Dreams and Sprogs

When I was growing up, I adored my mother. My mother could do no wrong in my eyes. She worked at a hospital for 30 years; most of that time she was a receptionist and telephone switchboard operator who worked the graveyard shift. I was a born night owl, and I would ring her all night long just to chat to her.

One day, she told me about how she hadn’t always been a receptionist and switchboard operator. Before I was born, she was a nurse’s aid. “What happened? Didn’t you like it?” I asked her.
“I loved it… I had always wanted to be a nurse.”
“Why didn’t you become a nurse then?” I asked with genuine childlike inquisitiveness.
“Oh, well, I had kids instead.”

I spent many years feeling guilty that I was responsible for my mother’s unfulfilled dream of becoming a nurse. Unfortunately, as the years wore on… I discovered something about my mother: she was full of shit!

You see…. my mother was 29 when my eldest sibling was born, the same age I was when I had my first child. I managed to fulfill an awful lot of my lifetime goals and dreams before then, too.

I’m not unsympathetic to the fact that there are two entire generations that came and went in between my mother’s birth and my birth. Her opportunities and expectations of her from society were quite different to what my opportunities and societal expectations were. But it’s still bullshit… having kids did not stop her from becoming a nurse. Lack of ambition did. Being subservient to her husband did. Having her first child at the age of 29…. did not.

So why am I writing about this now? Social-fucking-media… the bane of my life. Because the mentality that children inhibit life dreams is still alive, well and often being cited by my own generation as a reason not to breed.

This notion is utter bullshit, and I’m a living testament to it. Sure, sometimes I make less progress than I would like in a given time frame or find that it is a bit more tedious than pre-Mummyhood, but it hasn’t stopped me ticking off the life goals (and inventing new ones) on a consistent basis. Not to mention that raising a child is – in itself – an adventure that you will learn from and grow as a human being.

It’s understandable why the mentality persists though…. I’m far from the only child who grew up believing that my existence ruined the fulfilled lives of my parents. It has been recycled again and again, except now it is the reason people give for not having kids rather than the reason for unfilled dreams.

Here are two requests that I would like people to consider:

1) Parents… don’t blame your children for your own shortcomings. Either admit to yourself that you valued having children over the dreams you “gave up,” or start working toward those goals that would make you more happy. There is no shame in either. If you truly DID have to walk away from a big opportunity (and I mean an actual, at-your-doorstep opportunity, not a pipe dream) that would have fulfilled you because of your family, don’t ever tell your children anything to make them think that your unhappiness is their fault. They will feel guilty for it…. right up until they resent you.

2) Childless people… stop being smug, because you made different choices in life. Your concept that life ends at childbirth is only true for people who wouldn’t have done much with their lives anyway, with very few exceptions. It is COMPLETELY possible to continue having adventures and living life to its fullest with children in tow. Just admit it: I don’t want to have kids. It’s not that hard… I said it myself for a very, very long time (quite adamantly I might add). There is nothing wrong with that. No one should bring a life into this world unless they are prepared to be completely committed to that life.

We make our own realities.
___________________________________________________________

TyLean Polley is an avant-garde recording artist. You can get a free download of her music at TyLeanPolley.com

 

Kdo je John Galt?

An emaciated man in a loin cloth holding the globe on his shoulders.

Last month, I was in Prague. On the tram, heading back to the hotel, I saw an advertisement on a the backrest of a bench that read, “Kdo je John Galt?” Whether you read Czech or not, anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged would instantly recognise what this advertisement was for.

My reading list this year has been enough to make any person’s head explode: The Fountainhead, The Communist Manifesto, The People’s History of the United States, Atlas Shrugged, and What’s the Matter with Kansas – just to name a few. In short, the most politically polar opposite books possible. Being a left-wing anti-capitalist, one would probably make some assumptions that I would hate the Ayn Rand books and love all the rest. One would assume wrong!

