Abortion: A Market Solution?

[Kat Kanning]

I thought this was rather interesting.  Have fun!



Abortion: A Market Solution?
by Jim Davies

There's no possibility of reconciling the opposites in this debate, for one side regards an unborn fetus as a person with full legal rights to life and to the protection of the law, even in some cases when it's only a zygote, while the other sees it as a clump of cells entitled to neither. The first perception normally springs from religious belief, and that in its nature is never subject to rational analysis or refutation; hence the futility of trying.

There may, however, be a possibility of satisfying both sides, using the operation of the market. In contrast to political "solutions", under which the losing side is always forced to submit to the winners, the free market normally leaves both sides equally satisfied; in fact, that pretty well defines what a market transaction is.

Here's how it might work in this context.

Consider a typical situation. A young lady and a young gentleman meet and sparks fly and they have an unplanned, unprotected but steamy and thoroughly enjoyable sexual encounter. Neither regrets it, but after cooling down a bit they both agree to leave it as a happy memory; neither is interested in marriage. But the girl gets pregnant.

The young gentleman, being a gentleman, offers to share the least-cost solution with her equally, and that of course is to have an abortion. Let's say it costs $10,000 plus some measure of trauma for the girl. They agree on a deal: he puts up $6,500 cash and she pays the rest.
The Third Party
Now enters a third party, an influential group that thinks abortion should be outlawed and that claims to represent the interests of the fetus. They say that this voluntary arrangement must not fly.

They argue that for it to proceed means over-ruling by deadly force the assumed wishes of the fetus, ie to go on existing. They assume, without proof, that the fetus has the capability of so wishing. But they assume it anyway and do intervene. The dispute exists.

How can it be resolved? - as we saw, ANY political solution means applying force to the losing party. Either the couple will have imposed upon them the costs of bearing and raising a child, or the protesters will have imposed upon them an affront to their religious convictions. There is therefore NO political solution that satisfies all parties. Can the market do any better?

I think it can.

The protesters can come to the young lady and say, Mary, we think the fetus has an interest in this matter and wish to act in its behalf. We want you to give birth, and we're willing to compensate you for the extra trouble and cost.

Note: the possibility that she will refuse to accept ANY such offer will be so rare as can be disregarded. It's a basic principle of market economics that there is ALWAYS a price at which the market will clear. So if the protesters think that the life of a fetus is infinitely valuable - priceless - all that's needed is for them to bid high enough to achieve the desired result.

The price agreed will vary, just as market prices always do. Some girls in that situation will factor in the anticipated trauma of the abortion and the possible consequent regrets, and accept a low price plus the promise of immediate adoption. She will give birth and then walk away, with all costs paid - or at least, all those over and above the $10,000 already committed.

Others may bid the price up, to the limit. What might that maximum be? - that depends on how passionately the protesters believe what they say they believe, but here's one way to predict it.

In the alternative (political) case, the protesters favor imprisoning the young lady for life, as someone guilty of murder. "Life", for a young lady, will be around 60 years, and @ $30,000 per year that means a total of $2 million, that they are willing to spend on incarcerating this person for aborting her fetus. So presumably, their maximum bid price to prevent it must be $2 million, less the $10,000 the couple is already willing to spend for themselves; $1,990,000.

So the market solution would appear to satisfy all parties - as it usually does. Has anything been overlooked?
Who Pays?
Yes, I can think of one factor we may have forgotten.

In the foregoing reasoning, we said the protesters are willing to pay $2 million to imprison the girl they call a murderess. But actually, that's not quite right; the protesters actually want taxpayers to foot that bill. What they are really trying to do is to make everyone else pay the two million, whether those payers share their opinions about abortion or not. Once again, the political "solution" would impose force.

