Constructive Thoughts for the Day

Constructive Thoughts for the Day
Permalink : http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/kriengsak

Friday , April 25 , 2008

Legalizing abortion: A pyrrhic victory

Posted by Kriengsak , Reader : 2504 , 14:57:34 | Category : Economy

picture from <http://www.lifedd.net/images/m6.jpg> No one, except perhaps some criminals, is fond of crimes. Thus, we create many mechanisms to solve them. Steven Levitt, a famous neo-classical economist, has postulated that the crime rate can be lowered by legalizing abortion because legalization would enable women who fear their children will not have a good life to abort their foetuses. Levitt attributes a decrease in teen delinquency (illegal abortions by pregnant teens) in the 1990s to the fact that abortion rates increased in the 70s. Although Levitt states that his findings “should not be misinterpreted as either an endorsement of abortion or a call for intervention by the state in the fertility decisions of women” in the United State, they have triggered much controversy over whether or not abortion should be legalized. Some people – especially those affiliated with religious groups – are upset about his assertions. They argue that pro-abortion advocates are often ignorant or misinformed about the true issues involved in the decision to legalize abortion. This issue is the topic of much discussion in Thai society now as the Thai government considers legalizing abortion. However, the Thai government should not rely on the same rhetoric in its decision. Legalizing abortion in Thailand would not minimize levels of youth delinquency. It is merely a costly way to solve the real problems causing increased teen pregnancy within our society. To minimize the number of prospective delinquencies, the Thai government should instead take a hard look at its policies. It must promote efficient policies and ignore those inefficient policies that are causing an increase in teen pregnancies. Let us look at this matter from an economic standpoint. Economic principles dictate that inefficiency occurs when a decision maker does not choose the best alternative. Efficiency is defined as a choice yielding the same or equal benefit, the best alternative, or an efficient solution, in other words, the choice that yields the least cost to – in this case – the Thai society. We also need to define what cost is. Again, economic principles say that the cost of a decision is the value of the best tangible or intangible choice. Now we will apply these concepts to this discussion. Since every culture accepts that human life is the most valuable entity on earth, we must consider the value of an aborted foetus when we consider the cost of legalized abortion. To do this, two questions must be asked: What is the value of one human life?; and what is the relative value a foetus compared with that of a human being? I agree with most people who think that each human life is very valuable. However, since other people’s lives are also valuable and all lives need some resources to sustain their existence, we can say there are some limits on the value of one human life. (In an economic point of view, human life cannot be said to have infinite value.) This assertion is upheld by many organizations and laws. For example, after last year’s plane crash at Phuket, the One-Two-Go Airline Company agreed to pay 5 million baht in compensation for each death. Therefore, we can assume that in Thailand, the value of one human life is worth around 5 million baht, at least in the eyes of One-Two-Go Company executives. Now, to explore the comparative value of a foetus and a human, we must consider human beliefs and attitudes. Since each culture holds different beliefs and attitudes toward the value of life, each country places different values on the life of a foetus and a human. In Thailand, many would look to the Tipitaka, a Buddhist text, for guidance on this issue. According to the Tipitaka, if a monk helps to destroy a foetus in the womb, his penalty is as severe as if he had committed a homicide. Thus, in the Buddhist viewpoint, abortion would be strictly prohibited. This implies that the values of a foetus and a person are equivalent. Since most Thai people are Buddhist, we can conclude that most Thais would value a foetus and a human on par, as 1:1. Our friends who are Thai Muslims in the South, would also place an equal value on a foetus. After calculating the value of both one human life and also one foetus, we are ready to address the question about whether legalizing abortion is an efficient way to reduce youth delinquency (illegal teen abortions). If a human life is worth 5 million baht and its value is equivalent to the value of a foetus, the cost of one abortion is 5 million baht plus the medical costs involved in the abortion. Hmm, this is a fairly pricy choice. Are there any other possible ways to solve the problem of youth delinquency which are less expensive? What about the cost for contraception, for example, for a condom? In Thailand, a reasonably priced condom is between 10 and 15 baht. Therefore, one abortion costs between 333,000 to 500,000 condoms. Supposing that, for example, a woman is fertile for 30 years, and she uses a condom everyday. At this rate, she would only use 11,000 condoms to prevent pregnancy throughout her lifetime. Clearly, then, the cost of preventing a prospective teen pregnancy using contraception is drastically lower than the cost of an abortion. Thus, contrary to Levitt’s suggestion, legalizing abortion is an inefficient way to reduce illegal abortions by pregnant teens. In conclusion, since legalized abortion is an inefficient way to reduce the number of illegal youth abortions in the future, the Thai government should not legalize abortion. Contraception seems to be a better solution because it costs less, from an economic standpoint. Nonetheless, the ideas proposed in this essay are still not the best answer for the troubles our society faces. Legalization abortion would levy other costs in terms of our beliefs and values. These costs would be especially high for the people of Thailand, who are devout in their religious beliefs, which would be violated if abortion were legalized.

