E-mail
Print
Letter to the Editor: In response to Mr. Raatz’s latest article
By Stephanie Bartell
Before engaging in a debate on abortion two things must always be stated. First, abortions have existed for thousands of years. What is new in modern society are not abortions, but the fact that they are now regulated for the first time in history. Second, abortion is a complex debate that does not boil down to questions like, “When does life begin” or “Why do women have abortions.”
Both questions have different and multiple answers depending on the source. These questions will continue to be dated long after this article is written.
With those things out of the way I will now briefly recap and then respond to Mr. Raatz’s article. Mr. Raatz argues that he supports “fetal rights” and has found a “common ground” from which America could reduce abortions. His idea begins with fetal rights advocates and companies who profit from babies forming an alliance. Once an alliance is formed these two groups could push for policies that reduce abortions. One such policy would be to create a “cartel in the abortion industry” which would decrease competition and “assist poorer women into choosing adoption.” Once these women have been “assisted” these groups could also put out public service announcements to “raise awareness about fetal rights.”
Since Mr. Raatz claims he took a sociology course, I think it only appropriate to give another lesson. First, your argument is not “common ground.” It is a pro-life argument masquerading under moderate ideologies, which is fine. Rather than advancing your ideas as moderate, I think it would be better if you claimed your position and fought for it.
Second, it seems Mr. Raatz has taken very few economics classes. Monopolies, which are essentially the cartel you are promoting, seldom end well. In case you disagree, please see the recent economic crisis in the United States.
Third, one of the reasons abortions were legalized in the United States was not so women could flood abortion clinics. One reason abortion was legalized was because when it was illegal middle-class and wealthy women could afford to hire doctors to perform safe abortions. However, poor women were dying from poorly performed illegal abortions. As John McCain said in 2006, “If we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women will be performing illegal and dangerous operations.” By creating a monopoly on abortion you would not “assist” poor women in “choosing adoption.” Instead, they would get illegal abortions, and the end result could be the homicide of many poorer women (I believe Mr. Raatz said homicide is undemocratic).
Fourthly, Mr. Raatz mentioned fetal rights several times in his article, but never mentioned the rights of women and men who choose abortion. Women have the right to decide whether they want their bodies to change during a pregnancy, and women and men have the right to decide with their partners whether they would like to have a child.
Next, if you go to UWM you see the dozens of people that walk around with pictures of torn apart fetuses telling everyone about how evil abortions are. I am pretty sure everyone knows what abortion is, and what fetuses look like. No further service announcements are needed.
Finally, if you want a real economic solution to reducing abortions, perhaps Mr. Raatz should consider promoting vasectomies for males. For example, we could have condom manufacturers and pro-choice groups rally Congress so that condoms were $1,000 a piece and men would be “assisted” in “choosing” vasectomies because they would be cheaper! Men would no longer have the sperm problem, women would not have unwanted pregnancies, and abortion would be eradicated!
Let me guess what Mr. Raatz might say. “You have no right to regulate my body, and force me to make a decision.” How interesting, because I happen to feel the same way.
> Comments
Geoff Loper on Oct 06, 2008 at 06:46 PM:
"Women have the right to decide whether they want their bodies to change during a pregnancy"
I think you need to revisit your Health class and remember that the changes a woman undergoes during pregnancy are not a choice. Allowing pregnancy is (supposedly) the choice.
"For example, we could have condom manufacturers and pro-choice groups rally Congress so that condoms were $1,000 a piece and men would be “assisted” in “choosing” vasectomies because they would be cheaper!"
If that were the case, we would probably end up with more unwanted pregnancies if condoms were that expensive. And vasectomies can be reversed, and lied about, so that "solution" you provide has some problems... What is a girl to do? Ask to see the surgery scar so she can think that she can safely sleep with someone?
Mike on Oct 07, 2008 at 12:06 AM:
That is the point Geoff, it is supposed to be outlandish and unrealistic as it is a mirror of Raatz's 'solution'.
Greg on Oct 07, 2008 at 11:14 AM:
Your fourth point is at the heart of the debate.
I thought "...questions have different and multiple answers depending on the source. These questions will continue to be dated long after this article is written."
Lets be careful not to making sweeping statements while discredting sweeping statements.
Johanan Raatz on Oct 07, 2008 at 02:24 PM:
First, abortions have existed for thousands of years. What is new in modern society are not abortions, but the fact that they are now regulated for the first time in history.
They did have some regulations on abortion throughout history. Granted it was legal to some extent because of pre-scientific notions of "quickening," but with the advent of modern medical science we know that abortion takes a human life.
"Second, abortion is a complex debate that does not boil down to questions like, “When does life begin” or “Why do women have abortions.”"
The first is not that complex. It's a matter of simple scientific fact. The second is somewhat complex and my article was an attempt to delve into and find appropriate ways to deal with some of those complexities.
