Is it logically good to allow abortion/birth control?

[MKSheppard]

I've been thinking a bit; if abortion/birth control is relatively cheap (ie, isn't outrageously expensive), and is widely available; the kinds of people who would use it widely would be science-minded people; while the people who would shun it would be religiously-minded people (for moral or ethical reasons)

With that in mind, is abortion/BC actually harmful to the overall population?

You can see some of this effect in Israel, until recently IIRC, you had subsidies for having a huge clutch of kids; and as a result, lots of ultra-orthodox fundamentalist Jews had large families, skewing the balance of power politically towards them.

With abortion/BC, it stands to reason that the only people who would be having larger families would be the fundamentalists, and while being born and raised in a fundamentalist household doesn't automatically mean you're a fundamentalist, it significantly increases the chances of you being one.

Also, you have to take into account the political factors; if there are more fundamentalists breeding than secularists, the demography of the population will change, affecting voting patterns as well; there's a very strong possibility, in my opinion, that if Roe v. Wade hadn't happened, Al Gore would have won in 2000; he would have had more votes to push him over Bush.

What's the opinion on this hypothesis/postulation?

Does it have merit or is it full of bullshit?

[Gil Hamilton]

Yeah, fundamentalists do typically produce larger families, but I doubt that abortion being banned would change that anyway. Western countries birth rates are in decline anyway and a few million more pregnancies coming to term aren't going to change that very much, nor would it stop a person from getting an abortion if they wanted one enough, though it would be considerably less safe.

More to the point however is that just because fundamentalists are breeding more doesn't nullify the reasons why abortion should be kept safe and legal.

Plus you've got a large problem with what you do with all the unwanted births now that people are getting significantly more pregnant with the ban on birth control. As Cairber pointed out in the abortion thread on N&P, the country has very poor means of supporting the influx of unwanted babies. Should we institutionalize them in foster centers with the hope that someone will adopt them? Orphanages are really shitty places to group up in, especially the undoubtably packed ones that will arise in major cities. I doubt very much that large amounts grow up to be "science-minded" to beat back the fundies.

That's kind of the problem with your premise. You assume that it is widely "science-minded people" who use birth control and have abortions (very often it is not) and you assume that should have have an unwanted birth, they'll keep them and raise them up to be like them, rather than fostering them or putting them in orphanages. Dividing the country into "science-minded people" and "religious minded people" is a false dichotomy. I'd say a majority of Americans are neither and they certainly use alot of birth control.

[Pick]

Or you could take this to the other stupid logical extreme and say we should logically shoot the children of morons.

[Instant Sunrise]

One of the books I read for my Econonomics class, had a chapter where the author cited Roe vs. Wade as the cause of the 1990's crime drop.(Freakamonics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. ISBN - 006073132X).

The Argument put forward was that all the other theories that criminologists had put forward could not account for the total amount crime reduces. And that the ~15 year-old "superpredators" who would have been coming of age at that point were not being born because their mothers had had abortions years previously because of Roe vs Wade. The other bit of evidence put forth was that the cities and states that had legalised aborting prior to Roe experienced crime drops before the ones that didn't.

[SirNitram]

I've been thinking a bit; if abortion/birth control is relatively cheap (ie, isn't outrageously expensive), and is widely available; the kinds of people who would use it widely would be science-minded people; while the people who would shun it would be religiously-minded people (for moral or ethical reasons)

I disagree with the silly oversimplification here. One does not have to be 'science-minded' to use abortion. One simply has to have misfortune: Birth control isn't availiable, or fails, or rape or incest occours. Indeed, most of those I've met who have had to have such were religious; after all, they refused birth control, or were taught abstinence only, a proven failure.

With that in mind, is abortion/BC actually harmful to the overall population?

In a world of six billion and rising? Not statistically.

You can see some of this effect in Israel, until recently IIRC, you had subsidies for having a huge clutch of kids; and as a result, lots of ultra-orthodox fundamentalist Jews had large families, skewing the balance of power politically towards them.

Skewing balances of power are typically bad, as is subsisting off of subsidies. Ergo, spawning en mass is not necessarily a good.

With abortion/BC, it stands to reason that the only people who would be having larger families would be the fundamentalists, and while being born and raised in a fundamentalist household doesn't automatically mean you're a fundamentalist, it significantly increases the chances of you being one.