picture from <http://www.lifedd.net/images/m6.jpg>

No one, except perhaps some criminals, is fond of crimes. Thus, we create many mechanisms to solve them. Steven Levitt, a famous neo-classical economist, has postulated that the crime rate can be lowered by legalizing abortion because legalization would enable women who fear their children will not have a good life to abort their foetuses. Levitt attributes a decrease in teen delinquency (illegal abortions by pregnant teens) in the 1990s to the fact that abortion rates increased in the 70s.

Although Levitt states that his findings “should not be misinterpreted as either an endorsement of abortion or a call for intervention by the state in the fertility decisions of women” in the United State, they have triggered much controversy over whether or not abortion should be legalized. Some people – especially those affiliated with religious groups – are upset about his assertions. They argue that pro-abortion advocates are often ignorant or misinformed about the true issues involved in the decision to legalize abortion.

This issue is the topic of much discussion in Thai society now as the Thai government considers legalizing abortion. However, the Thai government should not rely on the same rhetoric in its decision. Legalizing abortion in Thailand would not minimize levels of youth delinquency. It is merely a costly way to solve the real problems causing increased teen pregnancy within our society.

To minimize the number of prospective delinquencies, the Thai government should instead take a hard look at its policies. It must promote efficient policies and ignore those inefficient policies that are causing an increase in teen pregnancies.

Let us look at this matter from an economic standpoint. Economic principles dictate that inefficiency occurs when a decision maker does not choose the best alternative. Efficiency is defined as a choice yielding the same or equal benefit, the best alternative, or an efficient solution, in other words, the choice that yields the least cost to – in this case – the Thai society. We also need to define what cost is. Again, economic principles say that the cost of a decision is the value of the best tangible or intangible choice.

Now we will apply these concepts to this discussion. Since every culture accepts that human life is the most valuable entity on earth, we must consider the value of an aborted foetus when we consider the cost of legalized abortion.

To do this, two questions must be asked: What is the value of one human life?; and what is the relative value a foetus compared with that of a human being?

I agree with most people who think that each human life is very valuable. However, since other people’s lives are also valuable and all lives need some resources to sustain their existence, we can say there are some limits on the value of one human life. (In an economic point of view, human life cannot be said to have infinite value.) This assertion is upheld by many organizations and laws. For example, after last year’s plane crash at Phuket, the One-Two-Go Airline Company agreed to pay 5 million baht in compensation for each death. Therefore, we can assume that in Thailand, the value of one human life is worth around 5 million baht, at least in the eyes of One-Two-Go Company executives.

