HUMAN RIGHTS, POVERTY, AND CARE OF GIRLS AND WOMEN WITH THE PROSPECT OF A BABY

Human rights provide the lens used here to examine the treatment of women and girls at a time in their lives when they deserve the utmost respect, understanding and assistance, when they are early in a pregnancy, wanted or not, the result of violence or not, or a miscarriage of a wanted child. We live in a society where “[e]ssentially, people will have children if they feel they have job security, a stable economy, and feel supported in starting a family.” Some countries and cities provide assistance to a mother upon the birth of a child in the form of monthly checks to assist in the care of the child. These payments seem small in relation to childcare costs in the United States because many countries have not only various other provisions for children but also lower costs for basic necessities. Equivalent payments in the United States in 2019 would be $14,000 annually, compared to 1,000 euros in other countries. Not only are costs higher in the United States but this country also in 1787 drafted a socially and politically still colonial constitutional document in which most people beyond men of property were left to their own devices but still subject to the duty to provide military service when called upon. Such attitudes die hard. The phrase “if one doesn’t work, one doesn’t eat” guided many people’s attitudes to colonial American society. If,for pregnant women and girls the opposite assumption operated, it is a fair question whether fewer girls and women would select an abortion. Perhaps support of mother and fetus, without state force against these mothers/mothers-to-be, might allow them to make an actual choice of their own not to abort the fetus. This article argues that the failure to discuss the question of lack of aid to the poor, and its consequences, widely in the public square constitutes a serious democratic deficit. The lives and careers of Margaret Atwood (1939—) and Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) set forth the two opposite positions, the non-worker is not fed, and the poor should be cared for so that they may flourish (and they will then naturally contribute to society). Ms. Schlafly looked back to the traditional privileges which conservative, well-to-do, and wealthy women enjoyed, as in colonial times. She founded the organization Stop Taking Our Privileges in 1972 to work against the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (“ERA”). Ms. Atwood, on the other hand, with a literary career, writing in several genres, explored and continues to explore the role of women in the world and in their personal relationships over several novels presenting some of the traps and pitfalls a woman may be likely to face. She founded an organization called Writers’ Trust of Canada. The influence and approaches of these two women have reached beyond North America and are felt, known, and taken virtually around the world.Each presents the consequences of her position: privilege versus the pressure of society on women without alliances and without the help of a community.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.