by

Try getting into a debate with an ardent pro-life supporter and see how long it takes to be labeled a murderer if you’re pro-choice. No matter what argument or logic that is presented, the rebuttal will almost certainly be, well, the child doesn’t have a choice. I have a huge problem with this line of discussion. First, morality is not binary. It is a spectrum. Anyone who says otherwise has not spent enough time or energy critically thinking the subject of morality as a whole. For example, thou shall not kill sounds pretty binary. Yet no one would argue that in a case of self-defense or to protect your child, it is not only acceptable but sometimes mandatory to kill. So we must accept that all morality needs to be viewed in context in order to be evaluated.

With that said, is abortion moral? That’s a tough call, and one I have struggled with for the better part of my life, and will probably do so until the final chapter of my life is written. No matter where you stand though, the overwhelming majority of society is not pro-abortion. Many of the most outspoken pro-choice advocates put tremendous energy into contraceptive education in an effort to avoid the very situations that could result in abortions. These are the people that wake up everyday to fight the pro-life movement, and ensure a woman has a choice. If they were truly pro-abortion, they wouldn’t squander any of their resources on contraceptive education. Their movement is based on the fact that no method is foolproof, and the fact that there are situations that are out of a woman’s control, like rape.

This is where the true question of morality comes into play. If a woman is forcibly raped, there is clearly no choice on her part should she become pregnant. Why then, should this victim be forced to undergo further trauma by carrying an unwanted pregnancy? Think of the emotional and cognitive pressure that goes with this. Keep the baby? Consider adoption? What if she is in college and would lose an entire semester, or any other number of personal conflicts? Why should this person be obligated to deal with a such a significant life change simply because of her gender. A male who is attacked has no such risk. Aside from the far religious right, most agree that abortion is moral in this situation for these very reasons.

Knowing circumstances like rape and incest account for an extremely small percentage of abortions, the real question needs to be focused on the remainder. Lets start with Texas. Under the new law, a huge percentage of abortion clinics need to close leaving only 5 remaining, all in urban areas. Who does this impact? The answer is clear, anyone who cannot afford to travel to these areas will have no access. Therefore, the wealthy, no matter where they live, can have an “elective” abortion while those in lower socio-economic classes cannot. Did Texas actually improve anything by doing this? In the book Freakonomics, there was a provocative finding that 18 years after Roe v Wade, crime fell dramatically. While the authors did not state causality, they hypothesized that perhaps the reduction in unwanted children was a factor. I’m not validating that hypothesis, but should it find support, Texas may be in for some trouble down the road.

So what is the right answer? If the Texas law unfairly targets the poor, then perhaps making all “elective” abortions illegal across the country is the best route. Of course, this achieves the same result since the wealthy can travel to another country. We must acknowledge this pragmatic reality. Abortion does not go away in any scenario. Some will argue that we don’t legalize all crime just because crime will always exist. This is an unfair analogy for a few reasons. First, we must acknowledge that only about half the population carry the responsibility of giving birth. Any male who thinks they have a right to an opinion there needs to seriously consider that position. Secondly, a crime usually has an intent of some kind. The objective of abortion is by definition a lack of intent.

Whether you agree with those points or not, the morality of abortion is a spectrum based on context. Be that a thirteen year old who didn’t fully consider the consequences of sex, a thirty year old who did and things just didn’t go as planned, or the woman who was informed her baby will have a serious genetic defect. The fact is the decision for a woman is a personal one, and one that she will have to live with for the rest of her life. I think that is enough of a burden for any individual. My judgment or yours doesn’t serve anyone. No one likes abortion. The most committed pro-lifers must understand that in order to have a productive debate. If this were only a question of morality, we could overcome that obstacle. The problem is that the foundation of most pro-lifers is religious morality. And religious morality is binary. Pro-choicers aren’t pro-choice, they are murderers.

Here is the irony. Because of this binary view, it will be the pro-choice position that will be the most impactful in reducing the number of abortions through safe sex education and contraceptive availability. All this while the pro-life community will focus their message on abstinence. You can’t make an impact on the real world until you’re willing to live in it.

by