Abortion and Contraceptives

As I have debated this topic (with more more lively opponents), I have encountered inevitable discussions as to a woman's sexual practices as the contraceptive aspect is raised. Most often, I am informed that "contraceptives are not banned," or "Contraceptives are inexpensive."However, in this discussion, a woman's sexual behavior is simply not relevant. Except that it is made to be, exposing the true inspiration for limits on abortion: the unashamed woman. It seems that the abortion debate in general is an outgrowth of the contraception debate, which itself is a reaction to the loss of societal control over female sexuality. We see this clearly in arguments that suggest that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape or incest. (Incest is not rape?) The anti-abortion activist continues to degrade their position by the use of hyperbole, calling abortion a form of "killing a human being." This combination begs the question: If her mother were raped, would it be morally permissible for her to be executed? I am not certain if Pro lifers are aware that this is what they are often arguing; but many seem to feel that it is fine to kill the children of rape victims.We need to isolate why rape and incest victims are morally permitted to undergo an abortion, while other women are not. I suspect that the sexual behavior of the woman is more relevant than it should be in arguments like this. Likewise with the subject of contraception. Logic: If the sexual behavior of the woman is so relevant, then the "life of the unborn" is not 'really' the important thing in the debate. The woman's sexuality is. Denying her access to contraception demonstrates this clearly, since contraception would reduce the numbers of abortion more than making the practice illegal would. [1] How many abortions can be prevented by providing free contraceptives?According to a study recently conducted by Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the abortion rate can be reduced by 62-78% by providing free contraceptives to women at risk of unintended pregnancy. [2] This figure easily overwhelms the decrease in abortion rates that tend to accompany restrictive laws that prevent the procedures after pregnancy. According to the Guttmacher Institute, "The criminalization of abortion does not eliminate the procedure; instead it forces women to turn to unskilled providers who work in clandestine, unsafe conditions, thus increasing their risk of injury and death. Many developing countries have highly restrictive laws, but also high abortion rates. While the legal restrictions in these countries do not lessen the incidence of abortion, they greatly increase the risk to women." [3]In a press release, the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which conducted the study showing that abortion numbers, and overall rates decline sharply as a result of free contraceptives, states: "The implications of such results fly in the face of the idea that, to reduce the abortion rate, abortions must be heavily restricted or even outlawed, and that contraception should remain out of reach for many." [4]The fact is, that outlawing or restricting abortion does not reduce the number of abortive procedures as much as preventing unintended pregnancy does. Conclusion: If the goal of many Pro Lifers was to reduce the number of abortive procedures that happen, then contraceptives (and preventing unwanted pregnancies) should be the first option. However, to many important Pro Life figures, such as the Catholic Church, and the Texas Legislature, strong opposition to contraceptives remain.This indicates that female sexuality, and not the life of the unborn, is the real inspiration for opposing abortion. [1] http://www.guttmacher.org...[2] http://www.addictinginfo.org...[3] http://www.guttmacher.org...[4] http://www.addictinginfo.org...