Artificial wombs could in theory end the need for a woman to bring a baby to term, but don’t expect it to reduce abortions much.
The main* reason people abort seems to be that they can’t handle the knowledge that there is a child out there that they abandoned. If however it’s “just a clump of cells” then it “never happened” and you don’t have to think about it. Having the baby raised in an artificial womb and given up for adoption won’t provide the same “it didn’t happen”.
Ultimately abortion just really seems to be about your vibes over children. Amongst the middle classes and above, being pro-life means you’re having about twice as many kids as people that are pro-choice. That seems to imply pro-life people just like kids more, and hence they find the idea of abortion more disgusting. It’s not a matter of timing and control but very different endpoints.
*there are always some weird edge cases that most people agree abortion is ok.
I agree that a common reason for abortion instead of adoption is people not being able to give up a baby after going through with a pregnancy. I think you're right that artificial wombs would not end the abortion debate.
At the same time, I wouldn't discount the difference between an embryo vs a fetus, and when people talk about a "clump of cells," they are probably referring to an embryo (younger even than the 12 week fetus Flanagan writes about), if they are knowledgeable enough about embryonic and fetal development. I've enjoyed reading Peter Singer delve into the nuances of abortion ethics and IVF when it comes to embryos, and I recommend his "Practical Ethics" to think through them.
Personally, if I was pregnant with an embryonic baby and a car accident killed that baby, then I would not experience the same grief as I would later in the pregnancy. That early on, so much can naturally go wrong, miscarriages are so common, etc, that although of course it is literally and truly a human life... it is so precarious that it is much more a potential person at that early stage.
I don't know if we can declare anything the *main* reason for abortion. For example, a lot of women are very frightened of pregnancy and childbirth, and they wouldn't mind giving the baby up for adoption if only they didn't have to go through that first. We would need some impressive polling data to find out!
I'm also unsure if we can draw a sharp dividing line between pro-life and pro-choice. The most strident partisans have demanded one, to be sure, but so many people feel conflicted on this topic that I suspect there's a "silent majority" of people who are strictly neither. Maybe we do have polls that ask people if they are pro-life/choice + how many kids they have (it sounds like you've read one), but I wonder how many other variables we should look at:
Are those polled given the option to say something like "I'm pro-choice up until 14 weeks only, but personally I would never get an abortion"? What if the different fertility rates we observe between people who call themselves pro-life/choice are really a result of larger cultural differences, given that this question could be a proxy for right wing vs left wing. Many on the left have less children *not* because they don't like children as much, but because they are more likely to live in cities with smaller apartments, or because left-wing mothers might be less likely to want to take the career hit that comes with each new pregnancy (it's more culturally acceptable to be a stay at home mom in conservative communities, which I think is a form of left wing sexism), or they don't think they can afford childcare for a third time (more expensive in urban areas), etc... if you've come across detailed polling, please do send it my way, that would be really interesting to pick through.
"pro-life/choice + how many kids they have (it sounds like you've read one)"
If you put "very pro choice" on one side and "very pro life" on the other its basically a straight line for completed fertility by age 45, but only for the top 50% of IQ.
This is ideology rather then life versus choice but if anything it would be stronger using that metric.
Below average IQ fertility is more or less the same regardless of professed ideology. I think this is probably a mix of not really having an ideology and not having the discipline to use birth control.
"pro-life/choice are really a result of larger cultural differences"
I mean that's my point.
"I care more about my career then having another child" is just another way of saying "children aren't that important to me compared to other things." You could go on down the list (if urban areas are expensive, move somewhere else). It's no surprise that people who consider children less important than their career would be more open to aborting their child on behalf of their career.
I don't think this is a fair summary: "I care more about my career then having another child" is just another way of saying "children aren't that important to me compared to other things." You could go on down the list (if urban areas are expensive, move somewhere else).
If someone wants to have a particular career and feels that's compatible with 1-2 children but not more, that doesn't mean that someone else with more kids "just likes kids more." Does someone with 6 kids love children more than someone with 4 or 5? Why would we assume liking children increases with the number we have? I have two kids and I don't "like kids" more now that I have a second child. How many kids does someone have to have to prove that they like children?
