A Modest Proposal Part II
For preventing the offspring of America from being a burden to their parents or country; and for making them beneficial to the public.
Children. What to do about them? Frantic parents search for guidance, trying the latest methods. Nothing works. A recent study showed most American parents would, given the chance, chose not to have children.I freely concede a few children, by some mysterious process, turn out well and prove themselves a credit to their parents and society. But they are the exception.
Most offspring become millstones around their parents’ necks, preventing them from enjoying the pleasures of adult life. For the upper class, this means snow skiing, Caribbean cruises, hot tubs, country clubs, fine clothes, fancy food, fast cars, carefree sex, and, perhaps most important of all, privacy. For the lower classes, this is time at the pub, a country dance, shooting a deer, a go with the woman.
Hardly a day goes by that I do not meet a parent bristling with complaints about their children – their intolerable behavior, their bad grades, their trouble-making friends, their ingratitude. The rich have adopted time-honored solutions to the problem. They hire a nanny, and the children are only displayed on special occasions. At the first opportunity, they are shipped off to boarding school where they learn to make a bed, kick a ball, be politically correct, and smoke marijuana.
The average American cannot afford such niceties. Once his progeny enter the world crying and hungry, our patriot is stuck for 18 years or longer with fevers, measles, tantrums, toothaches, disobedience, expenses, ingratitude, rebellion, and, if lucky, an uneasy truce. Everyone will admit, except for the oddball child-lovers among us, the distressing nature of the situation.
I modestly propose we advance further down the road of liberty and progress. We (most states anyway) grant mothers great freedom before the fetus is born but once it sees the light of day, the mother’s rights end and her responsibilities begin. I detect an inconsistency here, an injustice. It is blatantly unfair to expect mothers to be seers, able to predict with Ouija-board accuracy their reaction to motherhood. There is nothing like a colicky baby at 2 in the morning or a dirty diaper at any time to convince a mother she erred. How depressing it must be to realize you made a big mistake, a cruelly inescapable mistake and long enduring!
So, with right, and I hope might on my side, I present my modest proposal: give the mother to age 3 to say or nay on the child. All people of goodwill, of sound mind and heart agree, that the birth of the child is purely arbitrary as a cutoff for sanitation. So, you ask, what should the cut-off be? When should it become illegal and inhumane to legally sanitize a child.
I have thought deeply about this and consulted with psychologists, doctors, and learned people of upright moral standing. The consensus is the sanitation process should no longer be available after the age of three.
Progressive critics may accuse me of cruelty, of unnecessarily subverting the rights of the mother. But I must stand firm. Other ages – seven, ten, thirteen, or even sixteen – might appear more just, reasonable, and flexible, but our civilization has advanced to the point where we must give due regard to the offspring’s rights. Most Americans – at least those without children – would find it reprehensible if parents were permitted to sanitize their teenage children over a dispute about the family car, or how loud rock music can be played. After all, we are a nation under God and subject to His laws.
Thus, though the choice of three as a sanitation cutoff might appear capricious and cruel to the mother, it is eminently reasonable and consistent with our nation’s moral standards. At this point, the offspring – though still totally dependent on its parents – is walking and talking and becomes a person as defined in the 14th amendment of Our Constitution. As a safety valve, I propose to increase the number of foster homes and streamline the adoption process. We must invest more in these homes, focusing on teaching useful trades so the children don’t become a burden to society.
I further propose we divide the sanitation timeline into two parts: birth to one, and one to three. Until the offspring reaches one, the sanitation decision would be left to the mother and her physician. Of course, the mother would be required to present the birth certificate if she presented the child for sanitation. Rigorous and moral controls must be integrated into each step of the sanitation process in ways consistent with maternal well-being and the norms of society.
The mother could still sanitize the offspring up until the age of three, but in the second phase of the sanitation process the state will become more involved. After all, we are now dealing with a toddler who walks and is learning to talk. It can perform simple tasks and occasionally provokes amusement in adults. So, we must tread carefully, but God forbid we forget the mother. The 2-year-old offspring, however cuddly and cute, may be driving her to despair. How tyrannical these little monsters can be! Little pirates, they maraud the mother’s peace of mind.
So, the mother and doctor would present their case for sanitation to a board consisting of at least three experts in the field. In addition, the views of the father may be presented. In this last stage of the process the state must balance the rights of the potential human being with the rights of the mother. It may be obvious to all that any physical or mental disability of the toddler, or the mother, will be a strong argument for sanitation. The financial condition of the mother and father should also play a major role. The state can no longer afford to support all the offspring of the poor.
Having demonstrated the morality and justice of my proposal, I will now address some technical and administrative issues. How would we sanitize the offspring? The technique must be humane and efficient so as not to offend the moral sensibilities of the population nor overburden them with excessive costs. A wealth of expertise already exists in the Animal Humane Society and the military’s chemical and biological units. With a modest appropriation from Congress and the assistance of these organizations, our country could readily develop a network of Offspring Sanitation Modules (OSMs). As a savings to the taxpayers the OSMs could be co-located at Planned Parenthood sites since the doctors and nurses there already have the requisite medical and social skills for dealing with unpleasant procedures and distraught women. I estimate the cost for the sanitation to no more than for pre-birth sanitation.
Of course, Obamacare and private health insurance companies would cover sanitation. I expect the government to subsidize sanitation costs for the poor, their children being a burden to us all. It may be hard to believe but this step forward in maternal and public health should result in a reduction of federal and state budgets, due to reduced costs for programs such as AFDC and WIC as well as a reduction in personal exemptions claimed by families on their tax returns.
I must be forthright and admit my modest proposal will negatively affect some individuals and groups. Pediatricians will undoubtedly suffer a marked decline in patients. But it wouldn’t cost much to train them for work in other medical fields.
The negative impact of my proposal on the child-care industry resists simple, inexpensive solutions. The demand for diapers, strollers, car seats, formula, clothes, lotions, and baby toys will inevitably decline. Some people will lose their jobs. Special tax write-offs and credits could be devised to enable the companies to restructure their business and find new markets. The Export-Import Bank could help in financing expansion overseas. If Americans need fewer products for their offspring, then let’s export these products to India, Nigeria, and other countries with high birth rates.
My modest proposal would be a net generator of jobs for Americans. The construction and maintenance of the Offspring Sanitation Modules would create thousands of jobs. The OSMs would reduce the unemployment rate and the demand for government services, especially among the poor.
Everything argues in favor of my proposal. It is simple, cheap, and appeals to both the elites and the masses. It is in consonance with the moral climate of our times. Sometimes history and misguided morality suppress simple solutions to perplexing problems. Prejudices and old habits die hard. But just remedies always find a way out, only requiring the right voice and the right time before they overwhelm the opposition.
I cannot conclude without a personal aside. I profess in the sincerity of my heart that I have not the least personal interest in endeavoring to promote this modest proposal. My children are beyond the age of sanitation; my wife is past her childbearing years. Any income derived from this essay will be donated to a worthy cause. My only motive in promulgating this modest proposal is the public good of my country – by advancing our trade, relieving the plight of women, reducing the demand for government services, and advancing the greater good.