The Cabin in the Woods: A cinematic lesson in existentialism

A few months ago, against all my natural instincts, I watched Cabin in the Woods. My reasons for doing so were largely due to the trailers that promised something unexpected and the words ‘you think you know the story, but….’ aroused sufficient interest in me. I convinced a friend- who is horror/ thriller aficionada and didn’t need much convincing- to tag along.

!!SPOILER ALERT!!- Do not read further if you intend to watch the film and want the film’s plot to remain a secret. You have been warned. My responsibility ends here.

 

The story revolves around five college goers (being represented by a jock, a somewhat provocative blonde woman who is also the jock’s girlfriend, an academic guy, a stoner and a demure, brunette woman) who take a weekend break to a cabin in the woods and like any other slasher film, start getting killed off one by one.

Usually, films of this kind have plots that offer thrills and little else. Remember the episode of F.R.I.E.N.D.S in which Rachel suggests that Joey can't take her bra off because on some level he doesn't want to, and Joey responds with “No! I don’t have another level!”? Well, that’s my opinion of slasher films of the I-know- what-you-did-last-summer and Scream genre. Cabin in the Woods however has several levels. In fact, I think the film offers rich subject matter for a discussion on philosophy and existentialism. And having sat through some rather tedious films in the course of my academic life, I can honestly say I’d be happy to attend such a class.

Some of the dialogues and one-liners are quite witty and the film definitely has its moments. It offers thrills and humour in somewhat equal measure, sending an ever so slight chill down your spine or making you laugh at appropriate junctures.

Secondly, it’s gory. Now all slasher films necessarily involve some amount of blood and gore, but Cabin in the Woods leaves most of them far behind by depicting a colourful tumult of blood, body parts and bodily fluids. I loved it. I’ve always enjoyed blood, gore, decapitations and disembowelments. Some of that is down to curiosity about the human body I suppose (‘I wonder what slicing through flesh feels like?’). I am not a violent person in my real life. That being said, I am also not in denial of the fact that certain actions – cruelty, bullying or abuse of any kind- make angry enough to want to rip the perpetrators to shreds with my bare hands and wish them a slow, painful death. I find that indulging my aggressive side in the form of fantasies, videogames etc. is quite therapeutic. The key is the ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, thought and action, desire and behaviour and to accept the psyche’s various inclinations without judgment or suppression.

Those are the textual elements of the film, what is seen and heard. What sets it apart from other slasher films is what can be inferred from the plot.

Before I delve into the film’s subtext, I feel the need to expand on the plot somewhat for the benefit of readers who ignored the spoiler alert because they don’t want to watch the film or don’t care much for its surprise element(s).

So the youngsters are on vacation but what they don’t know is that in passing through a tunnel they have crossed over from the real world into a world controlled by white-collar technician type of people. These technicians are employed by their bosses ‘downstairs’, referred to in the film as the ‘ancient ones’, and the travellers are essentially sacrificial lambs who are to be killed off to please the ancient ones. Similar events are shown to be taking place all over the world. The cabin world contains a plethora of evil creatures that can potentially be the cause of the youngsters’ deaths, each one the result of a separate action taken by the vacationers. Long story short, in the end only the brunette and stoner reach ‘downstairs’ in their quest for answers and discover that their sacrifice is essential for the survival of the species because the ancient ones (aka Gods) are mad at human beings for their transgressions, and they will destroy the species unless placated.

Call it delusional over-thinking or unparalleled creative prowess in film interpretation (there are no prizes for guessing which one I prefer), but here’s why I think Cabin in the Woods is a film of great relevance to human existence.

 

Puppets and puppeteers

 

The human-beings-as-puppets theme was apparent on two levels- philosophical and cinematic. On a  philosophical level the film was significant because of its allusion to aspects of human existence that we cannot control. In some ways, we are puppets in the hands of destiny, fate, biology, science, god- whatever you choose to call it. I resort to lines from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam to make my case:-

 

'Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days

Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:

Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,

And one by one back in the Closet lays.

 

From a cinematic perspective, and as someone easily scared by scary films, I like the idea of there being a finite number of gimmicks employed by filmmakers to frighten audiences. In the moment that we watch these films and submit to fear, we are like puppets in the hands of puppeteers/ filmmakers who are able to evoke certain reactions from us by pulling the right strings. In Cabin in the Woods, we see the two survivors travel in an elevator of sorts across different rooms, each containing a different scary character. This scene was quite comforting for me because once you’ve seen scary creatures tucked away in closets by other humans it makes them less scary. Context is everything. If the guy from Texas Chainsaw Massacre approaches you in the dead of the night in an isolated dungeon it’s much scarier than if he were to be walking around in a crowded mall on Halloween.