Now, to explore the comparative value of a foetus and a human, we must consider human beliefs and attitudes. Since each culture holds different beliefs and attitudes toward the value of life, each country places different values on the life of a foetus and a human. In Thailand, many would look to the Tipitaka, a Buddhist text, for guidance on this issue. According to the Tipitaka, if a monk helps to destroy a foetus in the womb, his penalty is as severe as if he had committed a homicide. Thus, in the Buddhist viewpoint, abortion would be strictly prohibited. This implies that the values of a foetus and a person are equivalent. Since most Thai people are Buddhist, we can conclude that most Thais would value a foetus and a human on par, as 1:1. Our friends who are Thai Muslims in the South, would also place an equal value on a foetus.

After calculating the value of both one human life and also one foetus, we are ready to address the question about whether legalizing abortion is an efficient way to reduce youth delinquency (illegal teen abortions). If a human life is worth 5 million baht and its value is equivalent to the value of a foetus, the cost of one abortion is 5 million baht plus the medical costs involved in the abortion. Hmm, this is a fairly pricy choice.

Are there any other possible ways to solve the problem of youth delinquency which are less expensive? What about the cost for contraception, for example, for a condom?

In Thailand, a reasonably priced condom is between 10 and 15 baht. Therefore, one abortion costs between 333,000 to 500,000 condoms. Supposing that, for example, a woman is fertile for 30 years, and she uses a condom everyday. At this rate, she would only use 11,000 condoms to prevent pregnancy throughout her lifetime. Clearly, then, the cost of preventing a prospective teen pregnancy using contraception is drastically lower than the cost of an abortion. Thus, contrary to Levitt’s suggestion, legalizing abortion is an inefficient way to reduce illegal abortions by pregnant teens.

In conclusion, since legalized abortion is an inefficient way to reduce the number of illegal youth abortions in the future, the Thai government should not legalize abortion. Contraception seems to be a better solution because it costs less, from an economic standpoint. Nonetheless, the ideas proposed in this essay are still not the best answer for the troubles our society faces. Legalization abortion would levy other costs in terms of our beliefs and values. These costs would be especially high for the people of Thailand, who are devout in their religious beliefs, which would be violated if abortion were legalized.

Post comment | send mail to friend

Read comment

comment 35
Kriengsak date : 14/05/2008 time : 09.33
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/kriengsak

Thank you for your comment.

comment 34
FelixQui date : 06/05/2008 time : 13.39
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Kriengsak,
Thank you for coming back to clarify a couple of things.
Even if it were not as economically efficient as the alternatives, abortion on demand is better than the current situation in Thailand because abortion on demand, for any reason, is consistent with the rights of the people seeking an abortion, whereas current Thai law is immoral because it violates those rights. The moral issue outweighs the economic consideration, and it is to bring Thai law into accord with justice that the law needs to be changed as soon as possible.
The fortunate fact that legalising abortion would reduce crime rates in Thailand is merely an added socio-economic bonus to the real moral need.

comment 33
Kriengsak date : 06/05/2008 time : 09.50
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/kriengsak

Dear friends,
First of all, I’d like to thank everyone for your comments, though many of you disagree with my ideas. However, in my opinion, to have diversity on issues is preferable and, moreover, an interaction between “thesis” and “antithesis” will lead to better “synthesis,” according to Socrates.

In my article, I cite Freakonomics (1st Edition) Levitt, S.D., & Dubner S.J. (2005). Freakonomics: A Rouge Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York: HarperCollins

Anyway, I want to correct some readers’ misconceptions, based on this source, as follows.
1) One comment was made on the sentence, "Levitt attributes a decrease in teen delinquency (illegal abortions by pregnant teens) in the 1990s to the fact that abortion rates increased in the 70s." It is true that the cause of a reduction in crime in the 90’s was Roe v. Wade. However, a decrease in delinquency was the mechanism for it.

1.1) Levitt clearly states that the case of Roe v. Wade increased the abortion rate in the 70’s because of the significant drop in abortion costs.

