Abortion generally does not change the total number of children a woman has over her lifetime. If she is unable to have an abortion she will likely compensate by having fewer children later. So nudges would not cause women to have more children they are glad to have. It would cause them to have more children at less convenient times in their life instead of more convenient times.
It's true that women rarely regret having children, but they do sometimes regret the timing of their children. My own mother has occasionally wondered if it would have been better if she had had children later in life. I pointed out to her that it certainly would not be better from my perspective, and she said that that wasn't the spirit of that kind of hypothetical.
Germany and Matthew Yglesias: a) Germany "bans" abortion, but practically allows it the first 3 months IF the women got a counseling about state-help for mothers (esp. poor, single) - which is not super-low, actually. So, kinda combination of nudge 1+2. Kept no one who was set on abortion from getting one, might help on the margin - but not by a lot. - I like that system. (nudge 3 sounds bad and is hardly practical in densely populated areas aka Europe). 4 is not a nudge; NOT doing 4 is a nudge towards abortion. A nudge I am ok with (unlike most transgender stuff) - but at 300-700$ affordable anyways (German price tag).
that included a link to this ad https://x.com/MediumBuying/status/1704479015992447432?s=20 - so saying "most women would have been happy with their kid, thus let us make abortion hard" may come over as controversial. My take: Those women are welcome to happily have a kid in the right circumstances. Hardly any is going to give birth once per year, so going a year without is no biggie.
All in all: Bryan has been very outspoken against nudging paternalism. Arguing now for a "libertarian paternalism" seems: strange. To quote MY: abortion rights is an almost uniquely uninteresting topic to debate — it’s what most people think versus a religious doctrine that you can’t really disprove or debunk. I’m not going to do a 2,000 word column on “here’s why your raspberry-sized fetus doesn’t have a soul.” But it’s an intensely personal topic that impacts tons of people directly, and voters care about a lot it when they perceive rights to be genuinely at risk. - (He kinda recommends Republicans to keep to being against late abortions. That would get even my vote anytime.)
Indeed. As M.Y. said: abortion rights is an almost uniquely uninteresting topic to debate — it’s what most people think versus a religious doctrine that you can’t really disprove or debunk. I’m not going to do a 2,000 word column on “here’s why your raspberry-sized fetus doesn’t have a soul.” But it’s an intensely personal topic that impacts tons of people directly, and voters care about a lot it when they perceive rights to be genuinely at risk. - (He seems to recommend Republicans / "pro-lifers" to stick to being against late abortions. That would get even my vote anytime.)
But why would you be okay with that? It still isn't a legal person even at 39 weeks and 7 cm dilated. It can't get a passport or be counted for tax or Census purposes.
Well, if it is not a "legal person", then no legal problem. In my country, the judges decided that it is "human life" and as such worthy of some protection. Some people and courts say, it is a human and who aborts to avoid financial loss etc. is legally a "murderer". To which I reply: Whatever, in my place a "legal an-end-to-a-human-life-puter"; it is not "murder" if legal. Shall I copy&paste Matthew Yglesias again? "A boring discussion"
Non-subsidy of abortion would mostly decrease abortion among the poorest, whose scions will probably consume more in government services than they pay in taxes (the income level where the sign of that net fiscal impact changes must be above the average income level because the tax code is so progressive and there's a deficit. If taxes were flat and there were no deficit it would be at excactly the average income level. Diluting the national debt per capita is of no benefit if the new people only contribute to expanding the deficit.) So the government probably gets a positive ROI on subsidizing abortion, meaning other taxpayers pay less in the future (subsidized abortion has positive externalities via its fiscal impact). It probably also reduces future crime substantially.
I suspect we’re seeing female reproductive suppression, generally. Women encourage other women, and other women’s children, to do things which limit their fertility. These things include delaying starting a family in favor of starting a career. Alternatives lifestyles. “Finding oneself.”