Free will

 

The film highlights that even in the midst of a world they cannot control there is some element of choice afforded to the unsuspecting vacationers. As one of the technicians points out, they have to choose to ignore the extremely creepy guy in the run down petrol station, they have to choose to go down to a cellar in the night, and the reason for their demise is directly dependent on which, of many different objects strategically placed in the above mentioned cellar, catches their fancy. The final choice facing our protagonists is whether to kill themselves and save humanity or save themselves and face the consequences. The relevant point is that even in a world under the influence of an entity other than you, you have the capacity to make choices and the consequences you face depend on those choices. Additionally, though you don’t choose to be born, how you die can be up to you. I think the right to self-determine how or even whether one lives is a fundamental and unconditional right, well depicted in the film by the final decision taken by the protagonists to sit down with each other and smoke a joint while the world comes crashing down around them.

Tied to this idea is the eternal struggle between fear and freedom. For the religious- particularly followers of a prescriptive religion that tells you you’ll go to hell if you are gay, drink alcohol, have pre-marital sex, use contraception etc. etc.- many decisions are motivated entirely by fear of some allegedly negative consequences of deviating from the prescribed path. I’ve met many people who are all too willing to relinquish any rational thought or introspection in the face of religious scripture or doctrine. The answers to questions such as “Why/ why not?” are mind-numbingly simple – “Because my religion says so”. And more often than not, the follow-up question “Why do you follow said religion?” doesn’t yield an intelligent answer either.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with an old African woman. She said “The fear of God is a great excuse to make people do what you want them to. When I was young, my mother used to tell us not to play in the street because God would punish us if we did. We listened. We wouldn’t have listened to her if she’d said we’d get run over by a car”. This particular story made me smile but how many people the world over perform the cruelest, most despicable acts of hatred and aggression because they believe they’re doing what their religion asks of them? “People are never so completely and enthusiastically evil as when they act out of religious conviction”, writes Umberto Eco in The Prague Cemetery.

In the film, the threat of extinction is used to persuade the girl to kill her friend, and she very nearly succumbs to it. In the end however, they both choose not to kill each other despite Sigourney Weaver’s (who by the way, seems to be in every science fiction film!) attempts to scare them into taking each other’s lives. This is refreshing to say the least because what you see is a human being exercising free will in the face of catastrophe, taking a stand for what feels right to him/her, choosing a friend and fellow human over the alleged dictates of a God they’ve never met.

The end of the human species

Those who know me and/or have read this blog may be aware that I don’t have a high opinion of the human species and in fact delight at every little thing that puts us in our place and drags us down from the high pedestal on which we usually park ourselves.  Consequently, I thoroughly enjoy watching films in which people come under attack from other creatures – aliens, spiders, dinosaurs, sharks and suchlike. Even better if the attack is the result of human arrogance and/or stupidity (like in Jurassic Park). Watching such films, there is a huge part of me rooting for the non-humans to win. I mean, I thought it was tragic when the shark gets blown up in Jaws! :-( I find it utterly disappointing and boring when we are promised the end of the world and at the last minute, Tom Cruise or Will Smith manages to single-handedly save the day.

Films in which human beings end up vanquished rather than victorious are a breath of fresh air. Cabin in the Woods such a film. The film suggests that the survivors’ decision not to kill each other leads to the ancient Gods rising from the depths of the earth to take over (a giant hand comes out of soil and engulfs the screen). The last dialogue of the film is “Maybe it’s time we gave someone else a chance”. That’s terrific I say, because it reflects an awareness of something bigger than us, in whose plans human beings are just another species that happened to come into existence because the conditions were right rather than having some kind of central or special place in the cosmos. Whether due to Gods or physics or both, the universe is ever changing. Species come and species go. Stars are born and they collapse. Even the end of the world is not necessarily the end of the world. It’s only the end of the world as human beings know it.

If there is a choice between between fear and freedom, quantity and quality, longevity and liberty,  one hopes that one has the courage to make the right choice. The way I see it, the final decision of the people in Cabin in the Woods is a respectable one.

