Monday, May 03, 2010

So that’s what rare means?

Rarely do you see an abortion advocate like Aimee Thorne-Thomson so clearly and openly discuss what the leadership of the pro-choice movement means when they say abortion should be rare (my emphasis).
Therefore reducing the number of abortions is a goal that reproductive health, rights and justice activists should work toward, right?

Wrong. Those numbers mean nothing without context. If the 1.21 million abortions that took place in 2005 ( represent the number of women who needed abortions (and in my opinion, if a woman decides she needs an abortion, then she does), as well as the many women who chose to terminate pregnancies that they very much wanted but could not afford to carry to term, then that number is too high. The work of reducing the number of abortions, therefore, would entail creating an authentically family-friendly society, where women would have the support they need to raise their families, whatever forms they took. That could include eliminating the family caps in TANF, encouraging unionization of low-wage workers, reforming immigration policies and making vocational and higher education more accessible.

On the other hand, if those 1.21 million abortions represent only the women who could access abortion financially, geographically or otherwise, then that number is too low. Yes, too low.

1 comment:

  1. Um... so the idea of a woman being in a circumstance in which she "needs" an abortion isn't something we should work to prevent.