If abortion was made illegal...?

Question

what would the ramifications be? How would things be "better" or "worse"? Consider social and economical elements please

Answer 1

it should be illegal.

Answer 2

It would depend on how "illegal" it was. Could a woman still have an abortion if it was a case of documented rape (i.e. she had a "rape kit" performed) and the "morning after" pill failed? Could a woman still have an abortion if her life was in danger?
If she could, then I see no issue with it. VERY few women tried to use a coat hanger to get rid of their baby before abortion was legalized. However, many did go to other countries to have an abortion.
But I don't think abortion SHOULD be entirely illegalized. It should be restricted to only in the first trimester, and only in the second trimester in certain cases (rape, mother-to-be's life in danger). By the third trimester, if a woman's life was in danger from the pregnancy, it would probably kill her to have an abortion as well, so it would make no difference if they induced labor and delivered the baby via C-section.
People need to know what they're aborting though. I recently saw a baby who was twelve weeks into his or her development. You could tell it was a baby. He or she had a head, fists, legs, and feet. You could see his or her eyes, outline of a nose, and a mouth. And most importantly, he was jumping around, and he has a heartbeat. It is a LIFE.
They still abort babies in that stage of development.
Illegalizing abortion would have no economic ramifications that can be foreseen. Social ramifications would be few, if the illegalization was done properly.
However, it would ONLY work if contraceptives were made 100% effective, and/or people stop having sex when they don't want children. Will that ever happen? I don't think so.

As a side note, I was a high risk pregnancy. My mom was told that having me could kill her, or I could have been born with birth defects, such as Down's syndrome. She was advised to terminate the pregnancy. She sought a second opinion, and THAT doctor told her she would be fine, and so would I.
Other than the fact that my mom had to have two blood transfusions to save her life, the doctor was right. I turned out fine, other than a couple of problems that nearly EVERY woman in my family has.

Answer 3

We are stating this from a non religious standpoint. A Christian should view abortion as sin and therefore should abstain from the activity that leads to this decision. If they do it the way God says to lead their life, they proceed to marriage, etc.

Now then, for the non Christian, abortions as with any medical procedure has risks. Hospitals, clinics, etc, you'll be exposed to dangerous circumstances. In this respect, it is better to be in a place that can at the very least offer you assistance in the event that something goes WRONG.

Social, well women wouldn't be viewed any different than they are now. Some people are going to view themselves as better, some will not care. Illegitimate children are now considered like a badge of honor in today's society.

Economics, the federal government does not appear upset that 1.5 Million taxpayers have been killed. 1.5 Million customers. Well, you get the idea.

Let's see, there would be 1.5 Million times $600 an abortion dent in the economics of the medical realm. There's also the thought that you didn't have to purchase food, clothes, education for those children. Some view it as savings, others as lost opportunity.

There is still the opportunity at death and infertility as a result of abortion that is done within the legal areas.

As much as I detest the thought of people having children outside of wedlock, I'd much rather have them walking about rather than dying by means of a "doctor" or a back alley "doctor". The thought of murder and dehumanizing a child for the sake of convenience of the mother sickens me.

You know, if abortion happened to an animal, there would be greater outcry than for the life of a human. If a baby whale was cut from the womb of a whale, there would be outcry from the four corners of the earth regardless of the age/chemical composition of the "fetus"...

Answer 4

Overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't make abortions illegal (they weren't illegal beforehand). It would simply put the control over them back into the hands of the government, which has a history of killing people, forced sterilization, forced abortion, etc. Look at China, where women do not have the right to choose. The Supreme Court even acknowledged that Roe protects women from government-forced abortions. The Right to Choose allows a woman to give birth if she wants to, even if her boyfriend or parents insist upon an abortion.

If the US ends up with a national health care system, do you really think fetuses destined to need serious, expensive, life-long medical treatment are going to be safe? Consider what's going on with Walter Reed right now. If a "gay" gene was discovered, would gay fetuses be safe from the government? Are female fetuses as valuable to the future military as male fetuses? Are taxpayers really prepared to pay benefits to every fetus CONCEIVED inside our borders, as opposed to just babies BORN here?