The Fountainhead is – hands down – one the best books I have ever read! It gave me chills; it made me cry. I loved those stoic characters! I loved the unexpected truthfulness and savagery. In Howard Roark – absolutely unwilling to carry out his work in any way other than in his own vision – I saw my own reflection and the hard grind I created for myself in the music business by adamantly refusing anything but my own artistic vision – knowing full well it was commercial suicide. I didn’t even intend to read Atlas Shrugged this year, but after 727 pages of The Fountainhead, I simply needed more!

I wasn’t drawn into Atlas Shrugged in quite the same way as The Fountainhead, but I enjoyed it for the first 500 pages. Then the writing went to hell in a hand-basket.  The scenarios and relationships that were such a novelty in The Fountainhead were recycled for Atlas Shrugged. The dialogue  was utterly wooden (I am not the first to call it such, but there simply is no better way to describe it). The characters were carbon copies of each other – not in the way that Dominique Francon and Howard Roark were male and female versions of one another – they were simply identical to the point that I had to keep flipping to the beginning of 10-page average monologues just to remind myself who it was that was speaking! Just when you think there can not possibly be any more half-hour reading sessions of banal, repetitive “dialogue,” towards the end, the Chapter “This is John Galt Speaking,” delivers the most tedious 70 pages of reading in history… I think even the Book of Genesis was a better read! (Okay, maybe I’m exaggerating, but you get the point). Despite my resolution to always finish a book…. despite having already read over 1,000 pages of this beast…. I nearly gave up! But I didn’t, and the end was even worse than I could have envisioned.

Everyone on the hate side of the love/hate response to Atlas Shrugged usually hates it for its laissez-faire capitalism preachiness. Believe it or not, I didn’t mind that! Though I disagree, I appreciated the opposing viewpoint. What I hated about Atlas Shrugged was the sadism of 1,168 pages of extremely poorly written material by a woman who was capable of writing one of the best books I have ever read! For me, one of the most glaring failures was how she so obviously hated her own antagonists. This was not apparent in the Fountainhead, but in Atlas Shrugged, she created a cardinal sin of fiction-writing. The antagonists were just evil for the sake of it. In good fiction – in life – nobody is evil. Even Hitler believed that what he was doing was right. Though we loathe to admit it – even Hitler had likeable qualities. Anyone who creates should love their creation… even when those creations are intentionally horrid. I’ve written a song that is intended to be so unbearable that the listener can’t make it through… and I have an affection and love for that song practically akin to that of my own flesh and blood child.

There is something about Ayn Rand’s philosophy which – despite disagreeing with her – I do wish to defend. I think it’s very important for readers to remember that Ayn Rand died in 1982, which was the very start of the unravelling that has lead to today’s capitalism. If Ayn Rand was as resolutely firm in her beliefs as I would hope she would have been – she would be just as disgusted with the current state of affairs as I am. In Ayn Rand’s world, the corporations of today are nothing but looters, accepting handouts. According to Ayn Rand’s viewpoint, there would have been no bailout for the banks… they would have been allowed to fail. In Ayn Rand’s universe, there would be no exploitation of workers in horrible conditions, because she believed in fair pay for a fair day’s work. Her cohorts would have been the 3Ms of the corporate world, nurturing, promoting and rewarding innovation from even the grunt workers if they had something to contribute. She believed in maximising profits and reducing our daily toils so that we could enjoy the fruits of our labour. Who would disagree with that? She saw – first hand – the great abuses that can occur under Communism. I imagine she is probably seen as a great hero in places like the Czech Republic, where statues and museums stand as a constant reminder of the potential horrors of Communism. She didn’t live long enough to see the same abuses happen under Capitalism. If she was still around today, I do wonder what she would have to say about the state of the world’s economy.

___________________________________________________________

TyLean Polley is an avant-garde recording artist. You can get a free download of her music at TyLeanPolley.com

“I support the troops!”