"First, your argument is not “common ground.” It is a pro-life argument masquerading under moderate ideologies, which is fine. Rather than advancing your ideas as moderate, I think it would be better if you claimed your position and fought for it."
But the ideas I am fighting for and advancing ARE moderate. I think we all agree that abortions should be reduced I'm just finding was to do it. I never suggested anywhere in the article that we ban it outright.
"Second, it seems Mr. Raatz has taken very few economics classes. Monopolies, which are essentially the cartel you are promoting, seldom end well. In case you disagree, please see the recent economic crisis in the United States."
Well that depends on what you want to do. If your goal is to grow an industry then yes that would be bad. But the goal here is to reduce abortions and so shrinking the industry would be preferable.
"However, poor women were dying from poorly performed illegal abortions. As John McCain said in 2006, “If we repeal Roe v. Wade tomorrow, thousands of young American women will be performing illegal and dangerous operations.”
I didn't say anything in the article about repealing Roe v. Wade. And the death toll of women dying from illegal abortions before Roe was greatly exaggerated for political reasons. We have people who can attest to that that were among those who were fudging the numbers. And besides that how many people die from car accidents each year? I'd wager it was probably greater than those dying from illegal abortions. Whereas the number of fetal deaths do to abortion is far in excess of any such statistic post-Roe. So if you have to choose between a couple hundred (or thousand if you choose to believe the propaganda) vs. 1.2 million deaths do to legal fetal homicide a year it's obvious the the former number by comparison is not so bad.
I also would like to point out that my article discusses means to reduce abortions among the middle and upper class as well.
"Instead, they would get illegal abortions, and the end result could be the homicide of many poorer women (I believe Mr. Raatz said homicide is undemocratic)."
Um not that would not be "homicide," that would be accidental suicide. Besides that if we told them not to behave in a certain way and they did anyway and they killed themselves in the process that's their fault not ours. If we tell someone not to shoot someone but he goes into a store with the intent of killing the clerk anyway and in the process has an accident with the gun and kills himself that's his fault -not ours.
"By creating a monopoly on abortion you would not “assist” poor women in “choosing adoption.”"
You are assuming this is a rapid process. It's not. It takes a lot of time for a monopoly or a cartel to form, and that's part of the idea. The idea was to use economic pressure to slowly transform views towards abortion. The abortions would become less and less available over a shorter period of time until they would cycle down to extinction. And as this process occurs people would gradually adapt to their being less abortions available.
"Fourthly, Mr. Raatz mentioned fetal rights several times in his article, but never mentioned the rights of women and men who choose abortion."
While I did not directly discuss women's rights I mentioned that I wanted equality between mothers and fetal children:
"that achieve the greatest equality between mothers and fetal children."
So I obviously want women to have the same rights that I argue fetal children have.
"Women have the right to decide whether they want their bodies to change during a pregnancy,"
This doesn't make sense. Women's bodies change during pregnancy as part of the process. You can choose to get pregnant but you can not choose to have a pregnancy that does not entail physical changes to your body. It doesn't make sense to ask that.
"and women and men have the right to decide with their partners whether they would like to have a child."
I don't recall ever denying that anywhere. I believe that a couple should be perfectly free to have or risk having a child.
"I am pretty sure everyone knows what abortion is, and what fetuses look like. No further service announcements are needed."
That is not exactly what I had in mind when I mentioned the possibility of public service announcements. At most they might include medical diagrams of abortion but I was more thinking along the lines of anti-smoking or anti-drug commercials just with abortion being the target instead.
"Finally, if you want a real economic solution to reducing abortions, perhaps Mr. Raatz should consider promoting vasectomies for males. For example, we could have condom manufacturers and pro-choice groups rally Congress so that condoms were $1,000 a piece and men would be “assisted” in “choosing” vasectomies because they would be cheaper! Men would no longer have the sperm problem, women would not have unwanted pregnancies, and abortion would be eradicated! Let me guess what Mr. Raatz might say. “You have no right to regulate my body, and force me to make a decision.”"
Actually we already have something like that. Courts can order dead-beat dads who also happen to be the types that cause many abortions to undergo vasectomies. I have no problem with this and in fact encourage it. It wouldn't affect me because I do not treat sex in the cavalier manner that leads to abortion. Expanding such a program would actually be a moderate proposal and would reduce abortions as well as future welfare costs.
Johanan Raatz on Oct 07, 2008 at 02:28 PM:
Mike:
"That is the point Geoff, it is supposed to be outlandish and unrealistic as it is a mirror of Raatz's 'solution'."
Well she may have intended it to be outlandish as she appears to have overreacted to my article but believe it or not a lesser version of that is already in place. Courts can order vasectomies for dead beat dads who keep on having kids they don't pay for and it's not a bad idea either. Slightly expanding it to dads that are partially responsible for causing abortions is not a bad idea either.