Many women who have abortions already have children, so I'm not entirely sure Freakonomics was really onto anything. I'm also not entirely sure that young, unwed, impoverished women are more likely to have abortions than not. I was kind of under the impression based on what reading I'd done that the women most likely to have abortions in the US were women with resources (e.g. wealthier women, probably married). Certainly there's a strong correlation between poverty and lack of access to abortion.
(FWIW, I haven't read the book, but in reflection it comes across to me as a semi-spurious popularisation of trends that one really ought to read the literature to understand instead.)
Also, I'm curious. What do you mean by "I don't believe that abortion should be a woman's first choice"? I can think of two or three different interpretations of this, and none of them are particularly flattering.
If you're implying that women should not be using abortion as a primary (or only) form of birth control, first of all, what's it to you? Secondly, doing so is strongly correlated with poverty and lack of access to healthcare (and birth control), and/or partner abuse. (There are lots of men out there who refuse to allow their partners to use birth control, or who will sabotage their partners' birth control for power reasons, essentially.)
If you're implying that women should seriously consider undergoing a pregnancy they do not want, in order to bear a child they don't want, in order to put it up for adoption, rather than terminating an unwanted pregnancy as the remedy of choice, I'm afraid I can't agree with you there, either. Pregnancy is physically difficult for women (they used to say "one lost tooth for every baby," after all) and carries a significant risk of morbidity or mortality, and long-term health consequenses, like osteopenia/osteoporosis, back problems, varicose veins... Nobody should be required to undertake something that carries a significant risk of serious illness, injury, or death unless they really want to. Pregnancy causes irreparable physiological changes to one's body. Even if the woman in question has health insurance, many health insurance plans do not cover the expenses associated with pregnancy and childbirth (no shit, look it up). Also, adoption is often a difficult, painful, expensive process for all parties involved, and no particular great shakes for the adoptee, oftentimes, either. (I am one, I ought to know. I'm also the product of a nonconsensual pregnancy, and it keeps me up nights. I don't advocate anyone ever undergoing a pregnancy they don't want; that's horrifying.)
Many women who have abortions already have children, so I'm not entirely sure Freakonomics was really onto anything. I'm also not entirely sure that young, unwed, impoverished women are more likely to have abortions than not. I was kind of under the impression based on what reading I'd done that the women most likely to have abortions in the US were women with resources (e.g. wealthier women, probably married). Certainly there's a strong correlation between poverty and lack of access to abortion.
A few years ago I took the volunteer training to be a Planned Parenthood counselor/escort/nonspecific person-at-arms, and as part of our orientation we learned that a significant portion of PP's patients (don't remember if it was a majority, but certainly lots of them) are married women who already have all the kids they can handle and whose birth control didn't work.
(FWIW, I haven't read the book, but in reflection it comes across to me as a semi-spurious popularisation of trends that one really ought to read the literature to understand instead.)
Also, I'm curious. What do you mean by "I don't believe that abortion should be a woman's first choice"? I can think of two or three different interpretations of this, and none of them are particularly flattering.
If you're implying that women should not be using abortion as a primary (or only) form of birth control, first of all, what's it to you? Secondly, doing so is strongly correlated with poverty and lack of access to healthcare (and birth control), and/or partner abuse. (There are lots of men out there who refuse to allow their partners to use birth control, or who will sabotage their partners' birth control for power reasons, essentially.)
If you're implying that women should seriously consider undergoing a pregnancy they do not want, in order to bear a child they don't want, in order to put it up for adoption, rather than terminating an unwanted pregnancy as the remedy of choice, I'm afraid I can't agree with you there, either. Pregnancy is physically difficult for women (they used to say "one lost tooth for every baby," after all) and carries a significant risk of morbidity or mortality, and long-term health consequenses, like osteopenia/osteoporosis, back problems, varicose veins... Nobody should be required to undertake something that carries a significant risk of serious illness, injury, or death unless they really want to. Pregnancy causes irreparable physiological changes to one's body. Even if the woman in question has health insurance, many health insurance plans do not cover the expenses associated with pregnancy and childbirth (no shit, look it up). Also, adoption is often a difficult, painful, expensive process for all parties involved, and no particular great shakes for the adoptee, oftentimes, either. (I am one, I ought to know. I'm also the product of a nonconsensual pregnancy, and it keeps me up nights. I don't advocate anyone ever undergoing a pregnancy they don't want; that's horrifying.)
Reply
A few years ago I took the volunteer training to be a Planned Parenthood counselor/escort/nonspecific person-at-arms, and as part of our orientation we learned that a significant portion of PP's patients (don't remember if it was a majority, but certainly lots of them) are married women who already have all the kids they can handle and whose birth control didn't work.
Reply
Leave a comment