The Abortion debate: a mother's view

Women are terminating their pregnancy in today's wealthy societies because they are drowning in unpaid and unseen care work. They often already have children that need everything from their mothers, and "the village" that is so needed to support them simply doesn't exist. And yes, women who terminate don't usually do it because they don't want their baby. They simply see no way to have it. Often it is because they already have children that need everything from their mothers. In our rich Western world, a mother who terminates her xth child is much more respected than one who puts the burden of another "eater" to pay for on the welfare state. The majority of women who terminated a pregnancy in Germany in the 1st quarter of 2022 were already mothers. It is sick and sad, but true.

In Germany, termination is no reproduction right. It is a crime. The relevant paragraph in the law follows right after murder and homicide. We are not free in our choices. Though there is no punishment when strict rules are being followed, it remains a crime, and these women not only carry the loss of their child, but also the stigma of being a criminal.

"Eater" is how people looked at their children in past times, and when it comes to struggling financially or mentally because of a growing family, and, unfortunately, I believe the term is not too far away from reality...

And, no, most women do not chose to terminate a pregnancy because they are afraid of larger vaginas (though I really love that discussion point).

Credit: By Lisann

Note: Communist countries like Romania had an abortion ban. This ban from 1966 is considered one of the attrocities of the 20th century. It resulted in large numbers of unsafe abortions and increased maternal death, and in the building of notorious orphanages.

Unfortunately, criminalizing the termination of pregnancy does not solve the problem. This unseen care work has to be valued and rewarded in order for parents to be able to raise their children in a safe, loving environment. The appreciation of the work done by mothers (and by fathers) then, naturally, can lead to laws and to the building communities that support children and families. Unfortunately, instead of looking for a viable solution, societies find it easier to cause more problems, to criminalize and to blame the already overwhelmed women.

In the past, it was illegal for doctors to advertise abortion in Germany. However, this law changed last week as a response to the US abortion ban. Thanks to Werner for pointing this out.

This is written in response to the previous post: The Abortion Debate: A Man's Perspective

The Abortion Debate: a man's perspective

Forcing a woman to stay pregnant against her will violates a fundamental right of the woman to decide what happens to her body, regardless of consequences to others -- namely the death of her child. But why care what men say when we talk about women's bodies? well, lawmakers and people in leadership positions are all men to a first approximation, and it makes sense to look at the problem from the perspective of those who make decisions.

Whatever law we pass, and whatever position we take as lawmakers, both forced terminations and forced pregnancies will happen in our society. Making abortion illegal at state level is likely to increase the number of children abandoned and satisfy the demands of the adoption market. It will also make it harder for employers, husbands, boyfriends, mothers and others to openly pressure a woman into a termination. A forced termination is a terrible thing, but something that continues to happen throughout our society. This, too, goes very much against the rights of the woman and those of her baby.

The question is how many forced pregnancies are we willing to tolerate in order to eliminate a forced termination? The logic should be like when we give people a vaccine. Vaccines have costs, side effects and, at times, result in the death of the vaccinated. They also result in a reduction in death and disability associated with the disease they are intended to protect from.

The following questions are standard for the vaccine makers is
-- How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to avoid a case of clinical illness
-- How many people do we need to vaccinate in order to avoid a death caused by illness
-- How many people will die due to the side effects of the vaccine for each death avoided due to the disease

The equivalent questions for the case of abortion are
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case of forced abortion?
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case an abortion?
-- How many unwanted pregnancies will continue for every wanted pregnancy that is saved from unwanted termination due to social and peer pressure?

Why do women choose to have abortions when the baby appears healthy and their life is not threatened by the pregnancy? Well, the procedure comes with less risks than carrying the baby to term. In other words, it's easier and people often take the easy route when they have little support along the uphill path. But why not consider alternatives, such as putting the baby for adoption? There is a shortage of babies on the adoption market. Prospective parents face fierce competition and long waiting times. Many don't get the chance to choose which child they adopt and many don't end up getting a child at all. Creating a baby and giving it up for adoption results in the time, money and lives of the adopted parents being invested in the baby. This way, the woman channels resources she'd never have access to into raising her baby. This should be seen as a good thing. Yet, we have vastly more terminations than adoptions. Why??