Of course, the greatest negative consequence of an abortion (dwarfing the plausibly intense but brief suffering) is the loss of a potentially net happy life in the child, and secondarily, as you suggest, likely net happiness from parenthood. But these are equally strong arguments against contraception, as well as against not pursuing procreative sex as much as you can. Which I believe will produce some very different moral intuitions.
I'm generally for making abortion available. I'd say I'm in favour of the first two ideas - to make sure it isn't a rash decision. The latter two ideas however I fear would increase inequality - they would put little in the way for wealthy people who actually might be in a good position to raise children but could be insurmountable for the very poor, who may not be able to raise a child and might be trapped in poverty by having to support a child.
Bryan, et. al. I thought, I will use the Ideological Turing Test with my students next time we meet. I went here to inform them and there is a significant missing link! I wonder why?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test
Another factor is that parents tend to suffer immensely at the death of a child, in a way that doesn't seem greatly lessened by the total number of children they have. Of course, they're not going to phrase this grief as regret for having had more children, but more children does increase those odds.
Bryan, I don't profess to know what a libertarian paternalist would do. However, I too would only accept #4, but only in the context of getting government out of healthcare all together; I find the conservative argument to stop government funding of abortion while not touching Medicare and Medicaid, and healthcare regulations, disingenuous at best. For what it's worth, here's my take on abortion: https://andersingemarson.substack.com/p/how-to-bridge-the-abortion-divide?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fabortion&utm_medium=reader2
How could we make it easier? As ACB noted, you can leave the baby at the hospital no questions asked. And you're essentially proposing surrogacy. Would we compensate women for carrying to term babies they don't want?
Well, we could certainly make it much easier to adopt, couldn't we? The gap between the minimum a biological parent has to do to not have their kid taken away, and the qualifications typically required for adoption, are staggering. If a pregnant woman knew that the child would not get lost in foster care limbo, her decision might be easier.
Sure, but "loosening regulations to let people who want to be parents be parents" is way different than "let's discourage a woman from exercising her bodily autonomy so *others* can be parents." That's a de facto regulatory taking, and women should be compensated at FMV if so.
"there is a strange lack of pro life utilitarians, even if their philosophy (ignoring animal welfare, etc.) would imply not merely pro life, but very strong pro natalism, possibly near the point where MRPL= cost to sustain a life"
I'm basically this person, with the major asterisk being exactly what you suggest: pronatalism at present is tainted by the large net negative ethical footprint of the average human who consumes products of factory farming daily. But yes, I'm pronatalist in principle and morally opposed to many abortions. However, I think this is perfectly compatible with being politically pro-choice, based upon the standard consequentialist libertarian reasoning that giving more scope to police and courts creates very large direct costs, corruption, serious harms from black markets and organized crime, and -- when society is sharply morally divided as ours is on abortion -- potential for civil war.
This "etc." hides multitudes. Also, it seems you can have pro-natalism (in the sense "encourage having children economically, rather than create unpleasant conditions that make it more difficult than it already is, throwing those who hesitate into non-procreating") along with pro-choice ("those who do explicitly want abortion should be able to receive one freely").
Bingo. I consider it obvious that we ought to favor widespread genetic screening and positive, unbiased forms of that scary "e-word", and I consider the luddite opposition to it morally monstrous. Needless to say, abortion ought not be required in most cases, but rather informed selection of sperm and egg cells.
I agree on the e-word and screening, but abortion also often (perhaps mostly?) covers cases of involuntary pregnancy rather than only of a pregnancy with a sick fetus.
Good point. Though in addition to the rights claim, there probably is a consequentialist case that having, um, involuntary impregnators reproduce is a net negative for our society.
Well, I don't only mean rapes (although that's the most obvious case). Accidental pregnancy due to broken contraception method or something is also involuntary even if the sex act was voluntary. (Personally, I think at least part of the solution is popularizing the thought "don't do the act the 'natural' way if one of you has testicles and the other has the female plumbing unless you specifically aim for children - there are many other ways to give sexual pleasure to both of you". But popularizing such ideas seems tricky.)
