Matria Potestas

In ancient Rome, the father who headed a household had extreme power over it -- a genuine patriarchy led by a patriarch, or in Latin, paterfamilias. In his legal powers he was patria potestas, which included the right to kill his sons (or sell them into slavery) even into adulthood. Willingness to kill a son who refused military orders was seen as a proof of the honor of the father and the family, as it placed the needs of the society over the needs of the family or the individual. Such sacrifices for the common good were taken as an exercise in virtue. 

Two years ago, a writer in the New Oxford Review proposed that modern women are insisting on a similar power over their children, mater potestas. 

Roe created an adversarial model of the mother-child relationship, one that the elite or mainstream culture imbibed and prizes, perhaps without even consciously examining its implications.

Its implications, however, are profound: Maternity has been turned into the matria potestas, a 21st century American version of legal rights over offspring, not just to give them a name but even an acknowledged existence. Berg and Wiseman claim that one-third of women in the prime years of becoming mothers insist they must have a matria potestas, the power of life or death, over their offspring. Let’s also be honest about the slavery part: a mother can sell her offspring (though prices might be regulated) to another person through surrogacy, a trafficking-in-persons most recently legalized in Michigan.

What I think is missing there is the scale, which is captured in the X post linked under the screenshot of the post. The scale of the killing is very hard for people to grasp: if unborn Americans count as Americans, then abortion is the leading cause of death of Americans. It's not close: even omitting at-home 'Plan B' style abortions for lack of information, it's on the order of a quarter million a year more than the next leading cause.

I don't think we can easily grapple, either, with the point about the moral harm to the fabric of our society of having blood-guilt spread that widely. Societies have had large-scale populations of killers before; in The Tigers of Balochistan, an anthropological survey of that ancient people, Sylvia A. Matheson pointed out that no Balochi man could hope to marry until he had killed another man. Like the Romans, the equally-ancient Balochi believed that this demonstration of a willingness and ability to kill was a proof of personal virtue. 

What does it mean to have so many of our women bearing this guilt? And not openly as the Balochi or the Romans would: they bear it without admitting it, so many of them preaching loudly about empathy while neither conceiving nor granting empathy to all the innocent dead children? What do we get from so many women preaching so often about the violence of men, and convinced of how much better society would be with more women in power? If 25% of men were killers, let alone killers of children, it would be a very different world.