Think it ALL THE WAY through.

Answer 5

The human population would consider to rise at an increased rate, straining the existing resources yet further and reducing the quality of life for the rest of us.

The religious nutters would be rubbing it in our faces constantly.

There would be more youth crime as irresponsible, unintended mothers would be forced to raise children they never wanted, and as a result they would do as little work as they could get away with and the children would effectively be allowed to run wild, out of control.

Prisons would fill up as the unwanted youth became criminal adults, and that is in addition to those arrested for attempting illegal abortion procedures. This would put greater tax strain on everyone else and necessitate the building of yet more prisons on what might otherwise be green land... or housing for law-abiding people.


In other words.... abortion should not be made illegal, but rather be enforced as mandatory unless the parents could be deemed fit by an initial test.

Answer 6

First, I am anti-abortion, but pro-choice.

I serve as a local religious leader and also do a great deal of volunteer work. I have seen a lot of crazy situations out there and certainly can not blame women for getting abortions nor would I ever try to prevent them from having access to the procedure.

One thing which I have seen is women who give birth, with adoptive parents lined up, who do not end up taking the children. It happens for a number of reasons. Twins being born, the child having skin that is a different color from their own, birthing issues which lead to brain damage or such in the child, etc. The people who adopt children in this manner tend to have the legal resources to protect themselves, the pregnant woman usually does not. These children wind up either in the custody of a mother who does not want them or as wards of the state, which can be quite expensive.

I have seen women who have been talked into bringing the pregnancy to term and then had complications. I knew a young woman who died as a result of a pregnancy that she did not want to have. Protesters outside of a clinic managed to talk her out of getting an abortion, offering her financial assistance and such, but it cost her her life. People tend to forget that while abortion is not without its risks, pregnancy is riskier. If abortion was made illegal, the number of pregnant women dying would increase.

I have also seen women who are the victims of domestic abuse, yet will not leave their spouses/parents/siblings/roommates. They have no doubt that they will be beaten even when pregnant and neither want to risk miscarriage due to that nor having an infant in that house.

I also have issues with several arguments that I tend to see out there. One is that the same groups who tend to point out really high numbers for how many abortions occur each year also claim that adoption is the solution. The major issue with this is that if suddenly we started having all of those kids, there would not be enough people to adopt them. Especially as abortions are disproportionately common among black women (black children are not as readily adopted), women over 40 (with MUCH higher risk of chromosomal defects such as down syndrome, cri-du-chat syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, cleft palates, trisomy 13, trisomy 18, etc.), prostitutes (with higher risk of STD's), and various other subgroups more likely to have children that are difficult to adopt.

Finally, I would be much more willing to hear arguments for limitations on abortion, if the same people proposing and voting for such bills in Congress were not the exact same people sponsoring bills that place limitations on who can adopt, vote against social medicine, and reduce funding to the Department of Human Services and other agencies which handle adoption, foster care, etc. Get the systems that take care of children working better first, before trying to get more children out there in need of care. At the very least, don't make the situation worse for those already out there.

Answer 7

okay..."saving babies lives" doesn't answer how it would make anything better. it states a mere fact people.
lets see...making it illegal. will cause us to be even more over populated, for those too scared to visit a backroom/alley doctor will more than likely end up dead or in hospitals with major complications which in turn will make insurance companies raise their premiums since they love doing that anyhow . orphanges will be filled to the top with unwanted babies since it's so passe to adopt a child within the states it seems anymore. those that do decide to keep their children will have a big burden and will cause even more poverty, which will dip into goverenment funds weakinging our economy. child abuse will probably increase.
and i'm sure loads of other bad **** would be inevitable, but i'm too doped up to think of them.

Answer 8

No babies would be saved as they are not considered "babies" until well after the final allowed time for an abortion to take place. The ramifications of this would be people doing it on their own. In turn those people that harm themselves in doing so would end up at the doctor or hospital.

