I’m pro-life

I’m writing about this here not only because I’m too chickenshit to announce my views in person to most people I know — and let’s be honest, it doesn’t come up in conversation very often — but in the hope that I can learn from the process of being told how wrong I am.  Bring it on!

I’d like to explain how I got here, but first a warning:  When your brain starts out with very few nuance skills, and then receives a legal education, this is the sort of thought process that results.  But it’s the only brain I have, and this is where it has led me on the question of abortion.  I’d also like to be clear that I respect people with views on both sides of this difficult question, and I’m far from sure I’m right.

I’m pro-life as both a legal and personal matter.  The core of my legal reasoning is this: we don’t really know when life begins and as a result we should err on the side of preserving life. Both sides of the abortion debate must agree on one thing or retreat to the trenches of irrationality:  we do not, as a matter of science, know when life begins. Each side has a belief about when it begins but neither side can prove its belief scientifically. From a logical perspective, then, the pro-choice side must concede that it is possible that life begins at conception, just as the pro-life side must concede that, faith aside, it is possible that it does not. It is also undeniably true that, left alone, most pregnancies will eventually result in a life, which potential is undeniably curtailed if aborted.
Given this admitted state of scientific uncertainty, the law can do one of two things: it can let women choose whether or not to have an abortion, with the logical possibility that we as a society are permitting the killing of a human being. Or it can err on the side of life. We can prohibit abortion on the grounds that society should, as best it can, eliminate even the possibility of destroying life, with the logical possibility that we are penalizing the destruction of what is — at least at first — not life.

That’s all well and good as a logical matter, I hear you protest, but what about the reality and risk of carrying an unwanted child to term.  I get that my views essentially hijack nine months of the unwilling mother’s life.  And full disclosure, I don’t have kids, so it’s nine months I’ve never experienced.  I would argue that it is reasonable to ask a woman to carry a child to term — to undergo those nine months of discomfort and risk — for even the possibility of saving a life.

Perhaps where I’ll really get pounded (there so so many opportunities here!) is in saying that I don’t see the nine months of pregnancy as a unique imposition.  There are other context in which we ask for sacrifice in the name of the unborn, though mostly unborn future generations rather than specific unborn gestating kids.  And as a country, we ask a great deal of a great many people when other lives are at stake.  We promote and in some cases require measures that preserve the environment — measures not without costs — so that future generations will be safe and healthy.  We send soldiers into war — not always voluntarily — and ask them to endure extremely physically trying conditions and risk death both for other lives and for important national principles. We ask police officers and firefighters to put their lives on the line for the lives and sometimes property of others. We ourselves — and I think especially we liberals believe this of ourselves — would risk our own lives to save the life of another. Yes, it’s a horrible thing to have to carry a child to term when you don’t want to but at bottom, it’s nine months of discomfort and risk with the potential of saving a life.

But what about back alley abortions and the risk they pose to women’s life and health? Two answers. If an act is wrong, it should not be permitted simply because, if prohibited, the perpetrator will cause harm to himself.  We don’t permit theft because without it, some will starve. And we should do everything in our power to make it possible, acceptable, affordable and preferable to bear a child and to raise him or her — with the work schedules, benefits, leave, and societal support that that requires — or to put him or her up for adoption.

Unlike conservatives — in the immortal words of Barney Frank — I’m not just pro-life from conception to birth.

I honestly think being pro-life is far more harmonious with a generally liberal world view than being pro-choice.  We’re supposed to support those at the margins of life, to paraphrase Hubert Humphrey. We stick up for the little guy, for the worker against big business, for the political prisoner against totalitarianism, for minorities enslaved or oppressed by majority laws and prejudices.

These views have been strengthened by working in the disability rights community, where I have seen the variety of complicated hands life can deal and the many creative ways of playing those cards. Taking nine months out to ensure no one gets killed seems pretty small beer in comparison. I have also seen the pernicious effects of a societal decision that some people aren’t really people or that we can decide for others whether their lives are worth living.  When we start down that path — in which abortion is one paving stone, I believe — we end up with the evil that is Peter Singer.

