By Arthur O’Sullivan
In the previous issue of Binghamton Review, the pseudonymous author “El Lento” published an article titled, “The Problem with the Pro-Life Movement.” Being “pro-life” myself, I’m used to defending my beliefs in all the conventional ways: No, pro-lifers don’t just have a control fetish. No, Republicans generally don’t want to kill babies once born. No, you can’t prove “scientifically” that abortion is right or wrong. And so on, and so on, and so on. The abortion debate is as interminable as it is stagnant. It surprised me, therefore, to find that El Lento’s piece was a conservative critique of the pro-life movement.
As I read through it, I found myself nodding along. This mysterious “El Lento” was making a lot of sense. As a religiously challenged person, I too found the pro-life insistence on Christian dogma alienating. Many believe that to be pro-life, one MUST be an ultra-traditionalist-catholic or fringe evangelical. The more recent “March for Life” rallies have not dispelled this stereotype. All too often, I would explain to pro-choice friends and strangers that it’s perfectly reasonable to be both an atheist and pro-life at the same time, only to get the fluoride-stare.
Figure 1: The stare I get talking to pro-choice liberals about my views. (Or talking to girls at parties.)
Like most things in politics, the evidence right in front of people (e.g. my existence) is nothing compared to what they read on conspiracy sites like The New York Times. If Michelle Goldberg says that anti-abortion advocates simply intend to torture women, then that’s just how things are. The fact that certain “pro-life” policies actually do hurt women does not help this stereotype.
El Lento’s insight on the pro-lifers who don’t care about the Constitution also hits the nail on the head. The greatest defeats and greatest victories of the pro-life movement are found in constitutional law. Depending on who sits on the Supreme Court, our founding document has been used to justify both positions. The Warren and Rehnquist courts both “found” constitutional grounds for abortion-on-demand (up to some arbitrary limit). Now, the Roberts court has devolved the legislation back to, well, legislatures. All this was achieved through the shrewd politics of American democracy. Those who disregard it are in danger of losing everything due to sheer unbridled stupidity.
Altogether, El Lento believes that “pro-life” activists must stop being hypocrites: they must stand up for freedom, as well as life. They must stop worshipping Trump and appeal to a broader base. Despite this, they can not sacrifice their principles for political or rhetorical reasons; they can not compromise on hard issues.
Though sounding good in theory, this is where “El Lento” rapidly derails. Just as he saw two main problems with the pro-life movement, I saw two big issues in his thesis.
Let’s start with the less emotional issue: El Lento criticizes Nikki Hayley, former UN Ambassador and Republican Presidential candidate, for her “15 weeks” federal ban on abortion.
Hayley reasons that while Americans are intransigently divided about abortion, most could not defend killing a 15 week-old fetus. Therefore, a federal proscription on abortions past that window (with prior abortions being regulated by state legislatures) is the only feasible compromise on the issue.
On this, El Lento disagrees vehemently. Any sort of compromise, he reasons, does a discredit to the core philosophy of the pro-life movement. If abortion really is murder, then you can not ‘meet the other side halfway.’ After all, there is no real difference between a fetus at 15 weeks and one at 14 weeks, 6 days, and 23 hours. Why should a “practical” pro-lifer ferociously protect the first, but compromise on the second? Doing so, in El Lento’s eyes, displays immeasurable hypocrisy among “pro-life” advocates.
My response to this is simple: compromise is the best we have. In an ideal world, abortion would not only be gone, but irrelevant. In Eden, all pregnancies are happy; all children are wanted and cared for. But we have fallen from Eden. Pregnancy and childrearing are difficult things, and so many interests (hedonistic, economic etc.) push towards their avoidance. It’s easy, then, to view destroying a “clump of cells” as a catch-all response. Framing this act in terms of “liberation” and “right” simply galvanizes its defenders. Now that the practice is widespread and accepted, forcing the maximalist position will only further entrench the pro-choice establishment. Thus, “no compromise” on the federal level will see no progress in deep blue states. One should never abandon the authentic principles of being pro-life, but our country survives on compromise.
