When discussing the abortion question I believe we can’t just look at one thing. We have to look at a lot of things. A question then. Is economics a moral issue? Is it moral for the government to rob Peter to Pay Paul? The Catholic Church seems to think so. They are staunchly anti-abortion. Even to save the life of the mother. But they also take the rational position that welfare needs to be increased to support the unaborted children of the poor.
And then I have to ask will these unwanted children tend to be producers or parasites? If the net is parasites will we want to support them with more welfare/prisons?
You can’t just ask moral questions in a vacuum. Is killing the unborn a good idea? No. But should we have a government mandate making it illegal if it raises costs for society once the children enter it? i.e. is starvation better than abortion? Is theft by government better than abortion? Me? I’m kinda human in that I generally don’t want to support other people’s children. And I’m willing to accept abortion so I don’t have to.
But if those who are rabidly anti-abortion insist by law on their position I will insist that those children be supported until maturity at least. And possibly beyond. By the “big family” that has insisted on their presence.
I can think of no better reason for the welfare state than doing it for the children.
Comments
6 responses to “Asset Or Liability?”
This is sarcasm, right?
First of all, people are assets. People are a good thing. Period. That’s why the sentence for manslaughter is a prison term, and not a weregeld based on the victim’s income. Welfare is not, and should never be, about warehousing people.
Second, you seem to be saying that simply recognizing the basic humanity of a fetus perforce means that abortions (even in the health and rape exceptions) must be illegal. I don’t agree, but that would explain why the pro-abortion crowd works so hard to cement the “clump of cells” taxonomy. Even in the face of a growing number of people who have observed a small human in its gestational period–sleeping, yawning, dancing, acknowledging voices–and know the taxonomy to be false.
My position is that it is this denial of humanity that brings on the negative externalities associated with abortion. We train women to make decisions in a false moral context, which means that they are unprepared for the emotional consequences. This also gives free reign to charlatans, hucksters, and worse. Much worse.
Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps having admitted that the birth canal is not a magic consciousness-bestowing organ, legal abortion becomes completely untenable. In that case a miscarriage becomes a matter for the grand jury. The same way a fall out of a 10th-story window becomes a matter for the grand jury.
I disagree with the idea that acknowledging abortions as a tragedy necessarily means womb inspections. However, if that is the choice–black market abortions or a steadily creeping willingness to define people as not human, then I would have to choose to retain our humanity.
Mike,
No. Strictly rational. If I’m going to be interfering in other people’s lives and saddling them with obligations then I’m responsible.
It is the Chinese principle – if you save a man’s life you are responsible for him for life.
Note: – the Roman Catholic Church is of a similar opinion.
======
Neil,
Not all people are net assets. Economically.
The denial of humanity brings on negative externalities? What does that mean? Well OK. Given that principle how do you deal with Hamilton’s Rule?
Who is responsible for the children you produce until maturity? What if you were not up to the task? Then who is responsible?
Look at cultures around the world. The more closely related the people the more they will tolerate public welfare systems. The more distant the relationships the less.
Europe is falling apart in part because a welfare system that works for the closely related is falling apart because it was instituted for people who are not.
=================
You have to account for Hamilton’s Rule.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton%27s_rule#Hamilton.27s_rule
=======
I have the great misfortune of having an engineer’s mind in almost everything. It is cold. But nature is cold. That kind of mind does tend to prevent disasters.
======
Charity should be private. The decision on children should be left up to the people who are going to have to raise them.
I do tell people that they should have children. The greatest adventure life offers. But I would never impose my preferences on them. Because I do not wish to be obligated for their choices.
It IS ugly. But I prefer my lunch naked.
I can tolerate legs. I do not need to cover them and speak only in hushed tones about limbs.
=====
http://www.viewzone.com/homosexual.html
makes an interesting observation.
“…The present data support the hypothesis that exposure of pregnant rats to environmental stressors modifies the normal process of sexual behavior differentiation in male fetuses by decreasing functional testosterone and elevating androstenedione levels during prenatal development. During stress conditions plasma testosterone emanating from the gonads decreases while adrenal androstenedione rises. The molecular structure of the two androgens, being very similar, it is postulated that the two hormones compete for the same receptor sites. Since androstenedione is a less potent androgen than testosterone, the decrease in male copulatory ability and increased lordotic potential seen in the prenatally stressed animals of the present study would be expected. The relative difference in potency between testosterone and androstendione has been repeatedly demonstrated. [Ibid.]
And:
“The resulting alterations in sexual behavior provide the basis for an effective population control mechanism, since offspring so affected would not possess the behavioral repertoire necessary to contribute to population growth. Thus, the environment, by triggering an adrenal stress response, may control the reproductive capacity of successive generations of differentiating fetuses and, thereby, population size.”
Abortion is our way of not leaving everything up to nature. Sorry ’bout that.
Carrying capacity. I would not put the decision of what the carrying capacity is in the hands of government. That leads to monstrous results. I would leave it in the hands of private individuals. Everyone gets to decide for themselves what THEIR carrying capacity is.
Any government strong enough to prevent abortion is strong enough to make it mandatory.
I’d rather avoid China’s one child rules. Or the eugenics movement and forced sterilizations of America of the 1930s.
I trust the outcome of millions of individual decisions. I do not trust one size fits all government decisions.
Neil,
Ah. I get it. You have a utopian view of human nature. I prefer a more realistic view. You can do better engineering that way. And what would I engineer? Less central control. More individual control.
So in order to avoid the messiness of the abortion question you would build a police state apparatus? What if it gets repurposed? What if unfortunate precedents get set?