Esp. for pro-lifers: What would happen if abortion were outlawed?

Great Debates
1

I consider myself mostly pro-life. I believe fetuses are babies and deserve not to be killed.

But there is one issue that has made me hesitate from calling myself 100% pro-life: What would happen if abortion were outlawed? I fear the answer.

Let’s imagine that a law were passed that made abortion illegal (except for rape and the mother’s life) starting one year from today. I’m adding a year to get people used to the idea and on some serious birth control.

What would be the short and long term consequences?

Would there be fewer unwanted pregnancies?

Would there be an increase in child abuse? (my great fear)

Would there have to be large scale orphanages?

Would there be a huge number of 'back alley abortions?"

Would there be more research into other methods of birth control?

Would people get more responsible with their sexuality?

I’m sure there are dozens of consequences that I’m not even thinking of.

I’m especially interested in hearing answers from the pro-life side, although of course everyone can put in their $.02.

So… what would happen?

2

A lot depends on how such a ban was created. Even if Roe v. Wade (I’m postulating an American model) was overturned tomorrow, the individual states would be free to write their own laws, or begin enforcing their pre-1973 laws. Some states may vote to discard their pre-1973 laws, but others would keep them (or create new ones), and the net effect would be that women in the restricted states who wanted abortions would cross into neighboring states (or Canada) to get them. Only the poorest women would be “stuck” and among that group, I predict there would be more child abuse, crime, etc.

If a Federal ban was imposed, it would be immediately (and almost certainly successfully) challenged by the more liberal states on constitional grounds, as they would view it as an excessive federal power-grab. The Feds are really only supposed to enforce certain “federal” offenses, and since murder isn’t one of those offenses, it’s going to hard to justify abortion as one, too.

But assuming all that could be overcome and a woman suddenly could not get an abortion (with certain exceptions) anwhere within the U.S. and somehow travel restrictions were imposed blocking pregnant women from travelling to Canada or elsewhere. I predict “back alley abortions” would become common, but not in the butcher sense, but rather the procedures would be performed by doctors who were more sympathetic to their patients then they were to the law. Also, there would be a huge increase in the use of abortion-causing drugs, including RU-486-like medications. Given the inability to keep out recreational drugs, I doubt law enforcement will be able to stop shipments of mifepristone.

I predict a whole lot of money will have to be spent on law enforcement to the dubious end of bringing into this world a whole lot of unwanted people.

3

I’ll bite,

To start, people don’t have unwanted pregnancies because they can have an abortion. People will continue to have sex with or without legal abortions, so no change in unwanted pregnancies. I think this same theory can be applied to most of your questions. I don’t believe anybody plans to have an abortion. And I really don’t think they say, “screw the condom, if anything gets threw we’ll just suck it out.” In general, I think you’ll find nobody actually wants to have an abortion whether it’s legal or not.

I could see an increase in unwanted children, but whether or not that leads to child abuse is beyond me.

My opinion is that the number of abortions would remain relatively the same. The doctors that perform them now would continue to perform them. But since they are illegal iit all has to be hush hush, meaning no charts, no follow-up, no counselling.

A lot of doctors would be arrested and sent to jail. A few women would experience complications and a few might die. The unfortunate part is that not enough women will die from illegal abortions to justify repealing the law, but it will happen. So that’s your longterm consequence: a few sterile women, a few dead women, and a lot of doctors in jail. Otherwise no change.

4

Yeah, Bryan Ekers nailed it, my bad. I forgot about how readily available the “abortion pill” has become in Canada particularly in BC. Considering the amount of weed we ship down, and the huge bus loads of seniors that drive up for our prescriptions, I’ll second that prediction that the abortion pill will be passed around US highschools along with all the e.

5

Sorry if I’m getting away from the subject but out of curiosity, if pro-lifers (most I would think anyway) think abortion is murder, why would it be okay to have one in the instance of rape?

6

In a perfect world, there would be a huge increase in funding to find adaquate methods of male birth control. And I picture chasity belts coming into vogue again as the frantic parents of teenagers have reality set in for them. It would be nice to imagine that people in general would be more responsible sexually, but I can’t suspend disbelief enough to believe that.

