In my post about guns, I described what I consider to be a hypocrisy of many on the right: supporting bans on abortions to save the unborn, while opposing stricter gun controls to save the born. Many on the left are guilty of the opposite hypocrisy, though.
Abortion is a complex, high-stakes and very difficult issue, and phrases like “my body, my choice” and claims that the pro-life movement is largely motivated by a desire to control women’s bodies are simplistic and unfair. The latter claim is an offensive misrepresentation of the sincere conviction of millions of people who believe abortion to be murder, and makes little sense given the prominence of women in the pro-life cause. And the former phrase misses the whole point here, which is that it’s not just the woman’s body involved.
The fact that an unborn fetus is a human life is hard to dispute. It is clearly a living thing, growing and developing into what we all recognize to be a member of our species, and has human DNA unique from its mother. It may not be able to survive outside the womb without significant artificial support, and it obviously lacks the physical and mental development of most born humans, but we do not measure human rights in terms of physical or mental ability in most other contexts. So, the idea that an unborn human has rights just like a born human is not unreasonable or inconsistent with other conceptions of rights that we all hold.
That said, we do justify the ending of human life, including potential human lives, in other situations besides capital punishment and war. We remove trauma victims from life support if they have too little brain activity to be conscious and no hope of recovery. This is a dependent, unconscious human life, as is a first-trimester unborn baby. The process of in-vitro fertilization often results in the fertilization of more embryos than are ultimately given the opportunity to survive, and these too are potential persons with unique human DNA. The point is that we as society have drawn lines between innocent human lives that have the right to live, and those that do not. I’m not saying abortion is the same situation – an unimplanted embryo is far less developed than even a first-trimester fetus, and a terminal coma patient lacks the potential to live a full life. But it indicates that the simple facts that a fetus is alive and human isn’t necessarily enough to grant it the full rights of personhood that you and I enjoy.
This leads to the fundamental truth about the ethics of abortion, which is that it is a value judgement about potential personhood, and one that is not as clear-cut as advocates for total bans or unrestricted access would like us to believe. According to polling (and laws around the world), one thing that most people agree on is that abortion becomes more morally problematic as the pregnancy progresses. Once a fetus can feel pain, or draw breath outside of the womb, it becomes much harder to argue that it is meaningfully different from a newborn, especially a premature one. It was simplistic, but the trimester framework of Roe v. Wade acknowledged that fact (though its failure to require restrictions on later-term abortions made it extreme by global standards). Most believe that abortion in the first trimester is enough of a grey area to leave the state out of the decision and let the mother decide. And most consider third trimester abortions to be unjustified except in extreme cases where the mother’s life is at risk. The data on when women get abortions aligns with this - 96% of abortions occur in the first trimester and 99% in the first half of pregnancy. As the show Veep humorously portrayed, choosing where to draw the line is not clear-cut, but this at least provides a reasonable framework for a public policy that reflects a broad consensus, does not impose undue government regulation on a question of personal conviction, while still protecting the rights of the unborn once they have developed past a certain point.
We’ve gotten rather far into this topic with hardly a mention of the other human life involved in this situation, though – the mother. While it is true that unlike the fetus, her very survival is not usually on the line in these situations, she is undeniably a full-fledged person with rights. I don’t appreciate the argument that says she is not obligated to offer her womb to a baby for 9 months, since that baby had no say in the matter (and will die if she doesn’t) and the mother usually did. But she probably wouldn't be contemplating abortion if she didn't have a lot to lose by having this baby. Social scorn, financial strain, lost educational or career opportunities - having a child has life-altering consequences, as any parent can attest. For a teenage girl, an abused wife or a poor single mother struggling to feed the kids she already has, having a child - let alone raising it - can be costly, difficult and even dangerous. Adoption can be a great option, but it doesn't address many of these challenges. And this brings me to my broader point - a society that values unborn, developing human lives should be a society that values walking, talking women and children at least as much.
This is my main critique of many on the pro-life side. I respect and sympathize with the convictions of those who believe that all human lives have worth and deserve protection, even from the point of conception, as any line after that is somewhat arbitrary. I know that this is what motivates many in that movement and appreciate their often-generous commitment to worthy causes such as crisis pregnancy centers and adoption agencies. But at the same time, I cannot help but notice that their passion for a government solution to the evil of abortion rarely extends to passion for a government solution to the societal hardships that often lead to unwanted pregnancy in the first place, or continued support of non-aborted children throughout childhood.
President Bill Clinton argued that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. Today, there seem to be few who believe this. The right doesn’t want it to be legal, and the left doesn’t even want to say it should be rare. But this formulation really does encapsulate what should be our collective approach to this issue, and something that can bring us together toward a common goal – supporting women and families so that abortion does not feel like their only option. Michael Wear, a staffer in the Obama White House, wrote about an initiative that Obama started at the beginning of his presidency. It was meant to "create a set of common-ground policies and administrative actions that move our politics beyond the zero-sum game of the culture wars, and actually reduce abortion by addressing its root causes." They focused on five policy areas: preventing unintended pregnancies, supporting maternal and child health, opening up pathways of opportunity for women and mothers, promoting healthy relationships and strengthening adoption. Yet after several years of trying, they ultimately failed. Pro-life organizations were ultimately uncooperative because they didn't want to give Obama the win or be seen cooperating with a pro-choice president. Pro-choice activists felt initiatives aimed at reducing abortions undermined their rhetorical position by suggesting that there was something wrong with it. I find this heartbreaking.