 

Clean ≠ Fair

It is either my good fortune or bad that I am not exposed to Indian advertisements on a regular basis any longer. Recently, a friend posted a link to this article about a new feminine hygiene/ beauty product that appears to have hit the Indian markets- Clean and Dry.

While I agree with many of the points made by Pal (the author)- namely the objectification of women and the locating of their self-worth entirely in how their physical self is perceived by others- I’d like to offer my own thoughts on the product and the ad which I believe are quite distinct from one another (a distinction not clearly apparent in the above mentioned article). I believe that the advertisement is not only a failure as far as feminism is concerned but also as far as good advertising is concerned.

The ad

The advertisement is awful and misogynistic on several accounts. Firstly, let’s take the song. The ad opens with a wistful female voice singing ‘Kho Gaye Hum Kahan…’ Only problem is, the 'hum' (i.e. the duo) do not appear lost in the slightest. The woman is in grief. The man clearly is not.

This line could potentially also apply to any domestic difficulty from infidelity to divorce to bankruptcy. I'm sure a coffee company could recycle the same song and make an ad opening with the same sequence as this one ending in the couple being all happy and content because they changed their brand of coffee. So for me, apart from the fact that the ad depicts the woman (and only the woman) fretting over/ mourning a loss that later turns out to be related to her partner's sexual interest in her, the song in the ad is abrupt, unclear and well, pointless.

The final line of the song is 'Jaana na, hai taazgi yahan' (roughly translated as 'Don't go, here be freshness!) which plays soon after the woman throws the man's keys down her shorts. Is she inviting him to have sex or begging him to stay because she has now 'fixed the problem'?

The man is depicted as being either totally oblivious of his partner’s anguish or totally unconcerned by her distress. Both are fairly undesirable stances. He’s shown to be reading the paper –a somewhat intellectual activity (depending on which paper one reads of course) and carrying on with his life while she ponders over what is lost in their relationship. This suggests that her self-worth begins and ends with how often she and her partner have sex while his sense of self is undisturbed by this aspect of their relationship.

Anatomical ambiguity

My main critique of Pal's article is the failure to distinguish between various components of female genitalia and the use of the word ‘vagina’ by the author when this ad seems to refer to an larger area. I'd like to stress that I am not defending the ad or its ambiguity but only pointing out an anatomical-linguistic inaccuracy that reduces the clarity of what is being communicated. The vagina is not the most visible part of the genitals so it’s more likely that the focus of beautification is on external genitalia. Cosmetic surgery to make the genitals 'look nicer' is increasingly becoming popular in the west and almost always or majorly involves a reconstruction, realignment etc. of the vulva or labia.

Beauty vs. Hygiene

It is very interesting that the ad for the intimate wash is drastically different in its content from an ad for a cream version of the same brand/ product.

Here’s the ad for the wash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Tx9vVVMWw0

And here’s the ad for the cream

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWRg8XvmzHA

I’m going to bullet-point the major points of departure between the two commercials

- The former has beautification as it’s core benefit while the latter emphasises hygiene (with the almost too professional looking doctor as the main protagonist).

- In the former, the woman’s unhappiness is relational. I.e. it is not limited to how she feels about herself but rather how her partner responds to/ feels about her. In the latter there is no mention of a relationship/ partner/ sexual desirability as the doctor speaks to an animated version of a female patient about discomfort, problems and infections in the genital region. This suggests a more internal sense of comfort/ happiness with one’s body and how one feels about oneself rather than approval from one’s partner in the form of a willingness to engage in coitus.

- The latter makes direct references to possible infections and problems women may experience which is totally absent in the former, giving viewers misguided impressions about the cause of the woman’s dissatisfaction with her genitals and contributing to a negative perception of female genitalia in general.

- There is no silly song or wistful longing in the latter as there is in the former

All of the above make the former misogynistic and offensive and the latter more acceptable.

(On a side note, it is also interesting that the woman in the former appears more ‘modern’/’western’ – clad in shorts- as compared to both the doctor and the animated woman in the latter – wearing saris and salwar-kameez respectively. I may be hypothesising here, but it may reflect the assumption that ‘traditionally’ attired women are more concerned with practical/health issues than sex. The eternal mother/whore dichotomy in traditional Indian psyche. Not entirely implausible, given the appalling views recently expressed regarding the attire and habits of female rape victims).

The existence of an inoffensive ad for a similar product makes it easier for me to isolate the product from the ad and criticise only the advertisement.

