Untangling
popular pro-choice arguments
By
Hendrik van der Breggen
Clearly,
in view of the June 24, 2022, overturning of the U.S. abortion law Roe v. Wade
(which sends legislative decisions about abortion to state governments), the
abortion debate is far from settled.
In
open and free societies, we should discuss abortion carefully in a
truth-seeking manner, while showing respect to those with whom we disagree. And
we should do this whether we are pro-life or pro-choice or somewhere in between
(as in, say, permitting abortion in some but not all cases).
A
few weeks ago I noticed a pro-choice post being copied, pasted, and circulated
on social media. I would like to examine that post.
The
popular pro-choice post attempts to defend abortion as an absolute right for
all women, regardless of their circumstances. That is, it attempts to defend an
extreme pro-choice position: abortion should be allowed in all circumstances, period, with no exceptions.
To
make its extreme pro-choice case, the post sets out various scenarios that, or
so the argument goes, justifies all abortions—regardless of the situations. Thus,
according to the post, abortion is a woman’s right, period. Hashtag:
mybodymychoice.
I
would like to assess the post’s arguments via careful, critical thinking. I
know that many people who shared the post are good and decent people (some are
even my friends and relatives), so I hope my work here shows respect to those
with whom I disagree. And I hope that my
appeal to public reason (as opposed to mere opinion, or feeling, or faith-based
texts) will allow us to find common ground that shows at least some
restrictions on abortion are appropriate. (Much of my work below comes from my
book Untangling
Popular Pro-Choice Arguments.)
First,
I will set out the post in its entirety. Second, I will critique it line by
line (in red font). Third, I will suggest a way
forward.
The extreme
pro-choice post in its entirety
Here
is the full text of the post in question:
I'm
not pro-murdering babies.
I'm
pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had
been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining
organs.
I'm
pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to
the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she
got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
I'm
pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents,
spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save
her or her unborn child.
I'm
pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she
should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to
bear the consequence of that betrayal.
I'm
pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose
between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already
has because her spouse walked out on her.
I'm
pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or
physically able to raise a child.
I'm
pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs
requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE
amount of fetuses.
I'm
pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods
sometimes fail.
I'm
pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically
abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
I'm
pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to
conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
I'm
pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom
and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
I'm
pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never
made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or
risks dying from internal bleeding.
You
can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm
pro-life.
Their
lives.
Women's
lives.
You
don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
Women's
rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
#roevwade
#prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice
*Copy
and pasted, please do the same*
My critique
(in red font)
I
will again set out the above post (in black font) and now critique it line by
line (in red font). We will see that the post
has the following problems:
- it
confuses pre-term delivery with abortion and thereby sets out a couple red
herrings (appeals to what is not relevant)
- it
makes several hasty generalizations from hard cases to justify the general
situation (which means the relevant cases are not sufficient to justify its
extreme conclusion)
- it
makes an internally contradictory claim (and thus promotes nonsense)
- it
ignores the reality and rights of unborn human bodies (which means the post’s
arguments never really address the moral concern that might limit choice)
In
sum, the problems render the extreme pro-choice position a failure—a dismal
failure.
I'm
not pro-murdering babies.
That’s good. Amen to that! And, surely, that’s an important common
ground for all persons engaged in discussions about abortion. The premeditated killing of a baby is murder.
It’s wrong—murder—because it’s the premeditated killing of a living human being
who has done nothing to forfeit his or her right to life. Important note: Unborn babies are babies, too.
I'm
pro-Becky who found out at her 20 week anatomy scan that the infant she had
been so excited to bring into this world had developed without life sustaining
organs.
Keep in mind that abortion is the targeted destruction of a living
pre-natal human being, i.e., the infant—baby—that’s in the womb. Keep in mind,
too, that if Becky’s baby has no life sustaining organs, then Becky’s baby
would be dead. An early delivery (of a dead baby) would be required. This
situation is sad, definitely. Nevertheless, such a delivery is not an abortion,
not the premeditated killing of that baby. In other words, the appeal to
Becky’s situation is not an argument for abortion choice. Rather, it’s an
argument for the pre-term delivery of an already dead baby.
I'm
pro-Susan who was sexually assaulted on her way home from work, only to come to
the horrific realization that her assailant planted his seed in her when she
got a positive pregnancy test result a month later.