With the overturning of Roe, we’re starting to see the effect of a pro-life position that is focused on legal restrictions on supply rather than reducing demand through persuasion and care. Highly restrictive “trigger laws,” designed to take effect if Roe were overturned, have started to come into force in some states. Passed without the expectation that they would actually be enforced due to Roe, these laws were often intended to send a political message rather than thoughtfully balance the rights of the unborn against those of the mother, as some lack exceptions for rape, incest or maternal health. Such laws can result in doctors choosing to delay or withhold treatment of pregnant women in distress because it’s not always obvious or definitive whether an abortion is necessary to save her life. This puts women at risk, and also results in abortions happening later than they would have otherwise. Other women, especially those without the means to travel on short notice, end up having abortions later in pregnancy because it takes time for them to get off work and save up for travelling out of state. If “victory” in the legal fight over abortion just results in more later-term abortions while increasing the suffering of already-struggling women, maybe it’s time for a different approach.
Evidence is mounting that the pro-life movement may soon learn this the hard way, as referendums and elections which put abortion access at the forefront keep going the way of abortion rights. Conservatives may still be winning legal battles and passing almost-bans in conservative states, but by pressing forward with a strategy that imposes laws that represent minority positions, they run the risk of losing the war of public opinion and undermining any efforts to win hearts and minds on this issue. In the short run it may reverse the recent uptick in abortions, but I expect it will prove counter-productive to their long-term goals.
The left would do well to learn from these lessons, and not respond to their own victories by pushing too far in the opposite direction. Americans may not want 6-week bans, but neither do they want unrestricted late-term abortions. Legal abortion until around 15 weeks, with restrictions (and exceptions) after, won’t make everyone happy, but it’s a durable compromise that respects both the ethical ambiguity of this issue during the early part of pregnancy and the competing rights of the mother and unborn child.
I cannot help but wish you had informed yourself better about the actual facts surrounding this issue before you devoted the significant time and effort it took to write such a lengthy post.
One fact: Obama made extraordinary progress towards the goal of making abortion safe, legal and rare. During his administration, the rate of elective abortions declined more dramatically than at any other time. He did not accomplish this through abortion legislation, however. He accomplished it through the ACA.
The ACA requires insurers to cover all costs associated with contraceptive care as one of its designated 10 essential services. This provision radically changed access to long term reversible contraception methods, methods which are far too expensive for most middle and low income Americans to afford without insurance and methods which are the gold standard for contraceptive reliability. After the ACA took effect, all Americans gained affordable access to contraception that works reliably, and as a result, elective abortion rates began to fall for the first time since Roe.
The debate over what legitimate interest government has in protecting developing life was resolved in Casey. The line is drawn at pre- vs post-viability. Specifically what this means is that prior to viability, the right to life, liberty, and freedom from undue government interference lie with the pregnant person. After viability, the pregnant person and the developing fetus enjoy equal right to life, liberty, and freedom from undue government interference.
Medical practice is governed by legal, ethical, and evolving scientific standards. It is laughable that anyone imagines women can obtain abortions for viable fetuses. Doctors are compelled to deliver (not abort? pregnancies that have advanced beyond viability, even when the reason for cutting a pregnancy short is due to medical necessity to protect the life or health of the mother.
There are rare pregnancies that progress past the typical point of viability, but never result in actual viability. Once a medical diagnosis has determined the pregnancy has ended in fetal demise, or that the fetus has developmental abnormalities incompatible with life, all rights regarding the medical treatment of the pregnancy must revert to the pregnant person.
A belief that unique potential human life exists prior to viability is not a justification for governmental intervention to favor the rights of potential life over the rights of the pregnant person. It is important to recognize that, in Casey, the government does not prevent a pregnant person from relinquishing their rights in favor of the developing fetus. It simply doesn’t require them to do so.
What your analysis misses - or fails to address - is the decades-long propaganda effort of those politically opposed to abortion. The ongoing and deliberately inflammatory misrepresentations of pregnancy facts, existing law, political positions, and medical practices have muddied the debate so effectively that it’s nearly impossible to arrive at the middle ground. Fortunately, the majority of Americans see beyond the rhetoric, in part because their own lived experiences inform their understanding. As a result, public consensus on this subject is arriving at a middle ground that has been gaining traction with every month we live post-Roe.
Rational people don’t want lawyers and politicians and preachers to practice medicine without a license. Rational people don’t believe that pregnant individuals are both inhumane enough to murder “unborn babies” and also responsible enough to parent these same babies after birth for decades. Rational people understand that forced pregnancy - let alone forced parenthood - is inhumane. And rational people understand that the inevitable consequence of human sexual reproduction is that the vast majority of human embryos do not survive until birth. The miracle of life occurs at birth - not at conception - as any human being who has experienced pregnancy loss can attest.
Third trimester abortions do NOT occur unless the pregnancy is nonviable. The confusion around this issue is due to political demagoguery and medical terminology.
There is presently one (1) provider in the US that will perform third trimester terminations - none of which are covered by health insurance, and are prohibitively expensive to obtain.
This is just one example of your implicit acceptance of the pro-life framing that dominates this discussion.
I am out of time now. But your points were not as clear as you think and you did not explicitly root your ideas in the thought that has come before you.
Viable pregnancies are not terminated even in the case of grave risk to the pregnant person. Early delivery is induced and premature infants receive care.