Evaluation and Assessment of the Alternatives
The above mentioned policy alternatives are outlined on the idea that it is the government's responsibility to provide welfare support to the underprivileged groups and that public and socio-economic welfare must be given a priority above political motives. This however does not mean that the views and sentiments of those who deem a practice ethically and morally wrong should be ignored, as that would be in violation of the democratic principles. Thus in order to keep a balance between the two sides, the policy must be designed to take all stakeholders on board.
Keeping this in view, there are two basic alternatives that are proposed above. One, either the government should support Planned Parenthood programs for the poor aiming to help them to avoid unintended pregnancies altogether by increasing their accessibility to contraceptives. Moreover, conditional abortions should be allowed on the grounds that the organization makes it certain that abortion is necessary because the potential baby is going to be an economical burden on the family and that bringing it to life would be unjust to the baby itself.
Another alternative can be that if support is withdrawn from abortion altogether, the government must take the responsibility to support the 'unintended child' in every way including maternity expenditures, food, shelter, clothing, as well as health and education expenses of the child thus removing the burden off the parents shoulder. However, this would again mean that the taxes coming in from the economically productive sectors will be spent on the 'unproductive' or less productive individuals of the economy. This argument however can be refuted by countering that the currently 'less productive' segments can be made productive for future by investing in their education and training.
In order to finally concluding on which alternative should used as part of the policy, a thorough cost benefit analysis would be required. For the first alternative, the costs of spending on Planned Parenthood funding for the poor must be weighed against the benefits earned as a result of making such a spending. Likewise, for the second alternative, the cost of supporting a living child who is born out of an unintended pregnancy must be weighed against the benefits as a result of incurring such a cost. Clearly, the cost of supporting a child until s/he becomes self dependent would be relatively much higher than that of cost of funding an abortion which would be a onetime cost. This means that now the relative benefits of the two alternatives will have to be compared. According to Brigade (2009), her research concluded that in poor societies where men are the main bread earner of the family, children out of unintended pregnancy are seen as economic burdened and the mothers are subjugated for 'transferring the burden of their dependency.' This creates long-term detrimental effects on the psychology of both the mother and the child. This finding makes it evident that an unintended birth (due to inaccessibility towards contraceptives and abortions) has to be protected against negative economic, social and psychological implications in long-term.
In most cases the reason why woman consider their pregnancy as 'unwanted' and chooses to pursue an abortion because she feels that the society will confiscate her right to a normal life is she delivers the baby. She might want the baby, being a mother, as dearly as any other mother but might not want to bring it to life on fear of not being able to provide it a quality life. Therefore if the society feels that abortions are wrong, it must address the root causes which forces a woman to choose to go for an abortion and eliminate those root causes. (Kopaczynski, 2011). Moreover, abortion must only be discontinued in totality when the government and the privileged society can give social, psychological and economical assurance to both the mother and the child (Bachioch, 2011).
Bachiochi, E. (2011). Embodied Equality: Debunking Equal Protection Arguments for Abortion Rights. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 34(3), 889+.
Bridges, K.M. (2009). Quasi-Colonial Bodies: An Analysis of the Reproductive Lives of Poor Black and Racially Subjugated Women. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 18(2), 609+.
Kopaczynski, G. (2011). No Higher Court: Contemporary Feminism and the Right to Abortion. Scranton, PA: University of Scranton Press.
Kumar, A. (2012, February 2). House votes to ban subsidies for poor women who abort fetuses with birth defects. The Washington Post. Retrieved from The Washington Post Database.
Moisse, K. (2011, May 24). Abortion rate down overall, up among poor women. ABC News. Retrieved from ABC news database.
West, R. (2009). From Choice to Reproductive Justice: De-Constitutionalizing Abortion Rights. Yale…