Tim Murphy 04/09/01 Sociology Critical Analysis Paper #3 This article is another piece of written truth as to how one's social upbringing reflects their views and opinions.
The average pro-life activist tends to be a lesser-educated individual who grew up seeing family life as a root to all means. Her parents were of a lower income bracket, barely finished high school, and more that likely her parents provided many siblings. She wed directly out of high school to a low income white collar worked and has many children herself. The pro-life activist believes strongly in the church and the fact that the main purpose of sexuality is procreation. These women were raised to believe that motherhood is the single most rewarding role for a woman. When they become pregnant, whether planned or not, they feel that there is always room for another child no matter what their financial status is.
On the other side there is the pro-choice activist. She came from a home where her parents, or at least her father, has a college degree and were members of a higher income level. The average pro-choice activist has a college degree and married a professional male at a later age than the average pro-life activist did. She expects to give her children the most she can, or at least equal to what she has been given. Pro-choice supporters look upon the reality of whether or not a parent or the average person can provide for the children of unwanted pregnancies properly. She has focused on sexuality as a way to express herself emotionally and as a means of intimacy. Pro-choice activists believe that contraception is an acceptable means of expressing this intimacy, whereas pro-life supporters frown on the thought of contraception.
When comparing the two views of these activists, it is clear to see how one's social upbringing will effect their views. Pro-life supporters have always been exposed to the idea that no matter what, there is always room for another child in their home. They have seen their mother as being the homemaker and caregiver for all family members. These supporters feel it is their place in society to provide the nurturing for the rest of the family while the male is the working mate of the two and not matter how financially set they are, they will find a way to provide.
Pro-choice supporters on the other hand have been raised in a higher social class where more than likely both parents, but at least the father, have a college degree. They have pursued college and have married mate equal to themselves. They share beliefs with their mates that they are equal beings and want to give their children the best they can. Hence the fact, they would rather not bring a child into the world without being able to fully provide for the child the way they were provided for.
One can gather from this article that pro-life supporters, since raised without a lot of financial stability and are unable to provide much for themselves, are unable to see the reasoning to want to give their children the best they can. They provide to the best of their means and feel that their children will be able to do the same. Pro-choice supporters believe in a better way of life and want to establish a sound foundation in which to raise their children and give the best that they can. I see both sides and cannot disagree with either outlook these two groups have. I personally have to go against the pro-life supporters for the fact that our children are our future and unseen circumstances arise that we cannot control. The choice to abort an unwanted pregnancy is a good one, as long as the pregnancy is of no fault to the practicing parties. It is our duties as parents to provide the best for our children and we should not sacrifice that at any means.