The Hypocrisy of "Pro Life" Politics

Phrases like "Pro Life" and "Family Values" have become overly simplistic catchphrases used by so-called "right wing" politics.

Recently, I found myself in a discussion with someone who was taking a rigidly "Pro-Life" stance, arguing that abortion was simply wrong, no matter the circumstances - in the name of 'protecting life'.

Upon further consideration, it strikes me that the so-called "Pro-Life" argument of absolutes is deeply flawed. Consider the notion of "protecting life at all costs". The argument is made that we are morally obliged to respect and protect life from its first moment to its last.

Okay, that's fine - to a point. However, if we take it to the absolute conclusion that the anti-abortion crowd wishes us to arrive at, several very troubling issues arise:

(1) Absolute prohibition on abortion effectively changes a woman's status when she becomes pregnant from social equal and participant in our society to that of "vessel of procreation".

(2) The second problem with such absolutes is that it presupposes that a woman who is pregnant is unable to make moral (or ethical) decisions for herself regarding her pregnancy, its progress and its conclusion.

(3) Biologically speaking, pregnancy is a very expensive process for the woman. It is also a very risky process that can, in some circumstances be quite dangerous as well. The question of protecting life in a case where a woman's life is endangered by being pregnant raises the question of just whose life are we to protect?

(4) There are circumstances where a woman may become pregnant through no fault of her own - rape comes to mind as one possible scenario. How many women would want to carry a child forced upon them by a man they would never choose to mate with?

Clearly, women are not merely inert vessels for babies - anyone who asserts so is not looking around them with their eyes open. It is the height of illogic to think that a woman loses all other value in the world the moment that she becomes pregnant.

The view that women are primarily vessels for producing babies echoes throughout human history. This view has given rise to some pretty horrible behaviours - such as "rape as a right of conquest", seen most publicly in the aftermath of the conflict the region of Serbia in the 1990s. It seems to me that the absolutist view of 'abortion as evil' lands smack in the same space, as it disregards the status of woman as a moral, intelligent human being capable of understanding and making difficult decisions.

As a society in the last century or so, Western society has gradually come to recognize that women are every bit the equal of their male counterparts. It's been a slow, often conflict-riddled process, whether it has been the arguments over granting women the right to vote, or the sexual revolution of the 1960s where women began to assert their right to govern their reproductive capabilities for themselves.

With the recognition that women are active, and equal participants in society, we must accept the logical notion that a woman is able to make complex moral judgments and decisions. Clearly, if we devolve woman to the status of "vessel" when pregnant, it is quite trivial to justify absolute proscriptions on topics like abortion, as we no longer recognize the validity of the woman as a discrete individual.

If, however, one accepts the notion that the state of being pregnant is a normal part of being a woman, and that state does not otherwise inhibit the individual's ability to reason (as I claim is unquestionably true), then absolute proscriptions such as the anti-abortion crowd demand, become troubling.

First, I would argue that a woman is unquestionably in full rights to control what is done with her body.

But one might argue that abortion involves someone else - the unborn. Few women do not take their ability to bear children seriously. (there may be some, but there are always exceptions) The notion of terminating a pregnancy is a deeply emotional decision, filled with implications both short term and long term. The reasons for terminating a pregnancy, and the point after which a woman will not end a pregnancy are going to differ, based on the experiences of that individual.

Second, a woman has an implicit right to be in control of her ability to reproduce. This includes access to contraceptive methods and surgical intervention. How many are going to be thrilled with paying the biological price for bearing a child as a result of rape? The argument is often raised that this child "shouldn't be punished for the sins of the father", but why should the woman - who will be burdened in the long term with the tasks of raising that child be similarly punished? {and yes, raising a child that is fathered by someone you would not willingly partner with is a punishment, one riddled with emotional and psychological challenges for the mother and the child}.

We entrust parents (and women in particular), to make subtle and complex decisions for their children on a daily basis. Most such decisions turn out just fine, and every so often, one goes horribly awry. What on earth makes anyone believe that a woman who is carrying a child doesn't think about what it means for her and the fetus growing inside of her when she considers allowing the pregnancy to run its course or to end it?

The next problem with absolutism in the topic is the obvious clash between the interests of the mother and that of the fetus. If, for example, the mother would likely die in childbirth, or would be seriously debilitated as a result of carrying the fetus to term, whose life are we protecting by prohibiting the notion of abortion entirely? If we insist that the woman die by preventing her access to abortion, how is that "protecting life"? Or perhaps, the woman is already a mother to several children, and the pregnancy would kill her, leaving the children without family? How is this "respecting life"?

The whole notion of "consequences" ripples through the puritanesque anti-abortion arguments. It fails to acknowledge that the only person who pays the "consequences" they are talking about is the woman. If you think in these terms, then the whole notion of "she was dressed provocatively" once again becomes a valid defense in rape cases - a very troubling notion that few would argue is a desirable outcome. (and those who would probably should be subject of further investigation themselves!)

The problem with absolutism is that it fails to recognize the myriad shades of grey in life. Few things fall into absolutes, and the pregnancy/abortion topic is among them. Unless you are willing to claim that a pregnant woman is legally incompetent to make decisions for herself because she is pregnant, I fail to see how any absolute proscription has any validity - morally or ethically.