Life is full of all sorts of trade-offs and balances. "I love having two kids and I'm tempted to have a third, but I also love my career, so I would rather strike the balance of not having more than 2" doesn't mean someone devalues children. They did have children, after all, and probably love them very much! It could also be, "If I have a third kid, then I worry that I can't provide the lifestyle that I want to give the two kids I already have, because I would no longer be able to maintain the career that provides this lifestyle for them." We might disagree with those choices or not make them ourselves, but who are we to tell such people that they must not like children as much as someone else?
I'll use myself as an example, because with this kind of thing the devil is always in the details. We have two young children and we're tempted to have a third. But, we live in NYC in a one bedroom apartment. The #1 reason I wanted to move to NYC is to avoid putting my children in cars as much as possible, because I know the risks of cars too intimately. My leg was almost amputated after an SUV hit me about a decade ago. In the first couple years of my first child's life, before we moved here, we had a lot of close calls (a semi nearly drove us off the road; we got caught between a cop and the car he was pursuing in a high speed chase; etc). I would never want to move away from this city where we can't afford a bigger apartment, because I can't stand the idea of putting my children in a car on a regular basis, and few other cities have good enough public transportation. To me, "if urban areas are expensive, move somewhere else," is a non starter. My youngest is now over a year old and he has never been inside a car; I dread the day that changes.
My particular hang up might be niche (or maybe not, car accidents claim a lot of children), but there are other reasons people would choose to live in expensive urban areas *because* they love their children. NYC offers so many opportunities and cultural enrichment that I'm delighted my children will grow up here.
The point I'm trying to make is that each of us have our nuances, and I think it's far too simplistic to conclude that choices made by a large swath of people can be boiled down to "they must not like children as much."
And of course, most people are making these choices with birth control rather than abortions.
All of that being said, I do agree that the vocal "child free" crowd seems left wing. There are left wing environmentalists and anti-natalists who believe it's wrong to have children. I do understand where you're coming from in making that argument. But the abortion debate has been corrupted, in part, by uncharitable generalizations -- and I think we should strive to tone that down.
"Why would we assume liking children increases with the number we have?"
Occam's Razor, empirical data.
"but who are we to tell such people that they must not like children as much as someone else?"
I may or may not tell them, it depends on whether it's my business. I certainly can judge the truth by their actions though.
"My particular hang up might be niche"
I could call it statistically uninformed, but I suspect its just a rationalization.
"And of course, most people are making these choices with birth control rather than abortions."
Agreed. It's the fertility depressing ideology of choice that I object to. If abortion didn't reduce fertility I wouldn't care.
I can see a role for abortion where there are health complications or where the fetus is defective. Rape too.
If someone had an abortion but also had four kids I would think they were probably more akin to me then someone that had zero abortions because they had zero kids, but those are more exceptions to the rule.
I think the fertility shortfall is mostly just economic free riding. Right now if you have fewer kids you have more disposable income, then when you get old someone else's kids pay the taxes and provide the services for your retirement. It's unrealistic to think the childless will be denied old age benefits, so better they pay a higher share of the taxes now to subsidize the childbearing.
Basically, you need current child tax breaks to increase 10-20x paid for by taxes on low fertility people and then we can call it even and people can live the lives they want without having the judge them for free riding.
I think the leftists objection to this is mostly selfishness and guilt.
Noah denies IQ and Race, so comes to the wrong conclusions.
I have absolutely no doubt we can juice our population numbers by importing low IQs from the third world and paying welfare mamas to squirt out more welfare kids. But it won't do human existence any good.
If you believe all human beings are equal and fungible that isn't an issue, but I don't make a living on a substack brand so I can just say the truth.
The smart fraction of the first world creates basically everything good in existence, and if it doesn't reproduce itself we're in trouble. The problem is solvable but leftists would have to give up their Red Queen disposable income/status and equally participate in the raising of the next generation (if they just want to pay right wingers to do it that's fine to, but they gotta pay).
Artificial wombs could in theory end the need for a woman to bring a baby to term, but don’t expect it to reduce abortions much.