Perhaps El Lento considers abortion akin to slavery. Compromise, whether in 1850 or 2024, only strengthens the evil institution. Supposing that’s true, the only way to stop abortion is either through John Brown-style bloodshed or, horribile dictu, civil war. Leaving aside its practicality, would that be a moral end to the “pro-life” movement? Man murdering Man to save hypothetical Man? Entertaining this prospect is beyond the pale. I doubt El Lento seriously believes this, but I see no other resolution for his “convicted” pro-life stance.
Finally, El Lento’s stance on women who procure abortions is inherently broken. He argues that most cases, while sympathetic, still constitute an act of murder on the part of the woman. To illustrate, he analogizes most abortions of convenience to an impoverished teenager robbing and murdering a store-owner so that he can afford college. He argues that since the latter should obviously be punished, so should the former; “pro-lifers” who disagree discredit their own beliefs.
This argument is prima facie ridiculous. Aborting a fetus, unlike murdering a store-owner, is both legal and accepted in much of the country. Further, this hypothetical store-owner can not be described as “holding back” the teenager from a good future. As things stand, pregnancy does exactly that. This in no way justifies abortion itself, especially if made illegal nationwide. It does, however, mitigate the real-world action. Refusing to prosecute women who have had abortions does not discredit the pro-life movement. It strengthens it.
In his article, El Lento confuses principles with dogma. Although he’s correct in saying that much of the “pro-life” movement discredits itself to the public, his hardline stances on abortion laws and their punishments would only make things worse.
I would like to address a few key areas in your response which I take great issue, starting with your quote:
“El Lento criticizes Nikki Hayley, former UN Ambassador and Republican Presidential candidate, for her “15 weeks” federal ban on abortion.” First I think it should be noted that I did not at any point state that my opposition to her position was centered around her suggestion to implement a fifteen week ban; in my original draft, my reference to her policy proposal was “which had echoes elsewhere such as Nikki Haley’s statement that for the sake of political expediency and feasibility, for the time being, she would encourage states to work to ban it in their jurisdiction and push for minor, more popular, federal restrictions rather than more comprehensive bans” and in the published version, “echoed by figures such as Nikki Haley.” While some may argue that this is merely a semantic difference or a reasonable inference based on what I stated, I nonetheless take issue with words being put in my mouth. Secondly, I will admit that citing her position may not have clearly or adequately conveyed my position and that the behavior I am attacking was better supported by the example offered of Ron Desantis’ position on punishing those who receive abortions and the section omitted from the published article, “the argument by some that the real problem with Roe v Wade was that it federally legalized abortion instead of allowing states to decide”, in that both serve as examples wherein abortion is not being treated as equal to murder. I should make it clear, which I believe I previously failed to, that my focus was on the treatment of abortion by the pro-life movement. I believe there is a key and fundamental difference between proposing and passing moderate bans with the ultimate and stated goal of banning abortion altogether and acting as if all that the pro-life movement wants are these moderate bans; again, my inclusion of Haley’s position was in error as it likely caused confusion.
“Perhaps El Lento considers abortion akin to slavery. Compromise, whether in 1850 or 2024, only strengthens the evil institution. Supposing that’s true, the only way to stop abortion is either through John Brown-style bloodshed or, horribile dictu, civil war. Leaving aside its practicality, would that be a moral end to the “pro-life” movement? Man murdering Man to save hypothetical Man? Entertaining this prospect is beyond the pale. I doubt El Lento seriously believes this, but I see no other resolution for his “convicted” pro-life stance”
While I acknowledge the unpopularity of an immediate, comprehensive, federal abortion ban, to act as if the only means that this suggests that the only means by which such ban could be achieved is through bloodshed is absurd, especially when it is considered that the author of this rebuttal had himself previously cited the judiciary’s role in the abortion debate. The Constitution currently offers the means by which the Supreme Court if it so desired could abolish abortion, with specifically the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments including provisions which could justify the end of abortion; to preclude any attempts at a “gotcha”, while the first two sentences of the Fourteenth are concerned with US citizens, which it states are those born in the United States or naturalized (thus excluding by definition the unborn), the second half states “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This reference to person or people as opposed to citizens thus means that the fourteenth amendment could be applied to the unborn. The usage of the Supreme Court to rectify injustices which likely would have lacked the national support necessary to do so through Congress is not unprecedented, with Brown v Board of Education declaring that the segregation of public schools was unconstitutional being one such example. Finally, I believe it should be noted that the road to John Brown and the Civil War was paved with continuous compromises: the 3/5ths compromise, the constitution forbidding the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade for decades, the Missouri compromise, and popular sovereignty were all compromises intended to address the division caused by slavery. Furthermore, even Abraham Lincoln, who’s election to presidency inspired the south to secede out of fear of their abhorrent practice being banned, was a moderate abolitionist; altogether this demonstrates that compromises were not sufficient to either prevent the Civil War or bring about the end of slavery. To insinuate then that my position is liable to cause the destruction of the United States, widespread violence and bloodshed, and the deaths of millions is not only historically inaccurate based upon your own examples, but clearly disingenuous.
