I was surprised by some of the findings in the work by Sharon Hays, Flat Broke with Children. “…financially privileged young women who find themselves pregnant before they are ready are more likely to get an abortion” (Grusky 184). I was truly shocked when I read this. Despite the fact that these financially privileged women are more likely to have the resources necessary to raise a child, they are not the ones keeping them. Poor women are MORE likely to have the child even though this choice will undoubtedly add extra strain and hardship on an already struggling family.
I’m still not quite sure if I am for or against abortion. It is one of those topics with too much “grey” area for me to make a judgment just yet. But logically, I would have thought the rich among society would be more willing to keep an unexpected child, not the poor. Maybe it has something to do with collecting government subsidies (that just seems a little too cynical for my taste), or maybe it has something to do with the love these financially poor, younger women have for their unborn child.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your statement about poor women not being able to afford an abortion, so they keep their baby. Overall, this statistic does not shock me. I think you have to look at the bigger picture. What does having a baby mean socially while a person is not ready to have children? This may be assuming too much, but I think that there is another more pressing reason why more rich women have abortions. In upper class and upper-middle class, there is an acceptable age to have children. If a woman has a child at an unacceptable age, it is socially frowned upon in their society. I think that may be why they have abortions, so it will not affect their status.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, with movies like "Juno", teenage pregnancy is becoming more common. So perhaps the times are changing?