This being so, clearly the protesters are shown up as hypocrites. They want a solution that imposes force on pretty well everyone with whom they disagree; they are would-be dictators. They are willing to commit massive theft, in order to punish what they claim, with non-existent rationale, to be "murder". These usually religious folk are willing to break one Commandment (Thou shalt not steal) in order to rectify - if it ever does - another (Thou shalt not kill.) As such, they lose all their asserted moral authority.

Does that mean, then, that there is no market solution? - No, not at all. It only means that the prevailing, market price of preventing an abortion will be a lot lower than $2 million. It will settle down to whatever figure the protesters are willing to pay out of their own resources, to achieve their own objectives. Being much lower, that does mean that some potential aborters will not accept the offer.

But whatever it is, it will surely be sufficient to prevent a very large number of abortions. Not all, but a whole heap more than are prevented today, when such a market is not even allowed to operate.
Any Adverse Consequences?
Before leaving this quite pleasing solution, let's make sure it has no adverse consequences if the principle were applied elsewhere.

It might be argued that what it does is to set a price on human life. If (say) $25,000 will "buy off" a planned abortion, why should not someone contemplating the murder of a grown adult advertise his intention and invite bids of money to change his mind? - would such an idea not transfer wealth from the most caring members of society to the most ruthless, and isn't that an obviously regrettable outcome?

The first flaw in that argument is that the fetal existence purchased is a "human life". The protesters believe that, but nobody else does. Therefore, the extension is not valid.

There's another major flaw: the argument assumes that the intended victim of the proposed murder sits passively by. Clearly, he will do no such thing: seeing such an advertisement, he will ready his weapon and lie in wait. Assuming, of course, that other bigots have not used the political process to outlaw guns and the self-defense they provide.

So the intending killer's costs would not actually be trivial (the unstated assumption) but would likely be prohibitive. The situation, therefore, would not arise.

Accordingly this does not impede the market solution to the abortion dispute. Let's take it!

The only problem I see with this is don't you get more of something when you subsidize it?  Why wouldn't women go into the business of having babies for $25,000 each?

[Dreepa]

This is interesting.

There is also one other problem.  If the woman carries the child for 9 months.  Then decides not to give the baby up for adoption etc.  Then the man is now carrying the bag.  There would need to be a way for the man to not be involved.

[Russell Kanning]

Doesn't this already happen? ...and lots of times the woman wants to keep the baby after she holds it. If we didn't involve the government force, then the guy would always go free.

I wonder how big it could get.

[Dreepa]

Agreed.  I guess there would have to be some contract so that the woman would agree not to ask for child support etc.

I am sure that the people who spend thousands of dollars on the anti abortion stuff could fund this.

[KBCraig]

Another problem: there would suddenly be a market outlet for unwanted babies, and so suppliers would arise to feed the marketplace. Pregnancies that would not otherwise have been, will now happen just because someone is willing to pay to stop an abortion.

The anti-abortion groups would be tapped out rather quickly, driving the price down below the cost of an abortion, making that the more attractive option to the woman. The market would stabilize, but probably too late for those already in the supply pipeline. Short term, the number of abortions would increase.

Interesting thought, though.

[Russell Kanning]

Agreed.  I guess there would have to be some contract so that the woman would agree not to ask for child support etc.

Who would enforce the contract?

These kinds of things are already hindered under the current system because:
new mothers already change their minds on adoptive parents .... who has the heart to make them give up the kid?
new mothers still sue fathers and win in court ....don't they?

If there was a greater possibility that adoptions took place instead of abortions, life would just be better. If women start using the system .... it will work it out.

[Kat Kanning]

Another problem: there would suddenly be a market outlet for unwanted babies, and so suppliers would arise to feed the marketplace. Pregnancies that would not otherwise have been, will now happen just because someone is willing to pay to stop an abortion.

Isn't that what I said?   

[dead_hobbit]

I still find the whole debate icky - i'm theoretically with the pro-lifers, but practically i'm split on the issue, but this solution would be better than none.

