A Pro-Choice Position

Abstract

As today is the March for Life, I decided to present a common pro-choice position. The only way we can have good dialogue is by learning each other’s positions and going from that instead of through misrepresentation.

Introduction

There is a lot of misrepresentation when it comes to differing viewpoints. I definitely see it when reading what the “other side” says about my worldview. Similarly, as I read what the “other side” says, I am able to detect when posts on “my side” inaccurately describe the opposing viewpoint. Because there is so much misrepresentation from both sides, conversation is flawed. There are two different languages being spoken. Both languages use the same words, but the meanings are not shared. Plus, let’s say I taught you chess instead of English. Every conversation would be a competition. Do you see the problem here? Thus, in order to have actual discussions, one or both parties has to learn the other’s language in order to translate his own viewpoint.

In the spirit of that, here is the pro-choice position or, rather, a pro-choice position. It wouldn’t be fair to lump all pro-choice people into the same position. The problem generally arises when people do that, especially since they seem to always use the most extreme platforms and, in most cases, add a little bit to it for good measure. This, though, is the most common one that I see, shared presumably by the vast majority of those who call themselves pro-choice.

Methods

The vast majority of pro-choice people do not believe in unrestricted access to abortion. That’s important to keep in mind. Pro-life people like to fall back to the close-to-birth image of a child as their argument against abortion, as seen in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Meme from Facebook Group

The argument, though, is largely ineffective because most pro-choice people already agree that nearly born children should be protected. Table 1 shows the results of a 2012 Gallup poll on abortion legality by trimester. The numbers have remained steady since the poll began in 1996.

Table 1: Gallup Poll Numbers

Trimester	% Legal	% Illegal
First Three Months	61	31
Second Three Months	27	64
Final Three Months	14	80

The same poll showed an approximate 47% of people consider themselves pro-life with 49% pro-choice. So it stands to reason that the overwhelming majority of pro-choice people do not want unrestricted abortion, considering the not slim margin on late term abortions. What that means is the pro-life beliefs about pro-choice people are, largely, purported by a somewhat fringe minority. To be fair, though, that minority is very loud and very effective. The minority basically controls the Democrat party.

So, if it isn’t “abortion on demand without apology,” then what, for many people, is the pro-choice position? The answer to that comes in the common “clump of cells” response I hear. It’s just that the pro-life community has interpreted that to mean anything pre-born is merely a clump of cells. In actuality, the moment many pro-choice people believe a child ceases to be a “clump of cells” and becomes a human child is some time before birth, with varying opinions on that, hence the different polling numbers between the second and third trimesters. Sometimes it’s when the heart develops. Sometimes it’s when the brain develops. Regardless of the point, there is a point after which, of course, the unborn child should be protected by the law. Before that point, it’s no one else’s business.

From their perspective, there is a day when the human child is a human child. The day before that one, the child is not yet a human child. In the time before whichever organ has developed enough for the pro-choice person’s approval, the “clump of cells” still belongs to the mother in the same way that what I eat at Taco Bell belongs to my body. Whatever I choose to do with my burritos–whether I prematurely dispose of them via vomiting or laxatives or let it sit for the normal duration, admittedly about the same length of time–is my decision and not a valid role for the government.

When the government tells a woman that she has to “carry a baby to term,” what a pro-choice person interprets this as is the government is forcing her to become pregnant. In the first trimester and, for some, the second trimester, the woman does not yet have a child; thus, she should be free to end what will somewhat quickly produce a child. By somewhere before the third trimester, there is now a child, and the woman has lost her time window to stop the process before stopping the process is murder.

The final piece to this pro-choice perspective is the why a pro-life person would fight for the rights of first trimester children. The entire issue of abortion has been so religiousized (I don’t care what the red lines tell me–I’m keeping that word) that people in the pro-choice group cannot fathom that pro-life folk would have any reason outside “The Bible tells me so” for anything they do or oppose. They think the pro-lifers have two Bible verses telling them to outlaw abortion; so that’s what they’re going to do. And that scares pro-choicers, because one thing they fear intensely is becoming a superstitiously ruled theocracy.

What the pro-choicers cannot fathom is that the pro-lifer is motivated by far more than the Bible. The pro-choicer especially cannot fathom that medical science and Biology itself are on the side of the pro-lifer.

Conclusion

Let’s not fight one another with misconceptions about what we’re fighting. We have more in common with the standard pro-choice person’s perspective than we realize. Instead of tearing him down and lumping him with the more radical pro-choicers, we should, instead, expound on our common ground. Stu Burguiere recommends discussion in which we intellectually push their boundaries because, at some point, the pro-choicer would have to become intellectually consistent, and consistency has only two possible outcomes–completely pro-life or homicidal.