Economics and Reducing Abortion?

[Philip_P]

Continued from the “why liberal and conservative labels” in the Peter’s chair thread, moved here by myself (not a moderator) so as not to impede discussions more in line with that topic.

womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

Here’s some abortion statistics. I don’t think it suggests that economics are the major reason. Also the phrase ‘can’t afford it’ is relative. FWIW I just googled ‘abortion statistics’ and got a variety of websites. But even the one sponsored by Physicians for Reproductive Choice (proaborts) indicate only about 21% of women cite economics as the reason. Most “aren’t ready to have kids” or “it would change life/interfere with work or education.” Smaller percentages for things like maternal or fetal health.

Maybe we should move to another thread. I don’t want to hijack anything with respect to the Holy Father.

Lisa n

Lisa,

Thanks for forwarding those stats. Since they are coming directly from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, I will refer to that site. There is a slideshow presentation that conveniently presents quite a bit of the data (http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html).

One thing I found interesting about the data is that, compared to other western countries, the US rate (21.3 per thousand) is very high. Only Australia is higher, while at the other end of the scale are Germany and Holland (7.6 and 6.5/1000) (slide 8). I also found it interesting that the abortion rate is very high in developing countries where abortion is illegal, though since those are quite different societies from the US I’m not sure that’s a valid comparison (slides 37 and 38).

For the next section I’ll refer to slide 10. I notice that “inadequate finances” is listed as a response given by 21% of respondents. That makes it the most common reason cited. Even on it’s own it’s significant. If banning partial birth abortions, which make up a far smaller percentage of total abortions, was worth it, then surely it’s worth taking economics into account. In addition, it’s likely that many of the other categories are at least indirectly tied to economics. 16% of respondents cited “not ready for responsibility.” Seems to me helping them get ready for such responsibility would go a lot farther than turning women into criminals. Having a child involved very daunting responsibilities; knowing that your child would be guaranteed a quality and affordable education, that you’d still be able to pay the rent, that you could take time off from your job to care for your child, would certainly help lighten the burden of that responsibility. Furthermore, seeing as how life doesn’t end at birth, I can’t see how helping ensure a good standard of living for mothers and children is a bad thing.

Economics is of course not the whole answer, but it seems silly to pretend it’s not a pretty important part of the solution. And while individual responsibility is important, we all need help. One thing I actually agree with Pres. Bush on is his easing of restrictions on public funds for faith-based groups, such as Catholic Charities, than can provide a lot of good. Abortions won’t magically stop if they’re made illegal, but they’re almost guaranteed to significantly decrease if we create an environment conducive to having children.

 

[Lisa_N]

Thanks for moving the thread. FWIW I certainly didn’t say economics weren’t an important factor. However I think the proaborts use the stereotype of “a desperate woman” who is going to be out in the streets if she carries the pregnancy to term to justify abortion being easily available. Also the spector of “every child a wanted child” to justify abortion as if loosening the abortion laws reduced child abuse…it didn’t and in fact child abuse continues to climb. Everyone has a spin to support their side.

IMO the overall issue is our collective attitude toward children. We talk about valuing them but we really do not. I think abortion becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. If a child can be flushed down a sink with little concern, it demonstrates we do not value human life unless somehow it benefits us. I heard that the difference between first and third world countries is that third world countries see their citizens as assets and we see them as liabilities (you know they’ll need school and health care and eventually Social Security).

I agree outlawing abortion is only going to be one piece of the puzzle. We really need to sincerely promote the value of life and our duty to protect it whether an unborn child, a frail elderly person, a mentally challenged person, or someone like Terri Schiavo. Our people have become very cold and callus and we are seeing a utilitarian attitude take hold

LIsa N

 

[Philip_P]

I agree with all that, my frustration is that those politicians who trumpet “prolife” most loudly seldom do anything of substance. For instance, they will introduce legislation restricting abortion, but not make an exemption for health of the mother, which they know full well means that even if the legislation passes, it will be struck down by the courts. In all the years since Roe V. Wade, I can’t say that the politicians have actually done anything substantial to advance the pro-life cause as regards to abortion. They talk a good talk, get people to vote for them based on abortion, then pass laws that benefit their corporate donors at the expense of families and private citizens.

