Cosmopolitan tells us that because some children feel unwanted, therefore, abortion should be legal.
The actual argument is that the mother of the writer didn’t want to have children. Further, that mother made this plain during the writer’s childhood. This is then used as an argument that abortion should be legal.
The wider implication of this is expressly stated. Some people don’t enjoy their childhoods, some unwanted children aren’t happy now, so therefore…
Maybe It’s Time to Hear From Unwanted Children
My mother had me despite misgivings, and I’m still feeling the reverberations today.
There’s something of a gaping hole in this argument. There are the usual points about sure, life doesn’t always turn out like we’d hope. Some parents aren’t all that good at raising children, another truth. Even, some people aren’t enjoying life all that much and therefore think about not having had that opportunity.
But that hole – the specific instance used here as an example. The author’s mother was not forced into having two children by the absence of abortion. It was actually the exercise of choice that led to those two children. Even, possibly, a resented choice, a thought that perhaps it was the wrong one.
But abortion or not didn’t lead to this author’s – lamented – birth. So, this author’s life experience, or that of the mother, is not an argument either way on the existence of abortion. We do get that if the mother had been forced to have children by the absence of abortion availability then this story of an unwanted child might have relevance. We’d still think it odd, but possibly at least relevant. But somebody who made her choice and then wasn’t happy with it?
Cosmopolitan ranks just outside the top 50 news and media sites in the U.S. It gains nearly 60 million visits from that position.
The author’s mother made a choice – that’s what it’s about, right, choice? – and because she didn’t like the result therefore the choice must be available? We really do think there’s a hole in that logic.