Is abortion eugenics for the poor?

[ShawnRIN]

Someone asked me this and I don't really have a good answer so I though I would ask this group. It certainly seems that poor people have more of them. I wouldn't think this plausible but with studies of HIV/AIDs training in the late 80s and reverse redlining for junk home loans it might be worth examining.

[peacebird]

1. I don't think so. To be eugenics wouldn't someone be forcing them to have abortions?

To thin their genes out of the gene pool?

I think the gutting of the social safety net might be considered such however...

[Scootaloo]

2. Nope

Eugenics (\yü-ˈje-niks\) is the bio-social movement which advocates practices to improve the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.

It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of more desired people and traits, and reduced reproduction of less desired people and traits.

Poverty is not a genetic situation.

[DreamGypsy]

3. No. It's economics.

From 2011, ABORTION RATE INCREASING AMONG POOR WOMEN, EVEN AS IT DECREASES AMONG MOST OTHER GROUPS (emphasis mine):

Substantial Decline Seen Among African American Women

New Guttmacher research finds that abortion rates declined among most groups of women between 2000 and 2008. However, one notable exception was poor women (those with family incomes less than 100% of the federal poverty level). Poor women accounted for 42% of all abortions in 2008, and their abortion rate increased 18% between 2000 and 2008, from 44.4 to 52.2 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44. In comparison, the national abortion rate for 2008 was 19.6 per 1,000, reflecting an 8% decline from a rate of 21.3 in 2000. Abortion rates decreased 18% among African American women in the same period, the largest decline among the four racial and ethnic groups examined. Notwithstanding this decline, the abortion rate among African American women is higher than the rate for both Hispanic and non-Hispanic white women: 40.2 per 1,000, compared with 28.7 and 11.5, respectively.

<snip>

The authors suggest that the ongoing economic recession may have made it harder for poor women to obtain contraceptive services, resulting in more unintended pregnancies. In addition, when confronted with an unintended pregnancy, women who might have felt equipped to support a child or another child in a more stable economic climate may have decided that they were unable to do so during a time of economic uncertainty.

“That abortion is becoming increasingly concentrated among poor women suggests the need for better contraceptive access and family planning counseling. It certainly appears these women are being underserved,” says study author Rachel K. Jones. “Antiabortion restrictions and cuts to publicly funded family planning services disproportionately affect poor women, making it even more difficult for them to gain access to the contraceptive and abortion services they need.”

...which is exactly why the current efforts by anti-abortion legislators to cut women's health care services is diametrically the opposite of what should be happening.

[tularetom]

4. Poor people don't necessarily have more abortions

It's just that wealthy women have their abortions done discreetly.

They may not even call it an "abortion".

It's always been that way and it always will be.

When the 1% figure out that they don't need the rest of us for cheap labor anymore, abortions will be mandatory.

[Freddie]

5. Friend is an OBGYN doc at a city hospital

She said there are some women who don't trust the "medical establishment" and refuse to use the Pill, IUD, etc. fearing its a plot to make them sterile.

[Ilsa]

6. No, but it's used by the poor to delay

procreation until they can take care of themselves and their children. Most of us would like to delay having children until we can afford daycare, etc without excessive family and work stress.