Has Bush Caused More Abortions? Part 2

Despite my busy schedule, I cannot resist commenting on Glenn Stassen’s opinion piece. Issues concerning his use of statistics have been well addressed here and here, so I won’t comment further on that. My main concern with Mr. Stassen’s view is his lack of understanding of what the root causes of abortion are.

Just to clarify my stance on the issue, I do believe that as Christians we have a moral obligation to help those in need. On a personal level, I support our local crisis pregnancy center financially and with my time. I have recently been nominated to their board of directors. The centers are instrumental in providing the needs for women who make life affirming choices. I strongly believe that in order to change the cultural attitudes regarding the unborn, we need to do more than just push for the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. We need to do everything that we can in order to provide for those in crisis pregnancy situations, without providing justification for the sexual attitudes of our day. I also support the programs initiated by Feminists For Life in order to increase opportunities or pregnant college students to continue their education.

Why does Mr. Stassen believe women have abortions?:

How could this be? I see three contributing factors: Two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Average real incomes decreased, and the minimum wage has not been raised to keep up with inflation for seven years. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

I have serious doubts that Mr. Stasson understands the true reason why women have abortions. If women intentionally kill their unborn child nearly for financial reasons, then why don’t they do the same to children after birth? After all, the financial burdens of children after they’re born are far greater than prior to them being born. If financial reasons are the main consideration, then why don’t mothers kill their born children more often?

Clearly, mothers make a distinction between children inside of their womb and children outside of their womb. This distinction is made allows them to kill the former, when they would not think of killing the latter. This distinction has no basis in science (which clearly states but the life of an individual human being begins at conception). This is a purely moral distinction, and one that is done for the self interest of the mother. The response to this need to be an argument based on some moral and scientific principles, not justifying this behavior because the government hasn’t provided enough cash.

Stassen also has this to say in his article:

Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of my 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001; in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions.

Once again, Stassen appears to place the blame for men not willing to marry women for purely financial reasons. It’s as if there is a whole group of men just waiting to place a ring on their sexual partners, if only the government would find them a good job. In my experience, a more likely scenario is that men who tend to lack the responsibility to procure and keep jobs tend to be the same type of men who lack responsibility in their personal sexual lives. Stassen once again places the blame for this on the Bush administration.

Lastly, Stassen indicates that a lack of health insurance also increases to the number of mothers who kill their unborn children:

Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency abortion increases.

This is a very curious argument. Stassen argues that mothers choose to kill their unborn children because they are worried about finding health care for them. For some reason, these mothers believe their children are better off dead then without health insurance. I believe this is an indication that the mothers who decide to have abortions don’t understand the moral implications of their decision. These mothers don’t necessarily need health insurance, they need moral education and clear thinking. Once again, I would like to add that if this was the actual reason why abortions or being performed, then why aren’t these mothers killing their already born children because they lack health care?

So why do women have abortions? Of course the reasons are often multi-factorial. However, I believe the main reason why women decide to kill their unborn children is a result of sin. It’s really that simple. A Christian ethicist should be able to figure that out. The depravity of the human heart, and our tendency to do things how we want to do them, without ethical constraint, is the heart of most abortion decisions. As Beckwith and Klusendorf have pointed out, this remains a predominately moral problem, not a practical one for most women.

I’m very glad that Stassen has elected not to kill his child because of his disability. I realize the incredible burdens that a special needs of places on the family. However, I do believe that we truly need some very clear thinking on this important moral issue. Unfortunately, he does not provide that in his opinion piece.

Update: My Blogpartner Steve has found the missing link! Thanks for the head's up.