“In the first year after Roe v. Wade, some 750,000 women had abortions in the United States (representing one abortion for every four live births). By 1980 the number of abortions reached 1.6 million (one for every 2.25 live births), where it leveled off. In a country of 225 million people, 1.6 million abortions per year—one for every 140 Americans—may not have seemed so dramatic.” (Page 138)

“Before Roe v. Wade, it was predominantly the daughters of middle-or upper-class families who could arrange and afford a safe illegal abortion. Now, instead of an illegal procedure that might cost $500, any woman could easily obtain an abortion, often for less than $100.” (Page 138)

1.2) Levitt also clearly explains the relationship between Roe. V. Wade and the fall in the crime rate, in that the fall in the number of “unwanted children” in the 70’s led to the fall in the number of the people in their “late teen years, in which young men enter their criminal prime,” which I simply call, “delinquency,” in the 90’s.

In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.” (Page 139)

1.3) The idea can be summarized in the following flowchart:

Roe v. Wade in 1973  a significant increase in the abortion rate of the 70’s  a decrease in “unwanted” children during 70’s – 80’s  a decrease in delinquent teenagers in 90’s  a decrease in the crime rate of the 90’s

1.4) I do not talk about Roe v. Wade in my article since the article is primarily aimed at Thai readers, which means that I must make the explanation as easy as I possibly can.

1.5) Regretfully, it was clumsiness on my part to add the parenthesis “(illegal abortions by pregnant teens)” in this sentence. In fact, this should have been deleted.

2) The reason why I use the beliefs of Thai people, rather than scientific fact is that an economics framework is concerned with human utility, which depends on the value attributed to human beings. If you read the last part of Levitt’s article, you will find him trying to find the “trade-off between more abortions for less crime” (a trade-off can tell you whether your decision is efficient or inefficient). Therefore, instead of applying scientific fact, Levitt investigates human value as “the relative value between a fetus and a newborn” (page 143), which he sorts out into two groups: “pro-life” and “pro-choice” (page 143). Believe me or not, it’s Levitt himself who said, “So even for someone who considers a fetus to be worth only one one-hundredth of a human being, the trade-off between higher abortion and lower crime is, by an economist’s reckoning, terribly inefficient.” (Page 144)

3) Calculating the cost of an abortion by the cost of a condom is just one example to show how much an abortion costs, by which I am absolutely not referring to practice in reality. Alternatively, I may use the condom example to illustrate the point that there are other solutions, such as contraception, which is more efficient than the legalization of abortion.

4) It is true that limiting the choice for abortion will lead to many consequences – however - so did the legalization. This is because the law plays a role in shaping human behaviour. Is it possible that the legalization of abortion will result in teenagers taking more behavioural risks? (I’m not sure about this since I have no evidence). You argue that a woman can be pregnant by accident, but Thai law allows abortion in two cases: 1) when a woman is pregnant due to rape 2) when pregnancy can harm her. The Western style of legalization that I refer to in this article is that which allows abortion for any case.

Thank you for all good comments.

comment 32
narcisuss date : 27/04/2008 time : 14.13
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

Greg I guess I scared the guy off

C30, maybe if foetuses are christened wile in the womb we could eliminate spontaneous abortions.

comment 31
narcisuss date : 27/04/2008 time : 14.09
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

RednWhite, the FCCT thing was cancelled.
As for the lower crime rate; it is a valid point, but legalizing abortion should be done regardless, because it is morally sound to do so.

comment 30
FelixQui date : 27/04/2008 time : 11.07
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

An interesting twist for the religiously anti-abortionists: about one third of all pregnancies abort spontaneously. It therefore appears that god is decidedly pro-abortion, which is consistent with the very low value that god traditionally places on the life of anyone not in his chosen group. Presumably the divine reasoning is that the foetus is not his devoted groupie and is therefore of zero value and so may aborted at will just as other non-groupies may be cheerfully slaughtered in accord with the divine will.
Whilst I agree with god in being pro-abortion, I can't help but think that there is something morally obnoxious in god's reasoning.

comment 29
Ian date : 27/04/2008 time : 09.55
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Christy, just out of interest, in your mind is there any difference between a chemical abortion, a herbal one or a surgical one?

comment 28
ChristySweet date : 27/04/2008 time : 09.02
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/ChristySweet

OH yeah and then there's the FACT it's MY uterus, MYr life , her decision. Get your OLD Goat Hhnds out of our Bodies, it's like rape .
Keep you looney-tuned religions and I mean ALL of them away from ME That is MY HUMAN RIGHT !

