HomeoldWhy words always matter, but never more than when you casually mention...

Why words always matter, but never more than when you casually mention you would have aborted your son

Published on

One might posit that cruelty can be classified in a number of ways. One distinction is between deliberate cruelty and that which is the result of a lack of awareness of the impact of one’s actions. This distinction is particularly relevant in the context of interpersonal interactions, where the recipient of the cruelty may be unaware of the cause of their distress.

One may submit an entry to Slate Magazine’s “Dear Prudence” column.

The Slate Magazine advice column, “Dear Prudence,” is described as follows: “Dear Prudence is Slate’s advice column, where Prudie [Danny M. Lavery] responds to your questions about relationships at home, work, and beyond.” The distinction between the two is that Tuesday’s sampling is an edited transcript of this week’s Dear Prudence live chat, guest-hosted by Dan Kois. The first headline reads, “Help!” My sister-in-law has no problem stating that she would have terminated her pregnancy. The writer’s sister-in-law has no qualms about casually mentioning that she would have aborted her three-year-old son (the writer’s nephew), except that her husband “tricked her into missing the appointment.”

It would appear that the father is similarly unaware of the potential consequences of his actions. The father considers it an inconsequential matter if their son discovers the truth at a later point in time. His sister offers a straightforward response, stating, “I disagree.” It is important to note that he must consider the potential consequences of his wife’s reaction if he were to inform her that he finds her remarks to be inappropriate.

The aunt’s supposition that the nephew may discover the boy’s near-death experience if she is willing to share it prompts her to inquire about the most effective means of persuading them to refrain from discussing the matter further.

In response, Prudie [Dan Kois] offers a number of suggestions. The boy is not the nephew. This is indeed the case. It is not possible to persuade the parents to refrain from discussing the matter. This may also be a valid assumption. “Indeed, it is not even your responsibility to do so,” although I do not believe this to be true.

In essence, the manner in which the aunt or uncle approaches the couple will determine the outcome. While they may be well-intentioned individuals, they may lack the sensitivity, self-awareness, and emotional intelligence to fully comprehend the impact of their actions.

For example, it can be reasonably assumed that the mother’s willingness to express this sentiment aloud is likely a consequence of her resentment towards her husband. It is unlikely that the boy will simply “breeze by” the fact that he was nearly aborted, given that it is likely to be a significant and emotionally charged topic. Furthermore, the boy is alive, which makes the topic particularly sensitive. Furthermore, if there is discord, would he blame himself?

Those who advocate for abortion frequently assert that when they inform their living children that they have terminated one or more of their siblings, the children exhibit a lack of emotional distress. They appear to view the act as comparable to recycling. There is no negative consequence for them. Let us move on.

This assertion is demonstrably false.

First and foremost, the child must consider the question of why they were not aborted. One might inquire as to the circumstances that led to this fortuitous outcome.

There is no temporal distance for the nephew whose mother “casually mentioned that she would have aborted my now 3-year-old nephew, but my brother tricked her into missing the appointment.” The individual in question was not merely a potential life, but rather a living being who was destined to be born. It is therefore evident that he is extremely fortunate to have survived.

“Prudie” concludes by suggesting that the aunt should strive to be the best possible role model for her nephew and that this may help to erase the memory from her mind. [Lacuna, Inc.] The company is a medical corporation specializing in targeted memory erasure.

The issue, however, is not whether the aunt is capable of erasing the memory. The question thus becomes whether the boy will learn of this incident at an early age or much later in life.

It is not possible to erase that memory.


Chelsea Garcia is a political writer with a special interest in international relations and social issues. Events surrounding the war in Ukraine and the war in Israel are a major focus for political journalists. But as a former local reporter, she is also interested in national politics.

Chelsea Garcia studied media, communication and political science in Texas, USA, and learned the journalistic trade during an internship at a daily newspaper. In addition to her political writing, she is pursuing a master's degree in multimedia and writing at Texas.

Order Now!


Latest articles

The EU’s plans for the abolition of the secrecy of digital letters

Surveillance of private chats without suspicion could soon become mandatory in the EU. This...

Lloyd’s: Government behind Nord Stream sabotage

About a month ago, Zug-based Nord Stream AG filed a lawsuit against its insurers....

More like this

Biden urges hostage deal

US President Biden has called on Qatar and Egypt to do everything possible to...

Trump trial: ex-president rushes from court to campaign trail

Update, 11:00 a.m.: In the U.S., experts are surprised that Judge Juan Merchan has...

Donald Trump Ignores Court Gag Order

Trump can't talk about those involved in the New York trial. The ex-president can,...