Don't Kill Your Kids

Jump no. 5 by Becky Kinkead

Toni Morrison's Beloved

Recently I embarked on reading Toni Morrison's Beloved. It was, to say the least, probably one of the heaviest books I've ever read. Every page was devastating, and it felt as though there was not any visible light at the end of the tunnel. It was so very somber that I had to read a second book on the side to switch off. Looking back and reflecting though, one aspect of the story that really stuck out to me is that, while Sethe's attempt to murder her children caused the public to be repulsed with her and isolate her for the rest of her life, completely cutting her off, abortion is applauded in our modern day society. 

Now, I am fully aware that Beloved is not a book about abortion. It is about slavery and abuse and the terror that comes from that, and about the way slavery destroyed lives, even after it was abolished. I am not trying to reduce or diminish the real dilemma the book addresses. However, I do think that the public reaction to Sethe's attempted murder demonstrates a really interesting contrast to the modern day, and it's reasonable to explore that contrast. 

That being said, the reaction to Sethe's killing of her children is lethal. Not only is she imprisoned, but her surviving sons run away from home, the public cuts her off and isolates her, her daughter's ghost haunts her and attempts to kill her, and even Paul D, who has a deep relationship with Sethe, is too discomforted by the knowledge of her actions to even speak to her. In the modern day, this kind of being "canceled" isn't what we get in return for killing children, but in return for speaking out against it. 

"A man ain't nothing but a man. . . But a son? Well now, that's somebody."

Now I should make a brief biological disclaimer. This is the point when people will begin to argue that abortion isn't killing children, it's the removal of a fetus. Biologically speaking, the "fetus" is a person. They have the same genetic makeup as a person, and usually, abortions take place within the first 12 weeks when the baby already has a heartbeat. Genetically speaking, they have unique DNA and are therefore not a part of the mother, and though they are not an independent organism, that doesn't make it moral to end their lives, just as we don't end the lives of the elderly or special needs just because they may not be independently viable. By basic biological standards, the fetus is a person, albeit a very small person. Also by biological standards, they are alive, and terminating the pregnancy also ends their lives. So if we accept science as true, we can acknowledge that an abortion is technically killing a child. The debate is not whether or not abortion kills, but whether or not there are circumstances where that killing is morally acceptable. 

"What's fair ain't necessarily right."

The second protest I can imagine people making to my comparison of Sethe's killing her child and modern-day abortion is that of arguing about the brutality of the death. I can imagine there would be several people who would argue with me that Sethe's slitting her baby's throat with a handsaw is much more brutal and graphic than an abortion. I would beg to disagree. I would suggest that most people don't actually know what happens during an abortion, and I would argue that dismemberment is just as graphic as decapitation. 

While it's true that Sethe's child, already born, could feel pain and it is thought that unborn babies likely can't feel pain until around the 25th week, does painlessness make it okay to kill someone? It's just as bad to murder someone in their sleep when they can't feel it as it is to murder while they're awake and walking. A person's perception of pain doesn't necessarily justify dismembering them. 

"If I hadn't killed her she would have died and that is something I could not bear to happen to her."

People were horrified by Sethe's actions, even though she claimed even years after that she did what she did because it was the only way to keep them from returning to the horrors of slavery. Sethe slit her daughter's throat to protect her daughter from horrific abuse and the potential of future rape. Yet, even with this motivation of love and protection, people were horrified and saw what Sethe did as a terrible thing. Why? Because, as Paul D told Sethe, death wasn't the only way to protect them. He was certain that there could have been another way out, and that even if there wasn't, it would be better to be alive in a harsh situation than to be dead, better to at least give them a chance of getting out and making it to a better life. 

Today, however, arguing that kids will be born into abusive or low-income households is considered a justified reason for abortion. People suggest that it would be better for someone to be never born than to have to live a life that is hard or damaging. But how do we define what life is worth living? What income is low enough to justify not allowing children a chance? And if you genuinely believe that children born in poverty should be killed before birth, what does that say about your perception of all the children in third-world countries, who don't have the same opportunities as a middle-class American child might? Are those children not worthy of life, even if they don't have the same financial comfort? 

"You can't just mishandle creatures and expect success."

Thousands of widely successful people were born into situations that would've "justified" abortion. J.D. Vance, for example, is the current Vice President of the United States of America. However, he grew up in poverty and abuse, with a mother addicted to drugs. Oprah Winfrey was born into poverty and abused by her mother. Drew Barrymore was addicted to substances by the age of twelve and had absent parents. Eminem had an absent father and was heavily bullied. Christina Aguilera was abused by her father physically and emotionally. Jim Carrey lived in homelessness and dropped out of school. Shania Twain grew up in abuse, poverty, and homelessness. Even Jesus Christ grew up poor in the Middle East with a king out to murder him. These very same circumstances of addiction, poverty, and abuse are what we use to suggest that a child shouldn't be born, because they might have a hard childhood. But a hard childhood doesn't define your worth. Children from difficult childhoods might suffer, yes, but they can go on to have fulfilling lives and be successful. They can go on to be doctors, teachers, actors, and even presidents. How can we know how they will end up before they even get a chance to start?

It circles back to that argument of whether the ends justify the means. If we can't know that a child will come to bad ends, will grow up poor and fail to be successful in life, then how can we justify preventing that means by killing the child. What if that child is going to cure cancer someday? What if they're going to reform space travel, or become president? What if they're going to be a New York Times bestselling author? We can't know that they're going to have a harsh life, or that that harshness will last forever. 

In short, while I know Beloved is about so much more than abortion, that it is about grief and race and tragedy, I do think that the public reaction to a mother killing her children is a huge driving force of the narrative, and therefore something that should be talked about. It just goes to demonstrate a huge cultural shift in our view of women and children. The very actions we used to condemn are now praised for reasons that aren't substantial enough to be viable. I can't persuade you to completely change your opinion on abortion in this short blog post with very few arguments. I do hope though, that it makes you think, and introduces ideas about abortion that you might not have thought of before.