An interesting take on the debate
I'm reading former President Jimmy Carter's book entitled Our Endangered Values. In one particularly interesting passage, he links the abortion debate, contraception, and social services. Carter is personally against abortion due to his religious beliefs, but he also does not think his religious beliefs should be the law of the land.
He points out that the most common factor among those who get abortions is poverty. In the United States, six out of ten women who get an abortion have an income below $28,000 for a family of three. With good social services and the economic prosperity of the '90s, American abortion rates actually dropped to a twenty-four year low of sixteen per thousand women of childbearing age. The data shows that in nations where women "have access to contraceptives, the assurance that they and their babies will have good health care, and at least enough income to meet their basic needs", abortion rates are low. In Belgium and the Netherlands, the rate is approximately seven per thousand women of childbearing age.
Yet many conservatives think the Netherlands is a filthy liberal Gomorrah? hah.
Meanwhile Carter cites several countries where abortion is illegal and social services are very inadequate such as Peru, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. The abortion rates are about fifty per thousand.
Yet many of the same people here in the United States who are adamant pro-lifers are at the same time against ready access to contraceptives and the very social programs for those in poverty that help convince women to keep their babies.
Conclusion? If your goal is to minimize the number of abortions, stop yelling at pro-choice people and start advocating the social programs that give expectant mothers hope that they can care for a baby if they bring it into the world. Guess what? Most of the pro-choice people will be all for those programs. Work together. Also, knock it off with the abstinence-only programs. The data is clear. They don't work! Moreover, by supporting ready access to contraception, we will reduce the abortion rate even further.
These are goals people on both sides of the abortion debate should be able to support.
He points out that the most common factor among those who get abortions is poverty. In the United States, six out of ten women who get an abortion have an income below $28,000 for a family of three. With good social services and the economic prosperity of the '90s, American abortion rates actually dropped to a twenty-four year low of sixteen per thousand women of childbearing age. The data shows that in nations where women "have access to contraceptives, the assurance that they and their babies will have good health care, and at least enough income to meet their basic needs", abortion rates are low. In Belgium and the Netherlands, the rate is approximately seven per thousand women of childbearing age.
Yet many conservatives think the Netherlands is a filthy liberal Gomorrah? hah.
Meanwhile Carter cites several countries where abortion is illegal and social services are very inadequate such as Peru, Brazil, Chile, and Colombia. The abortion rates are about fifty per thousand.
Yet many of the same people here in the United States who are adamant pro-lifers are at the same time against ready access to contraceptives and the very social programs for those in poverty that help convince women to keep their babies.
Conclusion? If your goal is to minimize the number of abortions, stop yelling at pro-choice people and start advocating the social programs that give expectant mothers hope that they can care for a baby if they bring it into the world. Guess what? Most of the pro-choice people will be all for those programs. Work together. Also, knock it off with the abstinence-only programs. The data is clear. They don't work! Moreover, by supporting ready access to contraception, we will reduce the abortion rate even further.
These are goals people on both sides of the abortion debate should be able to support.