I presume it is believed that 1)meat-eater/vegan is a choice that responds to incentives (e.g. many more people would switch to quality fauxflesh than to soy meat) not an immutable genetic condition; 2)influence of every specific meat-eater on the existence of factory farming is marginal; 3)due to 1, you can't predict in utero whether a given being is a meat-eater or a vegan.
(Also, while animal welfare is, in practice, a common concern among EA, it is not strictly a necessary part of their worldview.)
If you are the prospective parent of the child, you have both an incentive and the means to influence their incentive structure, especially if you are smart enough to "have some insight into the kind of incentive structure in society", so outside view is not helpful here, I think.
…I don't know what "our current cultural moment" is but I seem to sufficiently combine moral realism with the judgment "cows (and, by the same token, fetuses) are little more than rocks in terms of moral calculus because they are not sapient, their sufferings move the 'needle' of moral compass so little that they are vastly outweighed by the mass-production of food by factory farming and thus famine-prevention". (This deliberately ignores climate change effects - but usually, the argument about factory farming is about animals' suffering more than about its being similar to a coal-fueled plant.)
EA calculations are nearly-by-definition utilitarian. (The reverse is not true: not every utilitarian is an effective altruist.)
Abortion generally does not change the total number of children a woman has over her lifetime. If she is unable to have an abortion she will likely compensate by having fewer children later. So nudges would not cause women to have more children they are glad to have. It would cause them to have more children at less convenient times in their life instead of more convenient times.
It's true that women rarely regret having children, but they do sometimes regret the timing of their children. My own mother has occasionally wondered if it would have been better if she had had children later in life. I pointed out to her that it certainly would not be better from my perspective, and she said that that wasn't the spirit of that kind of hypothetical.
I'm inclined from personal experience to believe that, but do you have some solid research to cite on it?
The first that comes to mind is Steve Levitt's discussion of his research on the topic here:
https://freakonomics.com/2007/03/zell-miller-is-wrong-but-he-isnt-crazy/
This is the best paternalistic libertarian response.
Germany and Matthew Yglesias: a) Germany "bans" abortion, but practically allows it the first 3 months IF the women got a counseling about state-help for mothers (esp. poor, single) - which is not super-low, actually. So, kinda combination of nudge 1+2. Kept no one who was set on abortion from getting one, might help on the margin - but not by a lot. - I like that system. (nudge 3 sounds bad and is hardly practical in densely populated areas aka Europe). 4 is not a nudge; NOT doing 4 is a nudge towards abortion. A nudge I am ok with (unlike most transgender stuff) - but at 300-700$ affordable anyways (German price tag).
b) M.Y. had a nice post today https://www.slowboring.com/p/23-thoughts-on-the-2023-midterms
that included a link to this ad https://x.com/MediumBuying/status/1704479015992447432?s=20 - so saying "most women would have been happy with their kid, thus let us make abortion hard" may come over as controversial. My take: Those women are welcome to happily have a kid in the right circumstances. Hardly any is going to give birth once per year, so going a year without is no biggie.
All in all: Bryan has been very outspoken against nudging paternalism. Arguing now for a "libertarian paternalism" seems: strange. To quote MY: abortion rights is an almost uniquely uninteresting topic to debate — it’s what most people think versus a religious doctrine that you can’t really disprove or debunk. I’m not going to do a 2,000 word column on “here’s why your raspberry-sized fetus doesn’t have a soul.” But it’s an intensely personal topic that impacts tons of people directly, and voters care about a lot it when they perceive rights to be genuinely at risk. - (He kinda recommends Republicans to keep to being against late abortions. That would get even my vote anytime.)
Isn't it a simple matter that a woman is a legal person under the 14th Amendment, while an unborn child is not?
Indeed. As M.Y. said: abortion rights is an almost uniquely uninteresting topic to debate — it’s what most people think versus a religious doctrine that you can’t really disprove or debunk. I’m not going to do a 2,000 word column on “here’s why your raspberry-sized fetus doesn’t have a soul.” But it’s an intensely personal topic that impacts tons of people directly, and voters care about a lot it when they perceive rights to be genuinely at risk. - (He seems to recommend Republicans / "pro-lifers" to stick to being against late abortions. That would get even my vote anytime.)
