Fifteen abortions in sixteen years -- she calls herself an abortion addict. While her site (and upcoming book) try to explain the inexpicable, my over-riding question is, "Why can she not see that choice = death to all?"
"I am worried about my safety and the hate mail," she told ABCNews.com in a telephone interview as her [two] home-schooled children were at work on a painting project.
"No book like this has ever been written," she told ABCNews.com. "I just imagine the 'baby killer' and I could be a poster child for that kind of fundamentalism. And there are my little kids in all of that."
Well, fundamentally, she has killed her babies and is trying to explain why -- isn't that the point? Here's a telling blurb:
“Lolita Lebron's granddaughter, heir to the most public female embodiment of heroic self-sacrifice in Puerto Rico in this century, has written a memoir full of searing, intimate truths, silences broken open to reveal the personal costs of public myth making...A momentous act of courage. ”
—Aurora Levins Morales, The Women's Review of Books
"Myth making" might be an excellent clue. There seems to be a partial effort to tie the self-mutilation to "colonialism," but one cannot liken a husband to an occupying army -- unless you hate him that much. She actually stresses more importantly that the media abuses women through its toxic and confusing messages:
Vilar blames much of her poor choices on a hypersexualized society that at once values the perfect mother, but also expects women to be sexually attractive to men and to achieve professionally.
"Women have a deep need for agency, for purpose and direction and society is not providing natural and healthy channels for creative action," she said.
"In school and on TV, every message I get is what I am doing as a mother or wife is wrong," said Vilar. "I should be thinking about a profession and not mothering. Everyone is having babies, and yet they don't want to care for them.
"Are many of the repeat abortions in part an embodiment of this mixed message? A lost, ambivalent attempt at an act of agency that cannot find its proper vessel? "
The Marxists (with whom she aligns herself) demanded promiscuity without bounds and reproductive rights as a key to the dialiectic -- and yet she cannot indict them as part of the problem, so it's confusing from the start. But I don't think the book claims to be straight-forward.
The fact that everyone admits that a mental imbalance caused her to do what she did doesn't make them question abortion on-demand in the least. Just so the crazy women are sexually available, who cares what they suffer in the process. All the requisite links for planned parenthood and naral are there -- so the lies will continue.