So does that mean abortions-on-demand for everyone?
Every expecting mother knows that what's in her body is an innocent child - her child. The vast majority who do get abortions don't want to have that abortion, but feel it's necessary. How does this apply to the health of our nation as a whole? Economists Stephen Dubner and Steven Levitt, authors of Freakonomics, point out that the first five states that allowed abortion after Roe v. Wade are also the first five states that showed significant drops in crime rates during the nationwide decline of violent crime in the 1990's. They point out that apparently, young mothers generally know if they are physically, emotionally, and financially ready to raise a child. If they are not able to do so, yet are forced to have the child anyway, the child grows with less care and less opportunity (and more poverty), and is more likely to fall into a life of crime.
And this bears out in much of the world, too. Generally speaking, modern industrialized countries where abortion is not severely restricted have lower rates of poverty, corruption, and crime than do modern industrialized countries that severely restrict or outlaw abortion.
So what's the solution?
It depends. If we severely restrict or totally outlaw abortion, statistics strongly indicate we will have significant increases in poverty and crime...which bring more unwanted pregnancies, and we have a vicious circle. But at least every embryo would have the rights of a breathing child.
If we allow abortion, however, statistics strongly indicate that crime decreases and society as a whole benefits. Personally, I am pro-choice, because I feel I do not have the right to tell a young woman what she can or can't do when she is pregnant. I also strongly feel that it is a hypocrisy to hold an embryo to be so precious, yet to have little compunction about the 'collateral damage' that surely comes with invading other countries. I suspect that, like religion, the "pro-life" argument is less a moral conviction than a rhetorical tool used by many conservatives to gain or solidify political power.
But those are just suspicions. Right now, I need to talk to my wife because a social worker called (just while I was typing this) to see if we have space for another disabled child with a g-tube. Will we take him? I don't know - it depends.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Daniel Miller
Contrarian,
First off, permit to offer you my sincere congratulations on doing what you and your wife think best. Also, and with equal sincerity, permit me to congratulate you on not wanting to impose your views on others.
Were adoption a more viable and less onerous alternative within the U.S. than it is, and were many more people to feel the desire to do what you have been doing voluntarily and because you think it right, the world might well be a far better place. Unfortunately, it does not appear that it will become so or that they do or will. I certainly have never felt the same way, or behaved or spoken as though I did.
I also agree with you in questioning whether preserving for the indefinite future the lives of those who can never assume a functional role in society is a good thing. You seem to have concluded that it is, for you, and I very much respect that position.
Dan(Miller)
2 - Verge
Are you Insane? Let's just say for a moment we did enforce every law on a pregnant mother as you suggest. Do you really think this would cost us money? How much would be saved by having healthy children rather than children with life long problems that are lifelong burdens to the state?
The two children you claim to have will cost the state tens of millions of dollars. These two children are, according to you, the product of mothers making poor decisions while they were pregnant. How could we better use that money; paying for lifelong support of children that will never get a chance to really live or educating mothers to take better care of themselves especially when they are pregnant so this does not happen to any more innocent children?
The stance that life begins at conception is irrefutable. The only question is when does that life deserve the right to live. For me that is easy, at conception. See for me, a life is a life, it is not the mothers body to do with what she wishes and it is not between her and her God, if she believes on one. It is the body of her unborn child and she has no more right to take that life than I do to take yours. Of course you make some exceptions such as when the mother's life is at stake but those decisions should always take the fact that an unborn child is also a life into account.
3 - Jordan Richardson
Verge,
The lack of compassion in your comments is disturbing, as is the vitriol and absolutism.
4 - Cannonshop
The debate is good. There is a conflict of interests here that no matter where you come down, will not be easily solved. Where does the right of one, overcome the right of the other?
and how do you enforce it?
Pro-Life and Pro-Choice are MORAL positions, and each of them has pros and cons associated with their stances.
5 - Daniel Miller
Verge,
I agree with Cannonshop; I also detect a bit of confusion in your comment. You might want to go back and read the article. I don't think it says what you seem to think it says.
