As America becomes more polarized, it is increasingly possible to silo ourselves off from opposing viewpoints.
Today’s Fox News viewers may never come in contact with people who disagree with them. Likewise, today’s MSNBC enthusiasts may rarely encounter one of the millions of pro-life Americans. It’s one of the main reasons we collectively live in two Americas.
This got me thinking: If a reader of this site asked me, a pro-life columnist, about the debate over abortion, what would I say? How would I explain my pro-life position to someone who might not know anyone who supports overturning Roe v. Wade?
ADVERTISEMENT
And I’m not talking about legal queries regarding overturning things like “precedent” or “reliance,” but the kinds of deep introspective questions that inform our worldviews.
I took some time today to consider what questions a pro-abortion rights proponent might they ask, and how I might answer.
The first question, I think, is: Why do you believe in the pro-life cause?
All I can say is that I believe these things because this is what I think is right. It is not about advancing the patriarchy or “hating women.”
Most Americans don’t fully appreciate how widespread abortion still is.
Far from “safe, legal, and rare,” there were 862,320 abortions in 2017, the last year it was tracked by the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. That was down 7 percent from 2014, when there were 926,190. To put it in perspective, there were 385,000 COVID deaths in the U.S. in 2020 (the total number is approximately 996,000).
Consider how much money and attention was spent on preventing COVID deaths in 2020, alone. Now, consider that since 1973, we have voluntarily endured what amounts to two COVID pandemics a year, for almost 50 years, and the only possible relief in sight is a Supreme Court decision that might come next month.
If one believes that unborn babies are fully human, then the moral ramifications of abortion on this scale are horrific.
Of course, the question as to whether you should be mortified about 862,320 abortions is largely contingent on the next question: When does life begin?
The pop-culture term “baby bump” betrays the fact that we already intuitively understand there’s a baby under that blouse. Now, I’m not sure when that life began, but by the time you see that bump, it’s definitely more than a “clump of cells.”
Does giving birth bestow some magical human quality that previously did not exist? Are we to believe that aborting a fully formed yet unborn, human at 10 a.m. would be perfectly moral and legal, while doing so at 10:15 a.m.—after the baby was delivered—would constitute infanticide? If so, what are we to make of instances where someone is charged with two counts of murder for killing a pregnant woman?
Historically, those who wish to exploit other humans have found it necessary to first diminish their humanity. A similar process is at work when we come up with euphemisms to deny personhood.
The good news is that science and technology have made it harder for us to fool ourselves. Consider the invention of high-definition 4-D ultrasounds that make it clear your fetus is, in fact, a baby. As one ultrasound studio put it, “With this type of ultrasound, you could potentially see your baby smile or yawn in the womb because it compiles hundreds of images into a moving video.” Parents share these videos and images on Facebook, which virally spreads awareness.
Of course, technology is not a panacea. Indeed, should Roe be overturned, an increase in mail-order abortion pills are a predictable escalation in this arms race. Like a drone strike that elicits little attention, “medical abortions” have the benefit of being out of sight and out of mind.
The next important question is: Who’s the real victim?
In our modern individual-rights-based culture, much attention has been paid to the rights of women, and the plight of struggling women—and understandably so. These are our wives, sisters, and friends. But these women have already been given life. They have a voice. They can protest. They can vote. They can lobby.
The other individual(s) at the center of the abortion debate—the unborn child—lacks all of these advantages. We can’t even see her with the naked eye. Is it any wonder that she generates less sympathy? If we care about the most vulnerable among us—if we care about the voiceless—the unborn are at the top of that list.
Having said that, this shouldn’t be a zero-sum game. If Roe is overturned, state legislatures should work to craft common sense reforms that protect the lives of the mothers (for example, making exceptions for ectopic pregnancies) as well as unborn babies, while simultaneously providing financial support for struggling moms and encouraging alternatives, such as adoption.
The next question: Why should the government be involved in this personal decision?
As a society, we have a collective interest in protecting the rights of the vulnerable. Even those who prefer a limited role of government should see guaranteeing the right to life as among the most basic, fundamental, duties of a nation.
We can talk about personal autonomy, but a lot of the decisions you and I make have an impact on other people. This is why that “My body, my choice” slogan the COVID anti-vaxxers appropriated from the pro-choice movement was always reductive, selfish, and morally flawed.
It’s not really a question, but any conversation about abortion must address the “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one” talking point.
This statement would never be said about banning child or animal abuse—or any number of other societal ills that we, as a civilization, also have a vested interest in prohibiting. As conservative commentator Guy Benson tweeted, the list of absurd possible combinations includes: “‘If you oppose rape, don't commit one.’ ‘If you oppose a war, don’t enlist.’ ‘If you don’t like AR-15’s, don’t buy or use one.’ ‘If you don’t like cigarette smoke in a bar, don’t smoke’...”
The way a society treats the poor, the homeless, the sick, the aged, or the disabled, says a lot about its character. This is one reason why the pro-life community is not only invested in winning hearts and minds, but also in changing the law.
An apocryphal quote attributed to Gandhi says: “The measure of a civilization is how it treats its weakest members.” This line (which may be a mangled version of something Hubert Humphrey said about “the moral test of government”) certainly rings true.
A society who doesn’t care about the least among us is unlikely to truly care about the dignity of the rest.
This is something the pro-abortion rights movement ought to address, even if it’s not as simple as demonizing the opposition as “anti-women.”
