These past four years of the blog’s life I have kept away from writing about abortion. It is a sensitive and highly controversial issue fraught with nuances that one can easily miss. If I finally have decided to tackle this topic is only because I am stunned by how polarizing it has become and how easily opinions have frozen around extreme polar points with little appetite for some reasoned compromise.
First, it is important to understand that the abortion issue fought right now in America is not about morality. It is about rights. That does not mean abortion is not a moral choice. Of course, it is. But what is debated in the courts and in the streets right now is whether the right to abortion is preserved, as codified in Roe v. Wade, or it is repealed, as the leaked preliminary opinion of the Supreme Court seems to signal.
The right to abortion does not impose abortion on a pregnant woman against her will. It simply gives women permission to exercise this option. To support the right to abortion does not mean one morally condones abortion. It only means one does not wish to impose his/her moral code on everybody. On the other hand, to be against the right to abortion means that one wishes to prohibit abortion for all regardless of their moral code. So, it seems to me the burden of convincing society why a moral objection to abortion must also become a legal prohibition against it lies with the side of those who are against the right to abortion. Nonetheless, the pro-abortion camp is also compelled to make a case as to why the right to abortion does not cross at some point a universal moral objection to it.
The sad reality about the fight around abortion in the US is that moral beliefs and political calculations are conmingled so that cognitive and moral dissonance muddy the waters. That’s why we have to address both when we raise questions about abortion.
When does life begin? The most potent anti-abortion argument is that abortion means the termination of life and as such is criminal. But do we agree when human life begins? Some say it begins at conception. There is no guarantee though that a fertilized egg will result in actual life. There are miscarriages, still births and infant deaths shortly after birth. It seems that abortion does not terminate life with the certainty a murder terminates an actual life. What about life starting when heart beat is detected? Some though would argue that life starts later when the brain stem is formed by the end of the second trimester. And the brain stem is the organ that regulates heart-beat. So, what’s the real beginning of human life?
Is objection to abortion truly about protecting life? Can a society legislate both, against abortion and for the death penalty? The argument that the fetus is innocent and the death penalty befalls guilty persons is not a good one. Don’t we have cases of innocent people who were falsely put to death only to be proven innocent afterwards? The same question applies to abortion and gun controls. How many innocent children and by-standers have been killed as a result of loose controls on gun ownership? Moral consistency and integrity require that society’s respect and protection of life includes all life.
Should women’s right to control their lives be respected? The anti-abortion view tends to ignore the impact of abortion prohibition on the welfare and freedom of women. But then, how do we reconcile adherence to an anti-abortion stand and opposition to restrictions to protect life from the Covid-19 pandemic? An often-used argument against such restrictions has been that they would impose unreasonable constraints on people’s liberties and personal lives. If we are prepared to accept deaths due to the pandemic in the name of people’s liberties, can we do the opposite when it comes to women’s liberties and welfare?
Should we only value the biological life of the fetus or should we also value the actual life of newborns? Our biological existence is only part of our whole life. There is also the other part that is defined by the dignity and love we are given by parents and society. Can a society oppose abortion and yet be indifferent to providing decent foster care services, or child care and support to under-privileged mothers? Shouldn’t we support policies that show how truly welcoming society is to newborn babies?
Is the argument against abortion inviolable even in cases of rape and incest? Can we let anti-abortion beliefs deprive women of their dignity and instead impose on them the suffering of having to bear the fruit of violence and humiliation? Do we wish to return to theocratic and misogynistic oppression against half of our species? To the extent that rape and incest are motivated by a man’s desire to control the reproductive power of the female, doesn’t prohibition of abortion in cases of rape and incest reward evil and perversion?
Should we be indifferent to the abortion of viable human life? Can pro-abortion rights people walk away from the fact that the fetus reaches viability by 22 weeks so that what is aborted after that is pretty much a human being? The argument that just over one percent of abortions take place after 21 weeks (The Guttmacher Institute) is not good at all. Any termination of viable life (except for reasons of fetus deformities or risk to the mother’s life) is nearly impossible to defend.
Why don’t we aim at reducing unwanted pregnancies and, hence, abortions? The evidence shows that abortions have declined in the US over the past few decades. The global data show that unintended pregnancies fall as income and education levels rise. More importantly, the rates of abortion are not lower for countries with more restrictions to abortion. Actually, abortions have increased in countries with more restrictions and especially in those where contraceptives are less available. Therefore, by raising educational levels, improving family incomes, and availing women to contraceptives we could lower abortions more effectively than by imposing extreme restrictions and punishment.
As Americans we must ask why we have been so incapable or unwilling to debate the issue of abortion without making it a flash point for political wars. European countries have managed to settle the abortion issue with much less rancor and polarization. Europeans have achieved that by allowing abortions up to 12 to 18 weeks (below the point of viability in Roe v. Wade) and later abortions only for serious reasons related to the health of the fetus or the mother. Are the people of Europe morally bankrupt when they allow abortions with limits? Are the people of Europe indifferent to women when they set limits below the viability point?
Or is it, really, our intolerance to the arguments of our opponents that prevents us to compromise in light of the many legitimate and extremely difficult questions surrounding abortion, questions we are unlikely to settle with moral or legal clarity?
Let's Reason 