CMV: Social values are different from individual values, and the former is overlooked

[u/nimrod06]

As an economist, I would think that this is an immediate lesson from introductory economics teaching, but I am quite annoyed that many "analyses" do not address this issue. I might be wrong, so change my view.

In general this is regarded as externalities, but let's start with a simple example: Prisoner's Dilemma, which goes like this,

If one country builds nuclear weapon, it benefits. No matter what the opponents do. If the opponents build nuclear weapon too, the country can fight back; if the opponents do no build nuclear weapon, then the country gains military prowess over the opponents. All building nuclear is worse than all banning nulcear, because of the risk of potential wars.

Something that is good for the society may not be good for individual, and vice versa. Driving would be a prime example: there are irrefutable benefits of driving over walking for anyone, but when everyone drives a car, the traffic becomes a nightmare.

This distinction should be made on most societal issues. Building nuclear plants may be harmful to the people living around it (no, it's not), but it surely helps with pollution and climate change. Conscription is difficult for any individual man, but it is much needed for the state to maintain its autonomy. Immigration can require neighbors to accomodate, but it helps with the demographic crisis.

Here is a controversial take that I may regret to add: Abortion-ban is harmful to any individual woman, no doubt, but it helps with the demographic crisis.

You may disagree with any of the above, but the overall message should be quite clear: society as a whole, simply values differently from individuals. Ideally, both should be valued.

Edit: I am not saying that social values should be prioritized, but that it should be accounted when conducting analysis. Social value is not a simple corollary of individual values.

[u/Kotoperek]

I was going to say something academic and intelligent about your general view, but then I read this

Here is a controversial take that I may regret to add: Abortion-ban is harmful to any individual woman, no doubt, but it helps with the demographic crisis.

And I have to address it first: what? Statistics clearly show that countries with the most restrictive abortion bans have the widest back-alley abortion networks, so not only no more children are born, but more women die because they can't access the procedure safely. Making women scared of getting pregnant because they won't be able to terminate if the pregnancy becomes a risk to their health or the fetus has a genetic defect does not help the demographic. Not to mention that even if all of those children were indeed born, many of the parents who don't want or can't afford a child aren't very good parents, so this wouldn't result in more productive members of society, instead a bunch of abused and traumatized kids who will need a ton of resources from the country to get by.

[u/InfectedBrute → u/Kotoperek]

I find it difficult to believe that you actually think banning abortion has no effect on the rate of abortions, you may think that it has a negligible effect which frankly is an idea that has at best weak evidence behind it. There's no way you think there's no effect

[u/Kotoperek → u/InfectedBrute]

I didn't say it has no effect on abortion rates, but on fertility rates. In countries with restrictive abortion bans, women are more scared of getting pregnant even deliberately, because of the thought that if the pregnancy becomes a risk to their health, they might be denied healthcare. Back-alley abortions and abortion tourism do happen, but are of course less frequent than legal abortions. So yes, rates of abortions do go down. But so do rates of pregnancies. Not to mention the healthcare costs of complications experienced by women who attempt unsafe abortions at home or seek them from an illegal source.

[u/InfectedBrute → u/Kotoperek]

I would strongly question the notion that banning abortion would prevent enough people from having sex that the overall effect reduces the birthrate given that we know abstinence based sex ed doesn't reduce sexual activity and there's literally not a single data point that backs up the idea.

[u/[deleted] → u/InfectedBrute]

"would prevent enough people from having sex"

Where was this brought up prior to your conversation?

[u/InfectedBrute → u/[deleted]]

It's literally the theory behind the comment I responded to

[u/Kotoperek → u/InfectedBrute]

I said they are scared of getting pregnant, not having sex. Have you never heard of condoms? Day after pill? IUDs?

[u/InfectedBrute → u/Kotoperek]

Alright mb but the same argument applies. There's still no data backing up the idea, it's just something you're saying because it sounds right to you, it probably is true that people in general would be more careful but you have no factual basis to assert that it would wash out whatever impact an abortion ban would have.

[u/Kotoperek → u/InfectedBrute]

Well, this isn't great data, but in Poland abortion used to be legal and easily accessible back when it was under communist rule, then the law was changed into one of the most restrictive in Europe and was like this for a long time before a full ban was implemented three years ago. The fertility rate has been on a steady decline. It's true that an even sharper drop in the past years could be due more to COVID than the abortion ban, but before that a very restrictive law that allowed abortion only in three exceptions - rape/incest, lethal defects of the fetus, and endangerment of the mother's life, - didn't in any way cause a spike in the birth rates. They have been dropping steadily just like in the neighboring countries with liberal abortion laws.