Keep in mind that focussing on hard cases such as rape to justify
the general abortion practice is to commit the fallacy of reasoning called
hasty generalization. In North America, abortions due to rape account only for
a tiny percentage of all abortions.
Also, keep in mind, as Secular Pro-Life points out, “Most Americans,
including most people who call themselves pro-life, believe abortion laws
should include exceptions if the woman was raped.”
Yes, rape is wrong and terrible, definitely. But perspective is
needed.
Again, of the total abortion practice, abortions for rape account
for a small percentage only. According to ethicist Charles C. Camosy, “about 1
percent of all abortions take place in situations where the mother was raped.”1
Thus, to justify the general abortion situation because of these few terrible
cases is, as mentioned, to commit the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Also, abortion does not undo the trauma of rape. The mother has been
victimized—she needs care. Moreover, abortion can be traumatic, too. And
abortion may be related to subsequent health problems. Abortion risks include
breast cancer, premature birth (of subsequent children), and psychological problems.2
By seeing abortion as a solution to rape, we might victimize a woman (a second
time).
Furthermore, to kill by abortion the human being conceived by the
crime of rape is like killing an innocent bystander at the scene of a crime, a
crime perpetrated by the bystander’s father. The father deserves (severe)
punishment, not the child.
Moreover, the child's voice should be heard. Significantly, there
are people who have been conceived by rape and are now speaking out on behalf
of those who cannot. Enter anti-abortion activist and attorney Rebecca
Kiessling and company—people conceived via rape. Kiessling asks: “Have you ever
considered how really insulting it is to say to someone, 'I think your mother
should have been able to abort you.'? It’s like saying, 'If I had my way, you’d
be dead right now.'” The child's voice should be considered—so we should listen
to those persons who were conceived via rape.3
Rape justifies abortion? Perhaps. But perhaps not. Yes, rape is
wrong, definitely, for sure, 100%. Yet there are also very good reasons for
thinking rape shouldn't justify abortion. What is certain is that rape—Susan’s
case—doesn’t justify the general practice of abortion, not by a long shot. What
is also certain is that the rapist deserves punishment and we shouldn’t
victimize a woman twice by inflicting another trauma (or traumas) onto her.
What is certain, too, is that we should speak for those who can’t, which
includes the child conceived by rape. In thinking about whether rape justifies
abortion, let's be sure we don't attempt to right a wrong by adding more
wrongs.4
Again, Susan’s case, though horrible, doesn’t justify the general
practice of abortion.
NOTES
1. Charles C.
Camosy, Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way
Forward for a New Generation (Grand Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, U.K.:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 20.
2. See the
documentary Hush: A Liberating
Conversation about Abortion and Women's Health, directed by Punam Kumar
Gill (Mighty Motion Pictures, 2016). For trailer, see here. See too Angela Lanfranchi, Ian Gentles,
and Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy's book Complications:
Abortion's Impact on Women (Toronto: DeVeber Institute for Bioethics and
Social Research, 2013).
3. See the video Conceived in Rape in
which Rebecca Kiessling and other people conceived via rape speak out. See too
Kiessling’s website.
4. See Hendrik van
der Breggen, “Two-wrongs-make-a-right fallacy,” Political Animal Magazine, July 17, 2020.
I'm
pro-Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a placental abruption, causing her parents,
spouse, and children to have to make the impossible decision on whether to save
her or her unborn child.
In the case in which the life of the mother is threatened, abortion
could be justified in terms of self-defence.
But keep in mind that the life-of-mother-versus-life-of-child
situation is rare in North America. In fact, it seems to be so rare that it's
non-existent.
