I got into a stupid online fight with a guy who I sort of tangentially know yesterday. I acted like a dick, as did he, and there was much gnashing of teeth and such. Ultimately, he apologized for overreacting, I realized I was being stupid, and I apologized profusely. But after apologizing I wanted to make sure he understood my position, and ended up writing a VERY long (for an email) statement of my feelings on the abortion issue, written in a tone that was contrite for having been such a dick before. I think it was a pretty decent explanation of what I believe, and I found myself articulating stuff I knew on some level, but had never put words to before. If it might be useful or interesting to someone, here it is.
...For what it's worth, I respect your position, and I think that if you go back to the root of the abortion issue, the right and the left are in agreement about the objective, just not on the policy decisions that will get us there. I am against abortion. I have known several women that have made that difficult choice, and have seen the emotional toll, sadness, and guilt that it causes. I don't think anyone should have to go through that, to say nothing of the moral implications of ending a process that may have resulted in a pregnancy and ultimately a human life. I believe that if you are morally opposed to abortion, regardless of your definition of when life begins, that is a completely justifiable and defensible position.
My problem lies in the motivations behind those who seek to legislate this issue. I believe that at the root of the issue, the right-to-life movement is less about preventing abortions and more about imposing a specific set of values on everyone in America, whether they happen to agree with them or not. The groups that speak out most aggressively against abortion are the same ones that oppose oral contraceptives, the morning after pill, sex education in schools, condom distribution, and other products and policies that have been proven to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancies in high-risk populations. They favor abstinence-only education, and a general Puritanical culture of shame and secrecy with regard to sex. Again, I believe that if one believes pre-marital sex is wrong for religious reasons, that is a defensible and acceptable position. But thousands of years of human history are proof enough that the vast majority of people aren't going to go along with that moral ideal. This is the central problem. You can't preach or legislate people into going along with the notion that they should accept a traditional Christian lifestyle, and further, it is against our Constitutionally guaranteed rights to attempt to do so. Note that I don't in theory disagree that the world would be a better place if everyone lived according to those values, only that it's unrealistic to expect it will ever happen. Therefore, if one accepts the premise that you can't prevent people from having sex, even if that's what you believe in, then you must look at abortion as an issue in that context, the context of the reality of the world, as opposed to the fantasy of a world where everyone goes along with traditional Christian values.
In this context, there are going to be any number of women who will have sex and become pregnant. Now, if the right-to-life supporters were actually serious about preventing abortions, the obvious first step would be to focus on preventing pregnancies that are likely to result in an abortion in the first place. As I said, the most statistically effective way to accomplish this is by educating young people about how to prevent pregnancy if they choose to have sex, and by creating an environment where they feel comfortable asking questions instead of being ashamed. Many studies have proven that this approach, which involves realistic sex education and making contraceptives available to young people, results in sustained responsible habits, reducing incidence of pregnancy and STDs.
This is what Democrats want to do, and will do when elected. We are committed to reducing the number of abortions performed in this country, Obama made it clear in the speech he gave just the other day, but it has been a part of the party platform for years. It's a more pragmatic and successful approach to the problem, and it works.
However, it goes against the true motivation of the right-to-life movement, which is the desire to impose their idea of morality on everyone, not as it relates to abortion, but to sex in general. If it were really about reducing the number of abortions, or eliminating the practice altogether, they would be in favor of making the Pill available, educating people about condoms, and teaching them about emergency contraceptives that prevent a pregnancy from occurring. But they oppose all these things, because they don't want to prevent abortion, they want to make certain that sex has consequences, in an effort to prevent people from having it. This, as I said, is a perfectly acceptable and reasonable position for someone to take in their private life, but is not a belief that should be imposed on those who disagree.
Another important issue to consider is the situation that would arise if abortion were outlawed in this country. I won't get into it too much, but you should really read about what the world was like for women before Roe vs Wade, and the very dangerous, sometimes fatal lengths that women would go to to obtain abortions. It's really sad and frightening stuff. Whether you agree with their morals or not, women are still going to seek out abortions, and I believe from a medical standpoint that it is too dangerous a procedure to allow it to return to back alleys and home remedies that often killed both mother and baby. We have as much of an obligation to protect the life of the mother as that of the child.
That being said, one of the other policies of the Democratic Party is increasing funding and support for adoption. There are many loving, deserving families out there that would provide good homes for children who might not otherwise be so lucky, and Barack Obama will work to make it easier for them to do so.
All that is what I believe, and approximately the position I think most Pro-Choice Democrats take as well. No one likes abortion, and no one wants it to be anything but a last resort in an already bad situation. But I cannot in good conscience agree with those who would seek to outlaw it. It would lead to more pain, sorrow and death, all for the sake of a religious position which, while noble, is not realistic. I believe that you have to take a pragmatic approach to the problems of the world, and I believe that my position on this subject is the more morally acceptable one between two bad choices. I hope that one day we live in a world where there are no unwanted pregnancies, where men and women would always make responsible decisions about sexuality in a supportive setting, in a world without rape, incest, or simple drunken bad decisions. Until then, I think we have to keep our options open.