Pro-lifers, how do you explain Romania under Ceausescu?

[Indy Texas]

As the ruler of communist Romania in the late 1960s, Nicolae Ceasescu reversed his country's previously liberal abortion laws. Abortion was made illegal, with exceptions only for rape, incest and cases where a woman's life was at risk.

In addition, access to contraception was made more difficult, and sex education did not discuss it.

Over time, Romanian orphanages were filled with unwanted children whose birth mothers had been unable to prevent pregnancy with contraception or end a pregnancy with an abortion. Limited resources often led to these children being malnourished, poorly educated and socially disaffected. Mortality rates for pregnant women also rose due to the proliferation of primitive back-alley abortions. In 1989, Ceausescu and his wife were chased out of their presidential palace at the hands of a mob of youth protestors, captured and executed after a brief show trial.

Ceausescu's abortion policy - no abortion with exceptions only for rape, incest and the life of the mother; a severely anti-family planning policy - is similar to that espoused by the mainstream pro-life movement in the United States.

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

[Indy Texas]

Why should the US restrict abortion access to that extent, given the historical consequences of restricting abortion access?

"Blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime, especially young black men. Therefore black mother's should be allowed to smother their 5 year olds in order to prevent them from growing up into criminals."

The above argument is wrong because the 5 year olds are persons. Regardless of their future potential to cause harm, they have a right to life because they are persons. Unless you're a utilitarian or something similar, the question of abortion ultimately boils down to one question "When does one become a person?".

I agree that the pro-life movement needs to have a broader agenda, but the social consequences argument doesn't really address the pro-life movement's issues and it has the potential to lead to monstrous results.

Except that we already know 5 year olds are persons. There's nothing disputable about that. We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that personhood begins when one is born. That's why we have birth certificates and start counting our age from the day we were born. We don't celebrate our "conception day" or issue a certificate of conception to a pregnant woman.

[Indy Texas]

Your false premise is that dead children are better than orphaned children. Also, Ceausescu's deposal had little to do with abortion law.

The creation of a generation of disaffected and dispossessed people had nothing to do with a dictator's overthrow roughly 20 years later by a bunch of people, a large number of whom were college students roughly 20 years old?

I'm not saying that "dead children are better than orphaned children." That's not the choice. It's a choice between orphaned children existing and orphaned children not existing.

When pro-lifers ask me how I would feel if my mother had had an abortion when she was pregnant with me, I tell them their question misses the point entirely. I wouldn't feel anything because I would never have existed to begin with. Asking me how I would feel if my mother had had an abortion is about as useful as asking me how I would feel if my mother had entered a convent, lived a life of celibacy and never had sex and never become pregnant with me.

[Indy Texas]

Fwiw, Thompson's response to that criticism:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Carrying them to term arguably isn't the problem. It's the 18+ years of obligation and sacrifice that come afterward.

Adoption isn't a viable option. Black and Hispanic mothers who put their kids up for adoption aren't really putting their kids up for adoption - they're handing them over to foster care for 18 years. Adoption is the plan of last resort for most parents these days, after every kind of medical intervention has failed.

[Indy Texas]

Carrying them to term arguably isn't the problem. It's the 18+ years of obligation and sacrifice that come afterward.

Adoption isn't a viable option. Black and Hispanic mothers who put their kids up for adoption aren't really putting their kids up for adoption - they're handing them over to foster care for 18 years. Adoption is the plan of last resort for most parents these days, after every kind of medical intervention has failed.

On what basis are you saying that they aren't really putting them up for adoption?  If the parent wants the child to be adopted, then there are adoption agencies and other resources to help them through that process. The foster care system isn't meant for that - they place children who are already in foster care. 

There were 1.21 million abortions performed in 2008. My question to you is: if abortion were illegal and 1.21 million children were born, what would you expect us as a society to do with them? Do you really think they'd all be adopted into permanent families?