I'll get a abortion ANYTIME I WANT- GOT IT !

comment 27
redandwhitestripes date : 26/04/2008 time : 20.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/reallifethailand

The MAP has very serious health implications and no sane doctor or advisor would prescribe it as a form of contraception in itself.

Narc, going back to the 'Freakonomics' argument and your suggestion abortion = lower crime is equivalent to elections = a day off work, I think the lower crime argument is worth considering. If we accept that unwanted progeny are significantly more likely to commit violent crime (i.e. a breech of human rights) then is it not a valid argument that legalising abortion increases the safety and protects human rights of other citizens?

An extended equation I know but still valid IMHO.
We can of course debate this at the FCCT if we both arrive early enough :-)

comment 26
Lalida date : 26/04/2008 time : 17.29
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Real

Shall we call that "Hang over of sex" ?

comment 25
Ian date : 26/04/2008 time : 17.18
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Lalida, my oldest daughter used the day after pill whilst at university, she told me she was sick as a dog, nausea, vomitting, blinding headaches, stomach cramps, for several days. She said no way would she ever go through that again.

comment 24
Lalida date : 26/04/2008 time : 15.31
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Real

Ian,

Do you know the government in Hong Kong pass out the "After thing" pill every New year's even and Valentines day. Strange huh! I don't know if they still do that but I was there one year and saw it on the news paper, my old man told me they do it every year.

comment 23
narcisuss date : 26/04/2008 time : 14.48
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

Felix C21, you don't carry silk-gloves or even hand moisturizer do you ?

comment 22
narcisuss date : 26/04/2008 time : 14.46
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

Ian, then I can understand your sentiment a little better :)
I didn't assume we were talking about legalizing and then subsidising as well.

comment 21
FelixQui date : 26/04/2008 time : 12.35
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Religion,
Thank you for providing teh information about the Moslem views of abortion. You thoughtfully also indicate that the sensible response is for everyone to ignore that religion's teachings.
As you note, "The Qur'an is based not only on the assumption that the first humans – Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) and Hawwa – were created by Allah, but also on the assumption that every individual is one of God’s creatures, is His property and servant. It is therefore fundamentally not up to the created individual to determine single-handedly the length of his own life or of the lives of others, who are also God’s property, or to end others’ lives prematurely."

Of course, both of the assumptions you refer to are false: the first humans were not named Adam and Hawwa, the first humans were not prophets, they were not created by Allah; and human beings are not teh property of any god, human beings nor are we the servants of any god. Therefore, there can be no reason to take seriously the unfounded teachings of Islam on this matter, whether those teaching be pro or anti-abortion.

It is, however, useful to know what falsehoods Islam teaches and the unwarranted consequences it draws from those teachings.

comment 20
religion date : 26/04/2008 time : 11.32
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/thefaith

In principle, the Qur'an condemns the killing of humans (except in the case of Just defense), but it does not explicitly mention abortion (Al-Ijhadh). This leads Islamic theologians to take up different viewpoints: while the majority of early Islamic theologians permitted abortion up to day 40 of pregnancy or even up to day 120, many countries today interpret these precepts protecting unborn children more conservatively. Although there is no actual approval of abortion in the world of Islam, there is no strict, unanimous ban on it, either.

The Qur'an is based not only on the assumption that the first humans – Prophet Adam (alayhis salam) and Hawwa – were created by Allah, but also on the assumption that every individual is one of God’s creatures, is His property and servant. It is therefore fundamentally not up to the created individual to determine single-handedly the length of his own life or of the lives of others, who are also God’s property, or to end others’ lives prematurely.