The distinction between beauty and hygiene/medical reasons is quite an important one – whether it’s in the field of everyday products or surgery.

I think in general, if there is a new over the counter cream for genital infections/ discomfort, and it is advertised as such, it is a good rather than a bad thing if it allows women to get access to effective medication for non-serious conditions.

The biggest problem with the first ad therefore is its emphasis on ‘fairness’ and a complete lack of any hygiene related advantages to using the product. The unfortunate truth is that the existence of a product that promises to make the nether regions ‘fairer’ doesn’t surprise me. Why would it? It seems like a natural progression after Fair & Lovely (for the face) and Fairglow soap (for the body). Though it is utterly deplorable, I’m not going offer a detailed critique of the fairness bias in Indian – particularly North Indian- society or the fact that in almost all advertising campaigns pertaining to ‘fairness’ products a woman’s physical appearance determines her competence, employability, confidence et cetera, et cetera. I’m in general agreement with feminist writers about the points they make regarding the objectification of women in Indian advertising.

‘Beautification’ of female genitalia and violence against women: related but distinct

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) (Those who don’t know what this is can read about it here) is beautification of female genitalia at its worst, performed on girls as young as a year old in several countries, majority of which are in Africa. It is torture and abuse practiced on the pretext of ‘religious custom/ duty’ and/or making the woman’s genitalia more pleasing- visually and sexually- for males.

I attended a seminar on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) in which an FGM nurse specialist was talking about how, in her perception, FGM was also on a continuum of prejudiced, gender discriminatory and archaic patriarchal attitudes, and adult women who opted for cosmetic surgery on their genitals or even piercings etc. in the genitals were willing participants and perpetuators of these attitudes. I haven’t formulated my thoughts coherently on where I stand with regards to such a comparison, but I can try to see the point she’s trying to make.

One of the readers of Pal’s article commented that in a free market people should be permitted to advertise whatever they want while another commented that women who get drawn into the pull of these skin-lightening products based on advertising and marketing don’t deserve much sympathy. On the other hand one could argue that societal attitudes and prejudices are so deeply ingrained and social pressures so high that women who rebel and don’t conform risk ridicule/ disparagement/ isolation and in many cases, let’s be honest, torture/ abuse and even death.

Women who opt for cosmetic surgery to make their genitals more ‘aesthetically pleasing’ may or may not be doing so under pressure to conform. Aggressive advertising by the beauty and cosmetic surgery market probably does have a negative impact on how female (and male consumers) evaluate their own self-esteem and self-worth but the fact of the matter is that women are free to pierce their clitoris and consent to a doctor taking a knife to their genitals should they be so inclined.

The increasing popularity of cosmetic surgery is not something to celebrate because it indicates that we are tumbling down a path of insecurity and unhappiness with our physical selves and moving from an internal to an external locus of evaluation that, especially for women, begins and ends with how they look.

For many, FGM may lie on the same continuum as cosmetic surgery but while the former is criminally abusive the latter is merely tragic. To put things simply, preventing women from opting for genital reconstruction for aesthetic reasons is not the way to tackle FGM. Similarly, it is tragically true that the objectification of women occurs at varying levels and degrees. While all of its forms, levels and degrees are unacceptable, all of them are not the same as rape and violent sexual assault. There is a distinction between social attitudes that contribute to violence against women and girls and acts of violence. Tackling both is essential if we are to create a world in which women and girls can live free from fear of violence but the distinction between the two must not be lost.

“Just tell the judge it was my fault, and I’ll get sued!”*

I’m sure this worrying trend has been around for longer than a few years but either it rears its ugly head more frequently nowadays or I have started paying more attention to it. The trend I am referring to is of a large section of society moving towards an entirely external locus of control over their choices, actions and consequences. A trend that completely disregards autonomy and free will and locates the cause of many social, criminal and health related issues in videogames, advertising, marketing or rap music. Somewhere along the line, in the perception of said section of society, we have all become unthinking, undiscerning zombies who are passive recipients of messages from the outside world and totally vulnerable to their allegedly damaging effects. All sense of free will and agency is lost when these watchdogs blame or attempt to control what we watch, hear or consume rather than allowing us to be responsible for the choices we make- positive or negative.

