Abortion - part 1: column for the Richmond Times Dispatch, 2/11/12

My wife rolled her eyes when I told her I was writing a column on abortion. This should be a warning sign for me. After 17 years of marriage, I know that things generally go badly when she rolls her eyes. But this is something I need to write, mainly because it’s something I need to work out for myself; maybe I can connect with others who are working it out as well.

 I’ve grown up in a post-Roe v. Wade world, a world where abortion is legal, accessible and safe, where women no longer have to submit their bodies to filthy back alley abortion clinics, where the victim of rape and incest is no longer forced to give birth to the child of their attacker. I believe that there are some reasons for legalized abortion and in this post-Christian era, I also realize that abortion is here to stay. But I’m sure others share with me a great sadness about how abortion is many times an act of desperation for the young and poor and how it is sometimes based on prejudices against the unborn and their quality of life. I’m also willing to bet that other supporters of abortion rights share my sadness at how our claims to autonomy and freedom can often come at very high cost to others. 

I cannot blame anyone who has been the victim of rape or incest for having an abortion, and I could never imagine forcing one of these victims to carry the child to term. I cannot blame anyone in poverty for having an abortion. Barely able to keep their family fed, wondering how in God’s name they’re going to support another mouth to fill, I can’t blame them. Male, employed and financially comfortable, I can’t speak against abortion done out of desperation. What I can speak against are the arguments for abortion which involve us more deeply in a culture that increasingly focuses on the individual, not the community, as the most important component of our society. That positions freedom and autonomy as a right that trumps all others, even when it hurts others. There are some pro-choice arguments that tear at our social fabric, loosen our grip on the value of life and our responsibility to others at all stages of life, not just the beginning.

Some of the support for abortion comes from the notion that it would de-value human life to bring a child into a world that does not love them, to families who will not care for them. I see these same arguments at play in my nursing home work - it all comes down to quality of life prejudices. There is a presumption held by many in the able-bodied community that a life lived in dependence, in the nursing home, is a life not worth living. Come to the nursing home and ask these dependent people if they would rather be dead. I spend a lot of time in nursing homes - I can tell you that the answer would almost always be “no”. People who justify abortion by assuming life as an orphan is a life not worth living are similarly mistaken. The difference between prejudices against the unborn and prejudices against the elderly, though, is that it is legal to act on prejudices against the unborn, to end a life that is judged to be worthless. Studies show that we tend to be very poor judges when it comes to someone else’s quality of life – young and old - our tendency is to undervalue rather than overvalue that quality. A better approach would be to assume that life is always worth living unless the person who is currently living that life says it’s not – in the womb, in the nursing home and everywhere in between.

So this is a pro-choice argument that needs to be retired – at best, it makes those who use it look ignorant and prejudiced, at worst, cold and uncaring. But as a society that should hold the weak and innocent in special regard, there are other arguments of which we should be critical – more about those next week. I probably should have listened to my wife.