Today we have a guest post written by philosopher Neil McArthur. Neil writes regularly on his blog Moral Lust about sexual ethics and the philosophy of sexuality.
This is the first of two posts on the topic of the market for second trimester abortions. Later on in the week we will talk about the impact of government policies on the supply side of that market. Before we do that, I want to start with a discussion of the economic factors that are contributing to the demand for late abortions in the United States.
This week Feministing called the UK Bill that would have banned abortion counseling “anti-choice” legislation. I think they have got that all wrong. The current arrangement gives abortion providers a financial incentive to encourage uncertain women to choose abortion – if that is the case, can we really be certain that each abortion is the woman’s choice? Or is it possible that financial motives are dictating the decisions of some women who might choose otherwise not to terminate their pregnancies?
Last month, when the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the birth rate of teenage girls had fallen by 6% between 2008 and 2009, MTV issued a press release claiming the show ‘16 and Pregnant’ contributed to the decline. Does MTV truly deserve credit for that?
The most common form of domestic terrorism in the U.S. is violent attacks on abortion clinics. Between 1973 and 2003, over 300 abortion providers were the target of acts of extreme violence by anti-abortion groups. A new paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) last week asks the question: Are these attacks effective at reducing abortion rates in the areas in which they target?