Of course, both parties are full of hypocrites, but we do have to choose among our options, and politically I’m inclined to see government as a powerful and necessary tool in building a better society, and I’m not at all sympathetic to libertarian/anti-government sorts. I really do see libertarianism as a shirking of collective responsibility, and bad government. Not that all Republicans are necessarily libertarian, but that certainly seems to be the dominant mood in that party. Since they really haven’t convinced me that they’re willing, or even able, to advance the prolife cause, I have no reason to support them.

I think there’s hope, though. Rick Santorum of all people is coming around on the death penalty, and Hillary Clinton of all people is softening her absolute commitment to abortion.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

I have been on abortion debate sites and unfortunately people would rather be dead that poor With that being said:nope: what does that reflect on the attitude of humanity and life in general.We have lost our minds and are losing our souls:crying: Extermination due to funds,extermination due to disabilty,extermination due to age. Either we are made in the image and likeness of God or we are not.We are,that is why the excuses to exterminate are null and void,if hearts do not change we are facing a dismal future,

 

[Philip_P]

I think we run into the very real limits of government here. Whether the proposed solution is criminalizing abortion (which I guess you could call supply side) or increasing services for women with young children (demand side), you’re right that it’s really a question of changing hearts. Neither solution will work unless our attitude toward life changes, but you really can’t legislate this sort of thing.

Still, even if legislation itself won’t change attitudes, I think the national discussions which lead to legislation can. If we could shift the terms of the debate, I think it would do a lot of good, as well as lead to better legislation. On the Republican/Conservative side, I think the key is stressing the consistent ethic of life – life doesn’t end at birth. On the Democratic/Liberal side, there’s already a strong tradition of action on behalf of the vulnerable and voiceless (women, minorities, etc.), and it’s a question of expanding the franchise to include the unborn and showing how ultimately it’s about being for children AND women, not children OR women.

 

[Lisa_N]

Lisa4Catholics:

I have been on abortion debate sites and unfortunately people would rather be dead that poor ,

Rather be dead or kill than be inconvenienced. The reality is that there are MANY adoptive homes, particularly for newborns. If a woman felt she ‘couldn’t afford’ or was unable to take responsibility for a child, the child could be adopted out. People are paying tens of thousands of dollars to go to foreign countries to adopt. The idea that a child is ‘unwanted’ is just another spin job from the proaborts. Unwanted by whom?
Lisa N

 

[Philip_P]

Lisa N:

The reality is that there are MANY adoptive homes, particularly for newborns.

Adoption is an option, but it’s not enough. Do poor women love their children less? Sure, some women cite “inconvenience” as a reason for abortion, but for a significant number it is a matter of finances and quality of life (which is again related to finances). And even among those who feel it is inconvenient, I have heard countless anecdotes of women who, once the child arrives, could not think of giving him or her away. Why are so many pro-lifers so opposed to expanded services that allow women to keep their children and make it easier to raise them?

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Philip P:

Adoption is an option, but it’s not enough. Do poor women love their children less? Sure, some women cite “inconvenience” as a reason for abortion, but for a significant number it is a matter of finances and quality of life (which is again related to finances). And even among those who feel it is inconvenient, I have heard countless anecdotes of women who, once the child arrives, could not think of giving him or her away. Why are so many pro-lifers so opposed to expanded services that allow women to keep their children and make it easier to raise them?

Do not listen to the pro-aborts There are services that help women keep their babies,in fact more of those than there are abortion mills.

 

[aimee]

Philip P:

Adoption is an option, but it’s not enough. Do poor women love their children less? Sure, some women cite “inconvenience” as a reason for abortion, but for a significant number it is a matter of finances and quality of life (which is again related to finances). And even among those who feel it is inconvenient, I have heard countless anecdotes of women who, once the child arrives, could not think of giving him or her away. Why are so many pro-lifers so opposed to expanded services that allow women to keep their children and make it easier to raise them?

Are you for real? Come on now…same old song …poor women…make it easier…I say Lisa N is right…and you are wrong…all that would do for women would make it easier for them to be selfish…and create more of an underclass …How about some accountability…take some responsiblity for your actions…poor women aren’t stupid.

