In this typically thoughtful and provocative piece that Slate ran on Tuesday, Naomi Cahn and June Carbone explore the possible connection between the success of the pro-life movement and the rise in single motherhood. They admit that they have no evidence of a causal connection, but wonder why this particular possibility hasn’t been considered while other less likely ones (such as same-sex marriages) has been.
Is there a plausible connection here? And if so, what (if anything) should be done to integrate this into the conversation about how to strengthen marriage?
Tags: abortion, Cahn, Carbone, Marriage, Single Motherhood, Slate
Categories: Marriage
I don’t see the correlation as very likely. Just because a single woman chooses not to abort doesn’t make her “pro-life”.
In fact plenty of single mothers have also had abortions too.
I think there is a connection, both in that abortion is seen as a less socially acceptable choice than single motherhood (in my SES, at least) and fewer abortion clinics available than a generation ago (along with more restrictive laws for women under the age of 18).
But there’s also the Grandparent Factor—fewer children in general means much greater acceptance of single motherhood. Most people of grandparent age would rather their adult children be single parents than childless.
It’s anecdotal, but parts of this fit with my own experience. One of my daughter’s co-workers got pregnant and her mother supported her decision not to abort because abortion would be wrong. A college-educated co-worker was horrified and thought that the daughter should have had an abortion for the sake of her own future.
I have also known college-educated women who were opposed to abortion, including some who got married and had the baby. However, support of the idea that abortion is a good, even preferred, choice is stronger among college-educated people I know.
However, that does not mean that the pro-life movement has contributed to the rise in acceptance of single motherhood. The authors of the article state that they have no evidence of this! They just state it at the end of the article. Go modern journalism!
What is more important, though, is that the authors seem to be wanting to blame the pro-life movement: “So why do those wringing their hands over the rise in single-parent families never blame, much less even mention, opposition to abortion?” The authors seem to fall in the camp that sees opposition to abortion as a bad, somewhat irrational thing.
The bottom line for me is this –
We know that the loss of good jobs may contribute to the rise in single parenthood. Creating more good jobs may strengthen marriage and it’s a good thing to do for our country anyhow.
We know that pre-marital counseling and marriage counseling are good things that many couples would like to have. Providing it for free may strengthen marriage and is a good service.
Pushing single women to get abortions would in all likelihood reduce single parenting. It would be a terrible thing to do – people should not be pushed to act against their conscience.
There is more than one way to reduce single motherhood. Some of them are wrong.
(The Christian right preaches that contraception is not perfect, sex inevitably risks pregnancy, and abstinence provides the only solution)
This makes sense. Teens raised in these households get the message abortion is murder and planning on having sex responsibly is slutty, so birth control is not allowed. But they still have sex with badly chosen men, still get pregnant and abscent parental force and social stigma, keep the baby.
It’s the natural result of a system torn between the philosophical belief children should be raised by their married biological parents and their love for their daughter and Grandchildren. They don’t want her married and them raised by an unsuitable man.
Oops – my comment should have said one of my co-workers’ daughter got pregnant.
@Mont D Law – You might want to give the young women who aren’t having abortions more agency. They may be choosing to not do what they believe is wrong.
“It’s the natural result of a system torn between the philosophical belief children should be raised by their married biological parents and their love for their daughter and Grandchildren.”
I think legal abortion does make unwed motherhood more heroic, inevitably.
There is also some evidence it acts as a “technology shock” that eliminates shotgun marriages and so raises the out of wedlock birth rate.
My cousin married his pregnant girlfriend at 18. That was 20 years and five kids ago.
But he was very determined to do the right thing. Don’t know how we make men like him.
Seen from a certain perspective, of course the pro-life movement is responsible for a host of social ills.
As I point out to my students, the easiest way to solve any social problem is to kill the perpetrators of the problem. Death covers a multitude of social sins.
Is the healthcare system strained from the expense of long term care? Euthanasia is a perfectly simple and efficient answer.
The easiest answer to prison overcrowding and the expense of maintaing a complex prison infrastructure? A more liberal application of the death penalty.
Are social welfare programs choking the economy? Let the poor starve and the homeless die of exposure. After all, what good are they really?
And of course, it has been argued that abortion is responsible for a number of benefits including a decrease in single-motherhood, the number of children who are born with birth defects, and even (according to Freakonomics) a decrease in the crime rate (because it stops the criminal class from procreating).
