Protect Women’s Health Now
Preliminarily, I have taken Senator Hirono’s admonition to men seriously (“Just shut up and stand up. Do the right thing for a change.”) by consulting with a woman (my wife of 38 years), and she confirmed to me that raising children (for us, 2 boys) definitely can affect a woman’s health, particularly a woman’s mental health, and so I would like to submit that efforts at supporting third and fourth trimester abortion just don’t go far enough. It is patently clear that having children can be a burdensome challenge to a woman’s health throughout a child’s life, but our categories of fetus (as a mere biological mass) vs. live birth (child) are inadequate to a proper vigilance for a woman’s health as matters now stand. Thus, I propose a 3-step plan to remedy the situation.
The first step to safeguarding women’s health is to create an extended period of motherly decision in connection with all live births. Following the delivery of a baby, the mother will be asked if she is decided or undecided whether she wants the baby. If she is decided that she wants the baby, the baby will be granted full status as a human being. If she is undecided, the baby is deemed an undecided (or simply an undy). If the mother remains undecided and a child reaches the age of majority, the child receives human status, albeit somewhat grudgingly.
Step 1: An Extended Period of Motherly Decision
Step 2: Care for UndiesGiven that the mother is undecided about whether she wants her child, it would grossly and negatively impact her health to ask her to care for an undy child. I propose that we make a modest extension to the Head Start program to take on this job. Using existing bureaucratic structure is cost effective and efficient. If the mother remains undecided past preschool, educating an undy child may be a bad investment, but given the effectiveness of our public schools, there is little risk in this undesirable outcome, in any event.
Step3: Favorable vs. Unfavorable Motherly DecisionsThe third piece of the proposal involves what to do once a motherly decision is rendered. There are two possibilities. I call these a “favorable” decision (the child is wanted and is allowed to live) and an “unfavorable” decision. Of course, favorables (“favs”) are deemed human and leave Head Start to go live with mom. Unfavorables (call them “unfavs”) are another matter. Unfavs must be terminated and disposed of, and as an engineer I respect understanding traditional solutions before inventing new ones. Regimes in the Soviet Union, China, and elsewhere have effectively eliminated millions of their citizens in the past, and perhaps our robust commercial relations with the present day regimes in those regions can be put to good use. But the historical example of the engineering prowess of the German regime of World War 2 (I have intentionally not used the term "Nazi" to avoid an unnecessary repugnance that might prevent us from grasping the genius of their solutions.). The Germans started with machine guns and guillotines, but the one-two punch of gas chambers using Zyklon B and ovens proved to be the royal road to the efficient elimination of the unfav undies of their time.
Of course, the German historical example was of a different time, and our enlightened era is much more sensitive to “the comfort” of the unfav. Governor Northam has said it well, and our modern implementation will spare no expense for unfav comfort. Of course, this dictates several important modifications to the German plan. Germans separated those who could endure slave labor from those who could not. And let me be clear. There will be no slave labor in our camps. Perhaps an Amazon fulfillment center can locate next to the camps for work-capable unfavs or perhaps they can be utilized as Lyft drivers.
Following selection for work, those sent for termination in the German example were sent to “the showers.” Given the heightened sensitivity to gender as a choice, their will be both cis- and trans-gender “showers” to ensure full shower inclusion.
Also, the German example can be criticized because they used freight cars to transport their unfavs to the camps, but here I propose that we use high-speed rail (think Hunger Games) with comfortable seating. The plans for my scheme can be rolled into the Green New Deal (GND) and perhaps special cars can be built. I am amenable to connecting my proposal to that of the GND if this will build support for both.