Ever since the overturn of Roe v Wade, many well-meaning Christians, whether Catholic or not, have immediately been turning to the talking point that if US government would just have better healthcare (they usually mean universal healthcare) and expanded on more childcare services (i.e. universal Early Childhood Education, maternity centers) that it would incentivize women to keep their baby.
Full disclose: I am empathetic to ECE being integrated nationwide.
One poster on Reddit said that since Roe v Wade is now gone that Catholics should now vote for Democrats because of their support for government aid and social services; these Catholics only saw the Republican Party as a one voter issue where their Pro-Life stance was the only thing that kept them from voting for the Democrats. (These probably are the ones that also suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.)
I don't buy into this argument. If we look at this map even countries that have universal healthcare have a relatively high abortion rates per capita (i.e. UK, France, Sweden, Canada). Even then, welfare in the States and Canada has incentivize that if you fall below a certain annual salary threshold you're given money for each child you have. I know this because one I work in social services and two I have a family who's a physician that, at one time, had a patient that kept on having kids because she was being paid by the Canadian government for each kid since she was on welfare. She's the typical case of being a welfare queen.
I wish Milton Friedman was alive so he would talk some sense into these "gotta vote Democrat now because of the social services" Catholics/Christians. This isn't to say that Friedman was pro-life, but he surely question the assumptions of those who trust the Big Government for an easier life.
Many who get abortions do get it because the baby is an inconvenience. Yes, they may list down "socioeconomic instability" or whatever as a the main driver to abort but like all surveys the question is flawed and not all-encompassing. Many in the States that abort are poor, are in their twenties and already have at least one other kid according to the Guttmacher Institute. If we put to and two together this tells me that many aren't making smart decisions - to withhold sex until marriage or to have sex when one is not ovulating.
Furthermore, women have listed the following why they decided to get an abortion -
The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.
The "could not afford a baby now" is a relatively vague statement since it gives no standard on what income would be acceptable to have and raise a child. It's presented as a single factor where other factors are not put into affect such as responsibility and relationship problems.
As mentioned, if other countries such as Sweden, a rather socially "progressive" country with, ironically, a more restrictive abortion policy in comparison to the States, has a relatively high abortion rate per capita with universal healthcare then the connection between robust government social services in regards to newborns and health are specious at best.
But what drives a woman to reject abortion? Not the aid of the state if I bet my money, but conscious and values.
No comments :
Post a Comment