Death is always the answer when a society lacks the compassion and/or resolve to pursue more humane and comprehensive solutions. Am I being hyperbolic? Absolutely not. Even today, we can easily point to countries who promote all of the above options as the most expedient and efficient way of dealing with a problem. The culture of death is so successful because it is such an efficient engine of social waste management.
In sum, is the pro-life movement responsible for an increase in single motherhood? Sure. Why not? But only in the same way it could be considered responsible for an increase in any of the other social problems mentioned above, because, at its core, the pro-life movement is about making a society actually deal with its problems instead of simply allowing the masses to look away and pretend that everything is fine while the “troublemakers” are exterminated quietly behind closed doors.
…While we’re at it.
The pro-life movement may one day be responsible for the existence of homosexuals. After all, if homsexuality is, indeed, genetic, there will, one day, be a test for it. If that happens, the only people who will be having gay children are the pro-lifers.
In that day, homosexuality will experience the same level of genocide currently reserved for Down’s Syndrome children.
Greg Popcak:
I’m not even sure how many levels of offensiveness are packed in these few sentences. So let me just focus on the lack of logic.
First, you’re assuming that, in this hypothetical future you speak of, most people (apparently, everyone but pro-lifers) will see homosexuality as being undesirable, perhaps even a defect, one so horrible that it would be better not to carry the child to term then to subject them to a life of being gay. Given current trends, you have no rational basis to believe this, and a lot of reason to believe that, in the future, most people won’t care as much about whether or not their children are gay.
Second, you’re conflating “pro-lifers” with people who will never have abortions, and implicitly conflating pro-choicers with people who will have abortions. The real world is not that tidy. Many women who identify as “pro-life” will have abortions; even Sarah Palin admitted to having considered aborting her last pregnancy, and she had been an adament pro-lifer for a long time before that. And I hardly think it needs to be said that not all pro-choicers will have an abortion.
Third, you’re ignoring the very large overlap between people who identify as pro-life and people who perceive homosexuality as a defect, and perceive homosexuals as living an inferior kind of life when compared to heterosexuals. I can easily imagine a pro-lifer who, upon finding out their fetus has tested positively for homosexuality, choosing to abort that fetus. Of course, not all pro-lifers are anti-gay, and not all pro-choicers are pro-gay; but this part of your argument is nonetheless ironic to the point of nonsensical.
Greg Popcak,
You make some great points, and I think your point about homosexuality and abortion is well taken.
It’s quite possible that pro life world views may contribute to higher rates of single motherhood, which I’m generally fine with. single motherhood may not be ideal, but it can work out fine, and it isn’t a terrible thing. abortion, by contrast, is tantamount to murder, and there are few things worse than that. when it comes to choosing between more abortions and more single mothers, the choice is a very easy one.
Chris S,
That you find something offensive doesn’t make it any less true or worth saying. you have no moral right not to be offended.
I might think homosexuality is a defect of sorts, but I also don’t believe in murdering the unborn. I very much doubt that any nontrivial number of pro lifers would abort their gay children.
since i believe that the vasr majority of us are pptentially biaexual i dont see that as a realistic scenario
since i believe that the vasr majority of us are pptentially biaexual i dont see that as a realistic scenario. the word genocide is also inappropriate and offensive. genocide is a aystematic attempt to eliminate a class of persons. no such campaign exists. the decision of individual parents not to care for such childrwn ia not a campaign.
Hector:
Which is why I focused my comment on how illogical Greg’s comment was. Only my first sentence pointed out that it was offensive. Greg’s comment wasn’t any less true because it was offensive, it was less true because of all the reasons I outlined above that you chose not to respond to.
ki sarita is right about the use of the word “genocide.”
Hi folks — a gentle reminder that we don’t debate abortion at this site. If the thread turns into an abortion debate I’ll need to close it.
It’s a combination of effects including but not limited to the pro-life movement. Another factor at play, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, although it is not ratified here in the US, our culture is effected by it:
For example: http://www.unicef.org/crc/
This has also created a decline in international adoptions as discussed in the Time’s article “The Baby Deficit” (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2133327,00.html) and on First Mother’s Forum blog:
http : //www . firstmotherforum. com/2013/01/can-media-get-adoption-right . html (remove spaces to link)
“…While we’re at it.
The pro-life movement may one day be responsible for the existence of homosexuals. After all, if homsexuality is, indeed, genetic, there will, one day, be a test for it. If that happens, the only people who will be having gay children are the pro-lifers.
