Commenter jez points to an interesting article that describes recent abortion trends and claims that the recent economic troubles led to an increased number of abortions.
In total numbers, 7,869 more abortions were performed in these 16 states during Bush's second year in office than previously. If this trend reflects our nation, 24,000 more abortions were performed during Bush's second year in office than the year before (or three years before in the first three states). Had the previous trends continued, 28,000 fewer abortions should have occurred each year of the Bush era. All in all, probably 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than expected from the earlier trends.Basically, Professor Lewis B. Smedes argues that we need to improve economic conditions to reduce the number of abortions, which sounds like a great idea to me. I obviously disagree with his prescription of government provided benefits, however, since such programs eventually lead to lower standards of living, not higher. And anyway, wouldn't an even better way to reduce abortion be to simply make it illegal? That would cut out 95% of abortions immediately. (Or hey, say 90% -- pick a number, it would be high.)How could this be? I see three contributing factors: ...
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, childcare, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs and insurance and support for prospective mothers.
You mean the way outlawing the possession and sale of narcotics made those illegal practices all but disappear?
Laws don't have the effect they claim -- or hope -- to have, much of the time. Take as an example Brazil, a country whose very constitution equates abortion with murder. Current estimates place the abortion rate in Brazil near a million per year. The missing link is popular assent to the law.
We can -- and should -- outlaw late-term abortions at once. It would be enforceable; the general public would support it overwhelmingly. But earlier abortions -- say, before week thirteen -- put us up against the most painful dilemma in all of social policy. To wit: Shall we pass a law against this heinous practice knowing that it will largely be disregarded and therefore, by its unenforceability, will weaken respect for all other laws? Or shall we tolerate it grudgingly while trying to build a culture of life that, while reducing abortions by voluntary means, would also alter popular sentiment such that it would eventually sustain an enforceable ban?
There are other arguments of varying merits against a total ban on abortion, but for our immediate practical purposes, the above is the clincher.
FWP: Drugs and surgical procedures are very different, as I'm sure you'd agree. There's enough disapproval towards abortion that a ban would be enforcable.
Abortions are not as easy to "conceal" as drug paraphenalia, either.
Neither are abortions addictive.
At least, I hope they're not.
Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative.
Kinda makes me wonder whether Murder, Robbery, and Larceny also rose in a similar degree as abortion, considering how they also are not separate issues from Economic policy...
BAH! Some people have no problem trampling over the bodies of the dead to reach their political goals. Some even make a business out of it.
If the law is that doctors lose their medical licenses, you can sure bet there will be a massive cut in the number of abortion doctors.
More to the point, a lot of very well-off women get abortions too, and make sure their errant teenage daughters get them, as well. I believe the county I used to live in in Maryland had one of the highest teen abortion rates in the country... and we were a very rich county, with the bulk of the money coming from govt workers. Ex-hippie types, you know. It's not all a matter of money.