“Thus, “no compromise” on the federal level will see no progress in deep blue states.”
To be frank, I do not altogether understand this argument. The simple fact is no abortion ban of any consequence, even the 15 week ban you referenced, would be accepted by deep blue states. If anything, this only offers further support for a strong focus on federal legislation, as federal regulations would obviously impact the entirety of the union while an even more compromising, state-centric approach would mean that you would likely not see any significant regulations in at least the ten most democratic states. When it is considered that these ten states alone have a population of roughly 96 million within them, a population larger than the overwhelming majority of countries, the failure to ban abortion in these states is not insignificant.
“This argument is prima facie ridiculous. Aborting a fetus, unlike murdering a store-owner, is both legal and accepted in much of the country. Further, this hypothetical store-owner can not be described as “holding back” the teenager from a good future. As things stand, pregnancy does exactly that. This in no way justifies abortion itself, especially if made illegal nationwide. It does, however, mitigate the real-world action.”
First, it seems that declaring the argument “prima facia ridiculous” is overly dismissive and needlessly insulting. Secondly, it should be noted that I am not advocating for ex post facto laws; the Desantis’ position which I specifically cite and take issue with is “he did not believe that women who had an abortion should be criminally punished, even if it were illegal.” Now that we have moved past the topic of whether or not women should be punished for having an abortion when it is not illegal, on the topic of punishing abortion after it is made illegal, social acceptability is irrelevant to whether or not an action should be punished. Since you brought up the example of slavery, I am sure after the ratification of the 13th amendment many in the South still viewed slavery as a socially even if not legally acceptable action; this acceptance of slavery however does not in any shape or form mean that the act of engaging in slavery should have gone unpunished. Furthermore, you claim that a distinction exists between the analogy I offer and abortion in that the man killed in my example was not “holding back” his murderer; besides the fact that some opt to have abortions even when they are financially comfortable and a pregnancy thus would not “hold them back” to a great extent, I will humor your critique. Lets say we instead have a young father who goes without support and who recently gained custody of a newborn after its mother died, with this newfound responsibility sufficiently burdening him through consuming his time and money such that he can no longer go to college and will remain destitute. If he were to “relieve” himself of this burden that is “holding him back” through soliciting an accomplice to painlessly kill on his behalf the infant through carbon monoxide poisoning, would we not agree that this action warrants punishment and thus would we not agree that the highly similar act of receiving an elective abortion should likewise be punished?
Furthermore your statement “refusing to prosecute women who have had abortions does not discredit the pro-life movement, It strengthens it”, is offered without any explicit evidence or clear argument to back it up, although I will acknowledge that I assume your argument would have been that this makes an abortion ban more palpable to the median voter (I will not put words in your mouth by claiming this is what you said, merely that it is what I believe you meant). Finally, it does not seem that you addressed my concern that this logically inconsistent behavior likely has the real impact on causing pro-lifers to not be treated seriously or seen as genuine, thus limiting their ability to convince others to support them and bring about change.
source:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-14/
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-9/
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-democratic-states
https://worldpopulationreview.com/states