Abortion rates fell among most groups of women from 2000 to 2008, but rose for those classified as poor, finds an analysis conducted by the non-profit Guttmacher Institute and published Monday in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The rate for poor women increased 18%, while the national rate dropped 8%, finds Guttmacher, which has been tracking abortions since 1974.
To put it bluntly poor women are targeted by the abortion industry. Over and over again they receive the message that pregnancy and child rearing will hold them back from moving out of poverty. It will mean not getting a decent job. It will mean not getting a full education. It will mean not being able to find a good provider and mate. They are told they will condemning their child to a life of poverty and crime and despair. The mantra they hear is that it is for the best and after all it is their choice.
Unfortunately they also hear devastating message from some who should value life. They are told that to have a baby out of wedlock means they are careless and wanton. They are told that to rely on any type of help (even termporarily) means they are lazy and useless. They hear that no one should have a child unless they have the money to care for it. (Ideally yes that is right but we do not live in an ideal world).
The messge from both camps is the same . That a child is an economic liablity and his or her value should be looked upon in that manner. If the child does not create a liablity than pregnancy is to be welcomed and the child an object of love and rejoicing. A child should be a cause for celebration no matter the circumstances of his mother’s life. The abortion industry wants to make sure that poor women forget that.
It is so sad to think of the hundreds of thousands of children who were never born because their mothers’ pregnancies were “inconvenient.” How can a life be inconvenient, and who has the right to take it away from a tiny child?
Unfortunately, far too many Christians want to take away what meager resources poor women have. They claim they are pro-life but the only benefits they support are those provided to corporations.
I used to support “pro-life” organizations just because they claimed they were “pro-life”. The only ones who get my money today are those who spend most of their income helping pregnant women with pre and post natal health-care, job training etc. National Right-To-Life long ago made it clear that they were a front for the Republican Party’s social darwinist agenda.
RE: “Unfortunately, far too many Christians want to take away what meager resources poor women have. They claim they are pro-life but the only benefits they support are those provided to corporations.”
Heh — by which Dan Crawford [i]actually[/i] means “Christians don’t want the State stealing other people’s money for the State’s values, no matter what the State’s values may be at the current moment.”
And thank goodness that is true — the vast majority of Christians in the US understand that the State is not a good spender of other people’s money, nor is it effective at central planning, not to mention that it does not share the same values as the vast majority of Christians, other than folks like Dan Crawford.
RE: “the Republican Party’s social darwinist agenda . . . ”
Right — because we all know that Darwin supported strongly State Central Planning! ; > )
Of course, Republicans — at least the good ones and not the fake ones — are merely opposed to the State determining the values and priorities on which private property owners should spend their money.
It is true that real Republicans will be utterly opposed to any unConstitutional State central planning or stealing the individual’s money in order to fulfill State values and goals.
Dan, a wonderful private-sector organization that’s free to low-income single student moms and their little ones in the Pittsburgh area is Angels’ Place (three locations, and it’s 501 c-3). Moms drop their children off as they go to class, picking them up on the way home. ln addition to early childhood education, the children receive breakfast and lunch. The ratio of caregivers to children is wonderful. The little ones range in age from ~a month old to 4 or 5 years old. Student moms have parenting classes and are given encouragement to finish their education and find responsible jobs so they can rise out of poverty. Check it out at http://www.angelsplacepgh.org.
I think there will always be abortions, just as there have always been abortions in the past through folk and herbal measures. I’m not being a pessimist, just a realist.
How can there not be? Christians have made the issue into a political football with neither side showing much true understanding or compassion. (Paula’s assessment is spot on.)
And I agree with you, Dan. The Pro Life movement is a joke. They seem to believe that they have triumphed once the baby takes its first breath and they have provided some baby clothes. After that, mother and child are on their own and they’d better not need public assistance.
But even beyond social welfare programs, these political types also favor policies and financial decisions that make essentials such as food, shelter, health care, and education more expensive for everyone. To benefit business interests, of course.
And the socalists will always want to do what they think is good with someone else money. At least a back ally mugger is honest about it.
It seems like all who commented so far would be for reducing the funding for Planned Parenthood and transferring those funds to programs like Angels’ Place.
If Planned Parenthood wants government money, the should stop doing abortions and let a COMPLETELY separate private organization do them. Since they say government money is not spent on abortions, this should be no problem.
Paula at #1, thank you for writing this.
You are welcome Michael A. I sometimes am appalled at the remarks I hear from Christians who rightly condemn abortion but truly think throwing birth control at the poor is the best we can do for them in terms of social policy. Even, I hesitate to write, advocating for forced sterilization. That saddens me a great deal for it also sends the message that pregnancy is what happens when things go wrong. I believe very strongly that the contraceptive mentality has increased the acceptance of abortion not lessened it.
I believe it was on Stand Firm that an article was posted that disputed the oft made charge that pro life organizations cease caring for the child once he or she is born and abandon mother and baby to their fates. I hope someone can provide a link.
Well of course we are dealing with the aftermath of the sexual license that is part and parcel of secularism. The is good reason to teach that sex is only proper within the context of marriage between a man and woman. It may come unnoticed to a lot of sexual libertines, but sex results in babies.
[i]The Pro Life movement is a joke. They seem to believe that they have triumphed once the baby takes its first breath and they have provided some baby clothes. After that, mother and child are on their own and they’d better not need public assistance.[/i]
When we condone out of wedlock birth rates of ~40% overall and perhaps ~70% in the African American community, we are also condoning public financing of those lives with its perpetual slavery.
Pro Life groups I am familiar with are actually [i]Pro Marriage[/i], with fathers and husbands who take responsibility for the children they help produce. Not only is public financing a path to perpetual poverty and slavery, the State does not inculcate it’s wards with the morals and values needed to support families, which are the bedrock institution of a stable civilization.
The liberal, progressive view of endless welfare as compassion is actually the joke. Unfortunately, the joke is on us because liberalism never works when it is tried. The equal outcomes it leads to are nothing more than equal misery or death.
These numbers validate that the real way to reduce abortions in the US — which should be the goal of all Christians — is not to focus on making it illegal (which only drives it underground), but to focus on making the alternatives more tolerable for would-be mothers. The survey shows that we still have a ways to go among the poorest women. Programs like subsidized daycare, child wellness care, food assistance, etc. enable women to choose birth instead of adoption. Instead of seeking to punish women for getting pregnant we should be equipping them to deal with the child they have conceived.
I’m not sure how these numbers “validate the real way to reduce abortions in the US—which should be the goal of all Christians—is not to focus on making it illegal”. I also don’t see that the two are mutually exclusive. The real goal would be to have people recognize that sex leads to children, therefore you should only have sex if you are willing to accept the results and raise the children. Preferably in a life long marriage.
I know it is mean saying that people should deny themselves pleasure because it could have serious consequences, but that is how life really is.
Thank you, JOV, #14. I’m in total agreement with you on this.
The worse problem with public aid is that receiving it usually depends on the mom remaining single. Marriage is more than just the right moral choice it is the right social choice. Children who are reared in a stable marriage see every day the tools needed to acheive goals. They see partnership. They see people working through problems. They see support. They see conflict resolution. They see perserverence. They see trust. They see putting what is best for all before personal desires. They see putting failures in perspective. These are skill sets for success.
I have no doubt that government policy is set up to discourage poor and working class pregnant women from marrying. Private agencies want to move people out of poverty. Government programs just don’t seem to envision that possiblity.