|
Sometimes it’s
tough to know where to start. “At the beginning” seems logical enough if you
can find it; this topic sure doesn’t seem to have an end.
Earlier this
month the Chicago Tribune reported the results of an unpublished study
concluding that legalized abortion has helped reduce crime. Steven Levitt, a
University of Chicago economist, and John Donohue III, a Stanford University law
professor, suggest the procedure may account for as much as half of the overall
crime drop in the United States from 1991 to 1997.
The authors of “Legalized Abortion and Crime” believe unwanted children are more
prone to become criminals and that teenagers, minorities and the poor are most
likely to have such children. The same groups, the study states, are also more
liable to choose abortion. That abortion occurs disproportionately among
minorities and the poor is readily verifiable. African Americans are
particularly affected, with rates about double those of white women.
Before I spell out what the study infers, it is helpful to reflect on the
evolution of the abortion debate itself. Those my age and older will recall
that the question of when life begins was once the focus, not a fringe issue.
The logic was simple enough: if an embryo or fetus is a living human being, he
or she can no more be arbitrarily disposed of than anyone else. If it is an
“unviable mass,” then removing it is akin to clipping a fingernail and no one’s
business but the mother’s. I still find it hard to argue with those conclusions
once you settle the central question.
The problem for
abortion supporters (including, at one time, me) is that science caught up to
the debate. At two months most fetal body systems are functioning and the baby
can be observed sucking his thumb. Brainwaves are detectable by current
technology at 40 days; the heart beats at 18. We surely have more to learn
about even earlier development, but it is already clear that a fetus has little
in common with a fingernail.
At the same
time we were battling over when life begins we were also questioning when it
ends. Cessation of the heart was once the standard, but tragic situations where
the heart beats on after brainwaves cease brought about a rethinking. Many now
define death as the absence of brain activity and we permit discontinuance of
life support on that basis.
If a reasonable
argument can be made that the absence of brainwaves or heartbeat means death but
their presence doesn’t mean life, I haven’t heard it. I suspect that abortion
proponents haven’t either; those whose motivation has little to do with when
life begins largely changed their tactics rather than their minds.
Having lost on
science, advocates shifted to choice. But choice only works if you ignore the
baby’s humanity, and even the most extreme supporters haven’t yet crossed the
line to applying such discretion to the born. I say “yet” as partial birth
abortion advocates come dangerously close by supporting the procedure right up
to emergence.
There is some
indication that public opinion is turning, if slowly. A strong majority of
Americans have long disapproved of partial birth abortion and a poll last year
found that 61 percent oppose abortion after brainwaves are detected, with 58
percent objecting after fetal heartbeat begins. It’s fair to note that a
pro-life group commissioned the latter survey, but if the choice argument does
lose its punch, proponents will need something new. Some have already shown
cautious interest in the work of Levitt and Donohue.
There are indeed statistics to show that minorities and the impoverished have
higher crime rates, but I refuse to believe that diminishing their populations
by abortion is the answer. What “Legalized Abortion and Crime” implies, though,
boils down to this: we’ll be better off if we reduce the number of minority and
poor children, and do it as early as possible.
They won’t use
the word, but the next sleight-of-hand in the abortion debate may amount to no
less than eugenics. May the American people have the wisdom to see through it.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
