It is well known that many “Pro-Life” supporters only care about a fetus until it is born. After that, the children (and mothers) are on their own. To be clear, abortion is a complex issue. As a male, I have never had one, never will, and my personal position is quite clear: Don’t want one, don’t have one. The main issue is about the government (comprised heavily of white men) subjecting others (mostly women) to their will. I indicate “mostly” because there are some implications for fathers should a child be born and paternity adjudicated.
Most hypocritical are those pro-life advocates who also support the death penalty. There is an interesting discussion in The Federalist by Benjamin Dierker trying to thread that needle. He correctly notes that a fetus has not had a trial or been convicted of a felony. However, he fails to address the thorny question of when life begins yet decides those opposing positions are not necessarily in conflict. He also neglects the fundamental fact that somebody has to raise the offspring and from whence comes the resources.
There is one overarching reason in opposition of the death penalty – sometimes juries get it wrong. Yes, there are evil people in the world and we would be better off without them. One recent estimate, however, was that about four percent were wrongly convicted (not to mention the few innocent ones who plead guilty just to avoid the chance of being sentenced to death). It was found that 73 percent of Republicans (the same folks who are most often pro-life) support the death penalty while 37 percent of them don’t believe it is used enough. It is worth noting that public support for the death penalty is steadily declining and in 2018 the Washington State Supreme Court held it to be unconstitutional.
But this is not about the death penalty, but rather about abortion rights. Far too many young people are not aware of the circumstances before Roe v Wade was decided and abortions were illegal in many states. As a former deputy sheriff I saw firsthand the implications when back-alley and self-induced abortions occurred yielding the victim bleeding severely and others suffering serious infections from the unsterile facilities. The coat-hanger stories are not a myth, but rather acts of desperation that did occur and will again if medical services are not available. I personally plucked one near-term fetus out of a toilet with the impoverished mother claiming she didn’t know she was pregnant. In those days in Florida it had to be proven that the baby independently had taken at least one breath before it was considered a homicide; i.e. by legal definition, life began at birth.
Not alone, a medical doctor friend of mine commented on his experiences. “As an intern in the busy ER at Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas in pre-Roe v. Wade days (1967), I recall trying to save young black females who were brought to the ER in septic shock following coat hanger abortions. We pumped them full of antibiotics. Most of them died anyway. Such a tragedy. If Roe is overturned, it will amount to indirect homicide for these women all over again.”
The operative wording in the aforementioned Gallup Poll on the death penalty was whether or not it was applied fairly. We know the death penalty is inequitably applied with the poor and ethnic minorities bearing the brunt. The same situation is true in the abortion situation. Should the grave mistake be made by SCOTUS of overturning Roe v Wade, jurisdiction will revert to the states. Abortions would become legal in some states, but not in others. Women of substantial means would be able to travel to legal venues but leaving others without access to adequate medical services.
While so-called heart-beat bills have been put forth, that does not accurately address development of the fetus. Recently, researchers were surprised to find that there is little organization of human heart cells until 20 weeks of pregnancy. It is worth noting that over 90 percent of abortions take place during the 13th week of pregnancy or earlier. There is considerable controversy concerning at what point the organism has developed sufficiently to feel pain. The infliction of pain argument is often put forth by abortion opponents. To safe-side the procedure, there are methods that can be employed to negate the possibility of inflicting pain or suffering. Notably, those will not be available should women be forced to revert to the back-alley options.
If the pro-life contingent wants these births to occur, there is a substantial debt that comes with it; not one for which they are likely to accept responsibility. While fully acknowledging the emotional trauma associated with unwanted children, I’m going to get very mercenary. The cost to raise a child from birth to 18 years of age varies a bit by location and other circumstances. That said, currently about $216K per child is a reasonable average. While abortions have been declining slight over the recent decades, there are now over 600,000 per year (2015 was 638,169 known). Assuming that those were carried to term and born alive, that would leave people with a bill of $137,844, 504,00.00 per year (that is over $137 Billion).
Who will pay that bill? The real answer is that poor families will struggle, as they always have. But if the state is going to enforce live births, they should also accept they have a responsibility to ensure the children are raised appropriately. A loving home for all, while fantasized as desirable, is utopian and beyond reasonable expectations. It also means that new institutions will be required as a distasteful, but foreseeable consequence. The negative effects of institutionalization on people is well established (but beats the streets). Some will suggest adoption as a practical alternative. To be sure, that has worked in some cases. My personal experience with adoption was very negative (including death threats) but I know families on both sides of the ledger. The bottom line, however, is that broader adoptions would not solve the problems incurred by increased progeny.
Abortion is an emotional and complex issue. It is not accidental that most of the protesters picketing outside today’s abortion medical providers are older white males. Just look at the composition of the Alabama Senate that just passed the most draconian law to date (basically all white men though signed by a white female governor).
One of the pro-life arguments is to point to individuals who, though born into difficult circumstances, were glad to be alive. There are disturbing statistics that suggest not all are so thrilled. Increasingly, driven by pain (mostly emotional), suicide among teens and college-age people is the second leading cause of death. The leading cause is accidents and many of those are from poisoning (drugs).
Another emotional argument revolves around late-term abortions. While they represent only a tiny fraction of all cases, pro-life advocates tend to misrepresent them in the media. For political purposes, even Trump falsely described infanticide (a crime) as if it were standard medical procedure. It is fair to say that it is political as it is known he was pro-choice until he decided to run for office.
The discussion is complexified by recent legal proceedings with laws that require burial or cremation for fetal tissue. While not specified, this is clearly inappropriately mixing medical and religious issues that are probably in contravention of the First Amendment. Texas was first to pass such a law but that was quickly struck down in court. That did not stop Ohio from passing similar legislation last year. This restriction stands out as there are no similar laws for organs that are surgically removed or amputated limbs. Of course, there are regulations pertaining to disposal of medical waste, but they are based on biological and safety considerations and do not have a religious overlay. Donation of usable organs is strongly encouraged.
Associated with the disposal of fetal tissue is the topic of stem cell research. There are both medical and moral issues that have been debated and obviously they are closely aligned with abortions. While recognizing others may disagree on ethical grounds, as a scientist I come down on the practical side that suggests since the material is available, it makes sense to use it in the most constructive way possible. That choice should be left with the pregnant donor.
The bottom line is that whether or not to have an abortion should be a private, carefully considered position made between the woman and her doctor. The state should not interfere with that process by either overtly banning the practice or disingenuously doing so by placing undue restrictions on the doctor or medical facilities. Those include common legal interventions today such as dictating the width of halls, waiting periods, or mandatory counseling. For those who claim to be pro-life, they should also be willing to provide the resources necessary to raise the child. I am firmly against the state requiring abortions (which has happened in China). As indicated earlier, if you don’t want an abortion, please do not have one. Conversely, do not restrict the rights of what others choose to do. Should there be a requirement for a moral adjudicator, such may (does) exist. However, that is not you or the government.