Last week in the UK, a number of people went totally berserk and started hoarding petrol after one British MP remarked that there was going to be a fuel shortage and that people should start stocking up. Fire services were among the many who were up in arms about what they regarded as an irresponsible remark and warned people of the dangers of storing highly flammable liquids around the house. One woman suffered severe burn injuries after catching on fire while attempting to transfer petrol from a petrol container to a glass jug. She did this in her kitchen, where there was also a gas burner which may have been on at the time. Couple of days later, news channels reported that 81% people blamed the government’s advice for inciting panic in the public. It probably was a bit careless for an MP to advise people to stock up on petrol in frenzy, but can we really blame him if people subsequently chose to fill cans, buckets and water bottles with the damn thing? I’m acquainted with and know of several people who had the sense not to buy into the panic. That is evidence enough of there being some element of choice governing one’s responses to a piece of advice. In the face of such evidence I cannot logically blame one MP for what was irresponsible behaviour by members of the public.

Some time last year, there was uproar about supermarkets lowering the prices of chocolates and other sugary, fatty foods. Forgetting the fact that supermarkets were involved in an aggressive price war for all types of products and goods, groups and charities working to tackle the problem of obesity left no stone unturned in deeming this action by supermarkets utterly irresponsible. Two questions sprang to mind. 1. Since when did supermarkets assume responsibility for regulating the diet of the general population? 2. Why should the healthy, chocolate-loving section of society have to pay higher prices? I also had serious concerns about how these groups view obesity and what support they provide to people struggling with the problem. It seemed to me that they either believe that all people just walk around buying whatever is available cheaply without giving any thought to whether they need it, want it or should buy it, or that only the obese are susceptible to this kind of thoughtless shopping. The latter smacks of prejudice and if it’s the former, as a member of the group ‘all people’, I strongly object to this complete denial of my personal agency and am quite insulted by the unstated but obvious assumption being made here- that I cannot be trusted to make decisions about my behaviour. More recently, similar phenomena occurred with regards to the price of alcohol.

Similarly, I don’t think it’s fair that cigarette companies- as motivated as any other private enterprise by the desire to maximise their profits- are subjected to aggressive advertising/marketing controls. Cigarette packs have had to carry the ‘Smoking is injurious to health’ warning for several decades. Is it just me or is it true that in recent times the warning letters have become blacker, bigger and often larger than even the brand name? Australia recently passed legislation ordering cigarette companies to package cigarettes in identical, plain packaging without any branding and to carry graphic images of the consequences of smoking. In India, TV channels that carry images of people smoking often blur out the cigarette. So all we see is the hero doing something with his mouth to something blurry. I may be wrong, but I don't think this is necessarily better than just showing the damn cigarette.

I bet if you conducted a survey of smokers few, if any, would harbour the delusion that cigarette smoking improves one’s physical health. That being the case, I think cigarette companies should carry a written warning in a reasonable font size but be allowed to use attractive colours and attractive models in their marketing and advertising. As an adult, if I buy something purely because it comes in a pretty box or because I believe doing so will allow me to save children or date a supermodel, I and only I am responsible for the consequences of my decision.

Finally, there’s the matter of the influence of violent videogames and rap music on society, especially children. I recall reading about an incident in India in which a kid watched Shaktimaan (a TV show about a superhero), harboured a wish to fly like the superhero and died after jumping from his balcony. Was it tragic? Undoubtedly. Was the show to blame? Not in the slightest. A rapper famously said that if a child is easily influenced by everything he says in his songs, the child’s parents ought to reflect on why that is the case. Okay, so I have forgotten the actual words and it probably sounded a lot cooler the way he said it, but you get the point. I've been listening to rap since I was a teenager and I frequently play videogames that involve not inconsiderable amounts of killing, shooting, decapitating etc. in spite of which I have never owned a firearm, snorted cocaine or committed homicide in real life. I think there’s something drastically wrong when TV shows and videogames have a greater influence on a child’s moral and social upbringing than his or her family environment to an extent that the child cannot distinguish between virtual and the real worlds. Besides, almost everything comes with guidance on age-appropriateness and warnings of graphic sexual or violent content. I once met a woman who was all in favour of stricter controls and disciplining in schools but seemed to have either ignored or not noticed the ‘17 years and older’ sticker on all the videogames her pre-teen son was playing.

We’d all be better off if we were left to read the labels, use our brains and arrive at our own conclusions about what we want to watch, play, follow, listen to or ingest.

