165 Years And Still Going; How Much Longer Are We Going To Have To Fight?
I'm finding it incredible that today, March 7, 2013, The New York Times has published two very contradictory articles in the same front page section. The first article appears on the side of the front page, "Arkansas Passes a 12-Week Limit in Abortion Law." Then, further into the A-section of The Times, there is an article on page A20 called "City Campaign Targeting Teenage Pregnancy Draws Criticism." While the later article is indeed about the criticism of the new teenaged mother campaign, it begs the question most teen mothers ask, "What do I do?" Or more accurately, "What does society say I should do?"
We all know that the point of a newspaper is to report the facts. This usually includes as many sides of a story as possible. However, in both of these stories women are silent. This post is not meant to attack The New York Times, not in the least bit. This is a commentary on society and how it is expressed through the media. One article is about severely limiting the abortion options for women, while the other is using hypothetical children to convince women not to have children when they are in their teens. Many states in our country have abortion laws that require the parental consent of at least one parent or guardian before an abortion can be performed on a minor. If the law is not going to make abortions available and safe to women, then how can they expect teen pregnancy rates to decrease?
Why don't the powers that be just come out and say they are trying to teach abstinence? I understand these are two drastically different states and The New York Times has a vastly diverse readership, but what signals are we sending to the women of our society? They are told to not become teen mothers, but yet if they do become pregnant they cannot get a safe abortion without consenting with a parent. What if a teenager becomes pregnant due to rape? Does she have this child with the fear that these anti-teen mother campaigns put in her head? Seems she may have to since the backlash against abortions is mounting higher and higher every day.
What proof do these anti-teen mother campaigns have that teenage mothers make poor parents? Is it because they are young, inexperienced, and hardly adults themselves? Yes, those are all valid points. But what about the populations with the highest instances of teen pregnancy? Is there anything else connecting these children who apparently have no chance of success because of the age their mother was when they gave birth to them? Some factors that come to mind are location, education, class, religious affiliations, and access to a safe abortion, just to name a few. It seems that not many people are taking into consideration that teen mothers rarely have the opportunity to go back to finish their education or move on to higher education. This can convert to a lower paying job, if any at all in this job market, and therefore less money to help their children get a better education than themselves. The campaigns even take to slandering would-be fathers, saying they won't stick around or take responsibility for their children. Aren't they just as much a teen parent and just as much to blame as the mothers of these children?
This is not to say that all teen mothers are unsuccessful individuals and have unsuccessful offspring. This is also not to say that all pregnant teens should have abortions. There are successful teen parents who raise successful children, and there are parents with every afforded opportunity in life who ignore and abuse their offspring. This post is to say that pregnant teenage women should be making these choices for themselves, and be able to have options no matter which way they turn. These women should be in control of their own bodies, if not because women don't have much control of anything in this world, then because it is our basic human right.