So what should we do about this? Criminalize abortion? Put women in jail? Doctors?

Oops, sorry, I see my time is up. Thanks for coming!

What? I have to stick around and address the tough questions? Well here’s the answer: I don’t have a clue.   In the current political environment, however, I would ask both sides to stop fighting about rights and start creating a world in which fewer abortions actually happen.  While it’s fun — and accurate — to direct most of my cynicism on this point toward conservatives who fight against abortion while resisting any public efforts to make it easier to bear and raise children, opposing sex education and birth control and cheerleading for torture and the death penalty, I think the issue has a distorting effect on liberals as well.  We direct an enormous amount of money and energy toward court cases designed to preserve the right to terminate a pregnancy, which money and energy could be better directed toward policies that support mothers, children, women, workers, immigrants, and other underdogs.  Imagine health care reform that unabashedly refused to fund abortion and enthusiastically supported comprehensive prenatal care, adoption, daycare, and maternity and paternity leave?  I’m sure the Republicans would have found something else to demagogue, but it might have helped forge a coalition of righties and lefties who are actually pro-life in the full sense of the word.  (No, you can’t have any of what I’m smoking; I need all of it myself.)

I’m going to end this as I end all of my blog posts: awkwardly.  I may know more or less how to write, but conclusions are still hard, largely because most of what I write concludes, “for the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court deny Defendants’ motion.”  So I’ll just sign off and turn it over to anyone who is still reading at this point to explain how wrong I am.

Just as I was about to publish this, the incredible advocate Stella Adams posted this on Facebook:

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, protect the rights of those who are helpless. Speak out and pronounce a sentence of justice, defend the cause of the wretched and the poor.”  (Proverbs 31:8-9)

Stella – If you’re pro-choice, my apologies for hijacking your post, but this speaks directly to why I think liberals should be pro-life.

7 thoughts on “I’m pro-life

  1. Sporcupine

    I’m with you right through, making us two lawyers on the same track, and I have a hunch that Hillary Rodham Clinton is actually a third.

    Only, I’d underline the “I don’t have a clue” part when it gets to criminalization. My hesitation also includes not wanting to ignore the certainty that other women living other lives will find having a baby so unacceptable that they will find back alley options if well-ordered options are not openly available. It doesn’t sit comfortably to count that in the balance, but it doesn’t sit comfortably to not count it, either.

    I’m sure that I want our politics to focus more on the potential common ground of having many fewer abortions. I’m also sure that six months from now, I won’t have done much of anything to make that happen, which leaves me recognizing something more than hesitation in my approach to this issue.

    Like

    Reply
  2. Marsha Katz

    Hi Amy,

    I won’t challenge your choice to be pro-life/anti-abortion, but I would like to share something I learned many years ago in Anatomy class while in Nursing School at the University of Michigan.
    When an egg is fertilized, it has potential to turn into a child, but only if it implants in the uterine wall, because that’s the only way it will be properly nourished and have the room to grow. If it implants in the tubes (ectopic) or outside the uterus somehow, there is no chance of a term pregnancy, and a great chance of harm to the woman. Every month millions of menstruating women have millions of fertilized eggs pass from their bodies because they have not implanted in the uterus for one reason or another. I have always wondered if folks who believe life begins at conception understand that millions of fertilized eggs get regularly flushed down toilets, etc., and what they make of that. One reason that the “morning after” pill is good in my opinion is because it simply prevents a fertilized egg from implanting.

    Like

    Reply
  3. Amy Adams

    This is a huuuuge topic, but I’m only going to pick at one part of this position in this comment: your analysis assumes that the pregnancy in question is a healthy, low-risk one with the high likelihood of a healthy, viable infant at the end. This is a comparatively “easy” hypothetical on which to assert a pro-life stance. And as a pro-choicer myself, it’s hard to defend that stance when the stakes are weighted that way–nine-ish months of inconvenience vs. a life.

