Abortion and Politics: Why I can be against abortion and pro-choice

Two articles in Medium one by a “liberal atheist” and another by a “secularist,” on the pro-life side of the debate, argue against abortion.

I appreciate that the authors identify their biases which often influence our judgments. They are both guys as am I. They prefer thoughtful discussion using scientific method rather than religious doctrine based on divine revelation as do I.

I identify myself as being conservative in that I seriously study and consider traditional thought and values and because I want to conserve those institutions that foster our equal rights and freedom and protect our democracy and the inclusion of all in that democracy. Which also makes me a liberal — so much a liberal that I cannot consider myself a confirmed atheist or secularist — or a theist and religionist for that matter — because, thanks to my liberal education and value for critical thinking, I question all doctrine and dogma.

Even though (or maybe because) I was brought up Catholic and taught by nuns and Jesuits for a long, long time.

My study of history and my action in community organizing makes me passionate for democracy starting with my neighborhood and going on to all levels, nations, world nations, and the galactic federation. (Need I say that I am an old 60s community-activist Trekkie?)

With all these biases, I deplore abortion because I deplore violence and hope that we as a species are tending toward less and less of it. I agree with Hannah Arendt that violence can never be justified but is sometimes necessary for supporting or defending life. Tilling the soil, extracting coal and oil from the earth, fighting or even killing to stop an attack on my family, cutting into a body to remove an infection or repair an organ, all of these acts are acts of violence and should never be chosen, except when necessary for life. The same is true for abortion.

An abortion is a violent act and should be chosen only to foster life. Some say abortion is murder of an innocent human being which begs the question of when an embryo becomes a human being. The answer to that rests on the accepted definition of being human. Some say that, though the embryo is not yet human by accepted or nonreligious definition, it is on the way to becoming human. Others say that the life in question that makes the violence of abortion necessary is the life of the mother and her family — not just their physical life but also the realization of their life’s potential.

Yes, the decision to forgo cancer treatments, to stop life support for a child whose brain no longer functions, like a decision to drone a terrorist or shoot a lethal attacker, is formidable. So is the decision to have an abortion. The question is: Who decides if the violence is necessary? Is it the state, the hospital, the church, politicians, priests, the police?

While I deplore violence, including the violence of abortion, I totally oppose unnecessary violence. Who decides the necessity of abortion? Not me and not my religion and not my state. My religion might condemn it and excommunicate the person who supports an abortion in any way. But I would reject such a religion. I strongly believe that the pregnant woman is the one to decide and that nothing should be put in her way to have the procedure safely and compassionately.

I argue that my stance for pro-choice is pro-life.

When I was director of Catholic Charities for one of the Roman Catholic dioceses, I made it clear to our social workers, who were from many religious persuasions, that they needed to follow the principles of social work which included self-determination. If a woman in their counsel was considering an abortion, they should help the person make the best-informed decision with her own beliefs and circumstances but without judgment from the social worker. And as the woman made that decision, the counsellor should be totally compassionate and assist her to follow her own conscience. Would every bishop approve of this? Probably not. But I think every informed and compassionate pastor would.

The debate will and probably should continue until people find common ground which I believe is making abortion an act violence that is unnecessary. Making abortion unnecessary involves the access to birth control and sex education, making birth and care for a child easier, less costly, less challenging, and less condemnatory, assisting women to stand up to men who treat her as sexual property and who do not take responsibility for their behavior, giving women more capacity and freedom to make her own choices. Much of these have been happening over the past decade thanks to the women’s movement. The decline of abortion, of violence deemed necessary, is encouraging.

Life and choice go together. Don’t limit but encourage the right and ability of women to choose. Let’s keep the question of abortion out of politics until we have done all we can do to make it unnecessary.