The reason I think it would not be too difficult to bring about programslike this, and to make them seem socially acceptable and desirable, isthat we have some things like it in place now which are socially acceptedor desired, but for specific endeavors, not general nurturing. Manyadults voluntarily coach various little league sports (baseball, football,basketball, soccer, etc.); many volunteer to help with church youth activities;some (but relatively few) schools offer after-school adult volunteer mentoringhelp for students with their studies, often in particular their readingskills. The idea would be to expand such adult/child coaching/mentoring/advisingcontacts into broader, more generally nurturing opportunities. Ithink that both children and adults would benefit, and that communitieswould greatly benefit.
Some might say that helping people rear children who could otherwisenot afford it would only encourage such people to have children; and somemight say that not ostracizing and/or otherwise punishing people who getpregnant out of wedlock will only encourage promiscuity and "illegitimacy".I doubt that social fear is the (only) reasonable societal method of birthcontrol. And I doubt people would intentionally have more children thanthey really want to just because they might be able to financially affordto. Further, many relatively wealthy people do not do a particularly goodjob of rearing their children; and their children could benefit from asociety more oriented toward properly nurturing children as well. Further,it seems to me incumbent upon those opponents of abortion (particularlyperhaps the most ideologically adamant opponents) not to hold that onlywealthy people deserve to have (the most) children or that children shouldbe born only to people with money to rear them regardless of who overallmight make good parents and who not very good parents. I would think thatan abortion opponent might prefer to see a child born that society hasto help with than to see a child aborted because a society would not helpeven though it could have. And I would hope an opponent to abortionwould prefer to see a few innocent children be born that might not havebeen had they not have been able to be reared properly than to see childrenborn who cannot be properly reared.
to enact the Conscience Protection Act!
And I am not talking about simply giving money (such as welfare) topeople who have children they could not otherwise afford. That may be ofgreat need but of relatively little help anyway. I am speaking about havingadequate, nurturing (not just child-warehousing) day care available; Iam speaking about fostering climates where "illegitimacy" and/or relativelylow financial means is not a severely limiting obstacle or punishing stigma;I am talking about fostering the kind of society in general that is trulynurturing and granting of opportunity to all children regardless of thekind of family situation they have been born to. Some of this may takea certain amount of reallocation of the wealth of society, but I thinkmostly it simply requires the kind of leadership that says our society'schildren are important and that we need to nurture their development wherewe can, and at least not hinder it where we cannot. Short of that, it seemsto me we cannot simply ignore any woman's possibly legitimate and compassionateargument that her baby would be better off not to be born than to be bornto a life of suffering, particularly suffering that might be easily alleviatedif only people cared enough to help.
A solution must come from the legislature, not from judges.
An employee who dares to criticize openly policies and decisions of managementwould be considered by most adults to be naive, unrealistic,hopelessly idealistic, and other pejorative labels.
this was so helpful. thank you very much
I would think that the greater the (perceived) quality of life in asociety, the fewer abortions there would be, for two reasons: (1) rearingaccidentally conceived children would not be such a difficult (and sometimesalmost impossible) burden because there would be help available, for example,even just day-care facilities at work or school; and (2) one would notbe so likely to feel one is doing the child a favor by not "forcing itto be born" into conditions that no one should have to endure -- conditionsthat might even make the person himself wish he had never been born. RememberI am not necessarily just talking about trying to provide a life with theminimal "basic" necessities of food, shelter, clothing, and medicine, butalso trying to provide all the kinds of things that make human life moreworth living -- love, compassion, understanding, opportunities for mentalor intellectual development, being treated fairly, etc. -- the kinds ofemotional, psychological, "spiritual" necessities of the soul that can evensometimes,though not as a rule, transcend inescapable poor health and/or poverty.
This is amazing! Thank you so much for posting
The blunt honesty of the little boy in the children's story aboutthe is not the way of sophisticatedadults in the USA who want to stay employed.
physiciansOne could easily articulate a similar view for physicians.
A few of these articles are cited in my companionthat briefly sketches the history of the doctrine of at-will employmentin the USA, as well as criticism of this doctrine.