A sheep running through a battle field with a helmet on. Caption reads, "nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go."

There is something that truly irritates me which habitually falls out of the mouths of thoughtless masses, “I support the troops!”

“Really?” I wonder to myself. Do you have one living in your house? Are you providing them with food, transportation, spending money, etc.? Or maybe you just mean that – by default – you support the troops, because you pay taxes,

No… what is usually meant by this mindless utterance is that one APPROVES of the troops, as though that approval carries any weight in real terms what-so-ever. And how far does your approval extend? Does it apply to everyone who joins the military? Do you realise that by giving your approval of troops, you inadvertently give your approval for the murder of women and children? These are the things that happen in war… and make no mistake about it, every American combat that has ever occurred saw the death of innocents.

Desert Storm was lauded as a relatively bloodless war with only 147 US battle deaths…. but no one in America wanted to hear about the thousands of civilians – women and children – who died. In fact, with all the propaganda about the supposed “smart bombs” that were able to hit specific targets, approval of the war went through the roof at 85%. Of course, the propaganda pedallers didn’t bother to mention that the smart bombs missed their targets 40% of the time.  Here is just one example: a quote from the director of a paediatric hospital in Baghdad as told to a New York Times reporter about the first night of bombing during Desert Storm, “Mothers grabbed their children out of incubators, took intravenous tubes out of their arms. Others were removed from oxygen tents and they ran to the basement, where there was no heat. I lost more than 40 prematures in the first 12 hours of the bombing.”

The troops you support did that… caused the deaths of dozens of newborn babies. Do you still support them?

What’s this argument I hear? “Oh, but the troops didn’t do that, the people running the war did that!” There hasn’t been a single draft in my lifetime. The people who signed up for the military did so because of people like you… revering without thought those who slaughter others, simply because it’s seen as patriotic to do so. In the back of their minds, they had to have known that signing up for the military might result in them either advertently (if following orders) or inadvertently killing innocent civilians. I have known more than a few military men who have expressly joined up for that very reason… they wanted to kill people.

Of course, some of our “brave men and women” are not able to cope with the destruction and death caused by their own hands. They come back with PTSD, emotional wrecks. THESE are the troops I support… veterans. Maybe if YOU would stop blindly “supporting the troops” and by default lending your approval to war, death, destruction and bloodshed, the troops I support would cease to exist.

What’s this other argument I hear? “They are fighting for our freedom!” If you really believe so, then that’s a discussion that is far beyond the scope of a blog. I will leave it at this:

Reads, "war, good for few, bad for most" with one image of a hand holding a glass of wine and another hand being shot.

___________________________________________________________

TyLean Polley is an avant-garde recording artist. You can get a free download of her music at TyLeanPolley.com

Women in High Places

Poster of woman making a muscle. Caption bubble reads, "we can do it."

Poster from WWII

I have just read an article on The Telegraph by Isabel Hardman about the obstacles women are still facing in the workforce. I don’t disagree with anything Isabel Hardman has said, but I would like to add a few more dimensions to the argument.

The article asks why, nearly 100 years after the first female MPs were elected, there are still so few Angela Merkels and Theresa Mays. It then goes on to point a finger at the crippling cost of childcare in the UK, causing women to drop out of the workforce when they reach their childbearing years. The cost of childcare is, indeed, a serious factor to this, but I believe the problem is much deeper and more convoluted.

One must first ask the question, how feminine are Angela Merkel and Theresa May? I don’t mean their look or their sexuality…. but how do they behave? Do they behave as women, or have they merely engaged with aplomb that ability all women possess? The ability to adapt. You see, I don’t believe that the majority of the women who have risen to power have done so because of changing attitudes towards women but because of their own abilities to be one of the guys and function as men function.

