Honestly Pro Choice
Disingenuousness is the scourge of modern debate. The more sensitive or controversial the issue, the more likely the warring factions are to resort to gaslighting, hyperbole, and stubborn refusal to concede what should be discernible facts. In no topic is this more evident than abortion.
On the pro-life side, one finds accusations of murder, evil, hatred of children, and bloodlust, pearl-clutching moral outrage that refuses to consider any nuance. On the other, a stubborn refusal to concede the definition of life and the distinction of personhood. As a reproductive rights supporter, I will only endeavor to call out my own people.
First, an important distinction: Legal abortion is, by definition, not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Rather, when pro-lifers say abortion is murder, what they really mean is abortion is homicide, then ending of one human life by another that they believe should be murder. If pro-choicers want to be honest, that abortion is homicide is a point that must be conceded.
By the time even the earliest abortion is performed, there is a heartbeat. The truth is, any earlier than that and the woman remains unaware of the pregnancy; even if she is aware, most practitioners will not perform a surgical abortion at that gestation because the sheer tininess of the embryo makes it difficult to be sure it has been found by the instruments used to remove it. (If this language is too stark, I’m not sorry. This is part of the honesty.) So, by the time at which the earliest abortions are usually performed, there is a heartbeat. It is alive, at that point. No, it cannot survive unsupported, but this is a poor criteria for what constitutes “alive”. People on ventilators are alive. People who require medication, equipment, or assistance in feeding in order to live are alive. This tiny thing is alive. An abortion ends this life. It is homicide.
“My body, my choice” is a popular argument. I agree with this statement, but it is a poor argument for abortion rights. Yes, a person has the right to make decisions about his or her own body. His or her OWN body. The dishonesty here is in the pretense that only one body is being affected by an abortion. This other body is using the woman’s body to live, but it is its own body, nonetheless. An abortion is a decision affecting two bodies. Be honest about that, and then we can discuss why it is still a legitimate choice. (Consider this: in no other situation is a person required to sacrifice his or her body or bodily autonomy for the good of another. While most mothers would, without a second thought, give her kidney, her blood, or even her bone marrow to save the life of her child, the law does not require it.)
Another argument, one I read today that actually prompted me to write this, is that the opposite of abortion rights is “forced childbirth”. Technically, I guess. But that seems to imply that the woman had no part in becoming pregnant in the first place. IN SOME CASES THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE, and I am not writing about those situations here. But it is dishonest to pretend that no woman has ever gotten pregnant as a result of actions willingly taken. Admitting that does not mean one must also concede that no woman should be allowed an abortion unless she was raped. This is the real heart of the debate, the actual point on which the two sides differ: whether or not a woman should be allowed to rectify a mistake or accident in her life if doing so results in the ending of a life not her own.
Putting it in such blunt language is uncomfortable for pro-choice proponents, but it is necessary if we want to advocate from a place of sincerity and avoid the emotionally charged rhetoric of which our counterparts are often guilty. And though the bare facts are brutal, all is not lost. There are still arguments to be made.
In a perfect world, no woman would ever get pregnant who didn’t want to. Birth control would never fail; passion would never override good judgment; men would never rape. But that is not reality, and people are fallible. Should the consequence of any of these things be the burden of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, the monumental responsibility and sacrifice of parenthood? Or does the ability of a woman to live her life as she wants outweigh the potential life of this tiny, but living clump of cells? And what about when it is no longer a tiny clump of cells? Does your answer change? These are the complex questions that must be grappled with in an honest debate.
Arguing semantics over easily defined words and ignoring reality will undermine any legitimate points that could be made. Concede the facts, boil it down to the fundamental difference in the respective positions, and acknowledge nuance. Start from there.
