Last week I wrote a post that incorporated several of my core beliefs. From my readings on history, my business experience, and my own moral beliefs, I discussed how human life is valuable, how abortion is wrong, and how countries that value human life will see economic rewards for doing the right thing. I received several responses on this. Of this, Paul (Florida) was the most well-reasoned, even if he disagreed with me.
Ya had me until the last paragraph. China sponsors MANDATARY abortion and is still expected to triple our population by 2050. (See this link).
Thank you for the reference. I am aware of China's policy and do not believe I stated anything that was refuted by this article. The population of China is growing and that is one of the many reasons why their economy is growing. If the Chinese were not pursing an infanticide policy, I believe their economy would be grow even faster.
I strongly disagree with the China's forced abortion policy and find it barbaric. If I were selfish, I should probably support it as it is the only reason the North American growth rate is expected to be higher than China's growth rate (in both percentage terms and absolute terms). However, I still think it wrong. I suspect that 1) China's actual growth rate will be higher than expected as rural Chinese will manage to save many of their children despite the efforts of the Chinese government and 2) This policy will stop well before 2050 when the Chinese start worrying what to do with a youth population that is 70% male - a byproduct of only allowing one child is that many Chinese abort unborn females. Imagine hundreds of millions of frustrated males with no realistic chance of finding a domestic wife - it leads to some frightening scenarios.
While my wife and myself would never consider abortion to be an option, I cannot condone granting the government the "right" to deny ANY medical procedure to ANY person. Forget about keeping Uncle Sam out of the bedroom, let's start by keeping him out of our bodies.
You want to start by keeping Uncle Sam out of our bodies? Does this ideal of yours just apply to abortion? Or does it apply to prostitution? All drugs? Bestiality? Pornography? Suicide? Incest? Adultery? I am not being sarcastic, I am very curious where you draw the line. Two of these (drugs and suicide) also could easily fall under medical procedures, but the greater issue seems to be where you draw the line between personal freedoms and the right of the government to make certain behaviors illegal - to legisilate morality as you later put it.
For my part, I stand with the unborn. I do not think there is a "right" to kill them. I think future generations will look back on abortion with the same disgust that we feel when we look back at slavery. To paraphrase your opening sentence, "While my wife and I would never consider slavery an option, I cannot condone granting the government the 'right' to deny ANY property rights to ANY citizens." Obviously, this is a repugnant statement, just as abortion is a repugnant act. Either abortion is the vivisection of an unborn baby and should be outlawed, or it is fine and should be supported. But leaving the morality of it up to individuals is as foolish as leaving the morality of slavery or murder up to individuals.
As to doctors making "huge profits" from abortions, the data that I can find lists that costs for first trimester, surgical outpatient procedures run $350 - $500 with many insurances paying for all or part of the procedure. Mifepristone (RU-486) abortions are even less expensive.I think that you are letting your personal opinions run rampart, here ("All forecasters have their own biases which impact their forecasts").
Touche. I am certainly subject to my own biases and that is why I try to make my own opinions clear so readers can make their own determinations. However, I stand by my statement. Let me approach this from several angles.
First, let me ensure we are having the same discussion. Quite simply, Profit is calculated by Revenue minus Costs. One can have huge profit margins on low priced items, so long as the cost of the item is less than the selling price. You bring up two examples. "Standard" abortions, where the doctor physically destroys the unborn and "DIY" (Do It Yourself) abortions where the doctor prescribes a drug. For both cases, the doctor needs to cover the cost of his time, that of his assistants, and rent. He also must pay for equipment (e.g., surgery tools) and consumables (e.g. cleaning agents, IVs, etc.).
In a standard abortion, most of the work is done by a low cost assistant. I would say nurse, but most states do not require that the assistant be a nurse (some states have no medical training requirements at all for these assistants). The abortionists comes in, dismembers the baby, stitches up the woman, and lets his assistants clean up while he moves on to the next woman.
The DIY abortions have a very low cost for the doctor. There are no real consumables and in fifteen minutes -- a conservative estimate, pregnant women usually get far less face time with the abortionist in these situations -- he charges them a fee and writes a prescription. The prescription obviously does not cost him a thing, so he is just charging for his time. This is why abortion shops are sometimes called mills, they are set up to crank women in and out as quickly as possible to maximize billing hours.
Some other reasons why abortion clinics are very profitable. Abortion clinics have less regulation than even animal clinics. While regulations save lives, complying with them also costs money. Since abortion clinics are less regulated, they have less expenses (thus more profitable) to stay in compliance (and are presumably less safe than more regulated clinics).
Standard abortions also may be more profitable than most medical procedures since both the client and the abortionists have reason to keep the transaction a secret. No one knows how many abortions are never recorded because the woman is ashamed and the abortionist just wants cash. Assuming the doctor has a personal income tax of just 28% (I will not even mention the income tax of most states since you live in one of the few states without a state income tax), hiding revenue from Uncle Same is big increase to the abortionist's bottom line. And the unregulated and shameful nature of abortions makes it very easy to hide this revenue.