In that day, homosexuality will experience the same level of genocide currently reserved for Down’s Syndrome children.”
Umm…..?
Wow, Greg, that’s horribly offensive. It’s pretty appalling that this comment is seen as meeting the civility policy, actually.
Are you talking off-the-cuff, from your own well of anti-homosexuality, or do you have, you know, actual evidence that “the only people” who would have gay babies if a gay gene was identified would be “pro-lifers”?
Hector:
“That you find something offensive doesn’t make it any less true or worth saying. you have no moral right not to be offended.”
The problem isn’t just that people are offended by Greg’s statement, it’s that he’s offered no evidence for his claim. Just because some people are anti-gay bigots, it doesn’t mean all people are anti-gay bigots who view homosexuality as a genetic flaw.
His claim just isn’t logical. It’s very sweeping and he hasn’t provided the necessary evidentiary support to back it up. “Just because Greg says so,” doesn’t work when speaking to grown-ups who aren’t in a sociology classroom.
You know, we may not be able to predict which families would choose to have gay children if they could detect a gene for it. However, I think there is a real concern for gay rights – if it were detectable, I suspect many people would choose to abort.
In addition to supporting Fannie’s comment about the incredible tangle of hateful assumptions in Greg’s assertion — assumptions which he doesn’t support with any evidence — I’d like to add something to Diane M’s point. There is mounting evidence that sexual orientation/desire/behavior is multicausal and — in women, at least, but likely men too, to a lesser extent — subject to change over a lifetime due to internal and external shifts in the environment of human identity and action. So it’s truly unlikely that there will ever be “a” gay gene, or any sort of series of genes or physical mechanisms which could be successfully isolated as “causing” non-hetero sexual desires. Therefore, I don’t think that this can ever become “a real concern for gay rights.”
The degree to which parents try to influence the nature of the children they bring into the world or (if adopting) choose to parent is definitely an area of ethical consideration that extends far beyond sex-selective and theoretical “gay gene” tests. What I think is interesting, in fact, is not so much that procreating adults attempt to shape the outcome of their procreative acts (by selecting procreative partners, by choosing the timing of pregnancies, by seeking out various forms of prenatal testing, etc.) but the degree to which a certain amount of adult shaping of expectations concerning what sort of being they will create is accepted as normal and ethically sound … with very little basis. We routinely assume that it’s acceptable for adults to bring children into the world — to create new life — for essentially self-oriented (rather than new-being-oriented) reasons.
I also conducted the following appalling google search:
“Would you abort a gay baby, poll”
One poll found that more than 80% of respondents would not abort a fetus that had a “gay gene” and that they would in fact support the resulting child.
Another (bizarre) poll found a similar result of 83%. (Bizarre, because it asks whether the respondent would “abort a baby if you knew it would grow up to be gay or Muslim.”
Sure, my methods aren’t super-scientific and I did this all in a matter of like 3 minutes. But, it’s certainly more evidence than what Greg has provided.
In fact, I think sweeping claims like his might say more about him than they do about “most people.”
annajcook, I’m intrigued by your last sentence. How would one give the wishes of a being that doesn’t yet exist primacy in deciding whether or not to parent that being? I mean, I think people routinely take the basics of what most human beings would want and need into consideration when deciding whether or not to be a parent, but it would literally be impossible to drill down into specifics for any given being prior to birth. I knew my daughter would need food, clothing, shelter, love, attention, education, etc—the basics. I didn’t know until she was born—prematurely—exactly how much more than just “the basics” she would need. I didn’t know until she started really recovering from that rough early start what kind of personality and interests she would have. There was no way to predict, for instance, that she’d have a love of science and animals. She’s an avid reader now (as in, her language and lit teacher has to take books away from her in order to redirect her attention in the classroom—she reads too much in the class that is all about books!), but that couldn’t have been predicted four years ago, when she was still struggling.
Bringing that other being into the world? Total roll of the dice. It’s the most unpredictable thing most people do. How could it possibly be directed by that potential other being prior to its existence? Wouldn’t any perspective offered be not by that potential being, but by others? Others who may or may not have that potential being’s best interest at heart? I’d especially be wary of others who are uninvested in the interests of the potential being and his or her family…..which unfortunately seem to comprise the majority of folks doing Monday morning quarterbacking on who ought or ought not to be a parent.
Re: The problem isn’t just that people are offended by Greg’s statement, it’s that he’s offered no evidence for his claim.