The Qur'an clearly disapproves of killing other humans:

"Take not life which Allah has made sacred"
[6.151; see also 4.29].

It threatens the murderer with retaliation in this life "O ye who believe! The law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder…", 2.178) and the punishment of Hell in the life to come for the one who premeditatedly murders a fellow Muslim: "If a man kills a believer intentionally, his recompense is Hell, to abide therein (for ever)" [4.93].

As to whether abortion is a form of killing a human, the Qur'an does not make any explicit statements. Surah 17.31 warns believers in general: "Kill not your children for fear of want. We shall provide sustenance for them as well as for you. Verily the killing of them is a great sin.."

comment 19
Ian date : 26/04/2008 time : 10.16
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

The morning after pill has such unpleasant side effects, that many women refuse to use it a second time.

comment 18
wch date : 26/04/2008 time : 09.27

Thailand must introduce, cheap, "morning-after pill" for the girls. The pill will drain off the egg and sperm, on time, unfailingly before 2 weeks. It is merely menstural stimulant pill, without side effect.

Thailand produces rubber, why so expensive ?.

Thailand must introduce the legitimate abortion of underage of 18. Now the situation is not on the, such level of methaphysics or religion, problems are just out there.

comment 17
Ian date : 26/04/2008 time : 08.35
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Narc, if dentistry was free (which really means paid for by the taxpayer), then someone who persistently ate sweets and hence needed frequent dentistry, would be an unfair burden on the tax payer.
Or do you think it right that society support his lack of self control, sweetwise?

I assumed we are talking about free, state provided abortions. If we are simply talking about legalising private paid abortions then by all means let her have as many as she can afford.

comment 16
narcisuss date : 26/04/2008 time : 00.49
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

C8"However if a woman needs constant abortions then I would suggest that she cannot control her instincts in which case I see sterilisation as a benefit to society and to her as well. "

I don't know how to respond to that... I guess it could be compared to - "if a man eats too many sweets and gets constant caveties the dentist ought pull out all of his teeth"

comment 15
narcisuss date : 26/04/2008 time : 00.44
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

Felix C14 is right - at least that's how I read it in Freakonomics, not the way you portray it here.
I didn't catch it at first, because I only skimmed through this post (my fault).

Following up on my C2; "According to the Tipitaka, if a monk helps to destroy a foetus in the womb, his penalty is as severe as if he had committed a homicide"
What if a friar destroys an embryo? How do you calculate the moral equivalent then?

After re-reading your text I am left with the impression that you were merely playing around with the topic... But I am also left with the impression that you are in reality slightly opposed to legalization. If I am correct, I really do wonder why that is so.

comment 14
FelixQui date : 25/04/2008 time : 20.22
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Kriengsak wrote: "Levitt attributes a decrease in teen delinquency (illegal abortions by pregnant teens) in the 1990s to the fact that abortion rates increased in the 70s. "
This is so completely wrong that I wonder if Kriengsak has even read the essay he refers to. What Levitt attributes to the legalisation of abortion is NOT a reduction in illegal abortions, and it is NOT a reduction in teen delinquency. Levitt attributes, and backs up, sixty percent of the massive drop in ALL crime (theft, murder, rape, etc.) in the US from the 1990s through to today to the legalisation of abortion as a result of Roe v. Wade in 1973.
I'm not sure what essay Kriengsak read, refers to and quotes from, but it was not the essay by Steven Levitt that I read.

comment 13
FelixQui date : 25/04/2008 time : 20.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Narcissus in comment 6 is also right, and oddly, Kriengsak quoted in his second paragraph Levitt's exact words to the same effect - that his well founded economic findings need not be seen as an argument either for or against abortion!
WHilst agreeing that abortion should be legal because it is a woman's right, and because there is nothing wrong with it, even multiple serial abortions, Levitt's economics based findings are at least the sort of thing that a government might reasonably take into consideration, unlike religious beliefs, which should never be seen as grounds for forming official policy.