So yes, many abortionists make huge profits off of abortion. Fortunately, some pro-life groups are taking lessons from the pro-choice movement. For years, the pro-choicers have been filing frivolous lawsuits against pro-life protestors, driving some into bankruptcy with huge legal bills. It did not matter that the pro-life protestors won most of the lawsuits, they still racked up legal costs. Well, some pro-lifers have adopted this strategy and are suing abortionists. Even if they lose, they drive up the abortionist's cost of doing business and are reducing the profit. I have mixed feelings about this tactic myself. I am thrilled it is being very effective and think it is one of the more devastating tactics used by pro-lifers. But even when used for good, I dislike living under a legal system where such a tool can be used.
If I were a poor, young girl with no professional skills, living in horrible conditions and I wound up pregnant, I would be extremely hard pressed to choose between sentencing my child to a hopeless, squalid childhood and a painless termination before they were even conscious. Especially realizing that I would have no way of providing adequate pre-natal care. I won't even bring in the whole illegitimacy question and the social stigma of an out of wedlock pregnancy.
I disagree with most of your assumptions here. First of all, your hypothetical choices for your poor pregnant girl are artificial and incorrect. You assume that a "painless termination" is an option. During conception, the beginnings of the brain, spinal cord, and nervous system are laid on day 20. Brain waves can be detected on day 43 (and it is reasonable to believe that brain waves may be detected earlier once we have better equipment). Dr. Liley (a doctor at the National Women's Hospital in Auckland, New Zealand) demonstrated that an eleven-week old fetus can experience pain and responds to touch, light, heat, and noise. She was even able to condition it to react to a bell, just like Pavlov's dogs. So aborted babies, at least those after the 11th week, feel intense agony as they are vivisected in grotesque and painful deaths. To present both sides, let me say that the results of this study are clear, but some groups dispute the meaning of the findings. Some pro-choice members do not believe the ability to feel pain is a meaningful criteria. Other findings can be found here.
Note that the US is one of the more barbaric countries in this regard along with China. At least some countries require abortionists to provide the fetus with painkillers before killing the unborn child. Legislators in California and Texas have tried to get similar laws passed here, but I do not believe any have yet passed.
Getting back to your artificial situation, assuming the unborn baby is over eleven weeks old, there is no choice between a painless termination and a hopeless squalid childhood. Even with the limited options you considered, the choice is between dying a horrible death by vivisection or growing up under "bad" conditions (for the US, being poor in the US still means having access to wealth unimagined by much of the world). Some of the few social programs that I am glad to support with my tax dollars are programs designed to help the poor - especially pregnant women and young children. One good example is WIC, it provides healthcare and food to pregnant women and children under five. So your hypothetical woman would have access to adequate pre-natal (and post-natal) health care should she decide to allow the child to live.
Other options, such as adoption, are also available and used by many women who do not wish to kill their offspring, but do not feel they are in a position to properly raise a child. Yes, there is a social stigma to being pregnant out of marriage, but I do not believe that is a justification for killing the child. I do think that scarlet letter laws, like the one in your state, are a bad idea and cause some women to elect for an abortion instead of complying with such an onerous law.
Abortionists care so much about their profits that they knowingly protect law-breaking customers (the adult that actually coughs up the cash) who impregnate young girls, even though protecting these criminals violates child abuse reporting laws that exist in all 50 states. Abortionists are already murdering babies and hiding money from the government, what do they care about another law if they don't get caught? If you are interested in this sort of information, you can get a free report here.
I emailed Paul with my questions for him (as asked above) and have incorporated his response and my comments below.
I was not aware that incest, suicide, adultery and pornography were illegal. Immoral, perhaps, but you can't legislate morality (thank God). I would be for legalizing prostitution (as it is in several states).As to drugs, the government has not shown that it has been capable of controlling drugs with current legislation, maybe they should try legalization and regulation.
Let me state that I use no drugs (except caffeine). I never have used anything illegal and haven't even used alcohol in 10 years.
For the record, I fully stipulate that your beliefs are based upon what you think is right and you are not arguing based upon personal proclivities. That said, I still disagree with you. Let me point out the facts.
Incest is illegal in most states. A few have removed it from their books to protect children since despicable lawyers figured out they could protect criminals who committed sexual assaults on their wards by using old incest laws with lighter penalties. ...during the last thirty years, nearly all state legislatures have recognized the particular evil of adults who rape and molest children. In response, they have passed laws which result in extremely strict penalties and lengthy prison time for these crimes. In doing so, however, most legislatures did not recognize that the incest statute (which they left on the books, undisturbed) would affect how perpetrators related to the child victim could be charged differently for the same crime and thus receive much lighter penalties.