A gross oversimplification, like most of this post. Large families would go to those who desire large families, and have the means to support them. This is undoutably a net good; if you can prevent yourself having more children than you can support, you can make sure you're not living beyond your means.

Also, you have to take into account the political factors; if there are more fundamentalists breeding than secularists, the demography of the population will change, affecting voting patterns as well; there's a very strong possibility, in my opinion, that if Roe v. Wade hadn't happened, Al Gore would have won in 2000; he would have had more votes to push him over Bush.

This is a specious argument at best, with very little to back it up. Plus, it relies on anyone in their right mind voting for the cardboard that is Gore.

What's the opinion on this hypothesis/postulation?

Does it have merit or is it full of bullshit?

It's full of gross oversimplifications of simply making it 'Secular Humanists' v. 'Religious fundies'. The world never has and likely never will turn into a black/white 'Ultra sensible nuclear family' or 'Huge religious family reproducing for JEBUS!' conflict.

[Alex Moon]

One of the books I read for my Econonomics class, had a chapter where the author cited Roe vs. Wade as the cause of the 1990's crime drop.(Freakamonics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. ISBN - 006073132X).

The Argument put forward was that all the other theories that criminologists had put forward could not account for the total amount crime reduces. And that the ~15 year-old "superpredators" who would have been coming of age at that point were not being born because their mothers had had abortions years previously because of Roe vs Wade. The other bit of evidence put forth was that the cities and states that had legalised aborting prior to Roe experienced crime drops before the ones that didn't.

Levitts theory is very heavily disputed in the Economics field, and even if it was true, so what? Assuming that increased abortion among lower class women caused a corresponding drop in crime statistics later is pretty useless. Would you suggest we force abortions on lower class women as a crime prevention measure?

As for the adoption angle, it's mostly bunk. Yes, the system in this country sucks, but that's because it's been made damn hard for people to adopt. The problem is that people want to adopt babies, both because they want to experience all of parenting, and because older children often come with a massive load of problems that most people aren't capable of dealing with. IIRC, a lot of children in foster care are caught in a legal battle between the state and parents who are fighting to keep them. Such battles last years, and by the time it's decided, the damage has already been done.

[Simplicius]

There are factors which influence birthrates more than whether or not women in a given population choose abortion.

From here, the countries with the highest birth rates are those which do not benefit from such things as development and education, while the vastest majority of those with the lowest birthrates are those which do.

Things like widespread education, established rights, and stable, functioning economies tend to reduce birth rates because 1) both men and women are working, which eats into the time and effort it takes to bear and raise children, and 2) in developed societies, raising children becomes more cost-prohibitive when extensive education, health care as necessary, and even just living in an urban environment with its attendant expenses are taken into account.

If I understand what you mean by "science-minded people", MKSheppard, then most of those people can be found in more developed societies or regions, which can account for any lower birthrate among them.

[Quadlok]

I advocate an implementation of the Platonian model, wherein the offspring of the stupid are discretely left to die in a canyon somewhere. kidding

Really, I doubt its having much of an effect. This is purely anecdotal, but most of the young women I've known who were on birth control or have expressed a willingness to have an abortion weren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer.

[dworkin]

Nice to see eugenics is as popular as ever.

Oh noes! The undesirables are outbreeding the desirables

[Justforfun000]

It's simply too broad a question. It's like asking if we sterilized half the world, would this be good for humanity. It's just too simplistic a premise. The only step you can follow from this is a "well it depends", and then you would have every qualifying situation imaginable.

Abortion and birth control have to be measured from the perspective of an ethical rights issue that is more personal instead of global. Most people tend to at least agree that a person's life is the first and foremost consideration and even the most hardcore pro-lifer usually makes an exception for a mother in danger of death from the birthing process. So the existing life is presupposed to be a seniority in consideration if you will.

It's all of the reasons afterwards that have more to deal with inconvenience, interering with someone's lifestyle or planned future, simple irresponsibility, rape, etc. that muddies the ethical waters so much. Everyone has a different opinion on what should be "ok" as to choice of terminating pregnancy.

As to trying to make an overall judgement on it in relation to the global community of humans, it simply can't be done in any meaningful way. The "morality" of it is far too individual.