Kendra Kolb, MD, a neonatologist, stated this in 2019: “there is no
medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally
ended with an abortion procedure.”1
Also in 2019, Omar L. Hamada, MD, Fellow of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, stated this: “there is absolutely no medically
justifiable reason for abortion ('the intentional and elective targeted killing
of an infant at any stage of pregnancy for matters of maternal choice or
convenience') to save the life of the mother. Period. End of story.”2
In addition, the Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare (signed
by over 1,000 medical professionals) stated this in 2012: “As experienced
practitioners and researchers in obstetrics and gynaecology, we affirm that
direct abortion—the purposeful destruction of the unborn child—is not medically
necessary to save the life of a woman.”3
Moreover, Dr. C. Everett Koop in 1980 (when he was Surgeon General
of the United States) stated the following: “In my thirty-six years in pediatric
surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to
save the mother’s life.”4
Furthermore, Dr. R. J. Hefferman of Tufts University stated this in
1951: “Anyone who performs a therapeutic abortion (for physical disease) is either
ignorant of modern methods of treating the complications of pregnancy, or is
unwilling to take time to use them.”5
But, one might object at this juncture: Aren't there situations in
which a mother's life is truly in jeopardy? Answer: Yes, but abortion isn't
needed here. Dr. Kolb explains thoroughly, so I'll quote her extensively:
It is often said that abortion is sometimes medically necessary to
protect the life or the health of the mother. This is simply not true. As a
neonatologist, I am regularly consulted to advise mothers with high-risk
pregnancies and I routinely care for their babies. I have also personally gone
through two very difficult pregnancies, each requiring hospitalization. So I
have great empathy and respect for all women who are pregnant, especially those
with difficult or high-risk pregnancies. What women deserve to know, however is
that even in the most high risk pregnancies, there is no medical reason why the
life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion
procedure.
In situations where the mother's life is truly in jeopardy, her
pregnancy must end and the baby must be delivered. These situations occur in
cases of mothers who develop dangerously high blood pressure, have
decompensated heart disease, life-threatening diabetes, cancer, or a number of
other very serious medical conditions. Some babies do need to be delivered
before they are able to survive outside of the womb, which occurs around 22 to
24 weeks of life. These situations are considered a preterm delivery and not an
abortion….
In addition to early delivery as a means of protecting the mother
there are also times when it may be necessary to give a pregnant mother medical
treatments which may tragically result in the loss of the baby. However, it is
important to understand that these treatments are not abortions. For example,
if a pregnant mother has cancer and chooses to undergo chemotherapy, that
treatment may result in miscarriage. However, the treatment given is very
different than abortion, as the purpose of the chemotherapy is not to kill the
child.
Some will also confuse the necessary treatment for an ectopic
pregnancy with an abortion. An ectopic pregnancy occurs when a preborn child
[embryo] implants in the mother's fallopian tubes or somewhere outside of the
uterus. When a preborn child implants outside of the uterus, it is a hostile
environment for the baby in which it cannot survive. And, sadly, removing the
baby from the fallopian tube or abdominal cavity is necessary, as an ectopic
pregnancy will inevitably end in a miscarriage and may threaten the mother's
life. These situations are devastating. However, they are not considered
abortions.
Abortion unnecessarily ends lives of children and may also result in
serious medical and psychological risks to women. Physicians have an ethical
duty to deliver expert care for both patients: the mother and the child. A
mother's life is always of paramount importance, but abortion is never
medically necessary to protect her life or health.6
Thus, the life-of-mother-versus-life-of-child situation seems very
much not to justify abortion. It might justify some abortions theoretically/ hypothetically
in terms of self-defence, but in fact it isn't needed. As a justification of
the general situation—as is the case of Theresa—it’s a red herring, i.e., not
relevant and distracting.7,8
NOTES
1. Kendra Kolb,
“The Pro-Life Reply to: 'Abortion
Can Be Medically Necessary,'” Live Action, YouTube video, July 30, 2019.
2. Omar L. Hamada,
“Letter
from a pro-life OBGYN: ‘There is absolutely no medically justifiable reason for
abortion,’ ” Live Action, September 24, 2019.
3. Committee for
Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, “Dublin Declaration on Maternal Healthcare,”
2012. Website is found here.
4. C. Everett Koop, “Deception-on-demand,” Moody Monthly, May 1980, 27.
5. R. J. Hefferman,
Congress of American College of Surgeons, 1951; cited by Dr. and Mrs. Willke in
Abortion: Questions and Answers
(Cincinnati, Ohio: Hays Publishing Company, Inc., 1985), 120.
6. Kendra Kolb, “The Pro-Life Reply to:
'Abortion Can Be Medically Necessary,'” Live Action, YouTube video, July 30,
2019.
7. Reminder: the
tough cases—abortions for rape and threats to the life of the mother—account
for a very small percentage of the total abortions. As mentioned in an earlier
section, ethicist Charles Camosy, in his book Beyond the Abortion Wars, says the tough cases amount to 2 percent
of the total cases. I’ve heard others report that it might be 5 percent.
