Raise your hand if you're neither pro-choice nor pro-life
Two Questions
Before we dive in, I’d like you to answer two simple questions:
First, are you pro-choice or pro-life?
Common enough. Here’s the second one:
Can you think of a reasonable argument supporting the opposing view? (If yes, what’s the argument?)
Do you have the answers in your head? Great. Let’s dive in.
In 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that America would generally protect a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion.
Now, with Roe v. Wade revoked, it’s up to the individual states to determine what constitutes as a legal abortion. Each state has the autonomy to decide where to draw the line on the spectrum of abortion rights. I use the word spectrum for good reason. Let’s take a look at some deep red and blue states to understand why.
In deep red Alabama, abortion is legal only when the mother’s health is at risk. Otherwise, even if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest, abortion is illegal.
Meanwhile, deeply blue Massachusetts allows for abortion up till 24 weeks. Regardless of reason. However, after this period, abortion is only legal if the fetus has genetic or physical defects, or if the mother’s health is in question.
These examples illustrate a simple point: there is no state that legalises abortion in any and every situation. There is also no state that bans abortion in any and every situation. Every state exists along a spectrum:
This is where framing this debate as “pro-choice versus pro-life” becomes problematic.
Is New York pro-life because it makes abortion illegal after 24 weeks? Why can’t NY be like Colorado and make abortion legal as long as it’s medically viable?
Or, is Oklahoma pro-choice because it legalises abortions for victims of rape? Why not be like Texas, making zero exceptions unless the mother’s life is in question? If you’re interested, Texas’ logic is as follows:
“We are talking about innocent human life — that it is not their crime, it was not their heinous behavior that victimized this woman,” he said. “And so, why should they receive the punishment?”
- John Seago, legislative director with Texas Right to Life
The title of this piece is such because:
Framing this debate as pro-choice versus pro-life is not only unnecessarily divisive, but also unproductive.
Instead, we should be asking where the U.S. should stand along this spectrum.
How many weeks until it’s not OK? Do we have a responsibility problem where people say “screw it, worst case, we’ll just get an abortion,”? Will tightening abortion restrictions only reduce safe abortions, ultimately claiming even more lives?
Such questions are being asked and discussed. However, they continue to be overshadowed by binary ones. Just look at the news. Or Twitter:
1.
But is it as easy for poorer people to travel across states and get legal abortions? Here’s a response for Republicans to consider.
2.
But does the unborn child deserve any say at all? Here’s a relevant tweet for Democrats to consider:
So, are you pro-choice, or pro-life?
That’s a poor way to frame this debate.
Can you think of a reasonable argument supporting the opposing view? (If yes, what’s the argument?)
Yes.
Agree or disagree, all of us need some empathy.
Take care, and have a good week ahead. As always, feedback and criticism are welcome down below.
Please consider subscribing for free below, and you can also follow me on Twitter @ramwithouthorns.
Some references:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61804777
https://www.npr.org/2022/06/26/1107591849/roe-6-political-questions-supreme-court
https://www.teenvogue.com/story/barack-obama-bill-clinton-george-w-bush-presidents-cup
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/24/abortion-laws-by-state-roe-v-wade-00037695
US of A and to some extent whole world, is so polarised and mainstream media plays partisan too, fringes seem to have taken over; This is a positive article, for a change :)