A woman's right to choose is one of the most divisive political topics of the past quarter century. It has given rise to the modern religious right and groups like the National Right to Life and leftist groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. It has caused the old "Southern Democrat" to be a thing of the past. It has sparked terrorist acts of bombing abortion clinics and the use of words like "murderer" or "slut" or "whore". It has caused Christians to condemn fellow Christians who choose to vote for a Democrat. It has fundamentally changed the way a President chooses a Supreme Court Justice. In short, Roe vs. Wade, for right or for wrong, has changed the topic of conversation of what Christians feel they should vote on, arguably, above any other issue in the country.
My hometown, Chattanooga, is in the middle of this struggle. Being in the Bible Belt, we're home to more Southern Baptists and little conservative churches than hairs on my head. We're notable for one more thing too though: Chattanooga is the largest city in America without an abortion clinic. Rossville, where I went to church, is home of a state representative who attempted, albeit an unconstitutional, to put a statewide ban on abortions in Georgia. When other Christians hear that I support Barack Obama for president, it never fails that I get a blank stare followed by rage about the issue of a woman's right to choose.
I've always been troubled by this point. I am pro-life. I believe God knew me before I was born and that if the law of our land wants to charge Scott Peterson with 2 counts of murder if he kills his pregnant wife then we should be consistent on intentionally ending a pregnancy. I also think that life is important after a baby is born though. As blunt as this sounds, its a heck of a lot easier for Sarah Palin's daughter, who has financially and socially stable mom AND dad, to make the decision to keep her child than it is for a girl from Detroit who has never seen her dad, has a mom who works two jobs and still can't afford health insurance, and can't even tell you the name of a college. Both made a mistake, but can we really judge these two girls equally? When Bristol Palin or Jamie Lynn Spears or whoever wants to finish up high school after having a child, they don't have a problem finding a babysitter. When the girl from Detroit is pregnant, she has to wonder how the food that isn't even enough to fill her own belly can be enough to fill another mouth (God forbid the baby be special needs or there are complications with the pregnancy, which adds even more costs). So what do I tell the girl from Detroit? Hang in there, if the Palins can do it so can you? Even if she were raped, do I hold her to the same bar of judgement that I do a girl from the 'burbs who decided that that abstinence only education class (another topic all in itself) wasn't worth it and didn't know about proper protection? This is where I found myself, pro-life but yet finding it difficult to tell a woman what she can do with her body with respect to the situations she finds herself in.
Here's where we get to the crux of the matter, to where we get to the motto of POLITIFIRE "common sense solutions." IN MY OPINION, the pro-life movement has focused itself entirely too heavily on overturning Roe vs. Wade and has lost sight of the real goal of minimizing the number of abortions in America, which pro-choice and anti-choice candidates can both agree on (that's why I refuse to label the right wing side pro-life and the left wing side pro-abortion). No one, even NARAL, thinks that abortion should be used as as a regular contraceptive for women. So let's look at the facts and see if we can discover 1) Why some women get abortions 2) How can we get them to choose another option
Here goes for NUMBER 1: Studies have shown that half of all pregnancies in America are unintended. Unintended pregnancies among poor women have INCREASED 29% and have DECREASED among upper class women 20% (a difference in abortion rate 4 times as much). So why do poor women get abortions? The most common answer given to clinicians a child would limit ability to meet current responsibilities and that they cannot afford a child at this point in their lives. This shows that poverty more than any other aspect gives us our answer to WHY.
Here goes for NUMBER 2: It is a tough answer, but let's look at why overturning Roe vs. Wade won't work for getting women to choose not to terminate their pregnancy. The lowest abortion rates of any place in the entire world might surprise you... it's in Europe... that's right liberal Europe where abortion is legal. The rate is less than 10 abortions for every 1000 women of reproductive age. Now that seems odd doesn't it? Europe has poor people too, right? Why would their poor women choose not to terminate their pregnancy? Answer: Poverty rates are much lower because of extensive social services provided to low income women. Even in America, states that have extensive WIC programs have a 37% LOWER abortion rate. Look at the other evidence of how poverty affects abortion rates: the HIGHEST abortion rates in the world are in Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean (29-31 abortions per 1000 women) even though abortion rights are most strict here. So how do we get women to choose life? We attack the root of the problem: POVERTY.
I think the Democratic Party has made a lot of strides when it comes to this topic. Rather than hiding from this issue because they're scared of losing pro-choice support, the Democratic Party, at the behest of Barack Obama, instituted in their party platform for the first time a goal of reducing the number of abortions in America by 95% over the next 10 years. The Republican party has no such tangible goal. Check out more of what Senator Obama wants to do here to reduce the number of abortions in America.