But why would you be okay with that? It still isn't a legal person even at 39 weeks and 7 cm dilated. It can't get a passport or be counted for tax or Census purposes.
Well, if it is not a "legal person", then no legal problem. In my country, the judges decided that it is "human life" and as such worthy of some protection. Some people and courts say, it is a human and who aborts to avoid financial loss etc. is legally a "murderer". To which I reply: Whatever, in my place a "legal an-end-to-a-human-life-puter"; it is not "murder" if legal. Shall I copy&paste Matthew Yglesias again? "A boring discussion"
I think the "Axiology vs. morality vs. law" piece by Scott Alexander may be relevant?
Non-subsidy of abortion would mostly decrease abortion among the poorest, whose scions will probably consume more in government services than they pay in taxes (the income level where the sign of that net fiscal impact changes must be above the average income level because the tax code is so progressive and there's a deficit. If taxes were flat and there were no deficit it would be at excactly the average income level. Diluting the national debt per capita is of no benefit if the new people only contribute to expanding the deficit.) So the government probably gets a positive ROI on subsidizing abortion, meaning other taxpayers pay less in the future (subsidized abortion has positive externalities via its fiscal impact). It probably also reduces future crime substantially.
The women would oppose it.
I suspect we’re seeing female reproductive suppression, generally. Women encourage other women, and other women’s children, to do things which limit their fertility. These things include delaying starting a family in favor of starting a career. Alternatives lifestyles. “Finding oneself.”
Abortion on demand fits right into that.
Of course, the greatest negative consequence of an abortion (dwarfing the plausibly intense but brief suffering) is the loss of a potentially net happy life in the child, and secondarily, as you suggest, likely net happiness from parenthood. But these are equally strong arguments against contraception, as well as against not pursuing procreative sex as much as you can. Which I believe will produce some very different moral intuitions.
Waiting periods are not really libertarian paternalism, since they change the choices available.
As in, some abortions that would otherwise happen are prohibited.
I'm generally for making abortion available. I'd say I'm in favour of the first two ideas - to make sure it isn't a rash decision. The latter two ideas however I fear would increase inequality - they would put little in the way for wealthy people who actually might be in a good position to raise children but could be insurmountable for the very poor, who may not be able to raise a child and might be trapped in poverty by having to support a child.
Bryan, et. al. I thought, I will use the Ideological Turing Test with my students next time we meet. I went here to inform them and there is a significant missing link! I wonder why?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test
Do note that the majority of women who get abortions in the USA have already had at least one live birth....
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/01/11/what-the-data-says-about-abortion-in-the-u-s-2/#:~:text=nearly%20four-in-ten%20women%20who%20had%20abortions%20in%202020%20(39%25)%20had%20no%20previous%20live%20births%20at%20the%20time%20they%20had%20an%20abortion
...and "Parents very rarely regret having children" is different than "Parents very rarely regret having *more* children".
Now if you could certainly argue that "Parents very rarely regret having *more* children", but that would be a different essay (or book).
Another factor is that parents tend to suffer immensely at the death of a child, in a way that doesn't seem greatly lessened by the total number of children they have. Of course, they're not going to phrase this grief as regret for having had more children, but more children does increase those odds.
It is hard to make philosophical sense of "libertarian paternalism". The most extreme libertarian opposite of "pro-life" defends both abortion and infanticide: https://jclester.substack.com/p/abortion-and-infanticide
Bryan, I don't profess to know what a libertarian paternalist would do. However, I too would only accept #4, but only in the context of getting government out of healthcare all together; I find the conservative argument to stop government funding of abortion while not touching Medicare and Medicaid, and healthcare regulations, disingenuous at best. For what it's worth, here's my take on abortion: https://andersingemarson.substack.com/p/how-to-bridge-the-abortion-divide?utm_source=%2Fsearch%2Fabortion&utm_medium=reader2
Should we also consider making it easier for woman to put their child for adoption? Maybe more would consider keeping the pregnancy
How could we make it easier? As ACB noted, you can leave the baby at the hospital no questions asked. And you're essentially proposing surrogacy. Would we compensate women for carrying to term babies they don't want?