comment 12
FelixQui date : 25/04/2008 time : 20.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/FelixQui

Kriengsak,
I wonder if you noticed the glaring flaw in your argument, or did you notice it and decide to pretend it did not exist?
You jump from an argument that might put the economic cost of a foetus, which is not a human being, at the same value as a human being for Buddhists to the totally different and unsupported claim that that is a reasonable figure for all people in Thailand.
First, your premiss about the value that Thai Buddhists attach to a foetus is plainly wrong. As the abortion rates clearly prove, a lot of Thai Buddhists do not attach a value anything like 5,000,000 Baht to a foetus. The way you calculate that figure is also wildly inappropriate: in Levitt's essay that you refer to, he also attempts to attach a value to a foetus, but based on actual economic, not religious, criteria. The BTS does not set its fares based on esoteric religious teachings.
However, that is a side issue. The real problem is that at most, all your argument could possibly show is that some Buddhists might, or perhaps all Buddhists should, choose not to have abortion because it is costly(???). Nothing you have said could have any relevance to forming government policy with regard to abortion. It is wrong to make policy based on the religious beliefs of one part of the society. Period. Those who sincerely hold those beliefs will of course act in accord with them, and the readily observed facts therefore suggest that very, very few Thai people sincerely hold any Buddhist beliefs; stealing, extra-marital sex, alchohol consumption, lying, etc are all rife, and all contradict basic Buddhist principles: the ones known as teh Five Precepts.

Government policy should of course take into account economic costs, and Levitt's essay makes a very convincing case that there is a very real and long-term economic, as well as social, benefit to legalising abortion. Greatly reduced crime rates are very good society, both socially and economically. Thailand would likely benefit as much as the US by legalising abortion.

The often teenage mothers would benefit greatly by not having their lives ruined by an unwanted pregnancy. I agree that it would be better that they not become pregnant in the first place, but you would be living on another planet to seriously believe that somehow unwanted pregnancies can be suddenly disappeared. There will always be unwanted pregnancies, and those women who who do not want the foetus they are carrying should have the option of abortion. You have given no good reason why they should not have that choice. There is no good reason. If they are a Buddhist, they might decide it's wrong and not abort, but that's their decision, and it is a gross violation of human rights for one group to force their religious tenets on others; rather, to force a small subset of their religious tenets on others - most anti-abortionists are less keen to follow the Buddhist precept that forbids the consumption of alcohol and other drugs! Women with unwanted pregnancies would benefit greatly from the legalisation of abortion.

It's hard to think of anyone who would not benefit from legalised abortion. Any suggestions?
It is hard to think of any good reason at all against abortion. Any suggestions?

comment 11
Ian date : 25/04/2008 time : 19.21
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Lalida, you are totally correct on both statements:-)
Topics have a habit of reappearing, does this mean people don't read other's blogs I wonder? As to the morality, it boils down to personal choice versus government choice, another topic which has been debated many times:-)

comment 10
Lalida date : 25/04/2008 time : 18.57
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Real

Ian,

I think Felix brought up this subject sometime ago and I doubted if there's anything much to debate on. Who can judge the right or wrong of it? It only matters to the one who is involved and she knows best what is right or wrong for herself to live with.

comment 9
Ian date : 25/04/2008 time : 18.40
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Lalida, I think you are on a slightly different issue here, if abortion is needed to save the mother's life then it should always be available.

Before abortion became legal in England compassionate doctors had a simple method of getting around this, they diagnosed obstructed menstruation and sent the woman for D&C, dilation and curettage.

comment 8
Ian date : 25/04/2008 time : 18.37
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

Narc, if abortion is free and simple then it will become an easy option. So it needs to be free but not easy.
The moral aspects are more complex, an unwanted child is unlikely to have the best of care and nurture, so is likely to grow up antisocial and a problem to society.
However if a woman needs constant abortions then I would suggest that she cannot control her instincts in which case I see sterilisation as a benefit to society and to her as well.

comment 7
Lalida date : 25/04/2008 time : 18.17
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/Real

I don't see anything wrong to Legalize abortion in Thailand or in anywhere else as long as it's implemented properly and with proper rules just like the casino. There are women who has such needs in life threatening issues. Crimes rate? What's there got to do with the crime rate

comment 6
narcisuss date : 25/04/2008 time : 18.03
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

And of course, talking about legalizing abortion because it can help reduce the crime rate is like promoting democracy because it gives people a day off to go vote and maybe a constitution day.

