Sign up for Conorâs newsletter here.
Earlier this week I curated some nuanced commentary on abortion and solicited your thoughts on the same subject. What follows includes perspectives from several different sides of the debate. I hope each one informs your thinking, even if only about how some other people think.
We begin with a personal reflection.
Cheryl was 16 when New York State passed a statute legalizing abortion and 19 when Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973. At the time she was opposed to the change, because âit just felt wrong.â Less than a year later, her mother got pregnant and announced she was getting an abortion.
My parents were still married to each other, and we were financially stable. Nonetheless, my motherâs announcement immediately made me a supporter of the legal right to abortion. My mother never loved me. My father was physically abusive and both parents were emotionally and psychologically abusive on a virtually daily basis. My home life was hellish. When my mother told me about the intended abortion, my first thought was, âThank God that they wonât be given another life to destroy.â
I donât deny that there are reasons to oppose abortion. As a feminist and a lawyer, I can now articulate several reasons for my support of legal abortion: a womanâs right to privacy and autonomy and to the equal protection of the laws are near the top of the list. (I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg that equal protection is a better legal rationale for the right to abortion than privacy.) But my emotional reaction from 1971 still resonates with me. Most people who comment on the issue, on both sides, do not understand what it is to go through childhood unloved. It is horrific beyond my powers of description. To me, there is nothing more immoral than forcing that kind of life on any child.
Anti-abortion activists often like to ask supporters of abortion rights: âWell, what if your mother had decided to abort you?â All I can say is that I have spent a great portion of my life wishing that my mother had done exactly that.
Steven had related thoughts:
I have respect for the idea that there should be some restrictions on abortion. But the most fundamental, and I believe flawed, unstated assumptions of the anti-choice are that A) they are acting on behalf of the fetus, and more importantly B) they know what the fetus would want.
I would rather not have been born than to have been born to a mother who did not want me. All children should be wanted childrenâfor the sake of all concerned. You can say that different fetuses would âwantâ different thingsâthough itâs hard to say a clump of cells âwantsâ anything. How would we know? The argument lands, as it does generally, with the question of who should be making that decision. Who best speaks in the fetusâs interests? Who is better positioned morally or practically than the expectant mother?
Geoff self-describes as âpro-lifeâ and guilty of some hypocrisy. He writes:
Iâm pro-life because I have a hard time with the dehumanization that comes with the extremes of abortion on demand â¦ Should it be okay to get an abortion when you find your child has Down syndrome? What of another abnormality? Or just that you didnât want a girl? Any argument that these are legitimate reasons is disturbing. But so many of the pro-life just donât seem to care about life unless itâs a fetus they can force a woman to carry. The hypocrisy is real. While you can argue that someone on death row made a choice that got them to that point, whereas a fetus had no say, I find it still hard to swallow that you can claim one life must be protected and the other must be taken.
Life should be life. At least in the Catholic Church this is more consistent.
I myself am guilty of a degree of hypocrisy. My wife and I used IVF to have our twins. There were other embryos created and not inserted. They were eventually destroyed. So did I support killing a life? Maybe? I didnât want to donate them for someone else to give birth toâit felt wrong to think my twins may have brothers or sisters in the world they would never know about. Yet does that mean I was more willing to kill my embryos than to have them adopted? Sure seems like it. So I made a morality deal with myself and moved the goal postâthe embryos were not yet in a womb and were so early in development that they couldnât be considered fully human life. They were still potential life.
Colleen, a mother of three, describes why she ended her fourth pregnancy:
I was young when I first engaged this debate. Raised Catholic, anti-choice, and so committed to my position that I broke my parentsâ hearts by giving birth during my junior year of college. At that time, my sense of my own rights in the matter was almost irrelevant.
I was enslaved by my body.
One husband and two babies later I heard a remarkable Jesuit theologian (I wish I could remember his name) speak on the matter and he, a Catholic priest, framed it most directly. We prioritize one life over another all the time. Most obviously, we justify the taking of life in war with all kinds of arguments that often turn out to be untrue. We also do so as we decide who merits access to health care or income support or other life-sustaining things. So the question of abortion then boils down to: Who gets to decide?
Who gets to decide that the life of a human in gestation is actually more valuable than the life of the woman who serves as hostâor vice versa? Who gets to decide when the load a woman is being asked to carry is more than she can bear? The state? Looking back over history, he argued that he certainly had more faith in the person most involved to make the best decision than in any formalized structureâchurch or stateâcreated by men. Every form of birth control available failed me at one point or another, so when yet a 4th pregnancy threatened to interrupt the education I had finally been able to resume, I said âEnough.â And as I cried and struggled to come to that position, the question that haunted me was âDoesnât MY life count?â And I decided it did.
Florence articulates what it would take to make her anti-abortion:
What people seem to miss is that depriving a woman of bodily autonomy is slavery. A person who does not control his/her own body isâwhat? A slave. At its simplest, this is the issue.
I will be anti-abortion when men and women are equal in all facets of lifeâwages, chores, child-rearing responsibilities, registering for the draft, to name a few obvious ones. When there is birth control that is effective, where women do not bear most of the responsibility. We need to raise boys who are respectful to girls, who do not think that they are entitled to coerce a girl into having sex that she doesnât really want or is unprepared for. We need for sex education to be provided in schools so young couples know what they are getting into when they have sex. Especially the repercussions of pregnancy. We need to raise girls who are confident and secure, who donât believe they need a male to âcompleteâ them. Who have enough agency to say ânoâ and to know why.