From a European standpoint as well it’s not as easy as to go to the hospital no question asked, it’s a bit more complicated !
In addition the requirements to be eligible to adopt are tough to meet
Well, we could certainly make it much easier to adopt, couldn't we? The gap between the minimum a biological parent has to do to not have their kid taken away, and the qualifications typically required for adoption, are staggering. If a pregnant woman knew that the child would not get lost in foster care limbo, her decision might be easier.
Sure, but "loosening regulations to let people who want to be parents be parents" is way different than "let's discourage a woman from exercising her bodily autonomy so *others* can be parents." That's a de facto regulatory taking, and women should be compensated at FMV if so.
"there is a strange lack of pro life utilitarians, even if their philosophy (ignoring animal welfare, etc.) would imply not merely pro life, but very strong pro natalism, possibly near the point where MRPL= cost to sustain a life"
I'm basically this person, with the major asterisk being exactly what you suggest: pronatalism at present is tainted by the large net negative ethical footprint of the average human who consumes products of factory farming daily. But yes, I'm pronatalist in principle and morally opposed to many abortions. However, I think this is perfectly compatible with being politically pro-choice, based upon the standard consequentialist libertarian reasoning that giving more scope to police and courts creates very large direct costs, corruption, serious harms from black markets and organized crime, and -- when society is sharply morally divided as ours is on abortion -- potential for civil war.
This "etc." hides multitudes. Also, it seems you can have pro-natalism (in the sense "encourage having children economically, rather than create unpleasant conditions that make it more difficult than it already is, throwing those who hesitate into non-procreating") along with pro-choice ("those who do explicitly want abortion should be able to receive one freely").
Bingo. I consider it obvious that we ought to favor widespread genetic screening and positive, unbiased forms of that scary "e-word", and I consider the luddite opposition to it morally monstrous. Needless to say, abortion ought not be required in most cases, but rather informed selection of sperm and egg cells.
I agree on the e-word and screening, but abortion also often (perhaps mostly?) covers cases of involuntary pregnancy rather than only of a pregnancy with a sick fetus.
Good point. Though in addition to the rights claim, there probably is a consequentialist case that having, um, involuntary impregnators reproduce is a net negative for our society.
Well, I don't only mean rapes (although that's the most obvious case). Accidental pregnancy due to broken contraception method or something is also involuntary even if the sex act was voluntary. (Personally, I think at least part of the solution is popularizing the thought "don't do the act the 'natural' way if one of you has testicles and the other has the female plumbing unless you specifically aim for children - there are many other ways to give sexual pleasure to both of you". But popularizing such ideas seems tricky.)
I presume it is believed that 1)meat-eater/vegan is a choice that responds to incentives (e.g. many more people would switch to quality fauxflesh than to soy meat) not an immutable genetic condition; 2)influence of every specific meat-eater on the existence of factory farming is marginal; 3)due to 1, you can't predict in utero whether a given being is a meat-eater or a vegan.
(Also, while animal welfare is, in practice, a common concern among EA, it is not strictly a necessary part of their worldview.)
If you are the prospective parent of the child, you have both an incentive and the means to influence their incentive structure, especially if you are smart enough to "have some insight into the kind of incentive structure in society", so outside view is not helpful here, I think.
…I don't know what "our current cultural moment" is but I seem to sufficiently combine moral realism with the judgment "cows (and, by the same token, fetuses) are little more than rocks in terms of moral calculus because they are not sapient, their sufferings move the 'needle' of moral compass so little that they are vastly outweighed by the mass-production of food by factory farming and thus famine-prevention". (This deliberately ignores climate change effects - but usually, the argument about factory farming is about animals' suffering more than about its being similar to a coal-fueled plant.)
EA calculations are nearly-by-definition utilitarian. (The reverse is not true: not every utilitarian is an effective altruist.)