Look, before I get angry responses from some of my Christian brethren, and I mean this with love, please consider this with an open mind. I AM PRO-LIFE, I HATE ABORTION! I want abortions in America to be so few and so far between that clinics have to close up shop because no one is coming. The reality is though, that this can't be done by simply overturning Roe vs. Wade. That would simply turn the decision over to states, and we all know left-leaning states like New York and California, where most abortions occur because of city size, would never overturn the law. This issue hits right at the heart of what the_idealist and I want to do with this blog: give common sense solutions with forward thinking ideas rather than settle for how things have always been. America CAN AND MUST reduce the number of abortions in America, but bickering over a court case for a quarter of a century has made us take backward steps. WE OWE IT TO UNBORN CHILDREN TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, AND THAT MEANS BOTH SIDES WORKING TOGETHER TO CURE WHAT WE CAN AGREE UPON: TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS BY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. Research this stuff for yourself guys, it's something I'm very passionate about as you can see. I'm frustrated at the arguing and at the lack of results. Let me know what you think. God bless and Go Dawgs
*Facts from this post were retrieved from www.prolifeproobama.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I will say this: Since Roe v. Wade was instituted, crime rates have dropped drastically. This is because women who are most likely to have abortions are women who are most likely to give birth to a child involved in crimes. Freakonomics discusses this topic more thoroughly.
I would like to point out that you did get all your facts from a biased source: Pro Life Pro Obama? Come on.
To your first connection I'd say that all reverts back to my point on poverty. The connection between poverty and crime is obvious but the connection between poverty and abortion rates are often overlooked.
As to where I found the info, this was simply the source for the location of these facts. www.prolifeproobama.com retrieved these facts from independent studies from the Guttmacher Institute, Catholics United, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. I simply did not have the direct link to all of these sites to give credit. These facts are not skewed, they are simply compiled on this site.
Speaking as a liberal also caught in the christian/prochoice nexus, I think you are precisely correct! I know not one fellow 'prochoicer' that is pro-death. In fact, if you think about these things (including pro-death positions), the contradictory nature rests more on the conservative side of the spectrum. Many liberals are completely anti-death penalty; some believe in its use in severe and warranted circumstances.
However, many conservatives which claim the mantle of "pro-life" support the death penalty while opposing euthanasia...huh? It takes some real logic-twistin' and mind-bendin' for this country boy to be convinced that this isn't very much centered on what you suggest: poverty. More children to lock the poor in where they are, kill the supposed criminals to keep 'our' treasures on earth secure and no early escape from lives of oppression and disease (due, in part, to a dramatically underfunded and inadequate health system). All the while we hear: "we are the party of small government" nevermind that in each of the three cases mentioned above, the conservative BIG GOVERNMENT gals & guys want the government to tell individual Americans when to give birth, when/not to die...
Great post!
TCH
I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Another irony is that many who say they are "pro-life" have no problem supporting a war that has resulted in the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
I enjoy your posts. Keep 'em coming.
EJ
If you believe abortion is murder, but say you believe in the right of others to commit that form of murder, then your opposition means nothing. It is like saying you believe shooting someone in the the head is murder, but you support the right of the person to do whatever he wants with his hand (in pulling the trigger of the gun).
Let's apply the argument one is pro-life and pro-choice on another issue in our history.
Slavery.
Would anyone suggest that he is for slaves to be free but does not oppose the right of slaveowners to own and/or keep their slaves?
That is what the argument saying I am pro-choice amounts to.
Slaves violate the rights of others to liberty.
Abortion does worse...it violates the rights of others to life.
"I appreciate your thoughtful analysis. Another irony is that many who say they are "pro-life" have no problem supporting a war that has resulted in the deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of innocent people."
And many pro-lifers also OPPOSE the war.
Pro-choicers have no problem with allowing choices to be made for 50 million deaths of BABIES to be killed as long as they are still in the womb.
And wars are not always fought by those on the side of pro-lifers.
Pro-lifers are not always for wars.
Nor pro-choicers always against wars. Where were their complaints when Bill Clinton embroiled us in Bosnia and Somalia, among others, and made the same claims as Bush did about Iraq as hiding WMDs as reason he was considering warfare with Iraq?
Deaths occur in war. That is a given.
But do you really want to equate wars with murder just because lives are lost in wars?
How many lives were lost during Civil War? 600,000 deaths.
Do you want to condemn Lincoln for that?
I think not.
Nor would I (since that war led to slaves being freed).
I don't think you're comparison on murder is accurate. If you really wanted to nip the choice in the bud then the proper comparison would be if we completely made handguns illegal. Just because someone owns the gun, and can use it in self-defense as a last resort, does not make it a good or viable option to consider. I think you're missing my point, because I think we're arguing for the same side. My point is that we've been arguing over this court case for a quarter of a century, and last time I checked abortions have still happened. It's time to use common sense and bring Democrats and Republicans, Pro and Anti choice folks together and do what we can both agree on... cut the number of abortions. Now an ideological stance for something is all well and good, but clearly the evidence shows that a mandate does not cut these numbers. I think this issue in America, sadly, has become less and less about WHAT is right and more and more about WHO is right, and frankly I don't care who is right. I just want the number to go down, and it appears to me based on their party platform, the Democratic Party is the one with vision on this.
As far as your next post, I think ej is simply using the generalization of groups like the Christian Coalition and other neo-conservative groups, and let's be honest, he's right. He's not saying that all wars are unjustified, but they sure are when they're based on a lie. Also, we did not go into Bosnia and Somolia for WMD reasons: Bosnia was undergoing ethnic cleansing in 1992.
Post a Comment