We have to make abortion unnecessary â¦ We have so far to go. If abortion is ruled illegal, or otherwise curtailed, we will never know if the solutions to womenâs second-class status will work. We will be set back to the 50s or worse. I donât want to go back. Women have fought from the beginning of time to own their bodies and their lives. To deprive us of all of the amazing strides forward will affect all future generations.
Similarly, Ben agrees that in our current environment, abortion is often the only way women can retain equal citizenship and participation in society, but also agrees with pro-lifers who critique the status quo, writing that he doesnât want a world where a daughterâs equality depends on her right âto perform an act of violence on their potential descendents.â Hereâs how he resolves his conflictedness:
Conservatives arguing for a more family-centered society, in which abortion is unnecessary to protect the equal rights of women, are like liberals who argue for defunding the police and relying on addiction, counselling, and other services, in that they argue for removing what offends them without clear, credible plans to replace the functions it serves.
I sincerely hope we can move towards a world in which armed police are less necessary. But before we can remove the guardrails of the police, we need to make the rest of the changes so that the world works without them. Once liberal cities that have shown interest in defunding the police can prove that they can fund alternatives, and that those alternatives work, then I will throw my support behind defunding the police. Similarly, once conservative politicians demonstrate a credible commitment to an alternative vision of society in which women are supported, families are not taken for granted, and careers and short-term productivity are not the golden calves they are today, I will be willing to support further restrictions on abortion. But until I trust that they are interested in solving the underlying problem (not merely eliminating an aspect they find offensive), I will defend abortion, as terrible as it is, within reasonable legal limits.
Two readers objected to foregrounding gender equality. One emailed anonymously, writing in part:
A fetus either is or isnât a person.
The reason Iâm pro-life is that Iâve never heard a coherent defense of the proposition that a fetus is not a person, and Iâm not sure one can be made. Iâve read plenty of progressive commentary, and when it bothers to make an argument for abortion ârightsâ at all, it talks about âthe importance of womenâs healthcareâ or something as if that were the issue.
Christopher expanded on that last argument:
Of the many competing ethical concerns, the one that trumps them all is the status of the fetus. It is the only organism that gets destroyed by the procedure. Whether that is permissible trumps all other concerns. Otherwise important ethical claims related to a womanâs bodily autonomy, less relevant social disparities caused by the differences in menâs and womenâs reproductive functions, and even less relevant differences in partisan commitments to welfare that would make abortion less appealingââall of that is secondary.
The relentless strategy by the pro-choice to sidestep this question and pretend that a womanâs right to bodily autonomy is the primary ethical concern is, to me, somewhere between shibboleth and mass delusion. We should spend more time, even if itâs unproductive, arguing about the status of the fetus, because that is the question, and we should spend less time indulging this assault-on-womenâs-rights narrative pushed by the Left.
Jean is critical of the pro-life movement:
Long-acting reversible contraceptives, robust, science-based sex education for teens, and a stronger social safety net would all go a remarkable way toward decreasing the number of abortions sought. Yet all the emphasis seems to be on simply making abortion illegal.
For many, overturning Roe v. Wade is not about reducing abortions so much as signalling that abortion is wrong. If so-called pro-lifers were as concerned about abortion as they seem to be, they would spend more time, effort, and money supporting efforts to reduce the need for abortionânot simply trying to make it illegal without addressing why women seek it out. Imagine, in other words, a world where women hardly needed to rely on abortion for their well-being and ability to thrive. Imagine a world where almost any woman who got pregnant had planned to do so, or was capable of caring for that child. What is the anti-abortion movement doing to promote that world?
Destiny has one relevant answer. She writes:
I run a pro-life feminist group and we often say that our goal is not to make abortion illegal, but rather unnecessary and unthinkable by supporting women and humanizing the unborn child so well.
Robert suggests a different focus:
Any well-reasoned discussion of abortion policy must include contraception because abortion is about unwanted children brought on by poorly reasoned choices about sex. Such choices will always be more emotional than rational. Leaving out contraception makes it an unrealistic, airy discussion of moral philosophy. In particular, we need to consider government-funded programs of long-acting reversible contraception which enable reasoned choices outside the emotional circumstances of having sexual intercourse.
Last but not least, if anyone can unite the pro-life and pro-choice movements, itâs Errol, whose thoughts would rankle majorities in both factions as well as a majority of Americans. He writes:
The decision to keep the child should not be left up solely to the woman. Yes, it is her body that the child grows in, however once that child is birthed it is now two peopleâs responsibility. Thatâs entirely unfair to the father when he desired the abortion but the mother couldnât find it in her heart to do it. If a woman wants to abort and the man wants to keep it, she should abort. However I feel the same way if a man wants to abort. The next 18+ years of your life are on the line. I view that as a trade-off that warrants the maleâs input. Abortion is a conversation that needs to be had by two people, because those two will be directly tied to the result for a majority of their life. No one else should be involved with that decision, but it should not be solely hers, either.
Thanks to all who contributed answers to this weekâs question, whether or not they were among the ones published. What subjects would you like to see fellow readers address in future installments? Email [email protected] or reply to this newsletter.
By submitting an email, youâve agreed to let us use itâin part or in fullâin this newsletter and on our website. Published feedback includes a writerâs full name, city, and state, unless otherwise requested in your initial note.