So, we already discussed the fall of Roe v Wade when the decision leaked. it happened, it's a done deal, it's officially overturned, and the left is stark raving mad over it. I do have some friends, however, who are pro life, who seem to be getting some level of vitriol over the issue, and being an ex pro lifer, I kind of understand that myself, so rather than just beat the issue to death about how it's bad, it's terrible, blah blah blah, I'm going to try to make this an appeal to the right on this issue.
The issue of Roe v. Wade isn't about the MORALITY of abortion, but the LEGALITY of it. Now, you might wonder, hey, if I have a moral issue with abortion, why shouldn't it be illegal? Good question. After all, shouldn't morality dictate public policy? Eh, to some degree yes, but to some degree no. You see, legality involves laws that apply to everyone. And morality can be...relatively subjective and controversial on a lot of issues. You can have one set of ethics for your own personal life, but that does not mean those ethics should apply to everyone.
And that's where I think the right misses the plot on the abortion issue. I personally believe, as a libertarian of sorts, that morality should only be legislated when it harms another person. And you might ask, well, doesn't abortion harm another person? Well, it depends what we consider a person to be, and that's where abortion is controversial.
I would define a person as a being that is generally of the human species that is intelligent and sentient enough to be a moral agent. In order to do harm to someone or something, there had to be a party that harm is being done to. You need some being, to express some sort of will for how it wants itself to be treated. The problem is, that definition is not met when it comes to fetuses. You can argue, okay, born human, a newborn baby, baby. But then you have a fertilized egg which is literally just a single cell, and you get some people calling it "life". And yes, it's alive. But it ain't a moral agent, it has no sentience, it has no will for how it wants itself to be treated. There is no party that's demonstrably being harmed. Meanwhile, take the wills of the mother carrying this fetus into account, or even the father, who themselves may or may not want to be a parent.
If you believe a fetus is a life for yourself, fine, but the morality and ethics regarding fetuses isn't settled, and it's far from objective. People have different standards for what is acceptable, and different sets of ethics for how to handle these situations. And in questions like this, I feel like it's best to take a libertarian stance. If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. I would never want to force someone to get an abortion, like, say, China would, with their one child policies and the like. But, that doesn't mean you should have a right to impose your views on others.
To make things worse, the logic behind banning abortion is often incredibly shaky. America is a country founded on freedom of religion and separation of church and state. Ideally, public policy is decided based on some sort of secular ethic that can be agreed on to be a basis of morality for all, with religion not supposed to have any role in public morality. Don't get me wrong, you can have a private morality on these issues, but public morality, no. The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Generally speaking, once again, laws are supposed to be for ALL of us. We shouldn't make laws based off of one group imposing their will on another group without good reason, and especially on the basis of religious morality.
Which, sadly, is the basis for the right's push against abortion rights. Catholics were among the first, if I recall, to push the subject, but in the 1970s evangelicals started getting involved, and they wanted to push it based on their religious morality. And that's a no no in American politics. I remember growing up in the 2000s going to religious school they were against it more or less because they wanted America to be a theocracy based on their morals. They would quote bible verses from Jeremiah about how God formed people in the womb and had a special plan for them, while simultaneously ignoring the abortion potion verses. They would base their views on divine command theory that if a baby was conceived it was God's plan and going against that was murder and wrong. And of course, they believed in souls and the like. But, here's the thing. Again, we're supposed to be a secular republic that doesn't base views on religion. We need to base our ideas on morals and values that appeal to everyone.
A lot of pro lifers will try to shift the arguments to a secular perspective, with them even pushing the "secular pro life" position, which, quite frankly, is relatively weak, and speaks in vague, overreaching philosophical overtures about how a fetus is life and all life is morally relevant, which as you can tell by my outline of how the issue is viewed above, is all very questionable and suspect. Quite frankly, I would accuse anyone seriously proposing these arguments as either not actually understanding the issue well, or potentially trying to sneak a christian worldview under the radar. I know Matt Dillahunty (prominent atheist podcaster) debated a secular pro lifer back in the day and it didn't end well.
So let's be honest and get back to what Roe v. Wade actually did. It respected a right to privacy for people, and protected abortion up to 20 weeks after Planned Parenthood v Casey caused the court to develop a standard based on viability. Late term abortions were generally left up to the states, with states often banning the practice somewhere around 22-28 weeks. This basically protected fetuses that could essentially be said to be indistinguishable from premature babies from abortion, while protecting people in the first roughly 2/3 of pregnancy. That's reasonable. it was a nice secular standard for everyone.