 

[Philip_P]

aimee:

How about some accountability…take some responsiblity for your actions…

How does helping women make them unaccountable? How does encouraging them to keep their children, and providing the means for them to do so, negate personal responsibility? Doesn’t this encourage them to accept the responsibility that is a child? And as long as we’re talking about responsibility, why is it only the woman who has responsibility? Don’t we collectively have some responsibilty to her and her child, or is this whole Body of Christ talk just a nice story? I’ve never understood the linking of the pro-life movement to conservative anti-government politics, but perhaps I’ll better understand it from the responses I receive here.

 

[jlw]

Philip: …my frustration is that those politicians who trumpet “prolife” most loudly seldom do anything of substance. For instance, they will introduce legislation restricting abortion, but not make an exemption for health of the mother

Not true. Now, it may be restricted to the health as in LIFE OR DEATH health, as opposed to “mental health” or “physical health”, so your point is fair. But, national Democrats will NOT cooperate with ANY legislation restricting abortion to just LIFE OR DEATH concerns of the mother. AND Democrat-voting judges aren’t too cooperative either.

Philip: I can’t say that the politicians have actually done anything substantial to advance the pro-life cause as regards to abortion.

Not true. What exactly do you mean by “substantial”?? Getting meaqningful legislation passed in ANY issue is tough especially when one party is decidedly pro-death, and one is (at least mostly)pro-life. It takes super-majorities to do anything!! AND any “substantial” legislation that does get passed by legislators or VOTERS (by voter initiatives) get thrown out by democrat-voting judges.

Philip: Still, even if legislation itself won’t change attitudes, I think the national discussions which lead to legislation can. If we could shift the terms of the debate, I think it would do a lot of good, as well as lead to better legislation.

AMEN. It will take the MSM being willing to show both sides though. The same way they alert us to the horrors of fast food, smoking, and guns, they could focus on the reality of abortion, eh?? DOUBTFUL.

Philip: On the Republican/Conservative side, I think the key is stressing the consistent ethic of life – life doesn’t end at birth.

Philip, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY trumps governement responsibility BEFORE sex, after sex, during pregnancy, after birth, throughtout life, until death. Does government have a role?? Sure. But it ain’t first in line!

Philip: On the Democratic/Liberal side, there’s already a strong tradition of action on behalf of the vulnerable and voiceless

Governmental action, specifically, but yes, that is a valid perception.

And it is a HUGE contradiction of the Left when they cry that compassion is the key, yet they view the worth of human life as useful…or not useful (therefore wanted, or unwanted, not lovingly welcome).

Philip: And as long as we’re talking about responsibility, why is it only the woman who has responsibility? Don’t we collectively have some responsibilty to her and her child,

Ah, notice, and maybe it is just by accident, that you skipped from woman…to collective responsibility. What did you skip??? MEN. As any good liberal might do, in implying It takes a Villiage he/she basically deconstructs the genius of the basic family unit and the OBVIOUS role of fatherhood in the success or downfall of society.

Would we need government to be involved if MEN were responsible for their fatherhood??? NO. (Or at the very least, government welfare rolls would decrease by 1/2 easily).

Women should cry foul, not about governments failure to provide, but the failure of MEN to provide!!!

Here’s the big kicker though: Men will not become responsible, unless women force them to be, by giving up contraception, by saying, essentially:

“Hey, you want to have sex?? You want me to share myself with you in the most intimate way possible??? Ok, here’s the deal: PROVE you fidelity to ME. Prove your virtue, prove your commitment to me. If you want to have sex with me, are you prepared to father a child, provide for the well-being of that child?? Prove to me that you respect me and my womanhood and all that entails!”
**
And the truth is, men will do it. Not overnight, because the current culture is twisted up in knots and can’t see straight. But it’s the truth.

 

[Philip_P]

jlw:

But, national Democrats will NOT cooperate with ANY legislation restricting abortion to just LIFE OR DEATH concerns of the mother. AND Democrat-voting judges aren’t too cooperative either.

So why give them ammunition by not writing these exceptions in? It would be much harder for them to oppose legislation with this written in, and a majority of American do support some abortion restrictions. Rhetoric aside, I’m sure this includes many non-Republicans.

As far as judges, they have to follow the law. The abortion legislation that is struck down is struck down for specific reasons, why not address these instead of carping about justices (and how do you know they are “Democrat-voting,” do you have access to their voting records?)

jlw:

Not true. What exactly do you mean by “substantial”??

