A Case for Abortion Rights

I grew up in a family that believed strongly in liberal, progressive, feminist values. A woman's right to choose was a given, and it wasn't until my teenage years that I even seriously considered the pro-life argument. So now this is how I now understand the "classic" pro-choice and pro-life arguments:

Classic Pro-Choice: The government has no rights over a woman's body, nor her choice to have children or not to have children. Laws that force women to carry a pregnancy to term are remnants of a male-dominated power structure that serves to marginalize and disempower women. A woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is not only an aspect of her right to privacy and to choose what direction she and her body take in this life, but also a vital step in equalizing the socio-economic playing field that has long tilted towards men over women.

Pro-Life: A human fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, and regardless of the socio-economic ramifications, terminating a pregnancy is nothing less than the murder of defenseless, helpless, precious human life. There can be no compromise on this issue, because it is just plain wrong to kill innocent life. As such, anti-abortion laws should be no different than our current laws against homicide.

These two arguments are at a complete crossroads, because neither one addresses the fundamental point that the other is making. The pro-choice camp can't convince the pro-lifers that a fertilized egg isn't human enough to be murdered, and the pro-lifers have no answer for the very real socio-economic ramifications of laws that regulate reproduction.

However, to me both arguments fail to address the fundamental question of freedom of religion. The notion that human life begins at conception is essentially a religious one. There is no scientific basis for considering this moment to be the tipping point into human life, with all the rights and responsibilities that go with it. A freshly fertilized egg is much more similar to its non-human components (a sperm and an ovum) than it is to a human baby. As such, to equate a zygote with human life is, scientifically speaking, a completely arbitrary definition, and can only be justified on religious grounds.

This is, in and of itself, not a problem. Many beliefs cannot be supported scientifically, but that's okay. It is every American's right to believe whatever they want to believe, especially when it comes to religious doctrine. The problem comes when one group tries to enforce its religious views on another. In this case, it is often a schism within Christiandom, as most of those on the pro-choice side are themselves Christians.

But the pro-life Christians have a point: Even if their beliefs are religiously based, how can the rest of us expect them to be complacent in the face of wanton murder? How can we expect them not to care?

Here is my answer: I don't expect them not to care about the lives that they are trying to protect, I only expect them to have the same respect for others' religious views as they expect us to have for theirs. And the fact of the matter is that the two are not irreconcilable - There is nothing about one's concern for life that inherently forces you to disrespect another's religious beliefs. It is not only possible, but it is also a highly beneficial, vigorous spiritual exercise to care deeply about something and also respect those who don't share your concern.

The only difference between this approach and the one that the most vocal pro-lifers take is that this approach would not allow you to try to enforce your beliefs on someone else. It respects the fact that someone might make a choice that you ardently disagree with. What's more, it sets a precedent that protects your right to make choices that others might equally disagree with.

For instance, how much would a pro-lifer appreciate the government imposing a law that forces all women to abort any pregnancies that occur after two live births? This would certainly help with overpopulation issues, and if we're not in the business of protecting a woman's right to choose her own reproductive destiny, why not do whatever it takes to save our planet from the ravages of over-consumption?

I know it's an absurd concept, but that's the whole point - it is just as absurd to try to force women to have abortions as it is to try to prevent them from doing so. And the reason why such an argument never comes into political discourse is because even those who support abortion rights take the matter so seriously that it would never occur to them to try to force women to have abortions. Those who call the pro-choice movement "pro-abortion" have completely misread the inner emotional character of those who support those who make choices that they would not, themselves, ever make.

And if those on the pro-choice side can be just as respectful as we ask those on the pro-life side to be, then perhaps, someday, we can come to some sort of national concensus on how to tackle this incredibly thorny, nuanced issue.