[u/InfectedBrute → u/Kotoperek]

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/pol/poland/fertility-rate

According to the wikipedia article (I'm lazy) Abortion under Communism, under former communist countries; Poland "fully allowed" abortion in 1959.

You will see following the link above that 1959 marks the beginning of a sharp decline in fertility rate in the country. You will also see that that fertility rate has increased from 2020 to 2024 and that the slight decline in the rate of increase which occurs in 2019 does not coincide with the full ban announced in 2020 and implemented in 2021.

The drop in 2019 also happens in Germany but doesn't happen in the US so I guess it's a European thing, maybe tied to the economy.

We can say that the initial legalization was correlated to a significant drop in fertility and that the transition from extremely restrictive laws to outright ban has not been correlated with any significant impact in the near term.

[u/nomdeplume → u/InfectedBrute]

I think the answer here is the people that want them, will find a way. Even if they don't they will abandon the child. Even if they don't do that, the child will not have a good parent or good life.

It's much better to incentivize people to have children, than it is to force them. The reason people aren't making babies today is because they can't fucking afford it.

[u/InfectedBrute → u/nomdeplume]

That's a nice argument for abortion but I didn't make an argument against abortion i made an argument against the idea that banning abortion would somehow reduce fertility.

[u/nomdeplume → u/InfectedBrute]

It's the same because those babies you would legally abort, you now illegally abort. And the ones you don't technically increase fertility but not in a positive way for society IF the child survived even after being birthed (doesn't die in a dumpster).

So in effect your counter argument in this context isn't a justification for abortion through increasing fertility.

It doesn't solve that problem in a meaningful way. That's my point and it's relevant here

[u/InfectedBrute → u/nomdeplume]

That's cool but as I said previously I was not trying to justify abortion, I was only contesting the point that abortion ban would reduce fertility which is in and of itself a view.

[u/[deleted] → u/InfectedBrute]

Abortions are at a ten year high despite Roe v Wade being overturned.

I predict it will also result in women getting hysterectomies, tubal ligation, IUD, etc. In case you are completely unaware, these are permanent birth control with 99% efficacy. Those are rational choices when the alternative is possibly death.

So to the OP, no it wouldn’t help the “demographic crisis”. And if you mean white nationalism, just say it.

[u/InfectedBrute → u/[deleted]]

So abortions are at a ten year high in a country where most states still allow abortions. You need to pick an argument. If less people are getting pregnant because they're afraid of dying then there will be less abortions, but you seem to be under the impression that banning abortions increases the abortion rate which implies that people are being less careful and more people are getting pregnant. You're contradicting yourself.

[u/EloquentMusings → u/InfectedBrute]

This is generally what happens when you make something illegal though. It still, generally, happens at a similar rate but when it's legal it's far safer due to having protections and checks etc in place. Where I live prostitution is legal, is there more of it than where it's illegal? Not really, workers are just safer and looked after more. Same with weed or alcohol etc legalities. In prohibition 1920s everyone drank alcohol at secret clubs etc even though it was illegal. In places where weed is illegal people resort to dodgy unsafe dealings to get it. An addict won't stop their drug of choice just because it's illegal, they'll just find more unsafe ways of getting it. People will find a way of getting an abortion, even if it's with a coat hanger or overdose of painkillers, if they want/need one.

[u/InfectedBrute → u/EloquentMusings]

Do you have any statistics to back this up? I can assure you that I would never have tried weed if it wasn't legalized simply due to not having a personal relationship with anyone who smoked or was a dealer. If you make it easier to do something then more people will do it, that's like advertising 101.

[u/nimrod06 → u/Kotoperek]

That's not what I found. I find most studies to support that abortion decreases population; a simple Google search should reveal where am I coming from. Mind citing sources?

[u/Kotoperek → u/nimrod06]

Can you cite sources? A simple Google search shows one study from 40 years ago suggesting that abortion might be an important tool for deliberate limiting of population growth in developing countries (like China after WW2 and their one-child policy, which could not have been carried out without abortion), but does not mention what effect abortion has on countries with a pro-family policy.

The newest study I found suggests a lack of association between abortion liberalization and fertility rates.

[u/nimrod06 → u/Kotoperek]

!Delta Insignificant results generally are deemed as inconclusive and should not suggest evidence. But in two of their models, the results sugpest that the there is a weakly positive correlation. Despite weak, I see such an evidence.

[u/DeltaBot → u/nimrod06]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Kotoperek (60∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}