Legalizing abortion: A pyrrhic victory

No one, except perhaps some criminals, is fond of crimes. Thus, we create many mechanisms to solve them. Steven Levitt, a famous neo-classical economist, has postulated that the crime rate can be lowered by legalizing abortion because legalization would enable women who fear their children will not have a good life to abort their foetuses. Levitt attributes a decrease in teen delinquency (illegal abortions by pregnant teens) in the 1990s to the fact that abortion rates increased in the 70s.

Although Levitt states that his findings “should not be misinterpreted as either an endorsement of abortion or a call for intervention by the state in the fertility decisions of women” in the United State, they have triggered much controversy over whether or not abortion should be legalized. Some people – especially those affiliated with religious groups – are upset about his assertions. They argue that pro-abortion advocates are often ignorant or misinformed about the true issues involved in the decision to legalize abortion.

This issue is the topic of much discussion in Thai society now as the Thai government considers legalizing abortion. However, the Thai government should not rely on the same rhetoric in its decision. Legalizing abortion in Thailand would not minimize levels of youth delinquency. It is merely a costly way to solve the real problems causing increased teen pregnancy within our society.

To minimize the number of prospective delinquencies, the Thai government should instead take a hard look at its policies. It must promote efficient policies and ignore those inefficient policies that are causing an increase in teen pregnancies.

Let us look at this matter from an economic standpoint. Economic principles dictate that inefficiency occurs when a decision maker does not choose the best alternative. Efficiency is defined as a choice yielding the same or equal benefit, the best alternative, or an efficient solution, in other words, the choice that yields the least cost to – in this case – the Thai society. We also need to define what cost is. Again, economic principles say that the cost of a decision is the value of the best tangible or intangible choice.

Now we will apply these concepts to this discussion. Since every culture accepts that human life is the most valuable entity on earth, we must consider the value of an aborted foetus when we consider the cost of legalized abortion.

To do this, two questions must be asked: What is the value of one human life?; and what is the relative value a foetus compared with that of a human being?

I agree with most people who think that each human life is very valuable. However, since other people’s lives are also valuable and all lives need some resources to sustain their existence, we can say there are some limits on the value of one human life. (In an economic point of view, human life cannot be said to have infinite value.) This assertion is upheld by many organizations and laws. For example, after last year’s plane crash at Phuket, the One-Two-Go Airline Company agreed to pay 5 million baht in compensation for each death. Therefore, we can assume that in Thailand, the value of one human life is worth around 5 million baht, at least in the eyes of One-Two-Go Company executives.

Now, to explore the comparative value of a foetus and a human, we must consider human beliefs and attitudes. Since each culture holds different beliefs and attitudes toward the value of life, each country places different values on the life of a foetus and a human. In Thailand, many would look to the Tipitaka, a Buddhist text, for guidance on this issue. According to the Tipitaka, if a monk helps to destroy a foetus in the womb, his penalty is as severe as if he had committed a homicide. Thus, in the Buddhist viewpoint, abortion would be strictly prohibited. This implies that the values of a foetus and a person are equivalent. Since most Thai people are Buddhist, we can conclude that most Thais would value a foetus and a human on par, as 1:1. Our friends who are Thai Muslims in the South, would also place an equal value on a foetus.

After calculating the value of both one human life and also one foetus, we are ready to address the question about whether legalizing abortion is an efficient way to reduce youth delinquency (illegal teen abortions). If a human life is worth 5 million baht and its value is equivalent to the value of a foetus, the cost of one abortion is 5 million baht plus the medical costs involved in the abortion. Hmm, this is a fairly pricy choice.

Are there any other possible ways to solve the problem of youth delinquency which are less expensive? What about the cost for contraception, for example, for a condom?

In Thailand, a reasonably priced condom is between 10 and 15 baht. Therefore, one abortion costs between 333,000 to 500,000 condoms. Supposing that, for example, a woman is fertile for 30 years, and she uses a condom everyday. At this rate, she would only use 11,000 condoms to prevent pregnancy throughout her lifetime. Clearly, then, the cost of preventing a prospective teen pregnancy using contraception is drastically lower than the cost of an abortion. Thus, contrary to Levitt’s suggestion, legalizing abortion is an inefficient way to reduce illegal abortions by pregnant teens.

In conclusion, since legalized abortion is an inefficient way to reduce the number of illegal youth abortions in the future, the Thai government should not legalize abortion. Contraception seems to be a better solution because it costs less, from an economic standpoint. Nonetheless, the ideas proposed in this essay are still not the best answer for the troubles our society faces. Legalization abortion would levy other costs in terms of our beliefs and values. These costs would be especially high for the people of Thailand, who are devout in their religious beliefs, which would be violated if abortion were legalized.

Dr Kriengsak Chareonwongsak
Senior Fellow, Harvard Kennedy School , Harvard University
kriengsak@kriengsak.com, kriengsak.com, drdancando.com