[Gil Hamilton]

Levitts theory is very heavily disputed in the Economics field, and even if it was true, so what? Assuming that increased abortion among lower class women caused a corresponding drop in crime statistics later is pretty useless. Would you suggest we force abortions on lower class women as a crime prevention measure?

There is a negative correlation between the two, that much is true. Whether there is causation is the issue.

However, what you posted is a strawman. He never suggested forced abortions as a crime preventive measure, he posted a theory that suggests that the correlation between the two may be based on some causation. That's kind of a freak out response, going "OMG! Eugenics!" in much the same way that there was the conservative dude who suggested in a morbid hypothetical scenario that if you aborted all the black babies, crime would drop statistically, and was jumped on by people taking his quote out of context.

Further, I have a question. Do those economists who "heavily dispute" Levitt's theory happen to be Pro-Life and posting their disputes on pro-life websites or linked to by pro-life sites? It seems to me that the anti-abortion crowd have compelling reasons to dispute such a theory no matter what, whether Levitt has a point or doesn't. That's why there are so many people arguing all over the place about stem cell issue, despite experimental research, because they can't possibly give any ground now that they've taken an absolutist position on the matter.

As for the adoption angle, it's mostly bunk. Yes, the system in this country sucks, but that's because it's been made damn hard for people to adopt. The problem is that people want to adopt babies, both because they want to experience all of parenting, and because older children often come with a massive load of problems that most people aren't capable of dealing with. IIRC, a lot of children in foster care are caught in a legal battle between the state and parents who are fighting to keep them. Such battles last years, and by the time it's decided, the damage has already been done.

This is why the system is a wholely unsuitable system for children to be in. You posted that the adoption angle is bunk and then outlined exactly why we should be trying as hard as we can to keep people out of that system. That system is bad and massively overworked enough without dumping potentially millions more bodies into it.

[Stravo]

I have an issue with the idea that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the crime drop. He ignores the impact of the Crack Epidemic. That's what fueled the crime waves of the 80's. Now in 2006 many crack heads are either dead or rehab'd and the drug has a stigma attached to it that is driving customers away towards other drugs like heroin. We no longer have the violence that rocked the inner cities of America when Crack was introduced. However keep your eyes on Crank. It is gutting the rural areas of the midwest in a similar mini crime wave and it could spread to big cities.

It just seems like that kind of logic - counting embryoes before they're birthed as crime statistics smacks of the same kind of logic that says "Don't jerk off because with every orgasm you lose a potential genius who cures Cancer or Beethoven or Mozart." No one worries about jerking off and losing a Hitler or a Stalin.

[Gil Hamilton]

Absolutely true, I'm just saying that the person above was pointing to a theory that suggested that the colloration between abortion rates and crime rates may have causation. He wasn't arguing anything more and that certain people who'd heavily dispute such a theory may have a rather large axe to grind no matter what the evidence was. That's all I'm saying. I agree about the Crack epidemic.

[Alex Moon]

Levitts theory is very heavily disputed in the Economics field, and even if it was true, so what? Assuming that increased abortion among lower class women caused a corresponding drop in crime statistics later is pretty useless. Would you suggest we force abortions on lower class women as a crime prevention measure?

There is a negative correlation between the two, that much is true. Whether there is causation is the issue.

However, what you posted is a strawman. He never suggested forced abortions as a crime preventive measure, he posted a theory that suggests that the correlation between the two may be based on some causation. That's kind of a freak out response, going "OMG! Eugenics!" in much the same way that there was the conservative dude who suggested in a morbid hypothetical scenario that if you aborted all the black babies, crime would drop statistically, and was jumped on by people taking his quote out of context.

Perhaps I'm being overly sensetive, but Levitts work has been cited as arguement that abortion is good by pro-choicers before (not on this board, AFAIK). Usually it goes that Abortion gets rid of unwanted children, who would otherwise be neglected and go on to a be a burden on society. The problem with that arguement is that if you're going to argue that abortion benefits society by preventing potential deadweight to society, then why should we stick to voluntary abortions? There are plenty of women who will have children that they cannot take care of. Should their right to their body outweight the damage that they may be doing to society? I interpereted Skyman's post as following that line of thought. If I was incorrect, I apologize.

