"Put another way, even if one believes abortion is permissible, it likely remains a comparable problem to any problem of infant mortality – but with even more lost life-years, and occurring on a much larger scale than infant mortality".

Well, it isn't comparable, because abortion prevents forced birth, and forced birth is a form of torture. As indeed is being forced to care for a child in poverty.

"Other responses to Thomson highlight various other disanalogies between pregnancy and the violinist situation: In most cases of abortion, the woman is responsible for both the child’s neediness and their intimate biological relationship with the woman – unlike the violinist case. Other responses to Thomson highlight various other disanalogies between pregnancy and the violinist situation: In most cases of abortion, the woman is responsible for both the child’s neediness and their intimate biological relationship with the woman – unlike the violinist case."

Bit of a bold statement, and likely untrue. It is impossible for a woman to know even when having unprotected sex if it will result in a pregnancy. Contraceptive technologies fail. And what about the responsibility of the father? It takes two.

"n the case of abortion, the woman is the mother of the child[6] – unlike the violinist case.[7]"

Ok, this is meaningless.

"The violinist is in an unnatural situation and being hooked up to the stranger is an unnatural position – by contrast, the fetus is exactly where she is supposed to be in her ‘natural habitat’."

Not in my womb, it isn't, motherfucker!

Quite a lot of pregnancies end early in miscarriage.

"babe wake up, new mod format just dropped"

The fucking table really got me, like, what an absolutely mad idiot.

And then I see this reply.

I notice you have a table collecting and assessing possible harms from the practice but no similar table collecting and assessing possible benefits. In deciding whether to fight against some practice shouldn't we want to figure out the net effect - benefits minus costs - rather than just costs?

Given how widespread the social phenomenon is, surely there must be some benefits?

( Something something Chesterton's fence...)

Near as I can tell, the people who think it's terrible are in large part motivated by largely-false quasi-Mathusian claims related to "overpopulation". If we set those aside, younger brides tend to have more kids; all else being equal we should assume those kids have lots of extra QALYs (that wouldn't otherwise exist) and also presumably make their parents happy. Are those married as children happier adults on average than those not? How do we balance a claimed higher risk of physical abuse against, say, a lower risk of ending up childless or alone or financially insecure?

Food for thought.

@Soyweiser He's also oddly reluctant to disclose in his polemic that his ongoing association with Oxford is as a research fellow at the tiny Blackfriars Hall, which is a combination Dominican friary and heavily Catholic college. Not wholly out of the question that the post is funded by, you know, "a group of concerned individuals".

Bonus points for the part where he rails against contraception and sex education in the appendix, because we all know what this is really about.

source: trust my dick, bro

Yeah the studies he cites are all over the place. One about how single motherhood isn't fun, which would seem like an argument for abortion, not against? It's just the aul "contraception causes pregnancy" argument catholic pro-lifers used to lose.