In light of the recent GOP convention, the topic of abortion has come up in earnest recently. First we had Republican Senate candidate Todd Akin and his "legitimate rape" debacle. Then we had the GOP approving strict anti-abortion language in time for the convention. And of course we have the variety of Personhood Amendments making their way through various state legislatures.
At first glance, the issue seems like a no-brainer for the Bible-believing Christian. After all, the abortion issue seems to dominate the platforms of such Christian political activism organizations such as the Family Research Council and myriad others, as well as many Christians themselves. And let us be clear about this: Exodus 20:13 states that you must not commit murder.
However, the problem comes down to one's definition of "murder," as the pro-choice crowd will be more than happy to tell you. The pro-choice crowd does not believe that a zygote/fetus/what-have-you is a person, and thus to destroy one is not to commit a murder, but rather to perform a medical procedure. Thus, the personhood amendments I referred to above, which would define a fetus as a person.
For the liberty-minded individual, abortion presents similar problems. A caller on Free Talk Live recently referred to abortion as "the black hole of Libertarianism." Even the official Libertarian Party Platform (scroll down to issue 1.4) hems and haws somewhat on the issue, recognizing that there are genuinely-held opinions on the matter on both sides.
The reason this is such a contentious issue, even among those of a libertarian mindset, is that the Non-Aggression Principle (that is, the principle that we will not initiate aggression against another person or their property) can be used to make a case for both the pro-life position and the pro-choice position. On the one hand, a woman's reproductive organs are her property and no one has any claim over what she does with them. On the other hand, a fetus is a human life, and to abort one is an act of aggression against a human life.
Of course, if you're a reader of this blog, you read it for my opinions on issues, on not other peoples' opinions on issues. So, here we go:
First: I do not buy into the hype that overturning Roe v. Wade will result in back-alley abortions. This Pro-Life Website (NOTE: I make no claim as to how reliable this site is) claims that the number of back-alley abortions prior to Roe v. Wade was and is greatly exaggerated, by orders of magnitude. Further, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, the fact remains that making something illegal will not prevent it from happening; look at our ridiculous drug laws and the continued availability of drugs. There are thousands of pro-choice doctors in the country who, law or no law, will perform abortions either openly or under the table (so to speak), in accordance with their conscience. In other words, when (or if) Roe v. Wade is overturned, a woman who wants an abortion will still be able to easily find a safe one. And if a physician is caught performing abortions, is there any jury in the U.S. who's going to convict him/her of murder?
Second: I do not buy into the hype that opposing abortion is actually about oppressing women. This is a claim made by many enthusiastic feminists- that the pro-life crowd is really about putting women back in the kitchen. While there may be some (nay, many) in the pro-life movement who would happily erase decades of progress made on women's rights, they are in the minority. As one who has advocated strongly for pro-life legislation, and who has even participated in anti-abortion demonstrations, I can tell you confidently that it was, and always has been, about the belief that abortion is murder. It was never about oppressing women. I stood side-by-side with women of all ages and all walks of life, most of whom were not at all interested in allowing themselves to be oppressed.
Third: I believe that the drive towards a personhood amendment is a Trojan Horse. Defining a fetus as a person is a noble idea, not to mention a clever workaround to that pesky Roe v. Wade problem. But, it also opens the door to a variety of unintended consequences. Broadly-written, and broadly-interpreted, personhood amendment language would actually criminalize most forms of birth control. While there are certainly some in the pro-life movement who would gladly see birth control outlawed, in the main most people in the pro-life movement recognize birth control as legitimate medical treatment.
In the end, though, it comes down to this: as I've said elsewhere in this blog, I believe that having liberty means that I must allow others to have liberty as well. This can, and often does, mean that I must allow others to say and do things that I find distasteful. I find abortion distasteful, and I believe that a case can be made that abortion is an act of aggression against a human life. I believe that it is an awful thing, and it is a choice that I would never make.
But it is, and therefore must remain, a choice.