[David]

The anti-abortion groups would be tapped out rather quickly, driving the price down below the cost of an abortion, making that the more attractive option to the woman. The market would stabilize, but probably too late for those already in the supply pipeline. Short term, the number of abortions would increase.

There is actually a nationwide shortage of infants.  That is one of two reasons foreign adoptions are on the rise. The other reason is greater adoption privacy overseas, again due to gov't meddling in adoptions.

[dalebert]

A movie called Citizen Ruth broaches this topic actually.

It's drastically oversimplifying to say there are two sides to the abortion issue though. You're only presenting the most extreme points of view:

#1) It's a person with full rights from the moment of conception
or
#2) It's not a person until it's outside the mother's body

Most of the population falls somewhere in the middle and believes in some degree of regulation. In fact, most of the population thinks it needs to be more regulated than it is now so public opinion seems somewhat more pro-life than current policy. It seems most of the public supports choice in the early stages and that support drops off rapidly toward late term as a fetus seems more and more like a full-fledged human being.

[felix.benner]

I think the problem arises only because killing a child is legal, while selling it is not. This is not for the better of the child. The problem with selling a child is not the selling part but the other side, the people who buy it. But how does buying a child differ from giving birth?
If a baby is born, somebody has to care for it, otherwise it dies. I percieve killing a child while it is still a fetus as more humane than waiting till it is born and then letting it die. But if a mother can't (or doesn't want to) take care of the child, why should she not sell it to somebody who can and will? And if nobody wants to, why not kill the child since it would die anyway?
The whole problem again is created by government in the first place and the best solution again is stop government intrusion.

[dalebert]

I percieve killing a child while it is still a fetus as more humane than waiting till it is born and then letting it die.

Probably, but that's a purely hypothetical situation because there are so many wanting to adopt and care available to those not adopted. Even without the welfare state, I believe charity would take care of children and the helpless first and foremost so that hypothetical situation seems extremely unlikely.

The whole problem again is created by government in the first place and the best solution again is stop government intrusion.

Again, not that simple as long as the question of whether or not it's murder is on the table. The most obvious distinguisher, though others can certainly be argued, is the issue of viability. Before viability, a Libertarian can argue that the baby is COMPLETELY dependant on the mother and she is under no obligation to care for it. Therefore, an abortion should be her decision alone.

After viability, the baby could be "evicted" and might survive. The mother is no longer forced to care for the child and at that point, some charity can pay the costs of medical care and adoption or some sort of care can be arranged. At some point late enough in the pregnancy, it actually takes a pretty aggressive action to go in and kill what is a viable infant that will very likely survive without any assistance from the mother. Assuming the mother had the option to abort at an earlier stage, that seems like a violation of the ZAP to me. I think it would be a reasonable compromise to protect her choice to abort up to a point and to make it clearly understood that by not making that decision within a reasonable time frame, she has implicitly agreed to carry it to term.

That's just my opinion, but the bigger point I'm trying to make is it's NOT a SIMPLE issue. So saying "Get government out of it. Case closed." just won't fly.

[felix.benner]

But that's exactly my point. Consider this: If there are people willing to care for a child and are even willing to pay for it. Why on earth would any mother want to kill it? This makes no sense.
The whole problem only arises because adoption is so highly regulated by government that this most easy solution is not available or is not perceived as so easy.

[Dreepa]

Consider this: If there are people willing to care for a child and are even willing to pay for it. Why on earth would any mother want to kill it?

Because they may not want it inside them for 3/4 of a year?

[KBCraig]

Consider this: If there are people willing to care for a child and are even willing to pay for it. Why on earth would any mother want to kill it?

Because they may not want it inside them for 3/4 of a year?

Here's a cliche for you: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

As applied here: "If you can't face the facts, don't do the acts."

If you're unwilling to bear a child for nine months (or pay for it for 18 years), then you best be 100% sure that pregnancy can't result from your fun. Even if that means not having any fun.

Kevin