Many of the pro-choice arguments used at the time of Roe v. Wade are either no longer in vogue, have fallen to the wayside, or have been proven false by the test time.

This is Part 1 in a series on the abortion issue by editor/owner Justin Stapley.

A year ago, in January 2019, the New York State Legislature passed the Reproductive Health Act, granting virtually unrestricted abortion access into and through the third trimester.

This legislative act sparked significant debate and demands for action. There have been voices both desiring similar legislation in other states and responding in horror to the provisions of such laws.

Later that year, in an apparent backlash, the states of Alabama, South Carolina, and Louisiana passed legislation attempting to move the other direction. These laws sought to introduce the most restrictive abortion laws in the country.

The virulent debate over the abortion issue we witnessed last year, and continuing into this one, follows the same pattern it has in the nearly fifty years since Roe v. Wade. The Left rallies around the idea of “Pro-Choice,” and the Right instead asserts the idea of “Pro-Life.”

Somewhere in this dichotomy lies an intriguing debate about ethics, morality, and human rights. It is a debate that has not taken place because the Supreme Court granted total legal victory to one side of the issue.

In Roe v. Wade, the court decided not to delve into a theological and philosophical debate. They didn’t wish to legally determine when life actually begins and when the government should protect life by force of law. It chose to err on the side of securing the right of a woman to make her own healthcare choices. However, a great deal has changed since the ruling in Roe v. Wade.

Firstly, many of the arguments used at the time of Roe v. Wade are either no longer in vogue, have fallen to the wayside, or have been proven false by the test time. Secondly, between the increasing viability of preterm birth in earlier stages of pregnancy and the increasing options, effectiveness, and affordability of birth control, justifying unrestricted abortion based primarily on a “woman’s right to choose” is becoming less philosophically and morally sound.

At the time of Roe v. Wade, 1973, the abortion debate had many more planks of argument than the issue has today, especially on the side that supported legalized abortion. Among these were that abortions would happen regardless, that legalizing abortions would help decrease poverty, and that legalized abortion would be “safe, legal, and rare.” Each of these arguments has either been proven false over time or are simply no longer arguments that pro-abortion advocates care to make.

Further, the prevalent argument of our time, that a woman has a right to choose, is far more philosophically, medically, and morally complicated than abortion advocates are often willing to admit. Their argument relies heavily upon the non-personhood of the human fetus, which keeps the consideration from being one of an intersection of rights. The argument has also been considerably weakened by the increased availability and affordability of birth control, as well as the new realities of medicine, healthcare, and technology.

In Part 2 of this series, “Safe, Legal Rare”, Justin will delve into this once prevalent but now largely abandoned argument for legal abortion.

Justin Stapley is the owner and editor of The Liberty Hawk and the voice of The New Centrist Podcast. As a political writer, his principles and ideals are grounded in the ideas of ordered liberty as expressed in the traditions of classical liberalism, federalism, and modern conservatism. You can follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Share this: Twitter

Facebook

Reddit