I have spent most of my life in the music industry. When you take into consideration all of the behind-the-scenes activity, it is vastly made up of men. I was only the third woman to graduate from my university with a degree in music recording. I became a fixture in the music business, and I gained a lot of respect, but how? By being one of them. By laughing at crude jokes, by acting completely un-offended when a rap artist was recording yet another song derogatory to women and condoning domestic violence…. by even singing on such tracks when I was asked to do so. I was called a lot of names and very nearly sexually attacked on two different occasions. I suffered marital problems with my first husband who could not cope with my constantly spending time with “other men.” Looking back, there is no other way to put it…. I went through a lot of shit, just because I was a woman! But that was ages ago, right? No. I’m 31 years old! How did I persevere? Honestly… I never found any of it daunting, because I was so completely focused on my goals. I adapted a “when in Rome” policy and rolled with the punches.

Another factor is Queen Bee Syndrome, where a woman in a position of authority views or treats subordinates more critically if they are female. This doesn’t just happen with women in high places, but women in any place. We see successful women, and we react by tearing them down rather than aspiring to be like them. Whether this may be a biological or sociological reaction, I don’t think it’s without hope. Recognising that we – as women – have a tendency to do this is the first step towards not doing it and instead trying to help each other in a common struggle.

The cost of child care is a big factor for a young woman with a career who wishes to raise a family. But whilst everyone is trying to treat the symptom, they are completely overlooking the cause! Why – in a liberated equal society – is it only the women giving up their careers to look after children? There are lots of stay-at-home-dads these days, but they are not getting the respect they deserve. Parents should be treated as equals with equals rights to maternity/paternity leave and equal considerations for those times when children must come before work.

The other half of the symptom is a relentless work culture that has no time for parents or their “excuses.” Sometimes your child is sick. Sometimes you are late, because your child spilled a bowl of cereal all over you, and you had to change your and their clothes last minute – then they needed a nappy change. Sometimes that meeting that wasn’t scheduled yesterday is just going to have to go on without you, because your child’s recital is today, and you need more notice than that in any case. As any parent knows, we – the parents of the world – have acquired a skill set that can be put to good use in our careers…. the abilities to multitask and delegate, to function under incredible pressure and “get on with it” no matter what the circumstances. Yet our status as parents seems to be overlooked as an asset and treated as a liability.

Last, but certainly not least, I would like to address the idea that mothers with careers only chose to abandon their careers, because childcare would be too cost prohibitive. Some do, but not all of us. In fact, I think if you thoroughly evaluated the women who sacrifice their careers for their children, you would find a bottomless well of leadership and potential.

I work part time, but I mostly stay at home with my son, and I become a fairly nasty specimen to anyone who suggests that I should have him in nursery care for his “social skills.” Why? Because I am a leader, and I am raising a leader. You say “social skills;” I say “conformity.”

My son marches to the beat of his own drum and is fiercely intelligent. Perhaps he would have been like this even if I had been shunting him off to nursery from the day he turned six months old. Having a strong belief in environmental factors, I tend to think not. Staying at home with him is not the only option… it is the best option! Not because I am a weak woman who has dropped out of the work force…. because I am a leader. A leader adamant about raising my own little leader.

___________________________________________________________

TyLean Polley is an avant-garde recording artist. You can get a free download of her music at TyLeanPolley.com

 

 

Then Why Did You Have Them?

William Hogarth, Gin Lane (1751)

I have just read an article on The Telegraph website written by a mother who chooses to work whilst a nanny raises her children. She openly admits that having to push her own child on a swing would drive her to suicide. She also goes on to run down stay-at-home mothers who are “living in the 50’s” and are not interesting enough to have a conversation with. She says her children hate that she works.

First, I shall address this idea that people who believe that mothers should be looking after and caring for their own children are regressively stuck in the 50’s. For most people, the choice to bring – or not bring – a child into this world is the most far-reaching decision they will ever have the opportunity to make. Most of what we do in our lives is meaningless and will die with us or wallow in obscurity. Short of becoming Gandhi, curing cancer or committing murder and other violent crimes, most human actions have very little impact on any other human being. Make the decision to procreate, and you have done far more than affected another human being. You have created them, and in so doing assumed the responsibility of seeing the creation through to adulthood.

