21 May 2007


If abortion law settles down to on-demand in the first trimester for women who are of age, otherwise only with parental consent, and not allowed thereafter except where the pregnancy threatens physical harm to the mother or in cases of rape or incest, is that a pro-life result or a pro-choice result?


pj said...

A pro-choice result ... but it's more pro-life than what we have.

That change might cut abortions by 10%. I think the interesting part would be, within the legal scenario you outline, some other experiements:
- An excise tax on abortions, say $300 per.
- A requirement to obtain counseling on alternatives, such as adoption, before abortions.
- Encouragement of adoptions, e.g. tax credits for mothers who give up their children for adoption.

These might have significant affects. At least, they might communicate to decision-makers that society disapproves of abortion and encourages alternatives.

Hey Skipper said...

Pro-common sense.

Oroborous said...


But, as Skipper notes, probably most pro-choice supporters could live with it. I could.

b said...

David: If a unicorn shows up in your backyard, will you name it Princess or Lucky? Because that will happen the day before the US abortion laws resemble your hypothetical.

David said...

b: Lucky. Princess is a little twee, don't you think?

As for whether this could become law, you might be right. But I think that this is where the country is and, if Roe is overturned, about where most states will come down.

To answer my own question, I think that this has been the long-term consensus position, that it used to be considered pro-choice because people thought Roe's trimester language actually meant something, and now it's considered pro-life because it's not abortion on demand without restriction. I think that the reason pro-life is starting to poll at undreamt of highs is not because the consensus substantive position has changed but because people now think of this position as pro-life.