Pregnancy (1) is a situation where typically 2 people share one body. It's like when people live in the same flat, just a little closer. So close that one is alive inside the other. One of these people, the mother has lived about half of her life without the baby, has had a contribution in choosing the genetic makeup of the child, who is yet to be born. A termination or abortion happens when these two people don't get along. The mother requires immediate separation from the baby, with the understanding that such separation will result in the death of the baby. The Supreme Court is then called to arbitrate this disagreement. The baby is too small to talk. Thus, the judges speak on his or her behalf.

Should the mother continue with her pregnancy, she stands to lose some time from work and potential loss of life and health through complications related to pregnancy and birth, and part of herself. She won't be the same person she was before having the baby if she chooses to keep it. Typically, a six week maternity leave is available in the US for mothers who keep the child. Women who have terminations typically don't want the child or don't think they can handle the upbringing and can't bring themselves to put that burden on somebody else.

Sarah Pallin made headlines when went into labour with her 5th child while giving a talk. She continued her presentation, went to the airport, flew to Alaska, drove to her hospital and gave birth. She then left her child at home and was back at work the following day. She kept the child, but the help available to her meant she had the same childcare burden as a woman putting her child for adoption.

All in all, assuming pregnancy, followed by abandoning the baby, costs a woman 9 months of childbearing, 6 weeks of income and some setbacks in her career. It doesn't sound like much to a man who has never raised children. The unborn baby stands to lose his life. If not aborted people have about 100 healthy happy years to live. It is hard to understand why women assess the value of the 100 years of life the child would have gained through their pregnancy so little that they choose to terminate.

One would assume that, if women were reasonable players, giving due love and consideration to their unborn children, we'd have more unwanted pregnancies ending up in adoption than abortion. Why is this not the case?
Possible reasons are:
-- Peer pressure
-- The most likely culprit is the male partner. Men are forced by law to take responsibility for their children. Thus, if a woman has a child, the man may have to pay something or help a little bit. As such, many men decide against having children. When their partners are pregnant, they pressure the woman to have terminations. If the woman doesn't accept, she usually has to put up with verbal arguments, psychological pressure and, in extreme circumstances, some financial strain and a divorce.
--Sometimes, the mothers or family members pressure women into terminations. Usually, these are again verbal arguments. Sometimes, a little violent, but often not. Maybe, in the eyes of the family, the woman has too many children, or she is at the wrong time of her career to care for a child.

Neither husbands nor families are supportive of the idea of abandoning a child after birth, and they prefer killing the child before birth. This is probably because an existing born child would have a powerful legal claim upon their estate. The child would be entitled to some level of support and inheritance. He could be a nuisance and a burden, even if abandoned.

-- Employers and the State. Often pregnancy can result in loss of income or loss of employment. A woman's career is often set back by pregnancy. Thus, women find themselves under pressure to avoid pregnancies in order to compete professionally and earn good wages.

Both the State and employers are probably accepting of women who abandon their children, although child abandonment isn't necessarily the best thing on a CV.

-- The woman's desire to preserve her body presumably for the purpose of attracting men. Pregnancy is seen as a process that lowers the degree of sexual attractively of a the woman. The consequences of pregnancy, such as extra weight or saggy breasts are also seen as not terribly sexy by men. So is a larger vagina, as may be the case after childbirth. Many women look great after having children, but this is often a concern and reason to have a termination instead of a successful pregnancy followed by child abandonment.

-- Inability to abandon a child. In some situations, a woman is not able to abandon her child. It may be unacceptable to her religion, or family or public image. What would the world think of Ivanka Trump if she choose to abandon a child, instead of having a termination? Most likely no one would ever know if Mrs Trump had an abortion. Abandoning a child would clearly make the news and probably harm their political reputation and be a reason for blackmail. As such, other women are pushed by society to choose abortion over abandoning.