    The harder cases come when there are medical risks involved, either to the mother or the fetus. Some pregnancies are indeed life threatening. A ban on all abortions take medical decisions out of the hands of patients and their doctors: what happens in the case of fetal death, for example? Would a medical procedure to remove a dead fetus run afoul of an ban on abortion procedures? Ectopic pregnacies are nearly 100% non-viable, and if left in place can also be fatal to the mother.

    In the end, I formulate the question as one of “who should make the decision?” Should these decisions be made between adult women and their medical professionals, or should adult women be assumed to be making “bad” and “wrong” and “selfish” decisions, and thus their power of self-determination be abridged? There’s something deeply troubling with this line of thought that simply reads as sexist/misogynistic to me–that we can’t allow women the right to make medical decisions on their own behalf, because they’ll make the wrong choice.

    Like

    Reply
  4. Amy Adams

    I’m with you on the claim that life and liberal values have a strong alignment, especially with a “pro-life” stance after birth. Ideally, we would live in a world where every baby born would be a “wanted baby.”

    I do want to challenge your example of pollution controls as a burden we impose in favor of future generations–it’s equally plausible to view it as requiring the polluter to bear the entire cost of their enterprise rather than passing the cost of pollution and clean up onto the public at large. It’s also equally plausible to cast it as government operating like a class action law-suit, aggregating the small claims of a large number of potential plaintiffs. Arguably, it makes more economic sense to regulate pollution than to incur the friction costs of litigation. Or, you can think of it as a benefit to the current population rather than as a benefit solely for future generations.

    As you can see, I’m not convinced that pollutions controls are a good example to support the proposition that government has a right to impose burdens on citizens for the benefit of future generations.

    Brave of you to take this topic on–I tip my hat to you.

    Like

    Reply
  5. Amy Robertson Post author

    I appreciate the comments.

    @Marsha – Good point, though when fertilized eggs are passed naturally there is, by definition, no human agency. I guess that’s all I’m really concerned about — is the law permitting action that curtails a potential life?

    @Amy – I agree that where there is a risk of serious health problems or death for the mother, abortion is appropriate. That seems consistent with a self-defense defense to murder, etc. As you might guess from my practice area, I’m not a big fan of abortion to prevent the birth of a child with disabilities.

    And OK, I’ll admit that the environmental analogy was pretty weak. And though there are other things that we’re prohibited from doing with our bodies — selling a kidney; smoking pot — I’m actually fairly opposed to those laws. I think we should be able to do anything we want with our own bodies as long as it doesn’t impact someone else.

    But at bottom, this is a very tough question and I think my non-nuanced highly-theoretical view does not really leave much room for the reality of women’s lives and tough choices. (I got an in-person response that made that very clear to me.) Perhaps where I should stop is here: it’s a serious question that deserves more than a knee-jerk reaction on both sides. And if it stopped being political nuclear war, perhaps we could find more common ground on other issues that support women and children.

    Like

    Reply
  6. Amy Adams

    Kudos to you for trying to find new ways to think about this issue. The tent-pole positions of “pro-choice” and “pro-life” have made dialog or compromise all but impossible. So despite my bitchy push-back, the environmental analogy deserves some consideration, if only because it’s a different way to think.

    I’m personally in favor of the “every child a wanted child” idea that can encompass education, prevention, effective sex ed, pre-natal care, parental leave and child care and support for families….Hey, we’ve radically changed social attitudes about smoking–now cars have 12 volt outlets instead of “cigarette lighters” and ashtrays are no longer elementary school art projects!

    Like

    Reply
  7. Unyong Kim

    Right on Amy. Thanks for courageously speaking your views. I agree with your position. More so, now that I am a mother. It’s visceral.

    In a past life doing conflict resolution on polarizing topics, the pro-life/pro-choice debate was reframed based on the common ground: How do you reduce the need for abortions? There may be many other areas of common ground, but this was one of them.

    Both sides of the issue could brainstorm together on that fruitfully and come up with better policies and programs than pouring arms and resources into the abortion war.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s