The Issue of Abortion

This is a very controversial issue for a lot of people.  On one hand we have those who consider abortion to be a form of infanticide, while on the other hand we have those who consider that a woman should have control over her body including the rejection of an undesired fetus.  The “pro-life” people have been successful in passing legislation that in a few states has effectively “outlawed” legal abortion.  While in other states the “pro-choice” people have been successful in preventing these sort of laws from being passed.

The major effect of this sort of legislation mostly applies to poor women.  Those better off can always travel to another state to obtain an abortion.  Even if every state in the US outlawed abortion, women with a few thousand dollars available to spend could travel to another country where abortion is legal.  And prior to Roe vs Wade, when abortion was still illegal most everywhere in the USA, women still obtained abortions or did things to themselves that resulted in the same result.  So the effort to “outlaw abortion” is much like trying to “outlaw guns”.   Or to outlaw the consumption of alcoholic beverages as was tried with Prohibition a century ago.  We also see the same thing with illicit drugs today despite a great deal of effort by law enforcement agencies to prevent their sale to willing consumers.  We should understand that wherever there is “demand”, “suppliers” will arise to meet that demand.  So the best that can be accomplished on a state basis is to prevent those pregnant who do not wish to be pregnant and do not have the necessary money to travel to another state, or find the means legal or otherwise to obtain an abortion will be forced to remain pregnant and eventually give birth to a baby.  Being poor, she is much less likely to have pre-natal medical attention, which means that there can be a possibility that the child will suffer “problems” or have defects that medical care might have been prevented had the mother had the financial means to obtain pre-natal care.  Then the mother has two choices:  She can give the baby up for adoption or she can keep it herself to raise as best she can.  Since the changes in welfare laws back when Clinton was President, it is more difficult today to get on welfare and there is a time limit.  Most likely the woman’s best choice would be to give the baby up for adoption than to keep it.  However if the mother keeps the baby for whatever reason, she has assumed responsibility for it, including being able to earn enough money to take care of it.  If she was poor enough that she didn’t have the means to obtain an abortion, most likely the child will be raised in poverty, with whatever medical attention it gets from a doctor willing to take Medicaid, although this will vary according to the state where she lives.   In any case she will be an unmarried single mother, and likely will suffer a certain amount of discrimination because of it.  Perhaps enough to regret her decision to keep the child instead of giving it up for adoption.  The child of course is much more likely to be living in poverty, which may or may not have adverse effects upon its development.  The taxpayers will undoubtedly be paying a portion of the costs of raising the child…

  There is also the issue of possible child abuse to be considered here.  Women forced into motherhood against their wishes may well take out their anger on the innocent child.  Especially if the mother had higher hopes for herself before becoming pregnant in the first place.  It would seem that if we were encourage adoption along with seeing to the mother’s access to pre-natal care that things would turn out better for both the mother and the child.  As it stands now, our laws are set up in such a way that many of those who would wish to adopt cannot because for one reason or another they do not meet the overly high standards set by the government for adoption.  This is why some have adopted children from other nations because American laws are so strict on this.  Obviously again we see an example of the government mistakenly setting standards that do more harm than good.  We could also allow contractual relationships between those who need help through their pregnancy upon basis that they turn over their child to the adoptive parents after childbirth.  As the “pro-life” movement has considerable political power, it would seem that it could see that legislation is introduced to make adoption easier than it is now.  This might be more “productive” than trying to outlaw legal abortion.  The idea is not mine by the way, but was now suggested by the Presidental candidate from the Libertarian Party last year.  It makes a lot of sense and the suggestion should be followed in my own opinion.


About muskegonlibertarian

77 year old retired owner of a security guard agency. Member of the Libertarian Party.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to The Issue of Abortion

  1. I see this as a battle between the religious and non-religious, and while I am a christian I don’t want to enforce either philosophy through government laws. Actually, I think politicians have gone too far already, but they did so for good reason: money! Campaign bribes.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s