David Frum - Let's Get Real About Abortion

[Peas n carrots]

Great argument, from a conservative nonetheless.

I apologize in advance if this already was posted...I didn't see it in the feed yet.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/29/opinion/frum-abortion-reality/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(CNN) -- When Richard Mourdock delivered his notorious answer about rape and abortion, I was sorry that the debate moderator failed to follow up with the next question:

"OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist's child to term. That's a heavy burden to impose on someone. What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses? Compensate her for time lost to work? Would you pay for the child's upbringing? College education?

"If a woman has her credit card stolen, her maximum liability under federal law is $50. Yet on your theory, if she is raped, she must endure not only the trauma of assault, but also accept economic costs of potentially many thousands of dollars. Must that burden also fall on her alone? When we used to draft men into the Army, we gave them veterans' benefits afterward. If the state now intends to conscript women into involuntary childbearing, surely those women deserve at least an equally generous deal?"

That question sounds argumentative, and I suppose it is.

But there's a serious point here, and it extends well beyond the anguishing question of sexual assault.

If you're serious about reducing abortion, the most important issue is not which abortions to ban. The most important issue is how will you support women to have the babies they want.

As a general rule, societies that do the most to support mothers and child-bearing have the fewest abortions. Societies that do the least to support mothers and child-bearing have more abortions.

Germany, for example, operates perhaps the world's plushest welfare state. Working women receive 14 weeks of maternity leave, during which time they receive pay from the state. The state pays a child allowance to the parents of every German child for potentially as many as 25 years, depending on how long as the child remains in school. Women who leave the work force after giving birth receive a replacement wage from the state for up to 14 months.

Maybe not coincidentally, Germany has one of the lowest abortion rates, about one-third that of the United States. Yet German abortion laws are not especially restrictive. Abortion is legal during the first trimester of pregnancy and available if medically or psychologically necessary in the later trimesters.

Even here in the United States, where parental benefits are much less generous, abortion responds to economic conditions. In the prosperous 1990s, abortion rates declined rapidly. In the less prosperous '00s, abortion rates declined more slowly. When the economy plunged into crisis in 2008, abortion rates abruptly rose again.

These trends should not surprise anyone. Women choose abortion for one overwhelming reason: economic insecurity. The large majority of women who chose abortion in 2008, 57%, reported a disruptive event in their lives in the previous 12 months: most often, the loss of a job or home.

Obama on Mourdock: Male politicians shouldn't make abortion decisions

Of the women who choose abortion, 58% are in their 20s. Some 61% of them already have a child. Almost 70% of them are poor or near poor.

Three-quarters say they cannot afford another child.

Pro-life and pro-choice debaters delight in presenting each other with exquisitely extreme moral dilemmas: "Would you ban abortion even in case of rape?" "Would you permit abortion even when done only to select the sex of the child?"

These dorm-room hypotheticals do not have very much to do with the realities of abortion in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Here's an interesting example of those realities: The Netherlands has one of the the most liberal abortion laws in the world. Yet for a long time, the Netherlands also reported one of the world's lowest abortion rates. That low incidence abruptly began to rise in the mid-1990s. Between 1996 and 2003, the abortion rate in the Netherlands jumped by 31% over seven years.

What changed? The Guttmacher Institute, the leading source of data on reproductive health worldwide, cites "a growing demand for terminations from women in ethnic minority groups residing in the country." Well over half of all abortions performed on teenagers in the Netherlands are performed on girls of non-Dutch origins.

These girls and women weren't being raped. They weren't selecting for the sex of their child. They chose abortion because they had become sexually active within male-dominated immigrant subcultures in which access to birth control was restricted, in which female sexuality was tightly policed, in which girls who become pregnant outside marriage are disgraced and in which the costs and obligations of childbearing loaded almost entirely on women alone.

Abortion is a product of poverty and maternal distress.

A woman who enjoys the most emotional and financial security and who has chosen the timing of her pregnancy will not choose abortion, even when abortion laws are liberal. A woman who is dominated, who is poor and who fears bearing the child is likely to find an abortion, even where abortion is restricted, as it was across the United States before 1965.

So maybe at the next candidates' debate, a journalist will deflect the discussion away from "what if" and instead ask this:

"Rather than tell us what you'd like to ban, tell us please what you think government should do to support more happy and healthy childbearing, to reduce unwanted pregnancies and to alleviate the economic anxieties of mothers-to-be?"

Those are the questions that make the difference. It's amazing how little we talk about them.

[Guest Anonymous]

It's an interesting argument but, I must admit, this part creeps me the fuck out:

"OK, Mr. Mourdock, you say your principles require a raped woman to carry the rapist's child to term. That's a heavy burden to impose on someone. What would you do for her in return? Would you pay her medical expenses? Compensate her for time lost to work? Would you pay for the child's upbringing? College education?

"If a woman has her credit card stolen, her maximum liability under federal law is $50. Yet on your theory, if she is raped, she must endure not only the trauma of assault, but also accept economic costs of potentially many thousands of dollars. Must that burden also fall on her alone? When we used to draft men into the Army, we gave them veterans' benefits afterward. If the state now intends to conscript women into involuntary childbearing, surely those women deserve at least an equally generous deal?"

What is the monetary value of rape and forced pregnancy?

ETA: I do know that wasn't his point, but I just couldn't help having a gut reaction to it.

[Peas n carrots]

It's an interesting argument but, I must admit, this part creeps me the fuck out:

What is the monetary value of rape and forced pregnancy?

ETA: I do know that wasn't his point, but I just couldn't help having a gut reaction to it.