Dan(Miller)
6 - Dave Nalle
I think Verge's comment suffers more from a lack of comprehension than a lack of compassion. I don't think he understood word one of the article.
That said, there is a certain lack of awareness of the law displayed in the article. People ARE prosecuted for miscarrying when it is the result of abuse of some sort - usually under negligent homicide. The same is true in the case of pregnant women who drink excessively. There is no question that under current law a fetus has the presumption of some rights. The question is whether those rights are absolute and whether they trump the rights of the mother and of society.
I think it's very noble what you're doing for your two kids, Glenn. However, given the condition which they are in and the expense of maintaining it, I'm hard put not to make the argument that you (or I guess the foster system) are doing the same thing as the right to lifers, and forcing the same kind of burden on society and your fellow taxpayers that the right-to-lifers want to force on pregnant women.
Dave
7 - Jordan Richardson
The notion of complaining to the author of this piece that his children will cost millions of dollars is entirely devoid of compassion, as are any such notions that attach the value of life to a dollar sign.
I also agree that Verge didn't comprehend the article.
8 - Dave Nalle
Jordan, that's not what i did. I just pointed out that there's no real difference between forcing a baby on a mother who doesn't want it and forcing me and other taxpayers to support a child who I don't want.
I do see that there's a moral difference, and certainly an emotional difference if you're personally involved, but technically and objectively not so much.
Dave
9 - Jonathan Scanlan
I think the best response to that whole "you could be aborting the next Da Vinci or Beethoven" is best countered with "you could be aborting the next Adolf Hitler," and so far as crime rates you cite above...
10 - Jet
...or the next Palin, or Jerry Falwell, or (cringe) George W. Bush!!!!
11 - Jet
Calling a bunch of week-old cells an "unborn child" is about as stupid as calling a used car "pre-owned"
Both are as intentionally misleading as calling a block of aluminum an "unbuilt car" or a hamburger a ground up piece of a dead cow.
12 - STM
Or a live cow as a hamburger in waiting ...
13 - Jet
Speaking of uncrowned Kings, I wonder how long the Queen will hang on so that Harry is crowned instead of Charles?
14 - STM
Mate, I think the only way that can happen is if he dies first. Then it has to pass to William, as he's second in line to the throne, but if it doesn't, Charles gets the nod and then he passes it on to William when he dies.
The big problem for Charles is that longevity is a family trait among the Windsor women in her mother's side of the family - Liz could hang on for another 30 years, by which time Charles might be a goner and William a middle-aged man!
While we're on our political high horses here, I'll just say it doesn't matter that much to the running of the country though, because really they don't have any power. The monarch, filling an equivalent role as head of state on the executive branch to that of the US President, actually has far less power than the Prez and more or less acts as a rubber stamp to the elected parliament. Since Britain became a constitutional monarchy in the late 1600s, it's the Prime Minister who rules the roost. In theory the Queen has plenty of power, but in practice, there are legally binding conventions in place that don't allow her free rein. Or virtually no rein.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 set down a number of conditions in relation to a constitutional monarchy, the key one of which was freedom from royal interference with the law. Britain's constitution is unwritten but is made up of conventions, common law, legal judgments, statutory decisions, Acts of Parliament, etc, going back centuries. What it gives is much the same constitution as that of the written one of United States, as Britain, or England specifically, was a champion of democracy, personal freedoms and liberties well before the birth of the US. In effect, very different paths led to the same place (and around the same time).
For instance, in Australia, Miranda-style rights aren't protected by the constitution, but are protected at common law (originally inherited from England) and must be read to a suspect charged with a criminal offence.
There is also the same protection in regard to not giving evidence against yourself in court, etc. Free speech is not specifically mentioned as a right, but is a right specifically taken to be implied (legally) under the constitution because of the laws and conventions that have existed for so long.
Of course, your old friend Mad King George exercised undue influence in parliament by having his lackeys elected through what were known as "rotten boroughs", parliamentary seats with few voters, which is one of the reasons for the American revolution, and which had the Whigs held the upper hand in parliament, would never have happened as they wanted the American colonies to be given full home rule - independence withoutout bloodshed. I don't know the numbers, but I understand they came close to achieving that, but not close enough. The 18th century equivalent of the Republicans just happened to be in power in Britain at the time, so you got a real blood-and-guts revolution.