The main* reason people abort seems to be that they can’t handle the knowledge that there is a child out there that they abandoned. If however it’s “just a clump of cells” then it “never happened” and you don’t have to think about it. Having the baby raised in an artificial womb and given up for adoption won’t provide the same “it didn’t happen”.
Ultimately abortion just really seems to be about your vibes over children. Amongst the middle classes and above, being pro-life means you’re having about twice as many kids as people that are pro-choice. That seems to imply pro-life people just like kids more, and hence they find the idea of abortion more disgusting. It’s not a matter of timing and control but very different endpoints.
*there are always some weird edge cases that most people agree abortion is ok.
I agree that a common reason for abortion instead of adoption is people not being able to give up a baby after going through with a pregnancy. I think you're right that artificial wombs would not end the abortion debate.
At the same time, I wouldn't discount the difference between an embryo vs a fetus, and when people talk about a "clump of cells," they are probably referring to an embryo (younger even than the 12 week fetus Flanagan writes about), if they are knowledgeable enough about embryonic and fetal development. I've enjoyed reading Peter Singer delve into the nuances of abortion ethics and IVF when it comes to embryos, and I recommend his "Practical Ethics" to think through them.
Personally, if I was pregnant with an embryonic baby and a car accident killed that baby, then I would not experience the same grief as I would later in the pregnancy. That early on, so much can naturally go wrong, miscarriages are so common, etc, that although of course it is literally and truly a human life... it is so precarious that it is much more a potential person at that early stage.
I don't know if we can declare anything the *main* reason for abortion. For example, a lot of women are very frightened of pregnancy and childbirth, and they wouldn't mind giving the baby up for adoption if only they didn't have to go through that first. We would need some impressive polling data to find out!
I'm also unsure if we can draw a sharp dividing line between pro-life and pro-choice. The most strident partisans have demanded one, to be sure, but so many people feel conflicted on this topic that I suspect there's a "silent majority" of people who are strictly neither. Maybe we do have polls that ask people if they are pro-life/choice + how many kids they have (it sounds like you've read one), but I wonder how many other variables we should look at:
Are those polled given the option to say something like "I'm pro-choice up until 14 weeks only, but personally I would never get an abortion"? What if the different fertility rates we observe between people who call themselves pro-life/choice are really a result of larger cultural differences, given that this question could be a proxy for right wing vs left wing. Many on the left have less children *not* because they don't like children as much, but because they are more likely to live in cities with smaller apartments, or because left-wing mothers might be less likely to want to take the career hit that comes with each new pregnancy (it's more culturally acceptable to be a stay at home mom in conservative communities, which I think is a form of left wing sexism), or they don't think they can afford childcare for a third time (more expensive in urban areas), etc... if you've come across detailed polling, please do send it my way, that would be really interesting to pick through.
I could ramble on!
"pro-life/choice + how many kids they have (it sounds like you've read one)"
If you put "very pro choice" on one side and "very pro life" on the other its basically a straight line for completed fertility by age 45, but only for the top 50% of IQ.
This is ideology rather then life versus choice but if anything it would be stronger using that metric.
https://jaymans.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/lib-cons-tfr-30-43-iq.png
Wordsum = IQ proxy, think of it as percentiles.
Below average IQ fertility is more or less the same regardless of professed ideology. I think this is probably a mix of not really having an ideology and not having the discipline to use birth control.
"pro-life/choice are really a result of larger cultural differences"
I mean that's my point.
"I care more about my career then having another child" is just another way of saying "children aren't that important to me compared to other things." You could go on down the list (if urban areas are expensive, move somewhere else). It's no surprise that people who consider children less important than their career would be more open to aborting their child on behalf of their career.
I don't think this is a fair summary: "I care more about my career then having another child" is just another way of saying "children aren't that important to me compared to other things." You could go on down the list (if urban areas are expensive, move somewhere else).
If someone wants to have a particular career and feels that's compatible with 1-2 children but not more, that doesn't mean that someone else with more kids "just likes kids more." Does someone with 6 kids love children more than someone with 4 or 5? Why would we assume liking children increases with the number we have? I have two kids and I don't "like kids" more now that I have a second child. How many kids does someone have to have to prove that they like children?
