Kathleen McCaffrey articulates her stance on abortion.
Kathleen McCaffrey, Associate Editor
Ideology: Libertarian | Writing from: New Jersey
One of my favorite scholars, F.A. Hayek, expressed my sentiments perfectly in his “Why I Am Not a Conservative” piece. He wrote that, “Like the socialist, [the conservative] is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.”
While I can apply Hayek’s conclusion to many facets of the right-wing in terms of social issues, I find it particularly applicable to my philosophy on abortion.
Though I am an atheist (with a residual Irish-Catholic guilt complex) and many pro-lifers come from a religious standpoint, I do not believe I would ever have an abortion. It’s a personal, “feelings” thing I cannot articulate or rationally explain. However, with the emotional opposition I have towards abortion comes an understanding of its past that cannot be separated when drafting an opinion.
Abortions have been performed for thousands of years in nearly every society. Long before 1973, it was also legal in the US. In fact, it was once commonplace and well advertised. While moral objections may have been part of the reason it was outlawed, some states first implemented anti-abortion laws to keep up with the population growth of undesired immigrant groups.
Regardless of the reasons for it’s illegal status by 1880, abortions continued to be conducted throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. The ban did not effectively eradicate abortions and merely shifted those who could not afford expensive (illegal) procedures to face unsanitary, sterilizing, and unsafe venues. In fact, before legalization “nearly four times as many women of color died from illegal abortions as white women” and illegal abortions accounted for 5-10,000 deaths each year. Throughout the 20th century, unsafe abortions, and complications from, have cost thousands of women their lives, sanity, and dignity. Much like the narcotics I proposed to be decriminalized, history has shown that there is no effective way to ban all abortion. There are only different ways of ensuring safety for those who inevitably seek them.
I don’t like the act of aborting a fetus. Maybe life starts at conception, maybe it does not. There is no universally accepted answer within the scientific community. I do not dwell on questions that have several inconclusive ways of being answered. I cannot scientifically or rationally prove that I am right in my personal objection towards abortion, though, so I don’t expect anyone else to follow suit or live by my opinion. However, if those who are opposed to abortion can appeal to the minds of women around them, then I invite them to speak their thoughts. If a woman can be brought to choose life by an honest discussion or testimony, isn’t that a greater achievement than force through government legislation?
This is a great, rational explanation of one of the many reasons why people are pro-choice. Good job.
The existence of abortion regardless of their legality is exactly why I consider myself pro-choice even though I firmly believe that life begins at conception. Well done.
I disagree with the notion that simply because something is going to occur, it should be legalized or controlled.
A pro-lifer like me doesn’t look at abortion like drug decriminalization, but rather more like murder or stealing — I would never propose the two be legalized so that we could control them.
Overall though, this is one of the best defenses of a pro-choice stand (without even getting into the constitutionality of it) that I’ve read.
-Conor, I completely agree, and am slightly surprised that the ends would somewhat justify the means for Kathleen. Just because women would be less safe having an illegal abortion doesn’t mean it should be counted in the defense of legal abortion. The risk would sadly have to be assumed in such a case which works accordingly for any of the other negative consequences to breaking laws. I think the fact that the point of viability continues to change should shed some light on where the future of the definition of “life” will be going. I think abortion will only be criminalized in its entirety when a premature baby can be completely sustained outside the womb at some point very close to the time of conception which depends on the advancement of technology. Until then the law will change continuously in terms of the point at which one can no longer abort their baby legally. I’m in disagreement of abortion all around; this is one of the biggest failures of government to serve one of its few functions.