Action that reduces abortions.

jlw:

It takes super-majorities to do anything!! AND any “substantial” legislation that does get passed by legislators or VOTERS (by voter initiatives) get thrown out by democrat-voting judges.

I doubt Republicans really want to do anything as radical as overturn Roe v. Wade, because its really not in their political interest to do so. So long as they can grandstand on abortion, they gain voters, but pay nothing for failing to act as they can always blame Democrats or the judicial system (even when they control the government, as they have for the last few years, they still play this card). Pretty nice deal they have going on for themselves, free votes and no consequences.

jlw:

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY trumps governement responsibility BEFORE sex, after sex, during pregnancy, after birth, throughtout life, until death. Does government have a role?? Sure. But it ain’t first in line!

Again, I don’t see how providing services negates personal responsibility. And if this is really about sex and not abortion, how do you propose approaching this from a public policy perspective? Making abortion illegal won’t stop people from having sex anymore than the social-welfare positions you dismiss.

jlw:

Ah, notice, and maybe it is just by accident, that you skipped from woman…to collective responsibility. What did you skip??? MEN.

I thought about this, and ultimately decided not to include men in my last post, because I’m not sure how you address this from a public policy perspective. Making abortion illegal doesn’t address this. On the other hand, for those men that are open to making the right choice, what’s wrong with legislation that makes raising children easier and less of a burden?

jlw:

Here’s the big kicker though: Men will not become responsible, unless women force them to be, by giving up contraception, by saying, essentially…And the truth is, men will do it. Not overnight, because the current culture is twisted up in knots and can’t see straight. But it’s the truth.

Again, how do conservative public policy positions advance this? What are we going to do, outlaw contraception? Not likely. And while we’re waiting for the culture to turn around, people are dying today. So for the sake of purity of ideology, we refuse the help we can offer women and children (and the regrettably few men who are willing)?

I think we share the same values - pro-family, pro-life - and the same desired outcome - very few abortions (ideally none), children welcomed, families strong - but differ in how to go about that. What I don’t understand is when conservatives argue that collective action for the common good, via government, is somehow in conflict with these goals.

 

[Lisa_N]

Philip P:

How does helping women make them unaccountable? How does encouraging them to keep their children, and providing the means for them to do so, negate personal responsibility? Doesn’t this encourage them to accept the responsibility that is a child?.

Philip you must really be unaware of the social services available to women and children. There is NO GROUP that gets more social services than women and children. They get TANF, they get WIC, they get Medicaid, they get a home health nurse. They are given opportunities to be trained, educated, supported while they find their way. If a woman wants to keep her baby there is PLENTY of government funding. Now we can argue whether or not it is ‘a good thing’ but you cannot deny it exists.

I’ve been involved with numerous social services agencies as a volunteer or a board member. I assure you that women and children are not lacking in financial support. In fact the really seriously underserved is the single person with a mental illness or substance abuse problem. There is almost nothing for them.
Philip P:

And as long as we’re talking about responsibility, why is it only the woman who has responsibility? .

As Dr Laura said, it’s because SHE is the one that gets pregnant. If women sleep around with men who are unwilling or unable to support them and their kids, the burden whether we like it or not falls upon them–or on us as taxpayers. Unfortunately as the government took over more and more of the responsibility, the fathers took less and less. It becomes a vicious circle.
Philip P:

Don’t we collectively have some responsibilty to her and her child, or is this whole Body of Christ talk just a nice story? I’ve never understood the linking of the pro-life movement to conservative anti-government politics, but perhaps I’ll better understand it from the responses I receive here.

Frankly I think you err in thinking that the government does a great job in administering tax funds appropriately. Those who want small government (and sadly are NOT getting it) believe that the government is like nuclear waste, taking on a life of its own, and wasting billions of dollars on ineffective or inefficient programs. I believe charity begins at home. Not just our own home but our church home and our community. I feel that with lower taxes I have the opportunity to give in my community and support those programs I believe are doing a good job. Handing your money over to the government is IMO a huge leap of faith that has not been justified by the government’s performance.

Lisa N

 

[jlw]

So why give them ammunition by not writing these exceptions in?

