Regulating Abortion Through Taxation

[micatala]

It has been noted in responses to the free adoption as a solution to abortion thread that trying to eliminate abortions is simply not practical, nor likely to occur in the foreseeable future, whatever policies are enacted towards this end.

I would not disagree with this. We can certainly look at the precedents of attempted bans of certain behaviors which would include prohibition of alcohol, prohibition against other drugs, and prohibition by some churches of artificial contraception. We also have restrictions on certain behaviors, like smoking.

I think most people would agree that the prohibition of alcohol in the U.S. which occurred in the early 20th century was a dismal failure. We haven't banned smoking as yet, and likely such an effort would also be doomed to failure. Rather, we seek to reduce the prevalence of smoking by high taxes and education.

Currently, we restrict legal use of alcohol to those over 21, for the most part. There are also fairly significant taxes on the purchase of alcohol. We know alcohol does have the capacity to cause severe problems in certain individuals, and that these problems are severe enough to significantly effect society at large (drunken driving deaths and damage costs, family break-ups, etc.). However, we continue to allow alcohol consumption, probably because most people can deal with it responsibly, it has a long tradition of use, and we are loathe as a society to put unnecessary restrictions on people.


Now, consider abortion. One could make the case that we have a lot of abortions because a lot of people do not act responsibly with respect to sex.

Would it make sense to use taxation, in conjunction with educational efforts, to try and reduce the prevalence of abortion?

What would the pros and cons of such a policy be?

How should we use revenue gained through such a tax?

[juliod]

Would it make sense to use taxation, in conjunction with educational efforts, to try and reduce the prevalence of abortion?

No. Most abortions are done by the pampered middle class (and above). Taxation does not deter their behavior. It would not stop a significant proportion of abortions.

How should we use revenue gained through such a tax?

Give it to the rich! What else?

DanZ

[Cephus]

Would it make sense to use taxation, in conjunction with educational efforts, to try and reduce the prevalence of abortion?

Nope, it won't stop it and forcing the people who really need it to pay more for it will just drive it underground.

You keep trying to stop abortion, you need to get it through your head that nothing you do is going to stop abortion. Nothing. You can criminalize it, you can tax it, you can rant and rave about it, nothing in the history of mankind has ever stopped abortion, nor should it. If *you* don't like abortion, don't have one. Stop trying to run everyone else's lives.

[juliod]

you need to get it through your head that nothing you do is going to stop abortion.

Well, that might not be true, tho. A program of sex education and the widespread availability of birth control options has the potential to reduce abortion to only those deemed medically necessary.

DanZ

[Cephus]

Well, that might not be true, tho. A program of sex education and the widespread availability of birth control options has the potential to reduce abortion to only those deemed medically necessary.

I don't think that's going to stop it either. Let's be honest, there's plenty of sex education information out there and condoms are available at every single convenience store in the country and given away freely in clinics and at schools, and there are still millions of unwanted pregnancies every single year. No matter how much you tell people not to be stupid, people are going to be stupid and not use the education or resources that is made available to them. Teenagers and young adults especially think it'll never happen to them and when it invariably does, they're going to avail themselves to abortions.

[juliod]

there's plenty of sex education information out there and condoms are available at every single convenience store in the country and given away freely in clinics and at schools, and there are still millions of unwanted pregnancies every single year.

Yeah, but the message given to children and adults is that birth control methods are bad. We so much condemn the feelings of sexuality that planning ahead for sex is worse than having an unwanted pregnancy. Thta's the lesson being taught.

There could be an alternative message, such as "You can have sex when you want, as long as you accept the potential consequences and risks".

But that message is opposed by conservatives who only allow "Sex is wrong, all the time."

So when people, particularly young ones, find themselves responding to their natural and inevitable sexual drives, they are often unprepared to engage is safe practices and/or avoid pregnancy.

That haveing been said, I want to point out that I don't think abortion is a problem. It's a safe and effective means of birth control and should be used whenever it is needed or wanted. Avoiding pregnancy in the first place is better only because it is less invasive.

DanZ

[micatala]

Yeah, but the message given to children and adults is that birth control methods are bad. We so much condemn the feelings of sexuality that planning ahead for sex is worse than having an unwanted pregnancy. Thta's the lesson being taught.

There could be an alternative message, such as "You can have sex when you want, as long as you accept the potential consequences and risks".

Yes, I agree the current status of much of what passes for sex ed in the U.S. is not good.

Yes, part of my 'motivation' in this thread is to suggest the 'alternative message.'

I of course understand that those who see no problem with abortion will consider 'compromises' pointless, as long as they feel confident that there is not much of a prospect that a nationwide ban will take place. But let's be frank, there are places that have banned abortion (e.g. South Dakota) and these efforts may gain momentum in some locations. In such a case, would not a compromise be a reasonable tactic to take the wind out of sails that may take us a lot further in a direction many do not want to go?

[juliod]

In such a case, would not a compromise be a reasonable tactic to take the wind out of sails that may take us a lot further in a direction many do not want to go?

No. The more conservatives push abortion bans, the more they will alienate the electorate. This I feel is one of our only hopes for the future.

DanZ

[Cephus]

In such a case, would not a compromise be a reasonable tactic to take the wind out of sails that may take us a lot further in a direction many do not want to go?

It's not going to take any wind out of their sails, they're not reasonable to begin with. Their goal is to end all abortions everywhere and impose their control on everyone else, therefore no matter how many "compromises" you make, they'll keep fighting until they either reach their ultimate goal, or they're put down like the rabid dogs they are.

[micatala]

The problem is there are a lot of folks who are not comfortable with 'laissez-faire' abortion policy, but are also not comfortable with the 'scorched earth' policy of no abortions, anytime, anywhere, for any reason. These people might even be more numerous than those in either of the extreme camps.

If one of the extreme camps loses out to the other, for whatever reason, the remaining camp is still going to have to deal with this 'uncomfortable middle.'

These people are not 'rabid dogs'. They simply haven't bought into the extreme rhetoric and polarized positions of the main players in the debate to date.

They might see abortion as similar to environmental degradation, or 'economic violence', or the coarsening of our public culture. It may not be necessary to eliminate it, and that may not be possible, but it is also not necessary to accept that having millions of abortions a year is OK and no problem.

Someone cutting down a tree here and there is no big deal. Someone clearcutting huge tracts of forest is.