Both can alleviate social pressures, but they should be enacted because it is the right thing to do.

comment 5
narcisuss date : 25/04/2008 time : 17.58
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

The only thing that frustrates me more than the arguments against abortion (that I often find to be bad), is the arrogance of those people that feel their moral system should be forced upon a whole population instead of those who choose willingly to adhere to that system.

comment 4
narcisuss date : 25/04/2008 time : 17.55
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

"Make the termination process unpleasant as a deterrant, make sterilisation compulsory on the third termination. "

Why do you feel the need to punish someone that goes for an abortion? Are they doing something wrong?
As long as the taxpayers aren't paying for the procedures the government should butt out.

By the way, most women find it unpleasant to have an abortion even if the physicians don't torture them like you recommend.

comment 3
Ian date : 25/04/2008 time : 15.52
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/anterian36

In all ancient cultures, and some modern ones, where there are religious proscriptions on abortion the solution often adopted was to expose the newborn child. In Ancient Rome there was even a specific location for this. Childless couples could come along and help themselves if they wished, otherwise the newborn child would die after about three days.
In nature many mammals has a natural ability to abort a foetus if there are food shortages or constant danger. Mammals that lack this ability will kill their newborn young under the same circumstances.
Animals do not have contraception, rabbits can not buy condoms. Without education young humans are like rabbits they will breed but not use condoms.
So until you can educate youth to be sensible abortion is the only practical solution to unwanted pregnancies.
Make the termination process unpleasant as a deterrant, make sterilisation compulsory on the third termination.

comment 2
narcisuss date : 25/04/2008 time : 15.15
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/narcisuss
I come in peace :)

I will agree that a lot of teen pregnancies in a society might be a symptom of some deeper disfunctionality (although not necessarily).
However, teen pregnancy in and by itself is a big problem namely because many places abortions are illegal. Legalize abortion and teen pregnancy isn't as much of a problem as it was.

I am not really tempted to get into religious discussions, but since you refer to the taking of life within buddhism; who is to decide when life begins and can thus be said to have been terminated.
Religious values can be contradictory and there is a reason why laws are not passed in temples.

comment 1
redandwhitestripes date : 25/04/2008 time : 15.05
http://blog.nationmultimedia.com/reallifethailand

But Khun Kriengsak, there never has been and never will be a society where every single person is sensible and level headed enough to use a condom every time. When this error has been made, how do we correct it? Punishing the impregnated woman - who will so often see the dad flee anyway - to a life of looking after an unwanted child,? Where does that lead? Resentment, abuse, and - as statistics often show - a life of crime for the unwanted offspring who will in turn become abusive and bring misery into the lives of others. Later on in our "domino effect" the taxpayer will suffer from footing the costs of benefits, jail etc. Of course not all unwanted pregnancies turn out this way, there is always hope, but the reality is that many surprise pregnancies are unhappy and detrimental.

Scientific studies show the a foetus has no feelings of pain,etc. during abortion. In some religions, yes, abortion is a crime. But in all pragmatic and scientific terms, it is not. It is the latter considerations that benefit us as human beings.

If we want to be considered as a modern, progressive, caring people then we must look past doctrine and start looking at what is truly the best for humans.

Comment

"If you are not member, please register to comment.
It take only a few steps."

member sign in | member register

name :
email :
website :
comment :

		back top

<<	April 2008					>>
s	m	t	w	t	f	s
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30