And that's how it should be. Again, keep in mind, this isn't about the morality of it. You can be MORALLY OPPOSED to abortion before 20 weeks. But, you shouldn't be free to tell other people with other morals that they can't get one. Which is where the problem is. You know, there are a lot of people in this country who hold ethical standards against the idea, while wanting it to be legal. Heck, a huge reason I dragged Hillary in 2016 was because of this. She clearly wasn't a strong abortion rights defender rhetorically. Because she didn't believe in it. She was actually personally opposed to it, due to having her own Christian worldviews. This caused her to dance around the issue, talking about how women should have a chance to make the right decision and stuff. It seemed to be this weird weasel word stance of a politician who didn't really support the concept personally, but did legally. Whereas I'd take a stronger position.
I also knew a girl in college once who grilled me on abortion. She was very pro choice herself, and would be one of those loud liberal times who would be like IF YOURE A MAN YOU SHOULDNT HAVE A SAY. And because I was a christian back then, I ended up being the awkward dude taking pro life positions and getting slammed for it. Then she got knocked up and had the kid and seemed very against the idea personally.
I mean, that's how a lot of people are. And that's fine. I don't agree with said people, as someone who is a bit stronger on the pro choice side where I really see little reason to have even moral issues before 24 weeks or so, but I understand it.
The reason you, pro lifer reading this, are getting grilled so hard, and facing so much hostility is because you're basically imposing your morality on people. And they don't like that. You're taking their rights away, forcing them to have a kid they don't want, which can carry serious health consequences, not even getting into the post birth consequences parenthood imposes on people, and they're rightfully pissed at you. I'm, to some extent, rightfully pissed at you. You shouldn't have any right to tell people what to do on the basis of weak secular ethics at best, and blatantly religious ethics at most.
Even me, I'm starting to wonder, on a spiritual level, if abortion is morally acceptable. My spirituality is weird on the matter. Many sources seem to indicate there's no issue with it and seem to be relatively pro choice, but I did read a story from Jim Tucker, the reincarnation scientist with the University of Virginia, about a child who had past life memories, and who remembered being aborted before being born in her current body. It seemed kind of traumatic to her, if it were true. But, let's be honest, most people don't take science related to reincarnation seriously, nor would I advocate basing public policy on it. So the pro choice argument still stands.
Remember, it's pro CHOICE. A lot of abortion people in both camps tend to mischaracterize the other side a lot. Pro life people think that pro choice people are okay with murder. No, they're okay with giving people a choice. And pro choice people tend to think that pro life people want to just tell women what to do. As an ex pro lifer myself, this is a strawman. Sure, there are some sexist, controlling pro lifers out there, but my primary interest was in the health of the fetus. That and a bunch of divine command theory nonsense I don't believe in any more.
A lot of pro choicers are actually quite morally opposed to the concept of abortion, they just dont believe in pushing it on people. And again, the reason they're so mad at pro lifers is they DO force it on people. And you don't really have a good reason to do so, if you're a pro lifer. How the heck is someone supposed to respect your opinion, if your opinion forces them to do things against their will that risk their health, wealth, autonomy, and freedom long term? A lot of pro choicers see you guys as trying to turn them into breeding cattle. And I honestly view it that way too. I'm holding back a lot here, trying to be respectful, but I really don't have respect for people who try to push their religious morality on people either. That is unacceptable, and is a huge driver of my social liberalism post 2012. As I always say, I'm not an SJW liberal, I'm a libertarian. And while my ethics aren't based in that "social justice" paradigm as much, they are based on a strong idea of personal liberty and being left alone unless there is a compelling need to make a law to coerce a certain behavior. There is no compelling need here. And the authoritarian types who want to control peoples' decisions need to chill out.
Keep in mind, even in my most anti theist of days, I NEVER wanted to outright ban Christianity. Because that would be wrong, and people have a right to their personal opinion, even if it is blatantly wrong. The problem is when people want to force their opinion on others. And that's what's happening here.
I feel like despite the social justice and "solidarity with women" framing that a lot of libs use, a lot of them are ultimately concerned about peoples' personal liberty, which I can sympathize with. And of course, people are going to be hostile toward those who want to take their rights away. I mean, can you blame them? You're literally the bad guy here.
And that's where I think I'll leave it. Pro lifers, you might think you're the good guy in your own mind, saving those fetuses and all, but you're not. Your prioritizing hypothetical persons that generally dont fit an accurate description of what a moral agent is, over actual moral agents and taking their freedoms away.
It's a lot like, to put the shoe on the other foot, those wacko environmentalists that think because the rare red tailed turtledove decided to make a nest in your house, that you can't do anything about that because it's an endangered species. Ya know, REEE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN I CANT DO WHAT I WANT TO DO WITH MY PROPERTY?! Welcome to abortion. The house is a woman's body in this case. See the problem?
I'll leave it there.
