Meanwhile, our global population is reaching a level that may soon exceed the capacity of our resources to feed and shelter us; and further, will not allow our resources to renew. This picture is ominously progressing in increasing clarity. For example the global demand on drinkable water is becoming felt and, for the benefit of doubters, there are now even "water" stocks traded globally. Yet, there are those who seemingly don't see the warning signs or for ulterior motives - political opportunism and even cynical monetary gain - furiously deny there is any need to change our habits.
The American anti-abortion position appears to be such a movement of denial. The anti-abortion movement makes no sense because it is incomplete, short-sighted and underneath everything there appears to be an accusative and punitive sentiment borne perhaps of an unhappy and poor childhood; there is a thinly-disguised hate of females and sex and there seems to also be a spirit of unforgiveness and a desire to prove that sex is bad by seeking to ban the tools and techniques and services that make for responible sex. In brief, the anti-abortion movement proposes no abortions but also denies women of their right to avoid unwanted pregnancy, because the same group is also against sex education, birth control and expanded aid to children of working mothers.
As a side note of debate against the anti-abortionist position, there is a growing examination of our social dynamics that indicate allowing abortion appears to solve or certainly provide relief to other of our social problems.
One such examination is the apparent, and unexpected, but after-the-fact common sense consequence that permitting abortion reduces the numbers of children who grow up unwanted, economically disadvantaged, undereducated, undernourished or diet-disadvantaged, i.e. children who are prone to crime. This insight on the subtle aspects of how current econmomics work in abortion and other areas is detailed by the authors of the two -book "Freakonomics" series - Freakonomics, and Super-Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, who write convincingly (Freakonomics, Harper Perennial, New York, 2009, Chapter 4, principally pages 136-45) that:
"in other words, the very factors that drove millions of Americn women to have an abortion also seem to predict that their children, had they been born would have led unhappy and possibly criminal lives" - Freakonomics, page 139.With "Freakonomics in mind, in the face of our national dilemma over abortion, there is an easy answer: either we permit counseled abortion after providing access to birth control and sex education , or we have a humane, non-abortion national program with all the attendant costs and support programs for the mothers and children. The American anti-abortionists seem not to have not considered either of these aspects of their preference - they do not have not an idea what is a full and humane program because they neither want nor have proposed any full program. Nor have they considered the cost of a humane program, perhaps $100 Billion annually by estimate here. The prevalent American anti-abortion notion is ultra-simplistic and one expects much more from a modern, ethical and responsible society.
Anti-abortion can't be a simple matter of just outlawing abortion. A "full and humane" abortion program, the only appropriate kind for a modern developed America as explained below, must care for the health of the child from conception through, perhaps, early teens and preferably until "maturity, 18 years old. Costs of a humane anti-abortion program have not been placed before the public. Probably because the costs are formidable, but perhaps the real reason is the anti-abortionists are simply opprotunists who are using a billboard phrase at the expense of unwanted and unsupported children whose lives will have misery and want.
This blogger calculates that the cost of a mature, humane anti-abortion program that nurtures the non-aborted child only through age 8 would add almost a mllion new people to the population each year and entail new expenditures starting from a base of $63 Billion annually, not including secondary infrastructures such as schools, medical facilities and new administration which all could bring the full anti-abortion cost to $85-100 Billion annually at program maturity....permanently! Or, roughly $1 Trillion over 10 years. Or, near 2 Trillion over 18 years. This is a big addition to national expenditures from family and government which I don't feel has been understood, or admitted to, by the anti-abortion, "pro-life" supporters.
This blogger's views on abortion have evolved through various perosnal and media-influenced phases to a current viewpoint that American anti-abortionists have only a limited grasp of the full meaning of their objective. The greatest reason for this incompleteness of their position, it is apparent that many agree with this viewpoint, is that America's views on abortion are dragged to and fro in a religious-political-race-gender tug of war often with little regard for the mother-to-be or the child-to-be, or the child-after-birth. The focus seems instead to be on some kind of idealized icon of the (virgin) mother and child, and a deep fear of preventing a second coming. Consequently, this single focus on the mother-and-babe icon, prevents the pro-life movement from to extending its political concern beyond superficial image (of the pregnant mother, or at best the mother-with-nursing babe) to the reality of child rearing, health care, etc. THe pro-lifers seem not to care what the child's life is to be, quality wise, after birth: there is no agenda how the pro-lifers want to make the child's life one of joy and maximum attainment of potential. There is no follow up to just stopping abortion. No nurturing love is shown for the babe once born. No inclination, nor idea even, of what comes next after committing to birth. No support program to assure a quality of life fitting a highest-echelon developed nation.
American pro-life thinking seems to think the child's care (early childhood nutrition, follow on education and well being through adolescence) is an extraneous, automatic given, i.e., to be taken care of by someone else. Thus the anti-abortion agenda is an idealized, iconized picture where once the child is born, society has done its job ....and instead of nurturing, a kind of predatory, laissez-faire, Darwinian coldness (abandonment?) sets in. Once birth occurs, the anti-abortion view turns nasty and judgmental: the more than probable unsuccessful performance of the mother (because the mother is usually too young, too undereducated, too unemployable) is judged and loaded down with finger pointing and guilt-building because self-sufficency is also the American way. As for the child, it rather immediately has become one of "them" - the poor, the disenfranchised, the non-mainstream racial group, etc. In other words, true love for the child as a social asset to be nurtured into a contributing, well-adjusted adult, is just not there. Shame and blame, the American neurosis.