And for the record, the conservative that you're thinking of is Bill Bennet, and he was taken vastly out of context in that quote.

Further, I have a question. Do those economists who "heavily dispute" Levitt's theory happen to be Pro-Life and posting their disputes on pro-life websites or linked to by pro-life sites? It seems to me that the anti-abortion crowd have compelling reasons to dispute such a theory no matter what, whether Levitt has a point or doesn't. That's why there are so many people arguing all over the place about stem cell issue, despite experimental research, because they can't possibly give any ground now that they've taken an absolutist position on the matter.

Some of it is driven by pro-life impulses, but many simply disagree with his methodolgy. As Stravo pointed out, the Crack epidemic was a huge factor, and there have been other arguements as well that he leaves out key variables.

As for the adoption angle, it's mostly bunk. Yes, the system in this country sucks, but that's because it's been made damn hard for people to adopt. The problem is that people want to adopt babies, both because they want to experience all of parenting, and because older children often come with a massive load of problems that most people aren't capable of dealing with. IIRC, a lot of children in foster care are caught in a legal battle between the state and parents who are fighting to keep them. Such battles last years, and by the time it's decided, the damage has already been done.

This is why the system is a wholely unsuitable system for children to be in. You posted that the adoption angle is bunk and then outlined exactly why we should be trying as hard as we can to keep people out of that system. That system is bad and massively overworked enough without dumping potentially millions more bodies into it.

The system is flawed, but that isn't an argument for abortion. It's an argument for changing the system.

[Illuminatus Primus]

According to Levitt its disproportionately used by irresponsible, poor, single, relatively unintelligent underclasses and this is reponsible for the crime implosion of the mid-90s.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I have an issue with the idea that Roe v. Wade is responsible for the crime drop. He ignores the impact of the Crack Epidemic. That's what fueled the crime waves of the 80's. Now in 2006 many crack heads are either dead or rehab'd and the drug has a stigma attached to it that is driving customers away towards other drugs like heroin. We no longer have the violence that rocked the inner cities of America when Crack was introduced. However keep your eyes on Crank. It is gutting the rural areas of the midwest in a similar mini crime wave and it could spread to big cities.

Hysteria. While crack was largely responsible for helping reverse trends of advancement among urban blacks and other minorities, it was never the epidemic phenomenoa that was ballyhooed by the media. Pryor had been cracking jokes about lighting himself up freebasing in 1979, but the media didn't go nuts until 85-86. Crack was just some magic term the media leapt upon. Its just shitty, cut freebase. Let's look at some of the objective coverage provided by our friends the DEA in 1986:

Dow: This is it! This drug is so powerful that it will empty the money from your pockets, make you sell the watch off your writst, the clothes off your back...

DEA Agent Robert Stutman: ...or kill your mother!

For Christ's sake by 87 Time and Newsweek had run five cover stories on it in the last year. Five! And it wasn't anything new except for the name: crack. "Ready rock" - the Compton street name in the early 80s dealt by "Freeway" Ricky, had collapsed the powder coke market with its popularity as early as '83 - yet this horrible apocalypse was so apparent the news media took another three years to wake up? At that time outside of parts of Miami, Los Angeles, and New York, there wasn't any crack at all. Yet this is supposed to be the total cause of how shitty the 80's were nation-wide? I have my doubts about anything the news media or government says about drugs - and especially about cocaine.

[quote=""Beyond Cocaine, Basuco, Crack, and Other Products" James A. Inciardi, Contemporary Drug Problems, Fall 1987"]Crack is currently the subject of considerable media attention. The result has been a distortion of the public perception of the extent of crack use as compared to other drugs...crack presently appears to be a secondary rather than a primary problem is most areas.[/quote]

And of course the fact that to government passed that absurd law dictating 100-1 sentencings for quantities of crack vs. coke, produced a huge number of major crack offenders which has nothing to do with its actual prevelence and a lot more to do with the fact 5 grams of crack will fuck you as much as 500 grams of powder.

Levitt most certainly does not ignore the crack bubble and its collapse (in fact he discusses it economic causes - it had nothing to do with the DEA); but the crime drop cannot be allotted solely to that; and the two do not line up very well as a causal agent.