-- the belief that the unborn baby is not human. Thus, killing it before birth is not a bad thing. Sure, unborn babies lack many of the faculties of grown up people, but they have a full life that they can live if allowed to be born. Does a baby need sentience in order to exercise ownership over his right to live a full life expectancy?

Many adults who are as sentient as an unborn baby are considered humans and given the right to live. People who suffer strokes, dementia, brain damage are often less able to interact with the world than an unborn baby. Also, unlike the baby, they lack potential for future development and for leading a full live. If we consider the lack of faculties of an unborn baby as an illness, it is an illness that, in most cases, gets cured by the passage of time, without medicine and effort. Thus, why not allow these unborn babies to cure their lack of maturity when we support the lives of so many old people of similar ability, but with little or no hope for recovery?

I end this post with my wish that lawmakers take decisions based on data -- in general -- but especially when they alter laws that affect fundamental human rights. We should know what data led to their decision. The data should be public, and its analysis should be done by scientists and data analysts. And if data changes, the decision should be re-evaluated.
In the case of abortion we should be able to answer questions like in the case of a drug or vaccine like the ones I am posing below:
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case of forced abortion?
-- How many people do we need to subject to a law forbidding abortion in order to avoid a case an abortion?
-- How many unwanted pregnancies will continue for every wanted pregnancy that is saved from unwanted termination due to social and peer pressure?

_---------- (1) Pregnancy lasts 9 months, beginning with the first day of the last period. During the first two weeks, the baby doesn't yet exist, as conception hasn't occurred yet. The eggs and sperm still live inside different people. Then sperm gets inside the woman. At this point, her partner choice is made and it will impact the child's genetic makeup. A few days later, conception occurs. An embryo forms and starts to swim inside the woman's uterus. A few more days and the woman and the baby are inseparably joined for the remaining 8.5 months. (2) Indeed, 6 weeks of a good American salary (or perhaps a few months depending on the salary) is sufficient to purchase the services of a surrogate mother in Georgia or Ukraine. This includes all medical and IVF fees. The reason women choose to go through pregnancy themselves instead of using commercial surrogacy is, in part, to save these fees. Some celebrities choose to not bother with pregnancy and hire surrogates.

The Abortion Ruling

In a landmark ruling that shocked the world, the US Supreme Court has overthrown Roe and decided a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy shall no longer be protected at federal level.

Donald Trump has rightly hailed this as his victory, as it was the three Supreme Court judges he has appointed to serve for life that have played a decisive role. It is also a reminder that Trump and his movement have a good grip on America that will continue throughout and beyond the Biden presidency.

Internationally, this is very bad news for the world. It means America will concern itself increasingly with its internal problems and pay less attention to the international scene. Thus, The US is more likely to hand Ukraine to Russia and Taiwan to China just like it has recently given Afghanistan to the Taliban, Hong Kong to China and championed the rise of dictators worldwide in the name of the Coronavirus, while people sporting Buffalo horns entered the US capitol chanting "Hang Mike Pence". Mike Pence got out through the back door, but the people whoes rights are disappearing around the world don't have a safe exit. Should Russia decide to send some nuclear bombs to Europe, The US is more likely to watch from afar and concern itself with internal problems instead of protecting its NATO partners.

The US is, as it currently stands, is by no means in a position to enforce a ban on abortion that has statistically relevant effects on the American population. It will however be interesting to see what happens when Putin or someone with similar dictatorial power enacts a similar ban. As a Romanian, I have seen this experiment carried out in my country. The results are interesting, and very much worthy of academic attention.

Thus, what will be the effect of the new Supreme Court ruling? The Supreme Court ruled that it will no longer impose upon state governments the obligation to allow women to have terminations. States are democratic entities that vote on their own and decide on the matter. Most states will not change much. Some states -- not most, but not few -- have already banned abortions altogether. Women in these states are still free to have abortions elsewhere. The Supreme Court ruling thus increases the average cost of a termination by a trip to a state where it is allowed. This is something of order $100 and amounts to a form of government advice.

