Just read this article on Fox News. In an uncharachteristic showing of actual logic over rhetoric in there opinion section, this is a very good little article on abortion.
Full Story Here
I don't quite understand the intro. I would think those in particular are the ones to read this. And especially catch the point later on that Plan B prevents fertilization:
For those of you who consider all abortion to be murder, you should stop reading now.
That, I think is the one detraction from the article. It gets to some good points below.
The article starts with abortion study numbers. Then moves into some important demographics:
The study found that "the average woman who seeks an abortion is 24 years old, unwed, earns a yearly income of about $25,000 and already is a mother...She has religious beliefs and is a Christian...the typical abortion is performed around the eighth week -- well within the first trimester."
A single mother already raising one child and working for $25,000 a year is certainly not a glamorous life. In fact, I think that qualifies for poverty nearly anywhere in the country. So the average women getting an abortion is a poverty stricken single mother. No wonder why the GOP hates the idea. No wing of the GOP is particularly concerned about the poor, and the hardcore social conservatives despise single mothers and women out of the house working. It's a triple-whammy.
It notes that 8 out of 10,000 abortions are partial-birth abortions. (.08%) This is the common emotional argument made by conservatives. And our own emotional arguement of rape and danger to the mother only affects 2% of abortions. Although both are relatively small percentages, abortion due to rape or endangered mother is 25 times more likely to happen than a partial birth abortion.
The article also includes a couple religious breakdowns. Showing that 13% of all abortions come from born-again evangelicals. The most vehemently opposed to abortion account for over 160,000 abortions per year. Catholics account for 27% (over 350,000) of all abortions.
Together, that is 40% (Well over 500,000) of all abortions coming from self-identified religious people. This is certainly an interesting demographic to consider. Since the debate seems to be drawn on religious lines.
The end of the article is the part I found really interesting:
Obviously, abortion is widely practiced in the United States, even though it remains controversial. Virtually no one is pro-abortion, though millions of people want it to be available as an option when a pregnancy is unplanned or when the mother's health is seriously at risk.
Now social conservatives will never go for this, maybe that is why the warning at the top was included. But here comes the clincher:
So what's the answer? One answer is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and thus to reduce the need for abortion.
Safe ,legal, and rare. A talking point the public can use.
The article finishes very strong on this point:
Plan B has been available as a prescription-only drug since 1999. Its distributor applied to the FDA for permission to sell the drug over the counter, and an FDA expert advisory panel voted 23 to 4 in favor of their application. It was Crawford's action delaying approval of this application that prompted Wood's resignation after working for the FDA for five years.
Plan B prevents pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of sexual activity. Some religious conservatives have opposed it, even though in most cases it prevents fertilization of an egg and there is no abortion. This is the crowd that must believe that conception occurs when they take Cialis.
And so we have the situation that abortion is widely practiced in this country by people of all religious persuasions, many of whom are religious conservatives, and our government is taking action that could actually result in more abortions rather than fewer.
A thought it was a pretty good article. One I certainly didn't expect to make it by the editors at Fox. It has some real numbers, and makes an excellent point on how to reduce the need or desire for abortions whether you believe they should be legal or not. I try to stay away from the entire debate, I wouldn't feel compelled to if people could make real and clear arguements like the author did.