Abortion is now legal across the vast majority of developed countries, including Russia, China and India, three countries that aren’t exactly known for their championing of human rights. [1] But long after Roe v Wade, the abortion debate continues in the United States. Like most emotionally charged issues, the “debate” is largely a shouting match between two sides, with neither paying very much attention to the points and arguments of the other. The “pro-life” advocates often focus on the argument that a fetus constitutes a human life and that an abortion is the equivalent of murder. The “pro-choice” advocates often focus on “a woman’s right to choose,” when engaged in shouting matches, but that isn’t the real reason most people are pro-choice.

For many, “a woman’s right to choose” is a more positive way of saying “a woman’s right to an abortion,” just as both camps choose appropriately positive words “pro-life,” and “pro-choice,” to define their movements. Others take it further. “Pro-life” advocates insist that a human exists in that fetus, and that it constitutes murder to terminate the pregnancy. An attack on such a position is difficult, as the approach is slippery. We can say all the ways that a fetus is different from a fully grown “human being,” but at some point we have to make a decision. What exactly constitutes a human being? At what point does the state step in and preserve a life?

Men and women who are “pro-choice” believe that fetuses are not human beings, and are moved by sympathy. They recognize that a woman should have “reproductive rights,” as defined by the WHO (in part) as “the basic right of all couples and individuals to decide freely and responsibly on the number, spacing and timing of their children.” [2] They are moved by empathy. As Barak Obama said during a town hall meeting, “if [his daughters] make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” [3] They believe that women don’t get abortions lightly. According to one poll, 74% of women get an abortion because a baby would “dramatically change” their life, and 73% because they can’t afford a baby. [4]

“A woman’s right to choose” is just a talking point, and the compassion that is the real reason behind “pro-choice” advocates is hidden, as if compassion is somehow shameful. Why do “pro-choice” advocates refrain from appealing to compassion in favor of a talking point? Anything else is messy. Framing the argument as a “rights” issue harkens back to a time that no one can realistically contest, the civil rights movement. If we frame the issue as a “rights” issue regardless of the circumstances involved, regardless of the motivations behind the abortion, we can avoid bringing up that women are asking for abortions out of self-interest. As soon as we abandon this illusory moral high ground and descend to arguments about in what situations a person should have the right to pursue something out of self-interest, we lose our ability to throw thunderbolts down onto Conservatives and Libertarians who are asking for just that right (in other situations).

I can generally speak only for myself. I am “pro-choice” because of two beliefs. First, a fetus does not constitute a human being, and the state does not have a responsibility to protect it. Second, if the state does not have a direct responsibility to protect the life or liberty of a human being, then the state should not act. I think that a woman has “the right to choose” because a woman has the right to do anything she wishes, so long as she doesn’t harm another human being, and we have already determined that a fetus is not a human being. That’s it.

We need to be honest with ourselves about just why we hold the beliefs we do. Our political stances aren’t what define us; our ideals are. We need to abandon talking points and focus on the motivations behind our political beliefs. It makes things messy, sure. Perhaps I’m “pro-choice” for a very different reason than you, or perhaps not. What matters is starting a discourse on the fundamental truths behind morality and government. If we hide behind the abstractions of our beliefs (political stances) we are doing ourselves, our countrymen, and our nation a disservice.