Tags

, , , , , ,

So, have you read Unwind yet? You haven’t?? You have just disappointed me beyond all reason. Well, at least read the last post I wrote about Unwind so you won’t be completely lost for the next few minutes. I have already discussed the basic idea of unwinding (as conceived by Neal Shusterman), how it is metaphysically impossible, and how I completely disagree with it. If that wasn’t thrilling enough for you, today I will introduce you to the practice of “storking.”

In Unwind, Shusterman introduces storking as a solution to the increasing number of unwanted babies the anti-abortion laws have basically allowed to be born. After the Bill of Life is passed, and the government has decided that life begins at conception, unsuspecting mothers have no idea what to do with their unwanted babies. Therefore, the government enacts the Storking Initiative. (As lies beget more lies, laws beget more laws, yes?) The Storking Initiative allows mothers to leave unwanted babies on a family’s doorstep, in which case, that family is legally obliged to care for the child. However, if the mother is seen at any time before, during, or after leaving the baby, she is legally obliged to care for the child. This is, of course, very similar to putting a baby up for adoption, but as far as I can tell, the entire adoption system (in Shusterman’s world) is now being run by the government – more red tape and less money: not good for babies.

In some ways, I really like this idea of storking. The rules are relatively civilized. It certainly seems more humane than our current foster system. However, Shusterman portrays a few scenarios that are less than ideal. First of all, mothers often take their babies to neighborhoods and houses they are unfamiliar with, leaving the baby with a potentially bad home. Secondly, the rules for storking are left up to the honor system. There is really no way to be certain that a family does not re-stork a baby they do not want to care for. Even if they were caught, the only penalties are probably a fine and maybe a short time in jail.

Furthermore, the illegality of abortions has not reduced the prevalence of teenage pregnancy. In fact, teenage mothers have become so common that public high schools now offer day care facilities for students’ babies. (I’m sure it also helps that a teenager cannot be unwound if she is pregnant.) Therefore, it is interesting to think that people who are against abortions because they want to reduce the temptation of teenage promiscuity and then the number of teenage pregnancies are only making matters worse.

Reading Unwind really solidifies my belief that life begins at conception, and that God has a plan and purpose for babies before they are conceived. One of the characters in Unwind makes the claim that babies receive a soul (and thus a right to life) when they are truly loved by someone, a parent or otherwise. In a sense, I would say this observation is correct, except that I truly believe that God loves each and every baby before it is even conceived. So, all babies have souls (and thus a right to life) at the time of conception.

Read Unwind. In the meantime, what are your thoughts on this post and the last one?

Advertisements