Predictably, recent 'debates' over abortion have been taken over by technocratic arguments about 'fetal pain.' I think this is one of the dumbest possible ways of discussing abortion (I think I have a pretty decent memory, but as it turns out I have no recollection of my experience in the womb). Here I'll offer a much simpler and yet more thorough way of looking at it.
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not necessarily against BANNING abortion after 20 weeks. I know this will outrage many of my friends on the left; but fear not. As it turns out, I have a few conditions to attach to this view.
Let's start with basic anatomy. Every time a woman and a man have vaginal intercourse, there's a chance of pregnancy. Nevertheless, we know that certain things, like contraception and a basic knowledge of the anatomy and mechanics of intercourse, can reduce the risk of unwanted pregnancy to nearly zero.
Here's another fact, this of basic medical technology: if you're not sure if you're pregnant, it's pretty easy for a doctor to resolve that uncertainty for you. A basic check-up with an obstetrician can also tell you if there appear to be an complications of your pregnancy that you need to know about for your own health and safety. Some of you might say sure, but you can get an over-the-counter pregnancy test for that. Yes, if you're insured and wealthy enough to bear the consequences of a false negative, you can; but if not, is the possibility of a child developing in your womb something that you're happy to leave to an over-the-counter test? In most cases, actually, yes, at least as a first step before seeing a doctor; but I'm not the one who portrays abortion as a matter of the life and death of a baby.
Based on these facts, we know three more important things: 1)people who don't understand accurately the basic anatomy of sexual intercourse and human reproduction are at higher risk for unwanted pregnancy; 2) people who do not use contraception, either because they fall under category 1 above, or because they don't have affordable access to contraception, are also at higher risk for unwanted pregnancy; 3) women who suspect something is wrong or different with their bodies and think they might be pregnant are at higher risk of only realizing that they're pregnant after 20 weeks if they also fall under category 1 above (ignorant about their basic anatomy) and/or if they don't have affordable access to basic medical care.
This is all just a laborious way of saying that more people will be seeking abortions, and more of those people seeking later-term abortions, when we live in a situation in which not everyone has 1) basic sex education rooted in modern scientific understanding, 2) access to contraception, and 3) access to basic medical care.
In other words, if we provided a guarantee of healthcare for all, free access to contraception for all, and thorough and standardized basic sex education for all, we would be justified in making it illegal to have an abortion after, say, 20 weeks. We could then say that in almost all cases (save, perhaps, rape, mental illness, or endangerment of the life of the mother), a person seeking an abortion after 20 weeks has had plenty of prior opportunities to make a decision on her pregnancy.
This is not our world, however. The next question, then, is: why is this not our world?
The answer is that the same people who want to restrict abortion rights and access are the people also restricting universal and sound sex education, universal access to contraception, and universal access to basic medical care.
I hate to break it to you guys (yeah, it's mostly guys), but there's no way out of this for you. You Republicans who are opposed to abortion rights and access but also opposed to all of that health stuff I've listed above have fundamentally to admit that you are at least one of the following:
1) Logically inept
2) A hypocrite
3) Delusional
4) In favor of tons of women having tons of abortions
5) In favor of society's poorest and most uneducated having lots of unwanted children
6) Of the opinion that having sex is a privilege only to be reserved for the rich and educated
Honestly. If you are a 'pro-life' Republican and you do not readily identify with at least one of the items above, you have some serious explaining to do. Because you're effectively saying that, though you'd prefer to make abortions, especially late-term abortions, a thing of the past, you're also willing to support every single policy we have that we know beyond a shadow of a doubt contributes directly to more people having more abortions. And if, as you prefer, these people weren't allowed to have abortions, then of course they'd be having unwanted children that they can't afford, more children born out of wedlock, and more children and families born into a state of dependence on government support, also things you're not in favor of.
And here, with me, you will not be able to wriggle out of this with some kind of appeal to 'personal responsibility.' Should I hold you personally responsible for information that you don't even know where to get, let alone know enough to know you need to get it? Should I hold you personally responsible for accessing something that isn't available to you? Should I hold you personally responsible for not acquiring the preventative care that I'm simultaneously denying you? Should we hold infant children personally responsible for their parents bearing them into poverty? Come up with any analogy you want, and you'll find that, lo' and behold, people don't think they should be held responsible for that which they are systematically barred from taking responsibility.
Since you can't deny that your policies lead to more abortions, and you can't deny that they also actively bar so many particularly poor women and couples from understanding precisely how to take responsibility for their sexual choices (do you really think the urban poor LIKE having kids they can't afford while they're trying to finish high school?), the only path left for you to go is this:
You just don't think poor people should be allowed to have sex. Or, to put it less polemically, you think that sex is an option that a society should only tolerate among people who have the means to bear the risk. Again, if you were in favor of educating everyone such that they could properly understand the implications of that statement, you might then be able to claim some tenable moral position. But you're not in favor of that, are you?
It's long past time for 'pro-life' Republicans to look themselves in the mirror and admit to themselves what they're actually for.