The anti-abortion movement seems to expect the new child to not only breathe but to take accountability for itself (share in the guilt trap)as if it were an instant adult needing no "special" treatment or services, and deserving none. The new child is expected to survive as best as it can in an overcrowded American society where everyone is increasingly focused on their own survival.
Where did this short focus, this callousness toward children, come from? This blogger, from exposure to studies in european history, from medieval throgh the industrial revolution, believes the "Huddled Masses" that emigrated to America were indeed huddling...from fear, abuse, massacre and murder by autocratic, totalitarian European governments, and from plagues and famine and drought. Given the grimness of these nightmare pasts (and instances of babes on hooks hanging in butcher shops during the Russian and east european famines and political turmoil)it is no wonder the at some core level, America's attitude toward its children is far behind that of an evolved Europe. Mix this history of the American people with the knee-jerk worship of laissez-faire self-sufficiency, the literal angry-deity biblical images, and there we have it - the single-focused, incomplete, abusive anti-abortionist agenda.
IMHO, Anti-abortion agendas must include a full system of pre-and-post-birth child care, society-provided sex education, pre-natal care, free birthing, post birth child care and education. If we are not prepared to provide all these aspects of loving care for the child, we are then indulging in the highest, most sinful, hypocrisy at the expense of the child and mother (who is usually young or teen, kept-innocent by lack of proper sex education, deprived of birth-control mechanisms for religio-political reasons, etc).
What would be the cost of a "full and humane" abortion program? First, there are about 850,000 American abortions annually, 25% of American deaths in 2007. Average American pre-natal costs in 2004 were $7600 (US Dept of Health and Human Services, Agency for Health Care and Quality,CQ HealthBeat): costs for hospital visits, prenatal office visits, prescription medicines and other pre-natal and birth services. The cost of raising the child from birth to age 8 is a little over $9000 annually for a moderate income family(US Dept of Agriculture, Child Raising Calculator, 2007). Supporting a child from birth through age 18 totals around $200,000. On the other hand, a first term abortion averages about $400 which is a minor offset from the $7600 average cost of birthing cited previously.
With these official figures in mind, in a full and humane anti-abortion program at maturity (year 8 say, minimally), the annual cost of birthing 800,000 non-abortions will be $6.3 Billion less the "saved" abortion costs of $320 million, or roughly $6 Billion net cost of birthing the non-abortions. At the 8th year of program operation (maturity), there will be 8 cohort groups with a steady state population of 6.4 million children each requiring an annual $9,000 support, or $57.6 Billion annually for each year thereafter. After adding the annual $6 Billion net birthing cost in the eith year, the annual anti-abortion cost at program maturity onward for birthing and nurturing the close to a million non-aborted children through age 8 will be about $64 Billion. Even with the minor saved expenditure of banned birth control products, the annual cost of a humane anti-abortion agenda would still approach $64 Billion! But, this figure would have to be substantially increased because of the additional children conceived and born if birth control was also banned. Likewise, to be picky, there will be an increment from multiple births, 3% (+25,000 or so); but this will be lessened by mortality rates for infants (-5,600 annually: 0.7%, 7 per 1000) and for children to age 19 (-2300 assuming linear mortality: officially to age 19, 0.065%, or 66 per 100,000). These tend to cancel out or at least contrinnute in the net a minimal change in steady state estimations above. Overall, a picture of approximately A $64 Billion-plus permanent annual expenditure seems reasonable and merits serious thought. Can we bear this? What about additional, and probably substantial, costs - e.g., added child care facilities, schools, health care, etc.? Maybe another 20-40 Billion will be required! So, a possible real figure for a anti-abortion program that covers child nurturing only to age 8 would be $85-100 Billion annually. Can the already stretched resources of the nation meet this challenge? And what if the program were extended to nurture through a more humane 18 years of age? The 18 year, steady state non-aborted child population of nearly 14 million, would cost nearly $150 Billion annually? What about the planet’s capability to sustain the demands of so many more top-consuming Americans? What about a future of severely depleted resources as the global population increases - will all nations have to plan births carefully? The anti-abortion movement does not appear reasoned out or reasonable.
Though this blogger strongly criticises American anti-abortion thinking, he also believes abortion is not simply a female right or self-choice, although a woman's right to her body is paramount. The mother-to-be's decision to abort is vitally important to society and should be exercised after appropriate and unbiased counseling, free from dogma. The saved-from-abortion child is society's child, a national investment and responsibility to care for. But American culture seems to put a twist on things. Our anti-abortion attitude is also shaped by a male-dominated, non-involvement with the physical birth process. Males have never felt, nor ever will feel, the birthing pain, so to American males - clergy, politicians and the just interested - who are so obsessed with preventing abortion, the birth process, and after care, is a distant matter, a non-physical event, a rarely seen video. So what's the big deal, he might say.
All of this boils down to America's sometimes immature, distant, male-dominated, religio-mythologizing of pregnancy and birth-at-whatever-the-consequences. You say this is not about what the anti-abortion movement is for? Well then, we would have to then admit that caring for, rearing, and educating the child afterwards just miraculously occurs.... doesn't it?.
Of course, a full and humane anti-abortion program would be a tremendous social commitment. But can it really be done? Realistically it can't be done humanely because real-world budget constraints would constantly exert pressures on legislators to trim the the program's funding.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment