Choosing Life

If you had to choose between outlawing abortion and reducing the incidence of abortion, which would you choose?

I am at odds with some of my fellow Democrats. Judging from the dialog, many view abortion as a simple health-care decision. It seems more than that to me. "Choose life" still seems like a decent catch phrase, and I can't see myself wishing someone to have an abortion.*

But I am also at odds with Republicans. Many of them emphasize outlawing abortion but mostly refuse to do much—if anything—more, as I've previously posted. I sometimes wonder if Planned Parenthood, in spite of providing abortion services, hasn't done more to reduce abortions than Right to Life. They provide health care, birth control, pre-natal counseling, and sex education, all of which can alleviate fears that parenthood presents. One way to reduce abortion is to enact some form of universal health care. 

The question I pose above is hypothetical; it's not necessarily a matter of one or the other. The ambitious 95-10 Initiative, which aimed to reduce the incidence of abortion by 95% over 10 years (and was shunned by Republicans and Democrats alike) advocated for stricter laws and better support for pregnant women and new mothers.

When it comes to our votes, though, the question is not hypothetical. Pretty much, we can choose one or the other. The next time someone asks how you can support abortion, it's fair to ask them the same question. Then ask which is to be preferred, a legal ban or a reduction in abortions.

I am not intimidated when accused of murdering babies, especially by people who can't be bothered to care for those babies or their mothers. Vote for a law if you must, but accept that I prefer the options of prevention, care, and support. These are more effective at reducing abortion, don't endanger mothers, and are more just; it's the better way to choose life.

-------------------

*This is not to say I think it should be illegal, but that's a subject for another post.