Who said it was ok? Pro-lifers don’t gleefully believe that abortion is morally wrong in one case, but perfectly fine in another. I don’t think anyone who grugingly agrees that it shouldn’t be illegal “in the cases of rape or incest” would tell you that it’s ok in those instances to have abort a baby. Instead it’s a case of not as bad. The baby dies in either case, which isn’t ok, but it’s more understandable to choose abortion as the lesser of two evils in those cases.

7

elfkin477,

What bothered me a few years ago was a pro-life position that went: “a child born to a mother who was raped represents an example of how something beautiful can come from such a horrible act.” I doubt this is typical of ALL pro-life’rs though.

autz, I’d like you to consider this situation:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180541

8

I think you’d see some degree of more responsibility in use of birth control but not so much as to eliminate unwanted pregnancies. I don’t see the return to the days of the coat hangers in the back alley, more likely would be trips to Canada or smuggling of RU-486. There would be some increase in the numbers of unwanted babies being born but no dramatic increase in orphanages.

The biggest change I see would be a boost to the Democrats. The pro-choice faction would be galvanized into activism and the pro-lifers would be a bit more complacent.

9

There would definitely be more research into methods of birth control, and people would definitely get more responsible with their sexuality. We’ve done it before; we could do it again. Thus, I think there would be fewer unwanted pregnancies. I doubt people currently get pregnant with the intention of having an abortion, but knowing one has insurance does allow one to take some extra risks. Statistically, I see unwanted pregnancies decreasing. After all, this would be much publicized, and I think many would think twice whereas before they would only have thought once.

Perhaps there would be an increase in child abuse. That is a legitimate fear, but understand that the prolifer believes that an abused life is better than a murdered life, and an abused life can be salvaged.

I doubt orphanages would return to the United States. Adoptions would increase, though.

There would be illegal abortions. Heck, we’ve outlawed burglary, and people still do it.

For pro-lifers/anti-abortionists, the rape & incest case is (or should be) a case of whether it is permissible to transfer harm from one innocent party (the mother) to another innocent party (the “baby” – we are talking about this from the pro-life perspective, remember, so I think it is ok to say “baby”).

The only way abortion is a lesser evil than bearing a rape-conceived baby is if you don’t believe the fetus is a human life with a full set of human rights.

Generally, our society tries to right wrongs by making the perpetrator either compensate the victim or otherwise “make the situation right”. But in the case of a rape leading to conception, the situation cannot be made right without involving an innocent third party (again, the baby) who was placed in the situation through no fault of their own.

Also generally, our society frowns upon transferring harm from one innocent party to another innocent party (although in some litigations, that seems to be changing). The innocent party suffering a harm generally must keep the harm if the harm cannot be passed to a more more guilty party (e.g., through fining a criminal, or whatnot).

Thus, in order to justify transferring the harm of the rape from the mother to the baby, one must justify transferring harm from one innocent party to another innocent party. Generally speaking, this would be a deviation from American common law, and if you accept as a given that the fetus is a human life with rights, one could expect an uphill battle to justify abortion in rape cases.

Bottom line, rape and incest are bad acts, and like murder, they are not fixable.

However, given the political realities in America, and the ability of people to ignore difficult issues such as this for expediance and convenience, I would expect that abortion would be allowed in the case of rape or incest if we ever got to the point of banning it.

10

. . . Yeah, and then we’ll all grow wings and fly to the moon.

11

When? When have we gotten more responsible with our sexuality? You mean before the pill and all, when people got married at the age of 18 or earlier, and shotgun weddings were common?

Umm, yes, people will suddenly start thinking when they’re suffused with lust. What Eve said.

I think an increase in child abuse is very likely, as the people most likely to have a truly unwanted pregnancy are the least equipped to deal with the stresses of parenthood. I also think that deliberately sentencing a child to a life of abuse and neglect is shamefully inhumane. You wouldn’t do that to a dog, why would you do it to a human?

Well, they’d increase for the healthy white babies. What about the ones of other races, or with birth defects? What about the kids in the foster system already? Who’s going to take care of them?

