Republican Infanticide

I know where Republicans stand on abortion, but I’m not clear on where they stand on infanticide. If a woman does not for whatever reason want to have a child there are only three possibilities, abortion, adoption, or infanticide. Infanticide is by no means unknown on a worldwide basis. In the New Guinea Highlands where I once worked for a while infanticide, while not common, was certainly practiced. First of all the people there believed that having twins was “animal-like” and one would be put to death usually right at birth. They also lived in a state of perpetual fear of attack by their enemies, and they argued that in event of an attack a woman could not take two children and flee, so they sometimes sacrificed one child for that reason. I would not say they wanted to do this, but it was, in their eyes, a necessity at times. I know that infanticide also occurs in other parts of the world, certainly among people who have no reliable means of abortion.

Why do I think this has anything to do with Republicans? Well, basically because they seem to be obsessively concerned that all pregnant women must deliver their babies, but do not seem to be much concerned with the fate of those babies. Obviously they cannot argue against abortion and then in favor of infanticide. Besides, infanticide in the U.S. is illegal and no respectable person, even a Republican, would argue in favor of infanticide. But infanticide does rarely occur in the U.S., we read occasionally of a woman, usually a young woman, leaving a newborn infant in a restroom or a dumpster, or wherever. And sometimes we hear of women who drown their children, or shoot them, or smother them, or kill them in some other way. And, of course, there are terrible cases of child abuse where an infant is put in a dryer or a microwave or even in a frying pan. In cases like this we usually assume some form of mental illness for the perpetrator, or a situation in which the mother is not in a position to have a child. In general, no one in the U.S. would favor infanticide of any kind.

I cannot help but wonder, however, what it is Republicans believe is going to happen to all these babies women will be forced to have against their will? It is most unlikely that all of them will be adopted, and they cannot simply be destroyed. Republicans do not seem very interested in welfare, they would prefer not to even offer food stamps. They also are not interested in minimum wages and are unconcerned about unemployment benefits, and they are opposed to spending money on child care. They would like to do away with Social Security which offers some help to young mothers. They also are not in favor of universal health care. They are not interested in full employment and seem to favor shipping American jobs overseas where labor is cheaper. Thus, if a woman is forced to bear a child, has no means of supporting it other than perhaps at a genuine poverty level, what is she supposed to do? It certainly seems to me that Republican anti-abortion positions are clearly not consistent with, or even related to the reality of life in the U.S. This is just another example of our “shoot first, worry later” philosophy. And of course this Republican insistence on no abortion is completely inconsistent with their claim they are opposed to government intervention in our lives. Given their attitudes towards welfare and such you would think they would welcome abortions, the more the better. I believe it was Jonathan Swift who suggested a cure for poverty would be to have people simply eat their children. I guess Republicans haven’t heard of this possible solution. We do have to make some allowances for them, they are, after all, Republicans.

Well, I learned today that still another of my best friends has died. Professor John G. Kennedy, a truly fine anthropologist. He was 83 and has been under care for a very severe case of Parkinson’s for several years. I believe his death was a blessing. I do not know how it is, or why it is, that I have been so fortunate. Most all of my former classmates, friends, and colleagues, are slowly slipping away, truly sad, but inevitable. It was John who first exposed me to Dylan Thomas:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rage at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Though wise men at their end know dark is right,

Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,

Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,

Do not go gentle into that good night.
rave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
rage, rage against the dying of the light.