Whether 2 or 5 percent, it’s a small percentage. To generalize from the small
number of tough cases to justify abortion for the general situation is to incur
the fallacy of hasty generalization, which is a violation of the sufficiency
criterion of the (relevant) grounds of a good argument. The fact that abortion
isn't needed at all to protect the life of the mother means that insofar as one
attempts to justify the general abortion practice on this basis one incurs a
red herring fallacy, which is a violation of the relevancy criterion of the
grounds of a good argument.
8. In a discussion
in the comment section of one of my articles at Political Animal Magazine (“Pro-life Replies to Pro-choice
Arguments,” April 27, 2018) the following claim was set out as a justification
of abortion: “Pregnancy takes a toll on a woman’s body.” I replied as follows:
“My wife and I have two sons and she is more physically fit now than ever
before. She runs half marathons and she trains at the gym almost daily. My wife
mentioned to me that while running this morning she thought about the claim
that pregnancy takes a toll on a woman’s body. Her thought: abortion takes a
much greater toll on the baby’s body.”
I'm
pro-little Cathy who had her innocence ripped away from her by someone she
should have been able to trust and her 11 year old body isn't mature enough to
bear the consequence of that betrayal.
Again, if pregnancy threatens the life of the mother (Cathy), then
abortion can be justified in terms of self-defence. But, as with the previous
cases (Susan’s rape, Theresa’s placental abruption and hemorrhaging), the
appeal to this case doesn’t justify the general situation. If the reader does
not understand, please re-read my discussions of Susan’s and Theresa’s cases.
I'm
pro-Melissa who's working two jobs just to make ends meet and has to choose
between bringing another child into poverty or feeding the children she already
has because her spouse walked out on her.
That’s a tough situation, definitely. But instead of killing an
innocent baby (remember: you’re not pro-murdering babies!) a better alternative
would be to require the spouse to provide financial help. And instead of
killing an innocent baby (remember, again: you’re not pro-murdering babies!) a better
alternative, in addition to requiring the spouse to be responsible, would be
for the community to step up to help with food, shelter, finances, and
friendship. We should encourage a culture of life, not a culture of killing.
Let’s help Melissa and her child to live and flourish!
I'm
pro-Brittany who realizes that she is in no way financially, emotionally, or
physically able to raise a child.
Again, as in the case with Melissa, instead of killing an innocent
baby (remember: you’re not pro-murdering babies) a better alternative would be
to provide help financially, emotionally, and physically. Surely, social
problems require social solutions, not killing innocent children. Let’s help
Brittany and child to live and flourish!
I'm
pro-Emily who went through IVF, ending up with SIX viable implanted eggs
requiring selective reduction in order to ensure the safety of her and a SAFE
amount of fetuses.
I think it’s important to keep in mind that by “selective reduction”
we’re talking euphemistically about killing unwanted pre-natal human
beings—unwanted babies. If you are not pro-murdering babies (a fetus is a baby,
by the way), then you should reconsider the ethics of IVF.
For more about the pros and cons concerning IVF, see my article “In
Vitro Fertilization unwise.”
I'm
pro-Christina who doesn't want to be a mother, but birth control methods
sometimes fail.
As in gambling at Las Vegas, when you decide to gamble you risk your
money and are responsible for your possible losses, so too in initiating a
causal chain of events by engaging in sex when birth control methods might fail
you risk the outcome of the causal consequences—and are responsible for them
even if you hoped they wouldn’t occur.
One may not want to get pregnant and one may take precautions
against getting pregnant, but because no precaution is foolproof—and we know
this—by engaging in sexual intercourse one takes the risk of pregnancy for
which one is responsible. If the outcome of engaging in sexual intercourse is a
baby (which is the case), then, especially if one believes it’s wrong to murder
babies, then killing that baby via abortion is wrong.
Perhaps some additional clarity is needed. Reproduction, i.e., the
creation of a child (pre-natal human being/person) conceived via sex—i.e.,
becoming a mother—occurs BEFORE abortion takes place. Reproductive freedom is
exercised BEFORE abortion takes place. The late Michael Bauman, Professor of
Theology and Culture at Hillsdale College, observes: “When pro-choicers have
unforced sex, they are choosing. That is freedom of choice. When they decide to
kill the child conceived during that sexual encounter, that is freedom from
choice. They chose; now they want to be free from the consequences of that
choice, even if someone has to die.” In other words, justifying abortion via
“reproductive freedom” is a ruse.