I find these people with a stereotypical, one-size-fits all mentality for those who believe that motherhood is a full time and exceptionally important job to be the ones who are regressive! It is both a full time and extremely important job. The more parents there are who hold this belief, the brighter the world’s future will be. To hold this belief does not disqualify you from believing in women’s rights! However, in a culture where women have the right to say no to sex and forced marriage, where they have the opportunities of education and careers, where they have access to contraception and the last resort of abortion (or giving up for adoption)… how can we claim that a person is being derogatory towards women’s right simply because they believe the child should come first?

I’m not even going to attempt modesty… I’m a fascinating person! I have an enviable life filled with diversity and little adventures. Motherhood has not robbed me of my life, nor has it slowed me down. I always have six or more projects on the go at any one time and an international trip on the horizon. Yet, we have managed to raise my son with a minimal use of babysitting in a best-of-both-worlds scenario. He has never been to a nursery. His care, his needs, his wanting to play with me are not tedious tasks that depress me. On the contrary, I have struggled almost my whole life with depression and find even sadness literally impossible in his presence. He is a fascinating creature, and although his vocabulary is still very limited, he is his own person with his own interests, likes and dislikes.

If a person can not find something interesting and engaging about their own children, it is not the fault of parenthood and certainly not the fault of their children. The fault is within themselves. The woman who wrote this article had NO BUSINESS bringing three little lives into this world that she clearly considered nothing but a burden to be farmed out to people not as financially well off as she is. (People who may even have their own children who they would rather be with and would give anything to trade places with her). In my eyes, she is no better than the “mother” who “breeds for a free ride.” (Women who abuse child support, benefits, etc. by having children they constantly pawn off to other family members, friends or anyone who will take them). I have a regrettable sibling who does this, and although the woman who wrote The Telegraph article is financially much better off than my sibling, they are of the same ilk: irresponsible and selfish.

Some of the comments on the story equated the 25% of women who just want to be wives and mothers with the Victorian era. If a woman genuinely only wants to be a mother and a wife, is it not against her “women’s rights” to condemn her pursuit and fulfilment of her own dreams? We don’t all need to be career women.

In reality, however, this idea of Victorian mums at home is a fallacy. During the industrial revolution, woman in the droves had to abandon their children to work in the factories. (Of course, it wasn’t long after infancy that those children were sent off to work in the factories as well). The same happened any time the men were all off at war.

Lastly, I would like to add that the importance of stay-at-home fathers is often forgotten, and societies should value the dads who stay at home with the little ones whilst the mums are off at work just as much as if it were the reverse situation.

Here is a poem written by Morris Rosenfeld (1862 – 1923):

My Boy

I have a little boy at home,
A pretty little son;
I think sometimes the world is mine
In him, my only one.

But seldom, seldom do I see
My child in heaven’s light;
I find him always fast asleep…
I see him but at night.

Ere dawn my labor drives me forth;
‘Tis night when I am free;
A stranger am I to my child;
And strange my child to me.

I come in darkness to my home,
With weariness and–pay;
My pallid wife, she waits to tell
The things he learned to say.

How plain and prettily he asked:
‘Dear mamma, when’s ‘Tonight’?
O when will come my dear papa
And bring a penny bright?’

I hear her words–I hasten out–
This moment must it be!–
The father-love flames in my breast:
My child must look at me!

I stand beside the tiny cot,
And look, and list, and–ah!
A dream-thought moves the baby-lips:
‘O, where is my papa!’

I kiss and kiss the shut blue eyes;
I kiss them not in vain.
They open,–O they see me then!
And straightway close again.