I get it. I think though, with these folks the only way you can put it in terms they would understand would be to attach a monetary value to it.

[3 is enough]

David Frum is a Canadian. So while he may be conservative, his upbringing in that "evil socialist country to the north" had a tempering effect on his opinions.

Even the most conservative leaning Canadians are light years to the left of their US counterparts.

[2xx1xy1JD]

David Frum is a Canadian. So while he may be conservative, his upbringing in that "evil socialist country to the north" had a tempering effect on his opinions.

Even the most conservative leaning Canadians are light years to the left of their US counterparts.

QFT.

I've mentioned David Frum before. I like him because he's reasonably intelligent and appreciates logic, instead of seeing it as some sort of liberal conspiracy. I also appreciate that he is someone who would rather say "Republicans are getting it wrong" and be alone, than follow the herd into insanity.

I totally agree with what he wrote. If you want to reduce abortion rates, promote better education and access to birth control, and then provide better support to mothers.

Here's his piece on same-sex marriage - again, he's a conservative, but a logical one.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-27/opin ... PM:OPINION

[PennySycamore]

David Frum is a Canadian. So while he may be conservative, his upbringing in that "evil socialist country to the north" had a tempering effect on his opinions.

Even the most conservative leaning Canadians are light years to the left of their US counterparts.

No wonder that David Frum seems to have a lot of sense. IIRC, he did not support McCain-Palin in 2008.

[Fargood]

This reminds me of a piece that NPR did recently on the abortion debate called "In Context." They hosted two opposing viewpoints, but the catch was the parties had to come to the table with an agreement to intelligently discuss both sides in a series of pre-determined questions.

The pro-life side was represented by the most recent head of Focus on the Family. One of the things he said he admired about the pro-choice side of the debate was the committment the pro-choice movement seems to have for women's health. He said that he feels that the pro-life movement not only disregards women's health, but marginalizes it to the point of endangering it.

This article really highlights the issues that I think a lot of pro-choice people have the pro-life side of the debate, which is: if you demand that a woman not be allowed to use birth control, not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy, not be allowed to accept state-sponsered assistance or be allowed to take time off from work to raise the child -- just what the fuck is it that she is supposed to do?

[lilah]

Well once again friends DO NOT READ THE COMMENTS. I repeat the COMMENT SECTION WILL MAKE YOU CRY SAD PANDA TEARS, or MAKE YOU STABBY.

And yeah it's sad that the GOP keeps trying to one up each other in saying the most asinine ridiculous things about rape and never seem to actually think about abortion as how it's a real issue in the real world.

One of the best ways to prevent abortions is to make sure that society has widespread access to contraception. Sad the GOP keeps wanting to de-fund planned parenthood and endorse abstinence only sex ed.

PS this is amusing http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv ... al-breaker

[Lady_M]

This article really highlights the issues that I think a lot of pro-choice people have the pro-life side of the debate, which is: if you demand that a woman not be allowed to use birth control, not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy, not be allowed to accept state-sponsered assistance or be allowed to take time off from work to raise the child -- just what the fuck is it that she is supposed to do?

Well, no fucking, that's for sure... :roll:

In all seriousness though, this is pretty much the issue in a nutshell.

[RosyDaisy]

I know I was warned, but, some of those dumbass comments make me want to :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:. How the hell can any of them claim they are pro-life? :evil:

[JesusFightClub]

This article really highlights the issues that I think a lot of pro-choice people have the pro-life side of the debate, which is: if you demand that a woman not be allowed to use birth control, not be allowed to terminate a pregnancy, not be allowed to accept state-sponsered assistance or be allowed to take time off from work to raise the child -- just what the fuck is it that she is supposed to do?

Exactly, and I'll add one more. You're not allowed, as a woman, to reject your husband sexually. Unless you're both going to be spending the time in prayer, which bizarrely enough is very difficult to explain to employers.

"Sorry, Dave, I won't be in for the next few days. My husband and I are going to be praying constantly and rending our garments for the future of our nation."

[Childless]

Like I said in a different thread, when a man is forced to relive his rape for 9 months, when he's forced to go through a painful birth for a pregnancy he never wanted, when he's forced to face society with the visual shame for nearly a year, then they can have an opinion. Until then, they need to shut the fuck up.

[desertvixen]

If you're serious about reducing abortion, the most important issue is not which abortions to ban. The most important issue is how will you support women to have the babies they want.

As a general rule, societies that do the most to support mothers and child-bearing have the fewest abortions. Societies that do the least to support mothers and child-bearing have more abortions.

This. I wonder how much difference maternity benefits and flexibility in the workplace for people who have people they need to care for (children, aging parents, etc) would make to how women saw being able to afford a child. Flexibility would be nice if it came without the inevitable screwing over on benefits of part-time.

That, and adequate social services.

But, noooo, let's shame women and ban birth control! That sounds like a better plan. /wtf?

[Minerva]

I know I was warned, but, some of those dumbass comments make me want to :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:. How the hell can any of them claim they are pro-life? :evil:

The more sensible the article is, the more batshit the comments are. It's like they do it on purpose.

[Shina]

Posting to Facebook.

Here fundies, fundies! Come on out of the woodwork, I need to purge my friendslist anyhow. :twisted:

[plaidninja]

Shared, cos a teenager I babysat 10 years ago told me today that I would answer to God for not believing that all of the "unfortunate events" are made "into something beautiful," cos BABIES ARE CUTE, THAT'S WHY. Blood pressure rising.

All I said was that countries with access to contraception have significantly lower abortion rates... and back it up with academic papers...