Yes, there would still be illegal abortions. That’s the one thing we all agree on. Only when something went wrong, people would be afraid to seek further medical help, because they’ve done something illegal.

12

" . . . people would definitely get more responsible with their sexuality."

Yea.

Right.

Wanna buy a bridge?

Despite HIV/AIDS, other nasty STDs (including antibiotic resistant gonhorrea et. al) there seems to be some evidence that safe sex practices are in decline.

Maybe a rise in heterosexual anal intercourse – which is already on the rise according to a local teenage source because “girls are still virgins if oral and anal are all they do.”

People are never going to be sane and logical about sex. We’re not hardwired to be. We’re hardwired to reproduce.

13

What would be the short and long term consequences?
Short-term, given that we’re living in a democratic society and that such a law would only be passed by mandate of the people, there would obviously be no change in the number of abortions. The majority, who got the law passed, are already not having abortions. The rest, heathens that they are, would switch to having illegal abortions or using the abortion pill. Or just have the kid.

Long-term, it would cause a greater level of stratification between the haves and the have-nots. The haves would be having abortions and the have nots would be having babies.

Would there be fewer unwanted pregnancies?
Nope. If they’re not afraid of getting pregnant and having an abortion now, they wouldn’t be afraid of getting pregnant and having an illegal abortion later.

Would there be an increase in child abuse? (my great fear)
Maybe, among the have-nots…

Would there have to be large scale orphanages?
Nope. Who’d pay for them? If the right-to-lifers aren’t supporting huge orphanages now for the babies of people with unwanted children, why would they change their tune after the law changed?

Would there be a huge number of 'back alley abortions?"
You bet.

Would there be more research into other methods of birth control?
Why? The only people who’d be able to pay for it would be able to pay for abortions.

Would people get more responsible with their sexuality?
No. Why would they? What does sexuality have to do with birth conrol?

14

If fetuses are babies, even at 9 weeks, logically so are embroys, zygotes, blastocysts, ova, sperm, and everything else in between. Congrats, you just outlawed jerking off. :wink: :wink: :wink:
I’m pro-choice so I’ll stay out of this, but whether anything “deserves not to be killed” is not the issue, that’s just a value judgment. Likewise, I might rhetorically ask “If fetuses are babies, why are they called different things?” :stuck_out_tongue:

15

Now you’re talking crazy. :wink:

But seriously, let me ask a question:

Do you believe that people are exactly as responsible with their sexuality today as they were, say, 100 years ago?

If so, then I guess you are right.

But if we are less responsible today than we were then, there is no reason we cannot become responsible again when the ramifications of our actions return to a previous level. What would be your basis for suggesting that we have reached a point of no return?

16

Maybe the stigma against being a single mother would change, so women without partners wouldn’t feel pressure to abort from that direction.

17

Well, I’m taking it on the chin for that one. I suppose it’s possible that I think that only because I’m getting older (read: less hormones) and I carefully manage my fun to maximize it over an entire lifetime as opposed to maximizing it today at the expense of tomorrow. I don’t see the point in jumping in the sack one night to live for the moment only to find out I’ve got aids (and therefore probably literally living for that moment) or a unplanned child or an unplanned child with aids. Perhaps I am unique in my willingness to forego a little short term fun so that my long term fun is maximized.

Cite?

A robust, controlled study, no doubt.

Well, if my days as a hormone controlled 18 year old are any indication, perhaps you are right.

18

That would be nice.

19

The main purpose of the reactionary forces behind anti-choice is, of course, the control of women’s sexuality and women’s lives, partly through a return to the old atmosphere of fear and guilt; the pretense that it’s desirable that there is a return to greater responsibility is merely that, a pretense - responsibility never did fall equivalently on males and females - where are the Christian Right and Roman Catholic Churches in the campaign for the kinds of sex education, such as the successful approach in the Netherlands, that bring greater ‘responsibility’?

How much more happy will they be when the difference between ‘good’ girls and ‘bad’ girls can return to the manifest - like the good old days when real shame attached to single motherhood and ‘illegitimacy’.

20

What’s your evidence that we’re less responsible? Do you have any stats for rates of STD