Just before I start this, I just wanted to make a note of something. Over the next few weeks, I will be doing a series of political analyses that criticize contemporary democratic and republican ideologies. I know some of my friends are curious as to how the two parties think, so I will do the best that I can with the facts that are available. For the rest of you, I hope you have constructive criticism for me and will see these view points with an enlightened perspective. Now let's begin.
Abortion is a hot topic in America right now.
On one side, we have the democrats being "pro-choice" and on the other we have republicans being "pro-life". I will be analyzing the latter this week. So what does pro-life mean from a republican perspective?
Essentially the argument is this: From the moment of conception, the entity that exists inside of the womb is a living being and therefore gains the right to life. Put in simpler terms, once the baby is conceived, it is wrong and immoral to end its life through abortion. There are also religious citings for this argument on the republican platform. I will give you those links at the end.
So what does this argument mean in terms of public policy?
It means that Republicans will not make any laws that allow abortion across the board (unless in cases of special circumstances which vary depending on the public official). It also means that they believe that any organizations that promote abortions (such as Planned Parenthood) should be de-funded because it's "against the Constitution." While this may have some theoretical merit, there are several valid arguments as to why this view point is absurd.
The first, is the psychology of human beings. Despite their claims to babies having identities from the moment of their conception, psychologists argue that this isn't true. In order for babies to have an identity, they must have a conscience. That means they need to have the ability to take in information from their environment in order to form memories, which leads to the concept of experience. We define experience as knowledge that we have acquired from various events in our lives. This information is a large part of what shapes our individual identities. For example, if you compare the "average American citizen" (someone who works from 8 a.m to 5 p.m. during the week and goes home to their family) vs. a Vietnam veteran, you will have two completely different viewpoints on the world. These viewpoints shape the personalities and identities of these two different individuals. Babies, from the moment of conception, do not possess this ability because their nervous systems have not yet formed or developed. This is evident because it is only around the second trimester that babies are receptive to sound and pain. That requires a somewhat developed nervous system. So this part of the republican argument has been proven to be invalid.
The next assertion against the pro-life concept is the duty of the government. You see, Republicans think that it is unconstitutional to support anything that has to do with abortion and have decided that anything that does should be funded privately. There are two issues with this. The first is that the issue is not just abortion. It's about sexual activity in general. The second is that abortion is not an individual issue. It's a public health issue. How? Consider this:
A woman has an un-intended pregnancy, despite her use of contraceptives and birth control. She cannot afford to financially support the child. So she has two options:
1. Have the child and their entire household goes under.
2. Give the child up for foster care or adoption.
Either way, it becomes a public health problem. Why? Because public health not only refers to the physical well-being of the population. It is a holistic approach, which includes the social, environmental, and psychological effects on society. A child that grows up in an unstable financial or foster care type situation will have a significantly altered childhood experience as opposed to someone who was prepared for the child. Republicans would most likely argue that they shouldn't have had sex in the first place, but when they took all the precautions available to them, it's not really their fault. Precautions are put in place because they plan on taking part in something that has a significant risk factor and because the government has endorsed the use of such things, they know that people are going to have sexual relations with no intention of conceiving a child.
The point is with this argument, is that for Republicans to say that abortion is immoral and affiliated organizations should be de-funded goes against their primary function to begin with: To serve the public good. By Republican logic, if a public health issue should not be combated by the government, then neither should the provision of clean water, air or food, all of which fall under the betterment of the public health.
The last and final argument against pro-life is the financial impact on the country. The point of public health is to prevent negative occurrences from happening as much as possible so that the health of the population is kept high. By not supporting an organization such as Planned Parenthood, you run a very high risk of endangering people's lives. Planned Parenthood is not just an advocate for abortion. It's also about educating people about the dangers of sex and how to keep yourself from getting an un-intended pregnancy as well as sexually transmitted diseases. Let's assume that this organization is no longer supported by the government across the entire country. Now you have uneducated women having sex without knowing the dangers of not being protected. When pregnancies and STDs are detected, where do they have to go? That's right, the hospital. Emergency room visits cost people a ton of money even if they are insured. What's worse is that they also have an effect on the country as well. The more people that use the emergency room, the more money we have to spend to take care of patients. Let me just give you a quick run down.
When you are in a hospital, they are required by law to admit you regardless of any conditions that exist (including your ability to pay the bill). A lot of people (44 million to be exact) don't have insurance. That means they have to take the full blunt of the bill. The average cost of an emergency visit is around $1200. Now multiply that number by 44 million. That's nearly 53 billion dollars on average which only accounts for the uninsured. We haven't even accounted for the poorly insured and even those who are adequately insured. What does this have to do with my last point? Well the problem is, when people can't pay the bill, it affects the hospital. Hospitals need money for maintenance and upkeep. If people aren't paying, then the hospitals will cease to function properly and they can't refuse you because it's against the law. So who ends up paying that bill? That's right. YOU DO. Because it's gotta come from somewhere and that source is your taxes. Since republicans aren't staunch defenders of higher tax margins, it would be in their best interest to not let this situation blow out of proportion by reviewing the facts and not automatically viewing their ideology as the be all, end all of existence.
That's all I have for you this week. Next week I will do a democratic policy (haven't decided yet). I hope you guys enjoyed my take on this viewpoint and as I said, if you have useful comments, please feel free to share them. See ya next week!