‘Here’s your papa, my precious one;–
A penny for you!’–ah!
A dream still moves the baby-lips:
‘O, where is my papa!’

And I–I think in bitterness
And disappointment sore;
‘Some day you will awake, my child,
To find me nevermore.’

___________________________________________________________

TyLean Polley is an avant-garde recording artist. You can get a free download of her music at TyLeanPolley.com

Fuck You Carlos!

Image

The other week, I was on my way to a friend’s house in London when I saw two mix matched men walking on the pavement towards me. As they drew near, it became apparent that one was a mentally challenged man (who I shall arbitrarily name Brian) and the other was a carer (who I shall arbitrarily name Carlos – even though he was obviously from Southwest Asia, so I should probably name him Mohammed and statistically I could be right, but I’m sticking with Carlos).

Brian was happy as Larry and saying hello to everyone he passed. He said hello to a woman standing at a bus stop when Carlos tilted his head down in embarrassment and said in a low voice, “okay, that’s enough now.” At which point, Brian, without skipping a step or breaking the big grin plastered on his face casually replied, “fuck you.”

Indeed… fuck you Carlos! Brain is a happy-go-lucky guy who just so happens to also be mentally challenged. If he were a suave businessman, everyone would see his gregarious personality as charming. The irony is that Brian genuinely means, “hello, how are you, beautiful day today, etc.” The business man saying the same “hello” would probably be trying to lower a person’s guard to transition into a sales pitch. If anyone has a problem with Brian saying hello, it is a problem that exists within themselves!

Brian put a smile on my face that day, and in fact, he puts a smile on my face every time I think of him. I will remember that man until the day I die.

______________________________________________________

TyLean Polley is an avant-garde recording artist. You can get a free download of her music at TyLeanPolley.com

Three Filthy Words

Image

I have a guilty indulgence.. watching Ted Talks when I should otherwise be productive. My biggest hot-button, crusader issue is US student loan debt, so I am anxious to see a Ted Talk that addresses this topic and possible solutions. As of today, no talks have been posted, but I have found a few conversations, and I found some of the comments in these conversations to be…. sub-Ted. The mention of just three little words will quickly divide a room:

Student… Loan… Bailout 

For those of us who are drowning in student loan debt (myself included) our stance is a fairly easy to comprehend. The point of view of those vehemently against student loan bailouts is rather simple, too. They don’t feel they should have to pay for our educations and that bailing out students won’t teach them responsibility. Although this point of view has a legitimate concern, their objections are misguided by stereotypes and utterly uninformed. I could go on at great length about the pros, cons and misconceptions about a proposed student loan bailout, but instead I will focus on just one misconception:

The Stereotype of the 20 Something Student Loan Debtor 

I don’t diminish the financial struggles of recent graduates faced with repaying loans, in fact with every passing year students are graduating with higher and higher debts to repay… but…. the 20 somethings are not the group most burdened by their student loan debts. In most situations, this age group will be single, childless and able to live virtually rent free at home with their family. In their late 20s and 30s, when they meet someone special and want to move in together, maybe even get married and have children and/or buy a home, that’s when they will most feel the suffocating affect of their student loans (especially if both partners carry high debt). But it doesn’t stop at the 30 somethings… there are plenty of student loan debtors in their 40’s, 50’s… even their 60’s! That’s right… grandparents are struggling with their student loan payments.

How can this be? Grandparents with student loan debt? There are three reasons (that come to mind) why even grandparents are paying on student loans.

1. Following redundancy, many middle aged and older Americans found themselves uncompetitive in the job force. Despite years of service and experience, they were suddenly considered “unqualified.” In order to compete, they needed to return to school and earn qualifications.

2. Many of the grandparent student loan borrowers are simply still in repayment from the debt of their youth. Deferments, although very simple to obtain, lead to a student loan debt that spirals out of control, as the interest continues to accumulate and then becomes CAPITALIZED. This means that the interest is added to the principle, causes monthly interest accrual to grow. If their situation was ever so bad that they defaulted, the debt can nearly double in a matter of just a few years.