And when you read that the Queen appoints ministers, she actually doesn't choose them. They are chosen by their political parties and she just formally appoints them. No monarch would refuse to do it, unless there was some kind of constitutional crisis and a break down in rule of law.
However, what all that means is that they could put me or you on the throne and it wouldn't make any difference, except that we'd get to live in a palace ... and be followed around by paparazzi.
Which mightn't be so bad Jet, because the only thing worse than people talking about you is people not talking about you.
15 - Lisa Solod Warren
Only in blogville could comments go from medically fragile children and the abortion debate to the Queen of England, in a matter of seconds. How DO that happen?
16 - my opinion
First let me say I am pro choice. My issue with your opinion is that I have an autistic son. To my knowledge, this was not a result of anything I did while I was pregnant. I am not in poverty and I did not make poor choices that harmed my unborn child. I'm glad you are taking care of the children you have. Children with disabilities are not always results of poorly planned and cared for pregnancies and they do have rights. Do you think they asked to be disabled?
17 - Joanne Huspek
Glen, you are a saint among men.
As for the debate, this will rage on with or without us, from both sides. I might be somewhat conservative, but I think women should have the option.
I love it listening to MEN debate this issue.
18 - Dr Dreadful
I love it listening to MEN debate this issue.
Yes, we do always seem to be the ones with the loudest and most divorced-from-reality opinions on the subject...!
19 - Jordan Richardson
Jordan, that's not what i did.
I know, Dave. I was referring to Verge's comments directly towards the author of the piece, not to your comments.
20 - Andy Marsh
I have a question. Is there a point in a pregnancy when a miscarriage can no longer happen?
This seems like it could be a relavent part of the argument.
The way I look at this issue is, It's not my place to say one way or the other what YOU do with your baby/fetus/embryo, just as it's not your place to tell anyone else. You're the one that has to live with that choice, one way or the other. But, if I was part of the cause of that baby/fetus/embryo's creation, then I should have a say.
Personally, I wouldn't want to bring a handicapped child into this world, things are bad enough without having to start out with an anchor around your neck. And I also understand that sometimes you don't know what will happen. I can remember watching my girls come into this world and just hoping, really really hoping, that they came out normal. They're as normal as can be considering who there father is!!!
I also have friends that bought a prefectly healthy baby into the world only to watch her change because of some hosed up innoculations...so, really, you never know...you rolls the dice...you takes your chances!
But there are also plenty of kids out there that were born healthy, that just because of this accident of birth, start out with anchors around their necks because they don't have the support and love required or needed to grow up healthy, mentally or physically. Those people, it would seem, made the wrong choice.
21 - Jordan Richardson
It's interesting how you never can tell.
A Mormon friend of my wife's was told to have an abortion due to complications with the child inside the womb. The kid was apparently going to have a pretty tough go of it, as the cord was around its neck and so forth. But as a Mormon, the mother denied the abortion and moved ahead with the delivery.
The child is fine; he's 6 years old now and completely healthy. He also wants to be a hockey player!
There are always those instances, like Andy said "you rolls the dice," that can change perceptions. Personally I probably would have aborted the child, although it's never an easy decision. I just know that women in our nations and societies need our support and compassion, regardless of what personal decisions they need to make.
22 - Dr Dreadful
Is there a point in a pregnancy when a miscarriage can no longer happen?
You mean when does it stop being a miscarriage and become a premie?
That's actually a pretty easy one to call. If the baby is delivered alive, with a developed set of viable organs - even if it initially needs assistance in using them - it's not a miscarriage.
23 - Cannonshop
"I just know that women in our nations and societies need our support and compassion, regardless of what personal decisions they need to make."
Better than any law. Truer, too.
24 - Sara
You're a phony. You aren't caring for special needs children. Your words defy you as you have no ounce of compassion.
25 - Andy Marsh
Okay Doc - is there a time frame you can put on that? Like first second third tri...something along those lines?