Answer 9

Things would be much much worse. Consider......1000s of babies being born to unwilling/incapable parents. Some disabled...all effectively orphans. Unloved and unwanted, they would become a social group of their own, stigmatised and poverty stricken...completely dependent on the State, if they were 'lucky' enough to have been born in a country with a welfare program. And this only touches on the horror that would be created.
What sort of life is that?

Answer 10

Abortion is legal in my country.

One of the sad social implications is that people tend to use it as a form of contraception rather than a remedy for a problem that has happened by mistake.

Aids and other stds are a major problem here and legalising abortion has also also lead to an increase in the number of people having unprotected sex. (Reaserch has been done on this im sure you could find it on the web. google abrtion studies south africa)

Underage women are also allowed to have avbortions without the consent of the parents as it was argued that it goes against the constitutional rights of privacy. aside from the fact that this takes control away from the parents for girls as young as 12 it also lead to another problem. Faced with the consequences of the pregnancy problem many young girls have abortions without really understanding the implications later in life. (reduced fertility etc)

South africa is not a very rich country and it has put a lot of strain on the medical services budget. there is already a lack of funding and legalisinf free abortions has costed the country quite a bit. also to reduce costs it is often done without proper anestetia and is done on an outpatient basis in most publuc clinics.

Many women are also having abortions without the consent of males. It is permissable regardless of the fact that the male is unaware and willing to care for the child.

Any doctor who wishes to work in public health clinics and often students doing their resedencies have to perform abortions, this is often in caontradiction with their beliefs not only personal but also professional.

Many young women are also prssured into it by society and the babies father. This has serious psycologicalo ramifications later on in life.

the biggest advantage is that women who cannot afford to care for children are not burdened. money is in short supply in many housholds and a decent standard of living is not affordable.

also ARV's are rarely supplied for pregnant HIV positive women here due to budgetary constraints and it is arguably better to rather have an abortion that give your child aids.

also women who are raped often do not want the resultant babies and it is unfair of them to have to have a constant reminder of their trauma. ( a women is raped every 3 mins in south africa)

If you want more info then try South African studies as it has been legalised here and a lot of studies have been done and are available on the net.




I think you should seriously do some research into what has happened in countries that have legalized it rather than listen to speculation about what people think would.
I appologise for all the spelling and grammer errors, i am a very poor typist

Answer 11

There are both positive and negative effects.

I suspect that the human population would rise significantly in industrialized nations that had prior access to abortion. This could be either a positive or negative, depending on the nation. In Japan or Germany, which face declining birthrates, this could be considered a positive. In the United States and China, this could put an increased strain on limited natural resources and contribute to overpopulation.

I also suspect that we would see an increase in mothers who lack the social or financial resources to raise unplanned children. I imagine that the statistical birthrate for young women and unwed teenagers would rise (most U.S. abortions involve younger women). These effects would be considered negative from a social standpoint, if society values planned pregnancies and female parents who are educated and financially secure.

In addition, I would foresee an increase in illegal or back-alley abortions with compromised medical care, including an increased rate of death from infection and other symptoms of a botched abortion. As of now, the rate of death for an abortion is roughly 1 in 100,000. This number would increase substantially without access to reliable care. Furthermore, if all abortions were banned, one would expect an increase in maternal death from continued, high risk pregnancies, as well as birth defects in the children that are born. Both of these could be construed as negative, depending on context.

On the positive side, society would have to adapt to the effects of restricted abortion. I imagine that the consistent use of contraception may increase in couples that do not wish to have a child, as there are no chances to alter a pregnancy once created. I also suspect that the educational system (in the U.S.) would work harder to teach the importance of protective sex to minors, if social conservatives do not stop this first.

While there are both positive and negative effects, I believe that the negative would outweigh the positive. In terms of social costs, I believe that banning early-term abortion restricts the ability of an individual to govern their personal medical care and reproductive choices in pregnancy. Choosing to bear a child would be one of the most private and personal of choices. Plus, it would disproportionately impact the freedom of women, who are typically expected to raise children, wheras men would remain equally free to conduct their reproductive lives as they please.

By the way, I love your avatar! I think that Carl Sagan was one of the hottest and coolest men who ever lived, next to Oscar Wilde, Harry Houdini, and Richard Dawkins!