Home : The United States : Editorials and Commentary

The Debate over RU-486

Last week the Food and Drug Administration approved RU-486, otherwise known as the abortion pill, for use by the general public, sparking great controversy from both sides of the abortion debate.

Vice President Al Gore said on CNN's Larry King Live, "I think it's up to the woman, and I strongly support a woman's right to choose, and I support the FDA's approval, assuming it's safe for the woman who takes it, and that's what they decided today," Gore said.

Texas governor and presidential candidate, George W. Bush said, "I think the FDA’s decision to approve the abortion pill RU-486 is wrong. People on both sides of the abortion issue can agree that we should do everything we can to reduce the number of abortions, and I fear that making this abortion pill widespread will make abortions more and more common, rather than more and more rare."

Bush says both sides want to reduce the number of abortions. I think this statement is accurate and can be agreed upon by most everyone.

But to people on both side of the debate, I think you have both been so busy fighting for what you believe in, that you have overlooked something essential. That is the question, why? Why are women having abortions?
Could it be that women choosing abortions have no better alternative?

Under the system we live in, the majority of women who are having abortions are young and unmarried. To put it another way, they are poor, working class women. Often, they are trying to support themselves off of one income, and have not yet received a college education.

Picture this: You're young and you're poor. Maybe you're a university student working part-time. Maybe you're working full time for $5.15 per hour. Either way, you met this wonderful guy who promised you the world, who turns out now to be not so wonderful after all. Or in a moment of loneliness, you make a mistake. Whatever. Now you're pregnant. You're struggling to make ends meet. What are you going to do? Weigh the options, of course, but what are the options? There are essentially three.

Option one. Well, Ok. You want to keep the child. Great. You drop out of school or simply continue to work at your low-paying job, and raise a child near or below the poverty level, constantly struggling. Since W-2, welfare reform, has been passed, you will have no chance of going back to school, because you won't receive any more assistance.

Option two, adoption. Nine months of missing work or classes frequently due to pregnancy-related sickness. Everyone knows you’re pregnant. Everyone keeps asking you, ‘Oh, what are you going to name it?’ And you, having to respond, ‘Nothing. I’m giving it away.’ Not to mention the agony of having your child ripped away from you within moments of it having been born, wondering if you’ll ever even see it again.

Option three, abortion. You take a pill in the privacy of your own home. You miss a day of work or school, and then you get on with your normal life. No one knows what happened, only you, your doctor, and whomever you choose to share it with. Maybe you feel like what you did was fine. Maybe you don’t. If you don’t, you figure that your God or Goddess (if you believe in one) will understand and forgive you. At any rate, you forgive yourself, and maybe have a child later in life, maybe not.

Which one of these choices is the most attractive?

We need to provide women with the means to adequately take care of a child on her own. We need to provide her with a decent paying job, a home, an education, health care, and childcare. We need to provide her children with a good education, and guarantee that they will have all that they need. If we don’t do this, more and more women will have to choose abortion.

Shouldn’t people abstain from sex outside of marriage?

Never going to happen. Human beings will have sex and nothing you can do will stop it. We all make mistakes. If people always did the rational and responsible thing, we wouldn’t have this problem in the first place.

Is outlawing abortion the answer to stop abortions?

No. We still haven't dealt with the issue of WHY are these women seeking abortions in the first place. If we outlaw abortion, abortion rates may go down somewhat, but it will not stop women from seeking abortions. Not only will they die and be mutilated from back-street abortions, but the children who do come into this world will be faced with poverty. Is that what people what?

Do the two major candidates want you to ask that basic question, why?

Of course not. They would rather have you fight with and against one another. It gives the smokescreen appearance that there is actually a choice between the two candidates. Gore is pro-choice. Bush is pro-life. Get beyond these surface issues and you’ll see they’re pretty much the same thing. Once you start asking why, you begin to question the entire system that makes non-medical abortions necessary in the first place. You’ll question the economic injustice that can put these women in such a terrible situation while the major political parties live fat off the hog, accepting billions from human-rights abusing corporations and building bigger and more deadly weapons, so that they can someday kill these children they speak so highly of. You’ll question why, if they really care about human life, do they pursue free trade agreements all over the world that cause the enforced misery of billions of men, women, and children. You’ll ask why they bomb innocent civilians. You’ll ask a lot of things.

So, I suggest whatever side of the abortion debate you’re on, ask the question why, and work for justice for these women. That is the only way you're going to ever make any effective changes, and the only way you'll make abortions ‘more and more rare, as well as making this a better world in the process.