviction that the unborn deserve protection is that it's necessary to go beyond "abortion is bad, so don't ever have one or pay for one or recommend one, try to help people who think it's their only choice, and vote against it whenever you can."
What's more fundamental than that? What's more necessary than that? Well -- ask yourself why abortion is a bad thing, why people shouldn't have them, pay for them, promote them, why it's better to help people make different choices, why its legal status should change. The only good answer is that the unborn are persons, children, and all those judgments follow from it.
The Catholic novelist and short-story master Flannery O'Connor once famously said about the Eucharist, "If it's just a symbol, then to hell with it." Well. About the anti-abortion movement, I can say: "If the unborn aren't persons, than to hell with it."
And so the thing that must be imparted is the gut-and-brain knowledge that unborn children are nothing more nor less than children, younger than themselves. A ten-year-old boy will protect his little sister like a Rottweiler: I have seen it. A four-year-old girl will carefully care for her baby brother: I have seen it. The whole family will gather eagerly around Mom's belly to watch for the tiny kicks: I have seen it. They know. They mustn't lose this knowledge.
If you know that an unborn child is a child, you don't need to be told that she needs care, not violence.
If you know that an unborn child is a child, you don't need to be told that a scared pregnant girl is a scared young mother with a baby, that a boy with a pregnant girlfriend is a worried young father. I'll have completely failed any one of my sons if he makes it to adulthood without being able to imagine what it might be like, what it is like for too many American men: to fear that he can't care for his family. I'll have failed my daughter if she grows up without putting herself in the place of a mother who's afraid she can't care adequately for herself and for her child.
I believe that to awaken compassion for young mothers and young fathers and their children is to awaken a desire to help them all, not a desire to harm any of them. Political positions come long after that.
Readers: What do you think of Emma's question and challenge? A good one, no?
"They know. They mustn't lose this knowledge."
That the unborn are children is certainly one of those things that young kids just KNOW, but for so many adults that fact has been twisted into something unrecognizable. I think many people who are moderately pro-choice would be horrified into becoming pro-life if they ever took the time to recognize that FACT that they knew once upon a time. To use a Switch metaphor, they've had their elephant enticed by hedonistic society to go down a path that their rider knows is wrong.
Posted by: Barbara C. | 03 February 2011 at 12:05 PM