3. Perhaps the most tearful amongst the grandparent student loan debtors are the ones that just wanted to do the best by their own children. These are the cosigners of plus loans.

As it stands now, I am  highly likely to someday be amongst the grandparent student loan borrowers. My son is only 2-years old, but I am 24 years from seeing the repayment or forgiveness of my loans.

I find this idea that a student loan bailout won’t “teach graduates a lesson about financial responsibility” patronizing when applied to the entire population of Americans burdened by student loan debt. I find it utterly disgusting that anyone should wish upon another human being that they “learn about finances” by becoming indebted for sums of money that could buy a house… or two or three houses…. before they have ever had the opportunity to manage the finances of a household; before they have any idea of their realistic income potential.

______________________________________________________

TyLean Polley is an avant-garde recording artist. You can get a free download of her music at TyLeanPolley.com

Only the Wanted Ones, Please.

Image

My son’s placenta. Yes, we brought it home! No, we didn’t eat it. 

Have you ever drawn the connections between the various groups of opinionated masses? Those who are Pro-life and vehemently fight for the rights of a foetus tend to be from the same group of people who use the phrase, “spare the rod, spoil the child,” as though abusing children – who they consider idiosyncratic beings with rights in the womb –  is not only a right but a responsibility. This group also tends to believe in the death penalty, oblivious to the fact that judicial systems are flawed and are especially prone to errors during death penalty cases when emotions are so flagrant they waft in the air.

Of course, the opposite is also true. I am Pro-choice…. in fact, I take this a step further. I’m Pro-abortion, because I believe that only children wanted for the right reasons should be brought into this world. There are hospitals in the United Kingdom that will not tell expecting mothers the sex of their unborn child, because they are in areas with large Muslim communities. Muslims will abort baby girls… and I see this as no bad thing! Baby girls born into an extremist Muslim household are not wanted and born into a wretched existence.  If I were a pregnant woman trapped in the Islamic faith, I would see abortion as the humane thing to do.

There was recently a case in the UK where a woman was sued for compensation (on behalf of the child) for drinking whilst pregnant. The child, now 6 years old, was born with developmental problems as a result. The case was calling the pregnant woman’s drinking whilst pregnant a crime of poisoning under section 23 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861.The case was won on a local level but then appealed and overturned on the grounds that “an unborn child is not a person in law and therefore no criminal offence could have been committed.”

Pro-choicers saw this as a victory, fearing the wider implications of considering a foetus a person and removing a woman’s right to choose. I’m Pro-choice, but I see this as a huge failure. Fearing abortions being made illegal is clouding judgement.

I don’t believe that it is a slippery slope to admit the responsibility of a mother to her unborn child. Any woman who has an alcohol problem or simply fails to see the health or her unborn child as more important than her own recreation fails to qualify under my policy that only wanted children should be brought into this world. If the woman doesn’t want the child enough to overcome her alcoholism or refrain from recreational drinking, she should abort… or better yet, use contraception! The moment a pregnant woman decides that the foetus in their womb will be brought into this world, she inherits the role of mother. A mother protects her child and does everything in her power to make sure they are healthy and well looked after. No one in the United Kingdom can claim ignorance of the dangers of smoking and drinking whilst pregnant. Therefore, any woman who continues these activities is wilfully harming another human being.

You may have noticed that I never referred to the woman being sued for drinking whilst pregnant as a mother. She is as much a mother as a rapist is a father. A pregnant woman who chooses to have an abortion is more of a mother than this woman… at least the woman who knew she was unprepared to fulfil the role of motherhood (or whatever reason led to her decision) considered the welfare of the foetus inside her that had potential to become a human being.

___________________________________________________________

TyLean Polley is an avant-garde recording artist. You can get a free download of her music at TyLeanPolley.com