ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, January 9, 1997 TAG: 9701100016
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: STEPHEN J. KONIG
CONCERNING your Dec. 23 editorial (``Restore aid for family planning") that condemned attempts by pro-life forces in Congress to restrict funding for international "family planning" organizations:
It would appear that those on the editorial board charged with ensuring that your arguments are logically coherent had taken time off for the holidays.
The editorial begins with the statement that pro-lifers have a hard time accepting the notion that efforts to "stall and cut U.S. dollars for family planning in developing countries actually sets the stage for more abortions." Perhaps we have a hard time accepting this because it isn't true.
Indeed, the editorial mentions one of the chief objections among pro-lifers to such funding: that the monies are fungible, so that increased funding for ostensibly non-abortion-related activities simply frees up more money to promote abortion on the part of so-called family-planning organizations. Instead of answering this objection, however, the editorial merely states it and then drops it - an implicit admission, it must be assumed, that the argument is correct.
Underlying the entire editorial is a specious assumption. And it's precisely this assumption that pro-lifers reject. The assumption is that increased access to or availability of contraceptives reduces unwanted pregnancies and, as a consequence, the need for abortion. Indeed, this was precisely the argument offered by pro-contraceptive forces in this country in the early part of this century when contraception was largely illegal. History has demonstrated quite clearly, however, that this is simply not the case.
One need only look at this country where contraception is widely available, and where sex education in the public schools has brought to our youth unparalleled knowledge about contraceptives and how to use them. Despite this wide access and deep knowledge, abortion rates are higher here than in any other Western democracy.
The reasons for this link between high rates of contraceptive use and abortion are clear. For one thing, contraceptives are not foolproof. No method of contraception, save abstinence, is guaranteed to prevent pregnancy. Furthermore, studies in this country have clearly shown that, despite wide dissemination of knowledge, contraceptives are frequently used improperly or not at all - thereby reducing their effectiveness.
When contraceptives fail to prevent pregnancy, abortion is the most common resolution. It derives from a mentality wherein one believes one has been cheated: I wasn't supposed to get pregnant because I used birth control; therefore, I shouldn't be pregnant. And therefore, I should get an abortion.
The editorial mentions the root causes of unwanted pregnancies in underdeveloped countries: a lack of economic or political power. It seems to me our interests would be better served by providing people in these countries with the economic and political opportunities they lack, rather than force-feeding them contraceptives that will not only fail to address the underlying problems but will in fact only lead to more abortions.
The fierce intensity with which so-called family-planning organizations seek to impose contraceptives on the Third World only makes one wonder about their true motivations. Could it be that their real desire is simply to rid the world of undesirable people to begin with, rather than trying to find ways to improve the quality of their lives?
Stephen J. Konig of Roanoke is a software engineer for Meridium Inc.
LENGTH: Medium: 65 linesby CNB