Sorry, but republicans DO put those exceptions in SO democrats can go along!! But Democrats want BROADER exceptions (ie. mental health, whatever that means on any given day?) that render the legislation almost meaningless. Does that make sense??

why not address these instead of carping about justices (and how do you know they are “Democrat-voting,” do you have access to their voting records?)

Living in Oregon as I do, most voter initiatives that pass that have even a whiff of conservative philosophy are hard-pressed to be approved by our judges, all appointed by democrat governors. And if a lower court upholds the initiative, it usually struck down on appeal, because…the liberal activists finda sypathetic judge in the higher courts. (Can you say “9th Circus Court of Appeals” nine times fast??)

I doubt Republicans really want to do anything as radical as overturn Roe v. Wade, because its really not in their political interest to do so.

An interesting theory. It may have merit, and many a pro-lifer believes it to be true. While I don’t discount it completely, I am less cynical. I believe, like euthanasia, that abortion is a states-rights issue. Roe v Wade was NEVER voted on. IT SHOULD BE, because abortion is not a “right”.

The truth is, Republicans, where they have not been successful nationally, have done great work (“substantial”??) on the state level. Parental notification, waiting periods, PBA bans, etc are on the books in many states. My hope is that the Supreme Court will soon have judges who read the law, rather than “read into” the law, amazingly finding a “right” to privacy, ergo, abortion, and make it a states-rights issue once again. New York, California, Massachussetts, and probably Illinios are hopeless, but I bet every other state would limit abortion-on-demand significantly.

Again, I don’t see how providing services negates personal responsibility. And if this is really about sex and not abortion, how do you propose approaching this from a public policy perspective? Making abortion illegal won’t stop people from having sex anymore than the social-welfare positions you dismiss.

If you KNEW that no services were available, and this KNOWINGNESS permeated the culture, I submit a newfound responsibility would enter the consciencousness of society. Yes??

I do not advocate doing away with all services!! On the contrary, I think government DOES play a role in a just and compassionate society. But when you look at the current picture, and see who is on the welfare rolls, who is illiterate, who is in our prisons…it is the fatherless. Government has usurped the role of the father.

Yes, it is about sex. So how to handle this from a public policy perspective you ask?? Well, I am not asking for some sex-police or some such rediculous thing. No, actually, what government can do is not actively usurp the PARENTAL AUTHORITY over the children of society!! Government stamps out religious ethic in schools. They essentially give “how to” sex talks in schools, rather than sticking to basic biology classes. Government gives out condoms to kids (“let’s encourage safe sex” *really *boils down to schools “encouraging sex” doesn’t it??).

Making abortion illegal will reduce sexual activity outside marriage. And you are wrong about social welfare: When congress passed the welfare reform bill in ’ 96, women could not get “paid” more for increasing the number of out-of marriage" dependants, so it DID reduce welfare recipients from engaging in irresponsible sex.

 

[jlw]

Continued…

I…ultimately decided not to include men in my last post, because I’m not sure how you address this from a public policy perspective.

Include women, but not men?? Hmmm. Ok, moving on, So…we do agree that public policy, that is, law, is designed in part to affect our behavior, correct?? If abortions were illegal, you don’t think men would look at sex with their hook-up, girlfriend, or spouse just a wee bit differently??? If condoms weren’t being passed out by their guidance counselors, and instead the young man had to risk an embarrassing “price check on aisle 4” to get a box of Trojans, don’t you think he would look at sex a bit more responsibly???

Again, how do conservative public policy positions advance this? What are we going to do, outlaw contraception? Not likely. And while we’re waiting for the culture to turn around, people are dying today. So for the sake of purity of ideology, we refuse the help we can offer women and children (and the regrettably few men who are willing)?

I think we share the same values - pro-family, pro-life - and the same desired outcome - very few abortions (ideally none), children welcomed, families strong - but differ in how to go about that. What I don’t understand is when conservatives argue that collective action for the common good, via government, is somehow in conflict with these goals.

Conservative public policy puts more of the responsibilty on the individual. Are women animals?? Of course not. They CAN say “no” to sex, and so can men!!! By “people dying” do you mean of AIDS?? Horrific disease. But take away promiscious sex that is ENCOURAGED by current public policy, and how many* less* people are dying??? Again, encouraging “safe” sex, really boils down to ecouraging sex, doesn’t it?? Should governemnt do that?? We DO agree, it seems. BUT the collective good doesn’t necessarily NEED to be handled by government bureaucrats (all the time ).