The appeal to Christina’s case as a justification of abortion is
intellectually muddled.
I'm
pro-Jessica who is FINALLY getting the strength to get away from her physically
abusive spouse only to find out that she is carrying the monster's child.
Yes, let’s help Jessica get away, for sure. But let’s not kill an
innocent child—let’s not murder a baby—because of the father’s sin. We should
help Jessica and her baby to be safe
and to flourish. Having a physically abusive spouse isn’t a good reason to kill
children.
I'm
pro-Vanessa who went into her confirmation appointment after YEARS of trying to
conceive only to hear silence where there should be a heartbeat.
See the case of Becky, in which I wrote the following: Keep in mind
that abortion is the targeted destruction of a living pre-natal human being,
i.e., the infant—baby—that’s in the womb. Keep in mind, too, that if Becky’s
baby has no life sustaining organs, then Becky’s baby would be dead. An early
delivery (of a dead baby) would be required. This situation is sad, definitely.
Nevertheless, such a delivery is not an abortion, not the premeditated killing
of that baby. In other words, the appeal to Becky’s situation is not an
argument for abortion choice.
I'm
pro-Lindsay who lost her virginity in her sophomore year with a broken condom
and now has to choose whether to be a teenage mom or just a teenager.
See my response to Christina and the claim that birth control
methods sometimes fail.
I'm
pro-Courtney who just found out she's already 13 weeks along, but the egg never
made it out of her fallopian tube so either she terminates the pregnancy or
risks dying from internal bleeding.
See my lengthy response to case of Theresa who hemorrhaged due to a
placental abruption.
Also, the following from Live Action (Facebook post, May 5, 2022)
may be helpful:
If anyone tells you outlawing abortion and protecting babies will
impact treatment for “ectopic pregnancies,” they are lying or misinformed.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Abortion is the direct and intentional killing of a child in the
womb. Treatment for an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
In an ectopic pregnancy, a baby has implanted in the wrong place.
Unfortunately, the baby cannot grow to term and growth causes extreme danger to
the mother. Both can die. There is currently no way to move the child.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
In this grave situation, treatment involves removing the part of the
Fallopian tube that contains the baby, which results in the tragic loss of the
child.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
But this is not an abortion, as the intent is to save both patients
if it were possible. There is respect and love for both lives.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
Whereas abortion involves intentionally ripping the limbs off of
babies or giving them a lethal injection to the heart or head.⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀
There is a significant moral and legal difference between killing a
child and losing a child 💔
You
can argue and say that I'm pro-choice all you want, but the truth is:
I'm
pro-life.
Their
lives.
Women's
lives.
But you are not pro-life on the abortion issue if you completely
neglect the lives of the babies who get murdered. You claim you’re “not
pro-murdering babies.” But the scenarios you’ve set out contradict that claim.
You
don't get to pick and choose which scenarios should be accepted.
But you are! See all the
scenarios you’ve picked and chosen
and which you accept. And from this limited sample of scenarios you use them to
justify all abortions for all scenarios. Your logic is internally flawed (you
contradict yourself) and your overall reasoning (from the few hard cases to the
general practice of abortion) is flawed, too.
Women's
rights are meant to protect ALL women, regardless of their situation!
Right. But human rights include ALL human beings, including the baby
in the womb.
#roevwade
#prochoice #abortion #women #womensrights #mybody #mychoice #mybodymychoice
Re: My body, my choice. See Dwight Schrute below.
In other words, there are two bodies involved in abortion: the body
of the woman and the body of the unborn baby. The popular (and extreme) pro-choice post ignores the reality and
rights of unborn human bodies.
