Neal Shusterman’s book Unwind is one of the better Science Fiction-y young adult books I’ve read in a long time. Its set in the future after the “Heartland War.” This war pitted Pro-Life believers against Pro-Choicers. Ultimately, the war ended because of the “Bill of Life.” This Constitutional addendum said that all babies had to be born, however, between the ages of 13 and 18 parents could elect to retroactively “abort” their children by having them “unwound.” That is, every part of the teen’s body (or 99.44 percent, actually) must remain alive in the form of a transplant to another person. Unwanted babies can be “storked.” If a parent places an unwanted infant on a doorstep of another family and gets away undetected, the receiving family must raise the baby by law. (Important to note: Because of the world’s increasing population, unwinding exists as a form of necessary population control as well.)

I came to know about this book because of a YA literature group I belong to. The woman who pointed it out liked Unwind a lot, saying that you couldn’t tell where Shusterman sat on the pro-life/pro-choice debate, but the book brought up fascinating questions for each side. I disagree. Frankly, using this premise to frame the debate is too flawed to make a contribution to an argument on either side. (However, I should note, the strength of Shusterman’s storytelling makes this book a gorgeous read, especially the ending chapters.)

First of all, in what world does the “Bill of Life” satiate anyone? Pro-life people argue the sanctity of life and the soul from the time “life” isn’t even a blastocyst. You mean to tell me any sane person would think the soul would be preserved in disassembling the body of a teenager? Any pro-life definition of “alive” I’ve ever seen wouldn’t stand for unwinding, which is essentially murder. Shusterman does say that the Bill of Life started as something of a legislative joke, but then someone took it seriously and it snowballed out of control. Maybe this is a critique of all legislation about human bodies. But what that critique is, I’m not sure. That such legislation is always doomed? That it always hurts more than it helps?

I also fail to see how the Bill of Life would help the Pro-Choice cause. Children at the age of 13 have free will and can certainly determine that they want to be alive. Isn’t the premise that women have the right to decide what to do with their bodies? Why is this different for a teenager?

Finally, this book assumes that if all babies are allowed to be born, there aren’t enough families out there who would love them and care for them willingly. That only by “storking” can a mother be unburdened by the child she was mandated to birth according to law. I doubt this. If rising infertility rates are any indication, and the slowness of the adoption process now, I think that this future could have allowed babies to be placed into loving arms. (This book only talks about the USA, I don’t know how the rest of the world is doing on this.)

Ultimately, I don’t think this book does anything for the Pro-Life/Pro-Choice debate. It’s a fast read, and maybe a good one to get teens thinking (though, the holes in this premise probably would have annoyed me when I was a teenager). But it pitches dangerously close to making the Pro-Life community the culprits for society’s ills. It makes it look like if all babies are born, society must resort to heinous measures to maintain itself. Is this true? If all babies had to be born in the USA right now by law, would the country fall apart?