Life is full of all sorts of trade-offs and balances. "I love having two kids and I'm tempted to have a third, but I also love my career, so I would rather strike the balance of not having more than 2" doesn't mean someone devalues children. They did have children, after all, and probably love them very much! It could also be, "If I have a third kid, then I worry that I can't provide the lifestyle that I want to give the two kids I already have, because I would no longer be able to maintain the career that provides this lifestyle for them." We might disagree with those choices or not make them ourselves, but who are we to tell such people that they must not like children as much as someone else?
I'll use myself as an example, because with this kind of thing the devil is always in the details. We have two young children and we're tempted to have a third. But, we live in NYC in a one bedroom apartment. The #1 reason I wanted to move to NYC is to avoid putting my children in cars as much as possible, because I know the risks of cars too intimately. My leg was almost amputated after an SUV hit me about a decade ago. In the first couple years of my first child's life, before we moved here, we had a lot of close calls (a semi nearly drove us off the road; we got caught between a cop and the car he was pursuing in a high speed chase; etc). I would never want to move away from this city where we can't afford a bigger apartment, because I can't stand the idea of putting my children in a car on a regular basis, and few other cities have good enough public transportation. To me, "if urban areas are expensive, move somewhere else," is a non starter. My youngest is now over a year old and he has never been inside a car; I dread the day that changes.
My particular hang up might be niche (or maybe not, car accidents claim a lot of children), but there are other reasons people would choose to live in expensive urban areas *because* they love their children. NYC offers so many opportunities and cultural enrichment that I'm delighted my children will grow up here.
The point I'm trying to make is that each of us have our nuances, and I think it's far too simplistic to conclude that choices made by a large swath of people can be boiled down to "they must not like children as much."
And of course, most people are making these choices with birth control rather than abortions.
All of that being said, I do agree that the vocal "child free" crowd seems left wing. There are left wing environmentalists and anti-natalists who believe it's wrong to have children. I do understand where you're coming from in making that argument. But the abortion debate has been corrupted, in part, by uncharitable generalizations -- and I think we should strive to tone that down.
"Why would we assume liking children increases with the number we have?"
Occam's Razor, empirical data.
"but who are we to tell such people that they must not like children as much as someone else?"
I may or may not tell them, it depends on whether it's my business. I certainly can judge the truth by their actions though.
"My particular hang up might be niche"
I could call it statistically uninformed, but I suspect its just a rationalization.
"And of course, most people are making these choices with birth control rather than abortions."
Agreed. It's the fertility depressing ideology of choice that I object to. If abortion didn't reduce fertility I wouldn't care.
I can see a role for abortion where there are health complications or where the fetus is defective. Rape too.
If someone had an abortion but also had four kids I would think they were probably more akin to me then someone that had zero abortions because they had zero kids, but those are more exceptions to the rule.
I think the fertility shortfall is mostly just economic free riding. Right now if you have fewer kids you have more disposable income, then when you get old someone else's kids pay the taxes and provide the services for your retirement. It's unrealistic to think the childless will be denied old age benefits, so better they pay a higher share of the taxes now to subsidize the childbearing.
Basically, you need current child tax breaks to increase 10-20x paid for by taxes on low fertility people and then we can call it even and people can live the lives they want without having the judge them for free riding.
I think the leftists objection to this is mostly selfishness and guilt.
I'm curious how many kids you have!
For worries over fertility rates, I recommend my favorite economics blogger:
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/humanity-is-going-to-shrink
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/writing-about-fertility-is-really
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/how-much-does-aging-really-hurt-a
Three.
Noah denies IQ and Race, so comes to the wrong conclusions.
I have absolutely no doubt we can juice our population numbers by importing low IQs from the third world and paying welfare mamas to squirt out more welfare kids. But it won't do human existence any good.
If you believe all human beings are equal and fungible that isn't an issue, but I don't make a living on a substack brand so I can just say the truth.
The smart fraction of the first world creates basically everything good in existence, and if it doesn't reproduce itself we're in trouble. The problem is solvable but leftists would have to give up their Red Queen disposable income/status and equally participate in the raising of the next generation (if they just want to pay right wingers to do it that's fine to, but they gotta pay).