A way forward
I
am not under the illusion that all pro-choice extremists will be persuaded by
reasons like those I’ve set out above and thus become pro-life. But I believe
that some pro-choice people will be
persuaded not to be pro-choice extremists. So—and importantly—we should notice
that there’s room to be creative here. Because of the polarized political views
on abortion presently in North America, perhaps a modest approach would be
appropriate. Perhaps a politically practical law against abortion in our deeply
divided democratic society could at the very least (1) criminalize late-term
abortionists only, not women pressured into abortion, plus (2) help women so
pressured (just as Canadian anti-prostitution law criminalizes pimps and johns,
not the women pressured into prostitution, plus helps the women get out of
prostitution).1 Or perhaps we could take the view of Canadian lawyer
Leslyn Lewis, PhD (who at time of writing is a candidate for the leadership of
the Conservative Party of Canada). Her fourfold platform on abortion could
easily be supported by people of all political stripes: (1) ban the
misogynistic practice of sex-selective abortion (since many girls are aborted just
because they are girls),2 (2) protect women from coerced abortion
(who wouldn’t want that?), (3) support pregnant women via government support
for pregnancy care centers (which help both mother and child),3 plus
(4) direct foreign aid away from abortion providers and instead to those groups
who promote overall health care (which is supportable by all, surely).4
Such a law/laws could save the lives
of many children and help desperate women, plus provide political space—political
common ground—to encourage thoughtful, democratic discussion about creating
even better, more life-affirming laws and ways to help desperate women facing
crisis pregnancies. Perhaps it could even be a significant step to making
unthinkable the idea that to solve problems surrounding a pregnancy we should
kill children.5,6,7
NOTES
1.
According to the results of a DART & Maru/Blue poll conducted for the National Post (reported by the National
Post in January 2020) in answer to the question of whether abortion should be
legal or illegal in the last three months of pregnancy only 30% of Canadians
polled favoured legal late-term abortions whereas a majority of 70% favoured
making late-term abortions illegal. (Sharon Kirkey, “As abortion debate becomes
increasingly polarized, poll shows the views of many Canadians are more
complicated,” National Post, January
31, 2020.) Concerning the U.S. situation, ethicist Charles Camosy reports a
2013 Gallup poll that found 80% of Americans think abortion should be illegal
in the final three months of pregnancy (and 64% think abortion should be
illegal in the second three months). (Charles C. Camosy, Beyond the Abortion Wars: A Way Forward for a New Generation [Grand
Rapids, Michigan/ Cambridge, U.K., 2015], 28.)
2. About sex-selective
abortion, the following observations from Margaret Somerville (Professor of
Bioethics at University of Notre Dame Australia and founding director of the
Centre for Medicine, Ethics, and Law at McGill University) are important: “That
unfettered access to abortion should be the litmus test of whether a society
respects women and their rights is a long-standing claim of pro-choice
advocates and at the heart of their rationale for supporting unrestricted
access to abortion. They focus on women’s rights to autonomy and self-determination
and argue that such access is required to protect these rights and women’s
dignity. But sex-selection abortion promotes the exact opposite values—it
expresses a lack of respect for women in cultures in which sons are highly
valued over daughters. It also differs from other abortions in that the woman
wants a baby—just not a girl. In one study reported from India in which 8,000
consecutive abortions were followed, three were of unborn boys and 7,997 of
unborn girls.” (Margaret Somerville, “The preposterous politics of female
feticide,” The Globe and Mail,
September 29, 2012.)
3. Even if abortion were legal
with few restrictions, a law to ensure support is offered to pregnant women via
pregnancy care centers (that do not so abortions but instead actually provide
help to both mother and child) should be acceptable to even the staunchest of
pro-choice advocates. Pro-life philosopher Margaret Somerville puts the matter
this way: “a woman with a crisis pregnancy should know that, if she decides against
abortion, she will be offered fully adequate psychological and social support.
Such an offer is required, if for no other reason, to obtain a
valid—non-coerced—informed consent to abortion, should that be the woman’s
decision.” (Margaret Somerville, Bird on
an Ethics Wire: Battles about Values in the Culture Wars [Montreal and
Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2015], 201.) Somerville’s
observation helps us realize that Leslyn Lewis’s third point (that we should
support pregnancy care centers that help both mother and child) is closely
related to her second point (that we should protect women from coerced
abortion), because the coercion that a pregnant woman faces may simply be that
she lacks realistic options—so she has no choice. Former pro-choice advocate
Frederica Mathewes-Green explains the hopelessness that arises from a lack of
realistic options which many pregnant women who seek abortion face: “She wants
an abortion as an animal, caught in a trap, wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
(Frederica Mathewes-Green, “When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense,” National Review, January 22, 2016.)