Rockstar Games™ can only do so much and I think their responsibility ends once the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) sticker is applied to the game. Consumers and parents/carers (in case of children) need to take it from there.

Mommy and daddy relinquish the right to blame Rockstar Games™ if their 11-year-old starts using swear words that he/she picked up while playing Grand Theft Auto.

(*From the song 'Sing for the moment' by Eminem)

It's not okay until I say so, don't think I said yes because I didn't say no- Why parenthood ought to be like sexual consent

(Disclaimer: The following post applies only to situations where women undergo sterilisation or seek to terminate their pregnancy entirely out of choice and not to situations where women are forced or coerced into these decisions, as often occurs in cases of domestic abuse)

In the UK, if you want to have an abortion or a tubectomy (female sterilisation), your doctor will recommend that you go see a counsellor. The argument is that these processes are impossible and hard to reverse respectively and women seeking them should be sure of their decision. I fully agree that women should think about the decision very seriously and I have no objection to women being offered counselling, as long as they are not compelled to take the offer up because I believe that ultimately, women have absolute autonomy over their bodies and lives.

The other aspect is informed consent so that women understand the procedure, risks as well as potential consequences. While this is desirable for any medical intervention, in case of abortions and sterilisation it is sometimes taken too far. There was recently an uproar (definitely in my head!) about women in certain American states being forced to view an ultrasound image of the foetus and listen to its heartbeat before they can have their pregnancy terminated (See here). This is appalling to say the least. If women are forced to view images and sounds designed to guilt them into thinking of what they're giving up, I think it's only fair that pregnant women are forced to take stock of what they're getting themselves into and made to view images and sounds of mewling babies, misbehaving children and watch a movie about the perils and responsibilities of being a parent.

I wonder what would happen if pregnant women were given demos of the amount of physical pain they'd have to endure or shown films about parenthood gone bad- neglected, abused children, tired faces, sleepless nights and all the not- so- peachy parts about being a parent.

But they are not and never will because the assumption society operates on is that having children is a normal and it is abnormal to not want kids.

One of the many, many problems with the world we live in is that the two life-choices that ought to be made only, and I can't stress this point enough, ONLY, based on personal choice are often taken up by people because they are considered to be a human given, a natural next-step or the ultimate goal in life. The first is getting married. The second, having children. If you talk to a large enough number of people, read the news, and basically have your eyes and ears open when you're around some so-called-parents, it's not hard to conclude that many people who have kids do so without giving it any or at the very least, sufficient thought. This is because parenthood is seen as a fundamental duty and essential rite of passage for all and sundry, regardless of their skills, aptitude, attitudes etc. etc. etc. all of which, mind you, would be taken into account before you hire someone for a particular job. Parenthood is often touted as the toughest job in the world, a statement I can neither confirm nor deny. Is it just me who finds it utterly baffling that everyone is assumed to be fit and ready for it when they reach a certain age or stage of life (in most cases, soon after getting married)?

The argument that women who want to be sterilised ought to be offered counselling so that they can seriously consider their decision because the process is hard to reverse is trite and woefully incomplete, unless people who want to have children are also offered counselling to make sure that they're sure. Newsflash: having kids is irreversible too.

The way I see it, the consequences are far more dire if someone has a child and regrets the decision than if a woman gets sterilised and wants to have children later on. We all make decisions we regret and we often require a great deal of strength to deal with the consequences of those decisions. A woman who regrets her decision to get sterilised only to realise later in life that she wants to be a mother still has the option of becoming a parent through a reversal or through adoption. Yes, she may feel regret, guilt or other upsetting emotions but she will be taking responsibility for her actions, and this is how it should be. On the other hand, the only option facing a woman who gives birth to a child only to realise she doesn't want to be a mother is to give up the child or worse, to give up on the child. Regardless of what happens to the child as a result, this necessarily involves abdication of her responsibilities towards said child.

Society operates on confused, misguided morals if it is easier for someone to conclude that they don't want to be a parent after having a child that it is for someone to arrive at this decision beforehand. The cruel, unfortunate reality is that it is easier for a child to be born, only to be neglected, discarded or abused, than it is to prevent an unwanted birth.

And it must not be this way.

Parenthood, like sexual consent, ought to be an active decision rather than a passive process. It ought to be something you consciously agree to rather than something you go along with.

The fact that someone doesn't mind the idea of parenthood doesn't mean they want to be parents.

A 'not-unwanted' child is not the same as a child who is wanted.