I do not see this as third world v/s first world (btw, those terms no longer make sense after the collapse of the USSR) in any way as there are developed nations that have lower birth control than others and developing that have lower etc.
As Brian points out, accepting birth control is a slippery slope to abortion
We agree on the main point.
But I never thought I’d find disagreement on “what is a third world nation”...but you’re the second poster on the thread that makes the claim that the term “Third World” somehow don’t make “sense”.
If you have ever been to a third world city where thousands of people have sheets of corrugated metal that define their living space, you’ll understand that denying that there is a “third world” would be humorous, if it weren’t for the incomprehensible level of human misery you see when you stand on the edge of one of these shantytowns.
Usually Birth Control isn’t a big part of the residents of such places lives.
There IS a third world, and it is directly relevant to this issue. Sometimes you have to go there (to the shantytown) to understand how absurd your claim is.
Even the Supreme Court admitted this. From Contraception & Abortion: The Deadly Connection
The Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey decision, which placed some legal restrictions on access to abortion including informed consent and parental consent, reaffirmed the basic tenets of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833
In what is probably the key passage to the entire decision, the Court argued that the legal necessity of surgical abortion is based on its social use as backup contraception:
The Roe rule's limitation on state power could not be repudiated without serious inequity to people who, for two decades of economic and social developments, have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. The Constitution serves human values, and while the effect of reliance on Roe cannot be exactly measured, neither can the certain costs of overruling Roe for people who have ordered their thinking and living around that case be dismissed.
Again, what the Casey Court is essentially saying is that legal abortion as backup contraception is a social necessity. The pro-life community, therefore, needs to examine the role of contraception in legally sustaining abortion-on-demand - on propping up, so to speak, Roe v. Wade. We would be foolish to ignore what the United States Supreme Court is telling us here. Sadly, many pro-lifers sink their collective heads in the sand when it comes to the sensitive issue of contraception and its social and legal link to surgical abortion.