4. Leslyn Lewis’s political
platform concerning abortion can be found here. Though Lewis
didn’t win the Conservative leadership race in 2020 (she is running again in
2022), her pro-life platform received much support and showed that many
Canadians are not comfortable with Canada’s complete lack of legal restrictions
on abortion. As mentioned above (in note 1), many Canadians (regardless of
political stripe) are in favour of at least some restrictions—and so are many
Americans.
5. For further thought on what
an abortion law might look like, see Camosy’s book Beyond the Abortion Wars. In the final chapter Camosy proposes what
he calls the Mother and Prenatal Child Protection Act. This act would protect
the vast majority of pre-natal children, allowing abortion in the small
percentage of hard cases, plus provide support for women to enable them to keep
and raise their babies. Readers from all political stripes, and whether
pro-choice or pro-life, should at least think about Camosy’s proposal.
6.
At this juncture some might object that abortion legislation is misguided: we
should instead deal with the underlying causes that drive women to abortion.
For example, a pregnant woman may be facing psychological problems, so that
should be our focus. In reply, we should keep in mind that abortion kills an
unborn child—a human being. That's hugely significant. Also, we should consider
Scott Klusendorf's critique of the focus-on-the-underlying-causes argument:
“[T]his is like saying that the 'underlying cause' of spousal abuse is
psychological; so instead of making it illegal for husbands to beat their
wives, the solution is to provide counseling for men.” Klusendorf adds: “There
are 'underlying causes' for rape, murder, theft, and so on, but that in no way
makes it 'misguided' to have laws banning such actions.” (Scott Klusendorf, The Case for Life: Equipping Christians to
Engage the Culture [Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2009], 169;
Klusendorf attributes this insight to his colleague Steve Weimar.) I think
Klusendorf is correct. Yet I would also take into account (as I am sure
Klusendorf would agree) Charles Camosy’s point that “we should consider both
prenatal children and their mothers as vulnerable populations,” while keeping
in mind that, significantly, current abortion “choice” favours neither (Camosy,
Beyond the Abortion Wars, 112, 124).
In fact, many pregnant women face immense social pressures to “choose” abortion
without real options to handle the challenges associated with child-rearing.
These pressures arise not only from the boyfriend/ husband, parents, family, and
friends, but also from larger social structures. Significantly, Camosy argues,
workplaces are geared to treating all employees as men. Here all of us should
take note: “Our social structures force women to choose between (1) honoring
their roles as the procreators and sustainers of the earliest stages of human
life and (2) having social and economic equality with men” (Camosy, Beyond the Abortion Wars, 126). To
protect prenatal children and their mothers, Camosy rightly argues, we should
protect them from this dilemma. Anti-abortion laws could prevent killing unborn
children plus help mothers who are pressured to see the killing of an unborn
child as a “solution” to social problems. (Keep in mind that the vast majority
of abortions are not due to the hard cases such as rape and threat to life of
the mother; see relevant sections of this book.)
7.
At this juncture some might also object that illegal abortion increases
maternal mortality. In reply, Justina Van Manen astutely observes the
following:
The claim that maternal
mortality rates increase as a result of illegal abortion is completely false.
Until recently, Ireland has had heavy restrictions on abortion and has some of
the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world. South Africa’s maternal mortality
rate has increased over the past decade, despite legalizing abortion in 1997.
Finally, Chile, which criminalized abortion in 1989, has had a steadily
decreasing maternal mortality rate since then. Rather than abortion being a
contributing factor to women’s health, Chile’s example reveals that increasing
levels of education are instrumental in reducing maternal deaths. Similarly,
Poland has severe abortion restrictions and has, as of 2015, along with Finland
and Greece, the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world (3 deaths per
100,000 births).
(Justina Van Manen, Stuck: A Complete Guide to Answering Tough
Questions about Abortion [Toronto: Life Cycle Books, 2019], 158.)
Recommended readings
Justina
Van Manen, Stuck:
A Complete Guide to Answering Tough Questions about Abortion (Life
Cycle Books, 2019).
Hendrik
van der Breggen, Untangling
Popular Pro-Choice Arguments: Critical Thinking about Abortion (Amazon
KDP, 2020).
Also,
see my blog APOLOGIA
where I have 42 articles related to the abortion issue.
Hendrik van der Breggen, PhD, is a retired philosophy professor, formerly at Providence University College, Manitoba, Canada.
.jpg)
