Nick Cannon Thanks His Mother for Not Aborting Him; Feminists Jeer
One of the most terrifying experiences a woman can undergo is surely to become pregnant while still in high school. You’re afraid of getting in trouble, of getting shunned by your friends. You worry that you won’t be able to finish high school, that your future is ruined. You wonder if you can take care of a baby and if you’d even be a good mother. It isn’t surprising that teenage girls find abortion so appealing — it’s a quick solution to a problem they feel like they have no way out of, and if they go to the right place, their parents never even need to know. And, as Live Action has repeatedly documented, abortion clinics are there waiting with open arms to exploit and manipulate these young girls into getting an abortion. After all, who is there to tell the scared, confused young girl that she can do this? That it won’t ruin her life? Or that there are other options besides having an abortion if you can’t have the child?
This was the situation my maternal grandmother found herself in at 14. Instead of having an abortion, she gave my mother up for adoption, and my mother was adopted by wonderful, loving parents and got a great family. Had my biological grandmother chosen to have an abortion, my mother would not be here — and neither would I. We do not have a relationship with her, but she chose to give my mother a life. I’m proud of her for that.
Apparently, rapper/actor Nick Cannon’s mother was in this exact situation. She got pregnant at 17, and was going to have an abortion. She ultimately changed her mind, giving birth to her son, Nick. He wrote a song thanking her for her decision and the sacrifices she made entitled “Can I Live?” (lyrics here). Here is the touching music video:
Chloe at Feministing found this video, and proceeded to blast it as “anti-woman”… and cruelly mocked it, sneering that his mother chose life and ended up with a “C-grade celebrity”. I guess if babies don’t grow up to become A-list celebrities, then they aren’t worth the hassle — in Chloe’s world, anyways.
Adult-with-the-voice-of-a-fetus Cannon’s argument is that not would his mother be killing someone were she to get an abortion, but she’d be killing him, Nick Cannon, the “Oprah-bound” “star” of Drumline. Drumline, guys.
It’s interesting that this is part of her argument. If he had been the star of, oh, Avatar, would she still be mocking him? Is it about the level of celebrity for her? I’m pretty sure that Cannon’s mother doesn’t love her son just because he’s a celebrity, and the point Cannon makes is a good one, whether a parent is considering an abortion or not. All parents wonder what their child will grow up to be, and how far they might go in life. And while Nick Cannon might indeed be a C-grade celebrity, he’s still more well-known than Chloe is, so does she really have much room to be sneering at him for his lack of fame?
And, believe it or not, even babies destined to grow up to be C-grade celebrities deserve a chance to live. I wonder if Chloe would be willing to tell her mother that she wished she had been aborted, if it was what was best for her at the time. And if Nick Cannon is such an inconsequential celebrity, then why is she getting so upset about him professing his pro-life views?
If this were just a rap to thank his mother for the sacrifices she made for him, it would be really sweet. And I understand that the knowledge that your mother very nearly aborted the pregnancy from which you resulted might color your view of abortion, but Cannon’s not just thanking his mother here. He’s calling on women, all women, who find themselves in a similar situation, to make the same decision she did. There is no other possible way to interpret the message “if your baby could speak, it would beg you not to have an abortion.”
… This video isn’t just about “telling the story of his life,” it’s about encouraging other women to make the same decision his mother did. It’s about telling people that no matter what sacrifices it requires of her, a seventeen-year-old woman who gets pregnant should keep the pregnancy, even if she has to drop out of high school, go to night school and depend on government welfare programs. Even if she has dreams other than the ones in which she sees her baby (“you see me in your sleep, so you can’t kill your dreams”? Really, Nick?). And what’s his reasoning? Because that baby might end up being a C-grade celebrity who will thank you for your strength and sacrifice years later, in the form of a poorly-written rap with a barely-concealed political agenda!