It just seems like that kind of logic - counting embryoes before they're birthed as crime statistics smacks of the same kind of logic that says "Don't jerk off because with every orgasm you lose a potential genius who cures Cancer or Beethoven or Mozart." No one worries about jerking off and losing a Hitler or a Stalin.

Abortion is obviously not evenly distributed across demographic strata. He was not advocating any position, or saying we need to kill more black babies. All he said was it appears to be an unintended consequence of the legalization of abortion.

[Durandal]

No one worries about jerking off and losing a Hitler or a Stalin.

Actually, I jerk off for the express reason of getting all the Hitlers and Stalins out of my system. But there are so many that my civic duty requires me to choke the chicken at least once per day.

[Gil Hamilton]

Perhaps I'm being overly sensetive, but Levitts work has been cited as arguement that abortion is good by pro-choicers before (not on this board, AFAIK). Usually it goes that Abortion gets rid of unwanted children, who would otherwise be neglected and go on to a be a burden on society. The problem with that arguement is that if you're going to argue that abortion benefits society by preventing potential deadweight to society, then why should we stick to voluntary abortions? There are plenty of women who will have children that they cannot take care of. Should their right to their body outweight the damage that they may be doing to society? I interpereted Skyman's post as following that line of thought. If I was incorrect, I apologize.

No, it doesn't logically follow, in fact, it's kinda slippery. Part of the idea of being pro-choice is that it is up to the individual to make the choice whether to carry the pregnancy to term. Forced abortions based on an arbitrary standard of parental ability is against the idea of reproductive freedom as banning abortion entirely.

I've never heard Levitt's work cited in the context above though and as far as I know, I've never heard someone whose seriously thought about the matter stating abortion was a good thing who wasn't into eugenics. Abortion is a very serious thing, obviously.

And for the record, the conservative that you're thinking of is Bill Bennet, and he was taken vastly out of context in that quote.

Right, that's the guy. I lost his name and didn't arse myself to look it up. The point is that in context, what Bennett said and the above are very similar. Stating a correlation may in some effect have come causation to it amongst other variables is not the same thing as stating it's a positive course of action that we should embark on.

Some of it is driven by pro-life impulses, but many simply disagree with his methodolgy. As Stravo pointed out, the Crack epidemic was a huge factor, and there have been other arguements as well that he leaves out key variables.

Agreed, but just the same, I'm typically very wary about arguments and research coming from people with Causes (note the capital C). It seems to me that alot of the heav debate that exist would exist anyway regardless of Levitt's methodology on the matter, whether he did some surveys and educated guesses or did experimental research with state of the art computer models.

The system is flawed, but that isn't an argument for abortion. It's an argument for changing the system.

And the existance of the adoption system isn't an argument for banning abortion.

However, that said, changing the system isn't going to happen very soon. The system is overworked and underfunded and takes ages to do anything. Who is going to pay for the reorganization and funding of this new system? That would be the taxpayers and I'm willing to be that Congress wouldn't leave their budget unmolested for long. There are wars to pay for and pork to dole out and side projects and this and that and probably a 2000 dollar cleaning service bill for coffee stains on some Senators office sofa. Worse, if they raise taxes the same people who want to ban abortion will bitch and moan that the Federal Government is raising their taxes to pay for the changes in the system that they demanded be made in the first place. Hell, searching for information about this has turned up more websites demanding the government put a stop to the Foster Care system because of the burden on taxpayers.

Kind of a Catch-22, innit?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Levitt responded to the criticism of his methodology and corrected some assumptions, and while the conclusions weren't as definite, they were still present. He's no ideologue. He spent half-a-chapter going on about how he's talking about economics - the way things work.

[drachefly]

The 'why not go and force the underclasses to have abortions' part is silly.

It seems that women might have a clue whether they're ready to take care of a baby, and if they're not, they should be permitted not to have one.

That's the exact opposite of deciding the question for them, either yes, you must have it (no abortion), or no, you may not (the strawman presented above).

[Coyote]

The reason crack became a media sensation was because of the death of Len Bias, a rising basketball star, who collapsed dead during practice one day as a result of the drug. All it takes is a media sharkfeed (like a celebrity death) and you have an instant cause celebre for people to start angling on for Pulitzers.