What you don't hear much of are utilitarian arguments against abortion. In a nation faced with a growing deficit and heinous unemployment, the far right still doesn't seem interested in forming logical social and economic justifications for its endless effort to overturn Roe v. Wade. Now, I am fully on board with decreasing the national deficit and bettering overall quality of life, so I think we would do well to transfer the abortion debate from the religious to the practical sphere. From a small-government, fiscally-responsible standpoint, are there any positive external effects of legally requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term?
Weighing pro-life against pro-quality of life.
The term "utilitarianism" scares us, or at least makes us uncomfortable. We like to fancy ourselves ethical, to think that we don't "cut our losses" when it comes to issues of morality. Yet we make a utilitarian bargain every time we eat meat or wage war. So how do we apply these calculations to issues of reproductive choice?
First, there is the issue of population. In a matter of months, the world's population will hit 7 billion; by 2030, it will be over 8 billion. Needless to say, this "population bomb" will have far-reaching implications on the environment, politics, economics, and general quality of life. Basically, everything.
This graph should scare the shit out of you, and if it doesn't, you probably lack basic abilities of projection. Now add to this stunning rate of growth the fact that even in the United States, where contraception is readily available, half of pregnancies are unintended or unwanted. This leaves us with a rapidly exploding world population of 7 billion people, at least one half of whom were born to parents who didn't want them, or didn't have the maturity or resources necessary to raise them. Would illegalizing abortion impact these statistics positively?
Then there are the social effects of abortion. As we learned from Freakonomics, the legalization of abortion in America corresponded with a decrease in the crime rate. Similarly, there are indications that abortion lowers the incidence of child abuse. Correlation doesn't imply causation, of course, and both these claims are surrounded with controversy based on statistical approachs to the questions. Nevertheless, we can imagine how unwilling parents would be more likely to lash out at an unwanted child, and unwanted children more likely to last out at society. And then there is the fact that abortion actually saves money: by conservative estimates, each dollar spent on family planning saves us almost four down the road, in Medicaid and welfare costs. Would defunding Planned Parenthood or overturning Roe v. Wade better financial stability and quality of life?
Finally, there are the effects of abortion on women themselves. The pro-life side loves this argument, because it is a perfect opportunity for them to rail against abortion while pretending to care about women's rights and health. From this ostensible concern has arisen the concept of "Post Abortion Syndrome," a mental-health condition which supposedly causes flashbacks, depression, and suicidal thoughts in 50% of women who have abortions.
But alas, as much as the pro-life camp wishes that it existed, it turns out that studies which supported "PAS" were fraught with statistical errors, and it's actually just a load of shit. When compared to women of similar socio-economic backgrounds who decided to carry their pregnancies to term, women who have had abortions actually fare the same, and often better, in terms of mental health. Not surprisingly, being able to finish an education or further a career, remaining financially stable, and not having to bear and raise an unwanted child actually has positive effects on a woman's well-being. And this isn't even touching the fact that Roe v. Wade ended the bloody era of coat-hanger abortions.
I haven't said a single thing here that hasn't been regurgitated time and time again. That doesn't, however, dilute its significance. Allowing women to take charge of their own reproduction has far-reaching positive implications, and I know not of any non-religious, practical justifications for the other side.
A fetus does not have a fully developed nervous system, lacks self-awareness, and cannot feel pain until at least 24 weeks of gestation. In these regards, it ranks somewhere between a jellyfish and a salamander. Thus, any concern felt for a fetus in another person's body can only be for its nebulous "soul," and thus can only be religious. Naturally, this realization isn't likely to send shockwaves through a country of which 90% self-identifies as religious, and I would have to be fairly naive to pretend that the barrier between church and state is impermeable. But let's make that barrier a latex barrier, and keep the pro-life separate from the pro-quality of life.
Urgh, I had a whole long comment, and then the browser lost it. :( I'll try again later...
ReplyDeleteGreat post. This portion was particularly resonating:
ReplyDelete"The term "utilitarianism" scares us, or at least makes us uncomfortable. We like to fancy ourselves ethical, to think that we don't "cut our losses" when it comes to issues of morality. Yet we make a utilitarian bargain every time we eat meat or wage war. So how do we apply these calculations to issues of reproductive choice?"
To note, though, I think it was a little unnecessary and elitist for you to refer to leaving religion out of reproductive rights discourse as a matter of “good taste”. Although I agree that a secular state is an ideal (I personally am an atheist), it is nowhere near a reality, even in the US. People have a right to voice their religious beliefs. Religious freedom is a good thing.
What people need to understand, and I think you'll agree, is that in such a pluralistic society like ours, a religious argument will not be taken seriously in the public square. As Obama said in his Call For Renewal speech in June 2006: "[D]emocracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values… politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality."
Thanks, Lindsay. I definitely agree with you that freedom of religion is a positive thing. Religion working its way into legislation, however, is a different thing. And the scary thing is that religious arguments WILL often be taken seriously. The scariest thing about God is that we can make him say whatever we want.
ReplyDelete