It’s quite clever, really, to focus on what the baby might become, on what the world might have missed out on if someone’s life had never come to pass, whether that person is Nick Cannon or Tim Tebow or you, the person watching this video. It’s clever because it forces us to acknowledge that even if we don’t believe a fetus is a person, it undeniably has the potential to become one. That might feel like a victory for anti-abortion forces, but in fact, it reveals a crucial weakness in the approach of those who argue for restrictions on abortion.
The focus on the baby’s potential life lays bare exactly where pro-life priorities lie, and it’s not with women. Women don’t matter here. Babies, fetuses and the potential they represent are all that matters. What women want, what women need, none of those things are important compared to the potential future life of the fetus. And if a woman has goals that would be impossible to achieve if she had a baby, or if she doesn’t want to make the enormous sacrifices that might be required of her, she’s weak. The admirable women are the ones who are “strong” enough to “make the right decision” even if it’s completely against their interests.
The focus on what the baby might grow up to be reveals just how anti-woman the anti-choice stance really is, despite the lauding of women like Cannon’s mother as strong and admirable. Because, as Cannon’s video demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt, we’re meant to care more about the potential for the fetus’ life than the woman’s. We’re expected to care more about a being that merely possesses the potential to become a fully-fledged person with thoughts, hopes, dreams and accomplishments, than we do about the woman who has already fulfilled that potential.
So just remember, ladies, even though it’s your body and your life, it’s not about you. You don’t matter. What matters is that the next generation of human life not be denied the glory, the greatness and the genius that will be Drumline 2.
The overall theme of this post is common for the pro-abortion fanatics. They love to claim that if women cannot have abortions, it means that they have to give up their entire lives — and call this anti-woman. Is it not, though, anti-woman to assume that women are such victims, incapable of living and working while pregnant? While mothers? Feminists look at pregnancy as something crippling, as if being pregnant somehow means that you aren’t able to function. It’s as if in their world, pregnancy turns women into blind-deaf crippled retards who somehow cannot continue to go to school (you can’t learn when you’re pregnant or something), you cannot keep working (it’s too rough on your fragile pregnant body), and your life is completely over (because obviously you’ll have no future if you have a baby). And, as usual, the idea of adoption is never mentioned. I just can’t quite understand how making women out to be these fragile, weak little victims who can’t handle sacrifices or hardship somehow makes women more empowered.
And while the pro-abortion crowd likes to pretend they only care about the life of the woman, it’s simply not true. Pro-abortion feminists like Chloe don’t care about women at all. They care about abortion. It’s why they are against pre-abortion ultrasounds and laws requiring clinics to give medically accurate information. (They know that if a woman sees an image of her child, or knows that the baby already has a heartbeat, they’ll be much less likely to go through with the abortion.) It’s why they try to drown out the post-abortion trauma women face — from increased health risks (like breast cancer) to higher incidences of miscarriage, they don’t want women to know about it. They also don’t want women to know about the emotional trauma many women face. Post abortion, many, many women are stricken with feelings of guilt, regret, and sorrow. Pro-abortion radicals do not want women to know about any of these things, yet they trumpet themselves as pro-woman. What they actually are is pro-abortion.
I don’t think Nick Cannon’s song is genius or even that good. The video has touching moments, though, especially the scenes of mother and son together at the end. While feminists might like to pretend that women who choose life over abortion will regret it their entire lives (remember, pregnancy is a life-ruiner), I’d suspect the opposite. Many, many parents struggle when they’re first starting out, and especially teenage parents. There will be many, many sacrifices to make, and life will inevitably be harder. But I’d be willing to bet that most of the parents who make these sacrifices for their children ultimately say it was worth it in the long run. They love their children enough that they are willing to sacrifice, willing to work harder, to give their children the chance to have a better life. And it’s because they love their children. Feminists like Chloe, though, would have parents miss out on that love just because the road might be a little bit harder. Because, you know, Heaven forbid life be anything but easy. If you can’t do what you want, when you want to, as much as you want, then it’s not fair! They can’t seem to understand that hard work pays off in the end, and a little sacrifice can be very rewarding in the long run. A life of sacrificing for your children does not mean you somehow love your children less, but pro-abortion feminists can’t understand that, can they?