Suicide is illegal in all 50 states. If you want to get technical, attempting suicide is illegal. If one succeeds in committing suicide, one is obviously out of the reach of earthly punishments (although many states and life insurance companies have ways to penalize your heirs). To my knowledge, the only US exception is in Oregon. Oregon now allows for physician-aided-suicide if the person seeking death meets a few conditions, sometimes with horrible results. And here is a compelling reason for these laws against suicide. Until 1971, US citizens had a higher suicide rate than Canadians. Then something happened. The rates fluctuated for a few years and ever since 1977, Canadian suicide rates have been higher than US suicide rates. What caused the difference? In 1972, Canadians removed their law against suicide. Draw your own conclusions.
Adultery is illegal in most states (and the District of Columbia). Interestingly enough, the reason some states (such as Connecticut) have repealed their adultery laws is to protect the victims. In other words, precisely because adultery is a crime, the adulterous spouse can avoid admitting his or her transgression, even in civil proceedings. Since adultery still affects alimony and property settlements in some states, including Maryland, the perverse effect of the law is to "protect guilty spouses in divorce proceedings," points out Karen Czapanskiy, a law professor at the University of Maryland. Just like the states that have eliminated incest laws, the reason some states have eliminated adultery laws is to protect the victims and ensure the guilty receive a harsher punishment. It is not to make libertarians happy by adopting a moral-free view of human behavior.
Pornography is illegal in the hands of a minor and child pornography is illegal for everyone. In addition, there are legal restrictions on how pornography may be sold, shown, and even aired.
You state that you can't legislate morality. This made me laugh for several reasons. Given that this discussion started about abortion, I was reminded of Chris Grawburg's column that you might be a liberal if... One of his examples was you might be a liberal if you cry, "You can't legislate morality," but defend the Roe v. Wade decision in order to legalize your moral position on abortion. For my readers, this was especially humorous because I know Paul and would not consider him a liberal. A libertarian perhaps, but not your stereotypical liberal.
I also laughed sadly because I have heard this "truism" a lot even though it is patently untrue. A moments deliberation would show it to be false, but very intelligent people blindly use the phrase without thinking about it. As I have shown above, incest is illegal. That is legislating morality. Suicide is illegal and that is legislating morality (and Canada's experience shows the foolishness of not legislating morality for at least suicide). Adultery is illegal and that is legislating morality. Stealing is illegal and that is legislating morality. Lying under oath is illegal and that is legislating morality. A large portion of our laws legislate morality and I am glad of it. I would hate to live in under anarchy where the powerful could kill, steal, rape, and otherwise victimize the weak. Let's hear it for legislating morality!
I support the laws against prostitution - some parts of Nevada allow this to be legal (and receives visits from the State Department), but am glad it is illegal in most of the United States. The drug issue is more complicated and I believe it has to be discussed on a drug-by-drug basis. Since this is already a long post, I will not do that here.
Let me respond, further with this question: Should homosexuality be illegal?
Thank you for asking a dull, safe question with no wrong answers. LOL. The act of homosexuality is illegal in most states. This does not mean we have bedroom police, but it does have several social benefits. It helps increase the resources available for families (I am assuming that the protection of families is a key goal of society. I do not believe this is still true of all Americans, but believe it is still the majority opinion. At any rate, it is one of my opinions). It does this by not requiring employers to give benefits to homosexual partners (nor heterosexual partners for that matter). Benefits are restricted to the family (offspring, wards, and legal spouse). But this is a minor issue compared to some of the other reasons homosexuality should remain illegal.
Dean Esmay (read his remarks in the comments) has a post that discusses some of the social problems with homosexuality -- that homosexuals are responsible for spreading far more than their percentage share of diseases, including lethal ones. I am not that familiar with this research, but if this is true, that is a powerful reason to ban an unsafe practice.
I have seen several polls from pro-family organizations that point out that homosexuals only represent about 2% of the population (true), yet homosexuals are responsible for about 34% of all sexual assaults in America (unconfirmed by me). I have not seen similar results from any more scientific studies, but I have not found a single scientific study that makes such an analysis. This research may be too politically unpopular to even fund. Most academics I know would be either afraid to touch such a topic or would only be interested if they could prove homosexuals committed less sexual assaults than heterosexuals. Assuming there is some basis in fact for this claim -- that homosexuals commit approximately one-third of all sexual assaults -- yes, I think homosexual acts should be illegal. Here is why. In your state of Florida, the laws against homosexuality are the legal justification for preventing homosexuals from adopting children. Knowingly placing children in the hands of a group that is statistically one of the highest known groups for committing sexual assaults would be cruel and inhumane. This is why I agree with the Boy Scouts -- I would not want my children under the guardianship of a homosexual scoutmaster and I certainly would not trust him to take my boys camping.
OK, now that you have maneuvered me into being even more politically incorrect than normal, I will prepare for the flaming. But if anyone wants a reasoned response, make your flames reasonable. I would also like to thank Paul for his email. Discussing disagreement without resorting to name-calling is a good use of the internet. And many people are wrestling with these same issues. Even William Saletan at liberal Slate is frustrated because he cannot find a reason to disagree with Senator Rick Santorum.
Also, if anyone could send me a reference to any serious study that looked at what percentage of sexual assaults are committed by homosexuals, I would appreciate it.