A Coherent Anti- Abortion Policy

There are several ways to handle the issue about terminating unwanted pregnancies. 

Here are ones I consider unreasonable.

Make abortion illegal.  This might not reduce abortions, although it would remove them from public consideration.   As there would be fewer regulations around how abortions are made, women who have abortions would be exposed to greater risk.  Now women would be criminalized, AND fetuses would still be destroyed. 

We know a few things about who has abortions.  Single women have more than married women.  We could, then, criminalize sex outside of marriage, fining men and women who do so.  We could keep abortion legal, but then penalize men and women equally for engaging in sexual activity before marriage.   

Children now, unlike one hundred years ago, are economic burdens. People choose to have children now because they offer more joy and happiness rather than being a cost.  We could, to wit, relax child labor laws. 

Is sex outside of marriage more of a sin than abortion?  If "yes," then we should criminalize the former.  If not, then allow for the full range of contraceptives to be available to women to reduce the harm for all parties.  I would argue that there is less harm with birth control than with an abortion.  I recognize this offends the utopian sensibilities of some.   

This would prevent more pregancies.  As it is, some pharmacists reject such a notion.  Their view is that if one should have sex, then one should bear the consequences.  However, since we live in a country where abortions are available, it simply changes when the woman decides to terminate the pregnancy.  So the question is, pills or abortion?   A credible anti-abortion policy would allow easy access to other forms of contraception, unless the real issue is the sexuality of single women.

Women tend to keep the pregnancy when they are married.  Women prefer to marry men who are employed.  This makes sense:  Children are expensive, and mothers generally want the best for their children.  Mothers generally know that children take time, energy and resources.    So if we want single women to keep their child, we can establish a variety of economic incentives.  These would include:  health care to term and after for six years; a subsidy to pay for day care and child support; an economy in which men had jobs with health care.   If we were serious about ending abortion, we'd support these policies.  But Americans are cheap when it comes to children.

Contemporary women do have more choices.  They can decide to marry a man who has prospects, or support themselves while single. 

I wonder if there is a deeper issue here:  do we expect the state to be coercive or persuasive?   I suggest that laws often don't work as well as we expect.  Sometimes they do, when they tap into a subconscious desire of the citizenry [say, for example, the pooper-scooper laws in NYC]. Otherwise, other forms of incentives are kinder, reduce harm, and create life, while implicitly recognizing that the world is imperfect. Policies are best when they are realistic and reduces harm.  Choice is currently one of them.   

But the state has every right to support institutions that reduce abortion, not by insults, shame or hatred, but by offering more opportunities for women to choose otherwise.  Let the citizens support adoption centers and health care for children.  And then we can together watch abortions become reduced to where it becomes a rare misfortune.

Comments

[Phil Snyder]

I'm afraid that it isn't so easy, John. My wife and I waited three years to adopt our son. Three years. We weren't waiting for an anglo baby either; our son's birth mother and father are both native Mexican nationals and not of European decent (or at least not visibly).

I can't remember in which issue, but First Things cited a study that found adoption was the least chosen outcome for women with unplanned pregnancy. No matter how attractive we make it, adoption had all the pains of bearning a child, but none of the joys.

One of the biggest problems in our society is that we think we are a bunch of individuals who were designed for self-actualization. Whatever hinders our personal sense of happiness now is bad and can be done away with. I'm pregnant? Well, now is not a very good time for me, so bye bye baby. I don't like the person I married or (s)he is keeping me from being happy now? Bye bye!

We are raised on instant gratification and get all you can and you deserve the best. This is a lie. We are not individuals. We are persons who were designed to live in community. OUr life together is to reflect the life of the Holy Trinity. All the economic incentives in the world will not stop a woman (or a man) from persuing her self perceived self-actualization - only changing her heart will do that.

As a sensible abortion policy how about 1st trimester abortions being available with very few restrictions (such as a discussion of the options and where they can be obtained and the dangers - physical and psychological - of abortion). Second trimester abortions would be available with significantly more restrictions - such as cases arising from rape or incest or where the physical health of the mother is seriously at risk. Third trimester abortions would only be performed in the very rarest of cases and require some form of hospital review before proceeding?

I still consider abortion to be wrong and sinful, but I am also somewhat of a realist and think that the vast majority of Americans would approve of this type of abortion law.

Of course, the "hard core" on either side would rather have the issue available for fund raising than have a sensible solution. That is why I never give to political parties. Often they don't want solutions. They just want issues to use to raise more funds.

YBIC,
Phil Snyder

[IT]

Now you are talking. I think a lot of us could agree on a policy like this. (My partner, a firm Catholic, and I, a firm atheist, agree that this is a reasonable compromise,m which is my test!)

First trimester, unrestricteed.
Second trimester, more limits.
Last trimester, major medical issues required to allow. I would add, that the state defers to the medical professionals. Because I do not believe most medical profiessionals would lightly support a 3rd trimester abortion.

This is something indeed that many of us CAN agree upon. IF....IF we can trust each other to stick to it.

[John Wilkins]

I'm not disputing that its hard to find women willing to go to term. It would be interesting to figure out why and ask if there are any economic incentives. This will not solve the entire problem, but it might increase the number.

And, of course, there are still plenty of children out there. They are simply not babies.

[John Wilkins]

I'm not disputing that its hard to find women willing to go to term. It would be interesting to figure out why and ask if there are any economic incentives. This will not solve the entire problem, but it might increase the number.

And, of course, there are still plenty of children out there. They are simply not babies.

[Kabir]

Any time restrictions are placed regarding how people treat sex and laws regarding the consequences of lifestyle choices the burden of responsibility is always on the female. Perhaps not by intention, but it works out that way for several reasons.

Often when a community is challenged by what is morally tolerable a bit of anger rises to the surface regarding our concerns. We often feel helpless in our ability to change things, we want quick easy answers, and we get frustrated when the quick answer doesn't solve the problem. The compassionate alternative to our problems is often the hardest one to offer.

A woman has an abortion when alternatives seem unavailable. Regulating abortion may seem compassionate to the fetus but it is still seen as disempowerment of women and the result is not so compassionate, and in some ways inhumane.

The hard but most effective answer to abortion is to help prevent unwanted pregnancies, offer love and support through outreach not persecution. Education and support for a sustainable lifestyle is empowering especially for those with questions regarding sex. When you take away choices you reduce dialogue (criminalization of drug offenders makes treating drug problems and public health issues more difficult). At times when we place judgment before free dialogue we give up on learning constructive ways of addressing our concerns.

I always considered myself pro-life, but let’s say we regulate freedom of choice and we effectively eliminate the termination of unwanted pregnancies, isn’t there something spiritually damaging by the state making the decision for me? If doing the morally Christian thing is the only legal one to make, then how can one feel spiritually empowered by making a religious choice when it’s all ready been decided? Why should we not endorse a woman’s choice? Shouldn’t women have a choice to not have an abortion?