In the sates where abortion is banned, the cost of the procedure will no longer be covered by health insurance. This will make the situation in the US smilar to Germany, where abortion is strangely illegal, and not covered by health insurance as governmengt health care does not wish to take part in criminal activity. Still, abortion is effectively available to all German women and widely practiced.

Removing terminations from the list of procedures covered by insurance means the cost of the insurance premium will decrease, probably by a few cents, as insurance companies no longer have to pay for the procedure. As such people from these states, the majority of which do not have terminations and half of which are men, will no longer be forced to pay for the abortions of those who require them.

The women having abortions will have to pay themselves, again an added financial burden which is small for middle class Americans.

But, as we all know, not all Americans are middle class. The poor American women who are more likely to be Black, Hispanic and vote democrat are more likely to be swayed into continuing an unwanted pregnancy by this few hundred dollars worth of financial pressure. As such, the homeless, the destitute and drug addicts will often choose to have another fix of heroin or whatever makes them happy, instead of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

But, not all women are free. Women who are pregnant and jailed in a state that no longer allows terminations will be forced to carry the pregnancy to term. This is the only group where the new law causes a drastic and irreversible change of situation.

Overall, abortion remains available, with no significant changes to most women that matter -- the educated, the rich, the middle class, the feminists, etc. The poor, the destitute, the mentally ill, the criminals and those imprisoned without having committed a crime, will be forced to bear unwanted children and build the America of tomorrow.

Some 20 years following the wide spread introduction of abortions, we have seen a clear drop in criminality in the US. This was not due to better policy, but to the fact that children more likely to be come criminals were less likely to be born ( https://freakonomics.com/podcast/abortion-and-crime-revisited-update/ ). The current ruling will revert this trend. We will thus see an increase in criminality in 20 years time. This is, however, not a problem. The Second Amendment guarantees every American the right to carry a gun and protect himself from criminals. We can enprison the criminals and force them to have more children, at gunpoint, if need be.

Obviously, not all people convicted and jailed are criminals. With current imigration laws, perhaps most are not. Prominent examples are Julien Assange, Alexey Navalny, Nelson Mandela, immigrants held in various centers awaiting deportation or asylum, victims of the Holochaust, etc, etc. How does the Supreme Court justify denying these people the right to a termination, when it is the state that imprisoned them illegally and their free counterparts can access the procedure by traveling to another state? What will be the appropriate reparation the US should pay to a mother and her born child, if the birth of the child is the result of the mother being unfairly imprisoned during her pregnancy? Is this question so politically inconvenient that it makes people uncomfortable reading it?

The cause of war: shifting power?

In the nineteen's century, France, Spain and England were the colonial powers that dominated the world. Austria took over Europe from Turkey and created its own empire. Russia grew too and became an empire. Then Germany caught up. The change in power caused WWI, and Germany became the powerhouse of Europe. Since communication improved war became a global phenomena that included multiple coutries instead of just two players.

Then America took over the world. Since WWII the leadership of the world became bimodal. America took the role of the good power, and Russia of the bad one. Not long before that Europeans considered America a place for criminals and whores, who took everything from the native population and sent some of the riches back to Europe. After the war, suddenly America was "the only party in town". It was the country that funded progress, where science happened, and where everyone dreamed of going. On the other hand, Russia (the bad power) succeeded through brute force. They displaced people, placed them in jail, and physically suppressed those who opposed the communism regime. The post-WWII Jerkyl and Hyde game replaced colonies with proxy wars where American played the role of the saviours as reported by the media, and Russia funded the bad guys. Of course, both caused destruction and heartbreak around the world.

Today, India could become the good power and China the bad one. Together they could lead whatever world is left of the world after WWIII. India controls IT and China controls manufacturing. In terms of dynamics, there is the internet (India), the manufacturing (China), the resources (e.g., oil - the Arab world), and food (some everywhere). We are trying to get rid of oil/gas in part to stop climate change, and in part because of our fear of the arabs, who still have many children. Somehow, having old, silly leaders in palaces that do nothing (beyond getting fat and abusing themselves and others) and have none of the things that matter cannot hold forever.