You’re probably right, I re-read his claim (which I hadn’t read carefully enough at the start) and it was much too broad. On consideration, I wouldn’t agree with that broad of a statement.
I think *some* people would choose to abort their gay children (assuming that abortion on demand is legal in the future, which it may not be), and that the rate would be higher among pro-choice people, but many would not. I hope that the poll you found is fairly representative of most people’s opinions.
whats wrong with talking about abortion? its not a family issue?
Hector,
I do agree with you that some people likely would choose to abort a fetus just because it had a “gay gene,” unfortunately.
@La Lubu, in making the observation about peoples’ justifications for why they chose to procreate, I am drawing on the work of ethicist Christine Overall (see her book Why Have Children? The Ethical Debate). She asserts that many of the commonly-accepted justifications that people give for choosing to procreate (for example, to carry on the family name, to care for the adult family members in old age, to assuage parental loneliness, to fulfill parental aspirations) are not ethically justified. Her arguments are complex, and you would have to read her book to get a sense of the nuances here. But her conclusion in the book is that the only justification for creating new human life (in a freely-chosen Western modern economic context, caveat, caveat, caveat) is the desire to form an unconditional relationship with the potential human being.
I’m not saying this is a framework I accept wholesale, but I think she makes a lot of really strong points about the way our culture uses children for its own (adult) ends.
Granted, but those responses to the “why are you having a child” challenge are (a) the ones pre-scripted by USian culture, and (b) the ones that are (generally) accepted with a brief nod because of their “practicality”. Try saying, “uhh, because I really want to parent a child! I want to watch and teach and learn as he or she grows from an infant to an adult; participate in all the milestones, join in the great continuum of life” or some such and see the response you get. The universal theme will involve something about hippies and how you are soooo not ready to have a child and what ridiculous expectations you have DON’T YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WORK THIS IS? THIS IS NOT FUN & GAMES!! (*snicker*).
Meanwhile, the reality is that no one who hasn’t already been a parent before has any real idea of what the work involves, just like any other “apprentice” on the first day of the job. It’s hard for a person who hasn’t yet parented to describe exactly what drives him or her to want the challenge. There’s vague ideas, observed scenarios, but no concrete experience to back it up. People tend to give a lot better description about their decision to parent after they’ve had some journey-level experience. I learned fairly early on that if I gave an answer that your author would describe as ethical, I heard no end of criticism (“hey! get a load of this!! Lubu, tell her whatcha just told me. Listen ta what your hippie niece thinks parenting is! Just a walk in the park!!”), and if I just shrugged, smiled and made a noncommittal comment about my biological clock I got nods, smiles, congratulations, “well it’s about time”, “you’re makin’ your mother happy”—no arguments, no ridicule, just a very brief exchange of goodwill.
I’m not keen on the idea of performative justifications. To me, it smacks too much of “what makes you think you’re the kind of person who should be reproducing?! We need a few less of your people, and a few more of these other people over here…you know, my kind of people!” Which isn’t where your author is coming from I’m sure, but still…..it’s what I immediately flash on. And it’s only fair to mention that single women get grilled for the justification pantomime a lot more than married women.
@La Lubu good points all. I won’t speak for Overall on this point, but I take her thoughts more as a pathway of personal meditation or consideration as one makes the decision to procreate, rather than as prescriptive edicts. She is looking out at a mainstream cultural landscape that takes the procreation of (certain “desirable” people) as obviously good — and their decision not to procreate as antisocial. I think she does a good job of situating this discourse in a very politicized context of who “should” and “should not” become a parent (more particularly who “should”/”should not” become a mother). As a self-identified feminist ethicist she works to center women’s ability to make their own procreative choices (to parent as well as to not parent).
I think to reproduce should be the default with no explanations required. Otherwise this bodes very poorly for the reproductive rate in the future.
@annajcook – I was frustrated that I could find the book you recommended in the library or through ILL. Anyhow, I think her standard is too high. People are human and want to reproduce for reasons that make them happy. I actually think that if you only wanted to reproduce in order to serve the child, you would be a miserable parent and therefore, not so good at it. It benefits a child to have a parent who wants to do all the kid stuff.
However, LaLubu – I think from what you say that you are probably parenting with an openness to what your child needs and wants. That seems to me to be the important thing. Whatever the reasons we have for having children, meeting them as individuals and caring for their needs is what matters.