 

[chicago]

jlw:

New York, California, Massachussetts, and probably Illinios are hopeless, but I bet every other state would limit abortion-on-demand significantly.

Interesting… why Illinois?

 

[Philip_P]

Wow, this is great, good discussion. I’ll try to respond to what I think is the main thrust of your arguments, but feel free to come back to points I glossed over that you think deserve more attention. I’ll also break it into two – my response to some specific points in the first post, my counter-argument in the second.
Lisa N:

you must really be unaware of the social services available to women and children. There is NO GROUP that gets more social services than women and children

I am trying to become more educated about the social services that exist, and I’m glad to hear that so many services are already available. However, I suspect much more could be done, yet we seem to be going the opposite direction. Just recently, for instance, Section 8 housing vouchers (federal funds which help low-income families and individuals afford housing) were severely cut.
Lisa N:

In fact the really seriously underserved is the single person with a mental illness or substance abuse problem.

More should be done for them, definitely. By the way, way to go on getting so involved with your community and its needs.
Lisa N:

Frankly I think you err in thinking that the government does a great job in administering tax funds appropriately.

This seems a question of quality rather than size. Current taxes are at one of their historic lows. What we ought to be doing is sitting down and figuring out what programs are working best, and why they’re working, and replace those which aren’t working with model that are. What perplexes me is that many who identify themselves as pro-life seem to take an a priori position that government inherently can’t work.

---

jlw:
The truth is, Republicans, where they have not been successful nationally, have done great work (“substantial”??) on the state level.

I’ve found that polticians at the state level are often far more reasonable and less ideological than their national counterparts. The Republicans in New York state I don’t really have a problem with. The state Republican-controlled legislature even passed a minimum wage increase recently.

jlw:
When congress passed the welfare reform bill in ’ 96, women could not get “paid” more for increasing the number of out-of marriage" dependants, so it DID reduce welfare recipients from engaging in irresponsible sex.

This seems to encourage women not to give birth to more children, but not necessarily not to conceive any more children. I’m not sure there’s data on this. Most the data I’ve seen tracks the overall rate (which went down in the late 90s), but not this specific demographic. In any case, it seems a strange position to take to pay people NOT to have children.

jlw:
Roe v Wade was NEVER voted on. IT SHOULD BE, because abortion is not a “right”.

Agreed, send it back to the states. Ironically, overturning Roe V. Wade is probably the best thing that could happen to the Democrats. I’d enjoy seeing the Republicans trying to defend their economic elitism without the cover of their pro-life rhetoric.

 

[Philip_P]

I think probably the biggest contributing factor, to both abortion and high levels of extra-marital sex, is the breakdown of the family (agreement here, yes?). Where we differ is that many conservatives seem to believe that social welfare programs somehow CAUSE family breakdown. This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. These programs have arisen as a response, not a cause. In our current society, a great deal of value is placed on productivity and very little on human relationships.

Take a look, for instance, at the number of hours individuals are expected to spend at the workplace (or looking for work) as opposed to spending time at home and the community. Remember how 30 years ago Feminists made a big deal about being equal in the workplace? The market was a step ahead of them. Today, working outside the homes isn’t so much a choice as a necessity. Median HOUSEHOLD incomes have gone up, but INDIVIDUAL wages have not. In fact, real wages have been eroding. This means more FAMILY MEMBERS have to work to keep the same standard of living. Choice? Where? Feminism lost; the market won.

How does this relate to family, sex, and abortion? People marry much later, for one thing, which is certainly a factor worth exploring. More to the point, I think, is the sheer fact that more time is spent at work and jumping from job to job, often in different cities or even countries (by choice when we’re lucky, but increasingly by sheer necessity). This means less time and energy to spend with family members and neighbors, which translates into weakened social networks and community bonds of the sort that could reinforce the sort of the pro-family, pro-human dignity message Jlw is stating.

