This is an empirical scientific question, not a question about ethics. But there seems to be very little participation in the Social Science forum, and I would get very little response there. And it is my understanding that the topic of abortion is limited to this and a few other forums anyway.
Let's imagine an experiment. Pretend that we could control variables like a chemist or a physicist can. If we were to keep everything else constant and eliminate all direct* abortions done for reasons other than the mother's health; all infanticide; and all benign neglect, what would be the outcome? What would be the results of the physical demands of a "culture of life"? (I stress "physical"; we are not changing people's attitudes, values, beliefs, perceptions, feelings or anything like that; it is simply controlling certain practices).
My inclination is to think this: People don't exist in a vacuum. It is ecological fact that available resources are finite (I could be wrong, though). Therefore, adding people, adding years to those people's lives, and redistributing resources to those people who are living longer (giving a child the food and medical care she needs rather than practicing benign neglect) means taking those same things away somewhere else. Somebody somewhere else won't be conceived. Some child somewhere else will be miscarried or stillborn. One person's "chance to live" will mean another person somewhere else not having that chance. Somebody somewhere else will die of malnutrition**. Some life somewhere else will be lost to crime and war as people struggle for resources. Life would not be added or created; it would simply be redistributed.
The "culture of life" argument is, of course, that when a child suddenly has a chance to live he will discover the cure for cancer when he grows up and there will be a net gain for everybody. If he is aborted, however, he never gets the chance to discover the cure for cancer, and the result is a net loss for everybody. My response: Yeah, but another child who suddenly has a chance to live will likely discover some new recreational drug that destroys lives, or something like that. In other words, it all balances out. In other words, a "culture of life" would have no effect one way or the other on the amount of human life or the quality of human life.
And if a "culture of life" does lead to gains, those gains likely can be made without it. For example, a child living in poverty could discover the cure for cancer when he grows up if he were to have more resources, such as an adequate diet and good schools to attend. Therefore, the net gain could be realized through securing economic justice for everybody--no "culture of life" needed.
Again, I am not talking about changes in people's attitudes, values, beliefs, etc. Such changes are part of a "culture of life", I am sure, but they are not what I am asking about. I am talking purely about the physical, legal and structural "culture of life" that would be manifested in the criminalization of abortion, punishment of offenders, restructuring of the training of medical professionals, etc., etc.
And keep in mind that this is not about the question of whether abortion, infanticide and benign neglect are right or wrong, good or bad, Scriptural or against Scripture, etc., etc. This is purely about the cause/effect relationship between a "culture of life" and human life itself. It is, as much as possible, an empirical question. I am an Anthropology student, so it is a kind of question that I tend to gravitate towards trying to answer.
*Elective abortions deliberately caused by human intervention. It means the clinical procedure performed by a licensed physician. But it also means a woman using a coat hanger. Or any of the other ways that anthropologists and others have documented that people purposefully directly terminate pregnancies. What it does not mean is spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage.
**Malnutrition does not just mean a deficiency in calories and nutrients. It also means too many calories and nutrients. Obesity is malnutrition as much as starvation is.
Let's imagine an experiment. Pretend that we could control variables like a chemist or a physicist can. If we were to keep everything else constant and eliminate all direct* abortions done for reasons other than the mother's health; all infanticide; and all benign neglect, what would be the outcome? What would be the results of the physical demands of a "culture of life"? (I stress "physical"; we are not changing people's attitudes, values, beliefs, perceptions, feelings or anything like that; it is simply controlling certain practices).
My inclination is to think this: People don't exist in a vacuum. It is ecological fact that available resources are finite (I could be wrong, though). Therefore, adding people, adding years to those people's lives, and redistributing resources to those people who are living longer (giving a child the food and medical care she needs rather than practicing benign neglect) means taking those same things away somewhere else. Somebody somewhere else won't be conceived. Some child somewhere else will be miscarried or stillborn. One person's "chance to live" will mean another person somewhere else not having that chance. Somebody somewhere else will die of malnutrition**. Some life somewhere else will be lost to crime and war as people struggle for resources. Life would not be added or created; it would simply be redistributed.
The "culture of life" argument is, of course, that when a child suddenly has a chance to live he will discover the cure for cancer when he grows up and there will be a net gain for everybody. If he is aborted, however, he never gets the chance to discover the cure for cancer, and the result is a net loss for everybody. My response: Yeah, but another child who suddenly has a chance to live will likely discover some new recreational drug that destroys lives, or something like that. In other words, it all balances out. In other words, a "culture of life" would have no effect one way or the other on the amount of human life or the quality of human life.
And if a "culture of life" does lead to gains, those gains likely can be made without it. For example, a child living in poverty could discover the cure for cancer when he grows up if he were to have more resources, such as an adequate diet and good schools to attend. Therefore, the net gain could be realized through securing economic justice for everybody--no "culture of life" needed.
Again, I am not talking about changes in people's attitudes, values, beliefs, etc. Such changes are part of a "culture of life", I am sure, but they are not what I am asking about. I am talking purely about the physical, legal and structural "culture of life" that would be manifested in the criminalization of abortion, punishment of offenders, restructuring of the training of medical professionals, etc., etc.
And keep in mind that this is not about the question of whether abortion, infanticide and benign neglect are right or wrong, good or bad, Scriptural or against Scripture, etc., etc. This is purely about the cause/effect relationship between a "culture of life" and human life itself. It is, as much as possible, an empirical question. I am an Anthropology student, so it is a kind of question that I tend to gravitate towards trying to answer.
*Elective abortions deliberately caused by human intervention. It means the clinical procedure performed by a licensed physician. But it also means a woman using a coat hanger. Or any of the other ways that anthropologists and others have documented that people purposefully directly terminate pregnancies. What it does not mean is spontaneous abortion, aka miscarriage.
**Malnutrition does not just mean a deficiency in calories and nutrients. It also means too many calories and nutrients. Obesity is malnutrition as much as starvation is.
