In Unwind, The Bill of Life had a law in it called the "Storking Initiative." This allowed young girls to give up their children after they were born, if they were incapable of raising a child or weren't ready to be mothers. It was almost like an abortion substitute; the babies were just given up after birth as opposed to before.
The law seemed quite childish in a way; the idea of "finder's keepers" where you had to keep the baby if you found it, the idea of keeping the baby if someone caught you delivering it, etc. The Bill of Life was meant to protect life, using well-chosen words such as "in a divided state" instead of "dead", but do you think it actually had the desired effect?
"Funny, but the bill of life was supposed to protect the sanctity of life. Instead it just made life cheap. Thank goodness for the Storking Initiative, that wonderful law that allows girls like her a far better alternative" (53).
If not for the Stroking Initiative, babies would be ending up in dumpsters, which isn't better than abortion. And of course, the Bill of Life had the purpose of getting rid of abortion for a "more civilized" alternative. Do you think the idea of pushing storking rather than permitting abortion is a better idea than what we have in society today?
I'm having a difficult time deciding, because if you remember the story about the baby that circulated the porches in Connor's neighborhood, storking isn't always effective. (see page 73 for a recap of that story) However, if abortion was kept legal, the Bill of Life would be moot and the Pro-lifes and the Pro choices would still be fighting. Even if there was a law that you had to keep your baby until it reached the age of thirteen, there would probably be no way that law would be upheld and unwanted babies would just be thrown into dumpsters.
I know I asked some really tough questions, but I just thought it would be an interesting thing to analyze. Your thoughts? (:
cool
ReplyDelete