Put another way, social welfare programs are not usurping the role of fathers and family, they are an attempt to supplement something which is increasingly absent. The fathers (and everyone else) have already left, and cutting social welfare is not going to bring them back. Cushioning the harshness of the market might. Affordable housing means being able to settle down in a neighborhood. A living wage means having money left over to invest in building community. Quality education means quality jobs, the kind with benefits and more time off – time that can be spent becoming involved in your parochial school, for instance. (Speaking of which, it seems that one thing we should be doing as a church is keeping our inner city schools open.) For women, it means greater independence, which means they are more likely to be able to hold out for higher quality men and not settle for users. When I say that economics are a major issue in relation to abortion, I don’t mean so much that people have too little money, but rather that people have too little security.

Now please explain to me how opposing such programs is even remotely pro-life.

 

[caroljm36]

Philip P:

I think probably the biggest contributing factor, to both abortion and high levels of extra-marital sex, is the breakdown of the family (agreement here, yes?). Where we differ is that many conservatives seem to believe that social welfare programs somehow CAUSE family breakdown. This seems to be putting the cart before the horse. These programs have arisen as a response, not a cause.

Wrong…it may seem like just a societal response to you, but we didn’t have this huge problem of illegitamacy and fatherless families until welfare was expanded back in the 1960s. It was welfare that enabled women to move out of their parents’ place and live on their own, provided there was no man visibly present, and a lot of women saw it as a pretty good deal. Back in 1970 I remember a young gal telling me what a great deal it was, boy I was missing out…this was in California. She was pregnant, had a place of her own, got her weekly check and food stamps. And she was not poor by any means. She was a middle class girl who basically wanted to get away from her parents, didn’t feel like going to college or working, and here she could shack with her boyfriend ( who was not supposed to be there but was anyway) in her own house and enjoy life. He made good money as a mechanic at Sears. They smoked a lot of pot…Yeah that’s just an anecdote but it sure made an impression on me.

But the stats show that illegitimacy exploded during and after the Great Society welfare boosts. Fathers became unnecessary, and today I notice it seems to be a point of pride among MANY young women to have kids on their own, and to HELL with the father because dudes are all jerks anyway and try to run your life. My husband’s g-daughter is pregnant, at 17, and her own mother is telling her not to be in a hurry to marry the dad until she she “knows he’s the right one.” If he’s not, to hell with him.

THAT’s were we are now since the Pill and Roe and welfare. And I don’t pretend to know how on earth we back out of this situation we’re in.

 

[Lisa_N]

Caroline is right. We didn’t HAVE these problems when the US Government wasn’t taking the role of the father in the home. I read a fascinating book and sorry I don’t recall the title but it was on the history of marriage. The book did a very good job of tracking the explosion of what I call the ‘social industrial complex.’ For example back in the ‘olden days’ if a young woman got ‘in trouble’ she’d often go visit an aunt for a year and then return with the baby being placed in an orphanage or put up for adoption. No one petitioned Uncle Sam to support them or these kids.

Welfare as we know it got its start as a result of WWII widows with children. Realistically in those days women could not support a family, particularly with the return of the servicement taking those few jobs that women filled during the war years. Eventually it expanded to divorced women who were abandoned by their men and again couldn’t support themselves. Ironically even though women have moved into the workforce and could conceivable support their kids, we have expanded this program to basically anyone who gets pregnant or has children. Irresponsible men and women expect the government to support them because they have learned that it will support them. Do I suggest the government abandon these innocent children? Absolutely not. But my point is that the more you reward a particular behavior, the more it occurs.

To tie back into our discussion, this further deflates the argument that women have abortions because they cannot support the resultant children, because the government will support them if they cannot or will not. Further I think if you look at statistics, it’s not wealthy or even upper middle class women who have the most children, but rather the poorer women. There are a lot of reasons for that statistic but again it says that economics are not a major reason for abortion. Like Caroline I can only point to my own experiences but every woman I know who has aborted (some multiple times) said they either didn’t want kids then or that kids would cramp their lifestyle. It was never a case of a desperately poor woman who had no choice. Frankly many of the reasons my friends had for abortion were pretty weak. The saddest case was a cradle Catholic woman, engaged to another cradle Catholic who became pregnant prior to her wedding and basically didn’t want to move the date or look ‘fat in my dress.’ As she looks back on that girl she is HORRIFIED at what she did. But let’s face it, abortion is usually something that young and often immature women face and they don’t make good decisions.

Well rambling a bit here. Hopefully there are some parts of this post that will further the discussion

Lisa N