Legal Abortions are a fundamental necessity: the alternative is horrific
Even if you oppose them, how dare you demand others suffer for your ethics
This article concerns the HBE and psychology beside selective parenting, and the outcomes of having a quantity-driven reproductive system. If I sound cold, it is purely because I am focusing on this in a scientific perspective.
Humans have babies on two grounds: quality of offspring, and quantity of offspring. This is universal. No matter what culture you are, you either choose to have a few children and invest resources, time and money in them to make them successful, or, as many poorer groups do, you have a lot of children and hope that increases the chances that some survive. I’d say strategy 1 is kinder, fairer and leads to a more sustainable community.
Over population, over crowding and over-reproduction leads to disease, poverty, anger and crime. Look around you. This is basic social science. When a woman has to invest all her income and time in providing (barely) for numerous children she does not want, those children are never going to come out as well as the woman who can choose when to have offspring in a safe and economically sound environment. Globally, women who do not have access to abortion or contraception have a lower level of education, higher levels of overcrowding and higher levels of poverty.
Infanticide was, and often is, practiced when an offspring that is costly cannot be brought up in good enough conditions to meet hardship: even now days most abortions take place in a demographic of young women who want to get an education or improve their careers so they can eventually provide for a child. It is deeply, deeply cruel to bring a child into the world when all of human behavioral ecology and psychology is telling the woman this is a bad evolutionary investment. 1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage in humans because they are not genetically sound enough to survive full development: even the human body is designed to select for optimum offspring. In the wild, animals ditch offspring who are too weak to survive, or if the environment is too severe for them to live through. Nowadays, women are forced to leave babies behind bins or on doorsteps because for some reason anti-abortionists think that shuffling children from foster home to foster home and ditching them at 18 is kinder than getting rid of a group of cells at an early stage.
Children who are unexpectedly born into poverty, unsafe situations or unstable parental care are far more likely to face extensive abuse. It has always been this way. No amount of ‘social care’ will ever change the fact that children are expensive, time consuming and emotionally exhausting.
Ok, I hear you saying. But I don’t want to pay for it! Why should my taxes be spent on women who can’t keep their legs shut?
- MOST women are sexually active. A whopping 88% of all women in the UK have sex on a semi-monthly basis over the age of 18. Telling women not to have sex is never going to happen. It didn’t work in Victorian England and it won’t work now.
- CONDOMS FAIL. THEY SPLIT ALL THE TIME. I don’t know anyone who isn’t sexually active who hasn’t had a pregnancy scare because her period was late once, or fifteen times. The pill? That can fail too, especially if you miss it for a day or two. The fail rates are definitely not 99%. I’d say more about 80%. Definitely not a dead cert. IUDs? Also sometimes it just happens. Unwanted pregnancy happens. No one sets out to have an unwanted pregnancy. Trust me, we all try desperately not to go through the horror and panic of discovering you might have to give up your degree, dreams and hopes, not to mention raise a child you don’t want.
- Would you rather pay a lot more- and I’m talking billions here- for women’s shelters, child care, child support, counselling, social care, council houses, foster homes, that child’s NHS care, that child’s education, that child’s nappies, bottles, milk, food, trips to the cinema for 18 years? Do you want to pay for the costs of overcrowding, disease, crime and unemployment that will definitely occur if we force women to have every single one of the hundreds of thousands of pregnancies that are terminated every year? If the answer is no, then you can definitely pay £23 (on average) a year to stop the appalling suffering of millions of the thousands of unwanted children who will be ditched on the state. (And no, putting the power on ‘the father’ to play God on whether he pays for the abortion spells disaster).
I’d like to finish with this, which sums up why you simply can’t demand women stop having abortions:
I read something today that I found deeply harrowing. A young woman, already a mother of one, barely an adult herself, found herself pregnant. She was in an abusive, controlling relationship.She had no income of her own. The child she already had was growing up in hard conditions, with none of the luxuries of trips out, dressing up or interesting food.
This woman wasn’t part of some weird, far away religious group in a third world country, but in a fairly non religious community in Ireland. Her social worker was horrified to discover that at 8 weeks pregnant she wanted to go to the UK for an abortion, telling her that she could keep the baby and have the support of society. Feeling confused, she decided to have the child. The abuse got worse, and now with a baby in the house he had more control over the woman. Eventually she fled after he beat her to a woman’s shelter. Now she has two children which she can’t afford to even bring up fairly and deeply regrets not having an abortion. Her anger at the woman demanding she had the baby on ethical grounds, and then never being around to see or care if the child was safe, fed, free from abuse or capable of growing up without poverty, was palpable. Her anger and shame at not being able to give her children the life she wanted to, due to this woman’s ethical qualms, was heartbreaking.