I'm On Both Sides of the Abortion Debate

"I know how to sit on a fence. Hell, I can even sleep on a fence. The trick is to do it face down with the post in your mouth." - Dwight K. Schrute

I’m not actually on the fence about this. I’m very firmly pro-life. And because I’m pro-life, I’m anti-anti-abortion. So, I guess I’m not on both sides of the abortion debate. I’m just not anti-abortion (read that two or three mor times, you might get it). Now before I explain more, if you haven’t read this article by Caitlin Flanagan from the December 2019 Atlantic, stop reading this and read that.

Welcome back.

The Atlantic is one of the best publications in existence for a reason: it covers things fairly and without hysteria. I can’t say the same of basically any mainstream news outlet in the wake of the Supreme Court leak and decision. Flanagan’s article basically explains my position on the debate perfectly: every pregnancy has the potential to create life. Every human life is precious, immeasurably valuable. Especially innocent life. However, in my view, the life of the mother is more valuable than the life of the unborn child because that mother is already alive, and the child is not. So, when it comes down to competing interests, the mother comes out on top for me; every time.

That being said: it is extremely rare that women are willing to potentially harm themselves in order to avoid having a child or that pregnancies endanger the life of the mother. This strict life-only view also doesn’t account for rape and incest, which while I don’t think should always necessitate an abortion, I am very pro having a carveout for situations like those. So, there it is. Out on the table. The foundations for my opinions on one of the most controversial topics on earth.

So, let’s get to those opinions.

Can Men Have Opinions About Abortion?

Obviously. One of the stupidest phrases I hear politicians on the left say is, “I’m a man, so I don’t get to have an opinion about what a woman can do with her body.” It’s especially stupid because women on both sides of the argument have the strongest opinions about it. So, you’re not listening to women, you’re listening to women you agree with.

Men can and should have opinions about how women should act. Women can and should have opinions about men’s behavior and choices. Asians can have opinions about Europeans. Transgenders can have opinions about cisgenders. The only people who can’t and shouldn’t have opinions are Floridians. (← this is called a joke)

But it’s illogical and bad practice to say only women can make legislation about women and only men can make rules about men. Only blacks can make laws that affect blacks and whites are the only people allowed to legislate for whites. It’s nonsense and I’ll have none of it. Freedom of speech includes freedom of opinion and freedom to express, legislate, make rules, define, etc. that opinion.

It’s good practice to listen to groups affected by those rules, laws, opinions, etc. But it certainly isn’t necessary. So please don’t ever tell someone that their gender, sexual orientation, race, etc. defines what opinions they can and can’t have. It’s nonsense.

I’m Anti-Roe

Now, I’ll be the first to admit, I understand very little about the law. Probably even less about constitutional law. That being said, as I understand it Roe was decided based on the right to privacy. This makes no sense. The right to privacy clearly exists in the constitution, but that doesn’t give someone unlimited rights within that privacy. We don’t give two consenting adults the right to pay for sex under the right to privacy. We don’t allow people to put whatever they want in their bodies with that privacy. You can’t own even certain animals, firearms, chemicals, or even some plants with that privacy.

The right to privacy doesn’t mean you can do whatever you want with that privacy, it just means the government has to have probable cause to violate your privacy. A police officer can’t just waltz into my home any time he wants and count all the laws I’m breaking (it’s 4, btw), he has to have a reason to be in there.

I Do Think Abortion Shouldn’t Be Illegal

“Safe, Rafe, and Legal” - This was the sane slogan the Democratic party had during the 90s. And that’s basically how I feel about abortion. It should be legal because when it’s not, women die trying to give themselves abortions with things like Lysol or wire hangers or in back-alley abortion clinics without the proper safety protocols. In my judgement, this is enough to say that abortion should not be completely illegal.

But notice my phrasing: abortion should not be illegal. Not abortion should be legal. There should be restrictions on abortions, but there should not be a blanket ban on it. Because while I do think we should value life enough to allow women in distress to have abortions, abortion should be the last resort.

I Think Society Should do Everything in Its Power to Prevent Abortions

Now, putting aside morality or the intangible value of life, it is in society’s best interest to encourage childbirth. Beyond just the simple replacement rate, there’s things like social security or elder care that rely on having a growing population. Just look at countries like Denmark or Japan who are doing everything in their power to try to get birthrates up - and these are not primitive societies, in case you were going to say innovation or better government programs would help. High birthrates are critical to functioning societies.

So, even when abortion is legal; birth control, subsidies for mothers, easy adoption, and other pro-natal measures should be an important part of society.

Birth control and good sex education are two policy solutions that come straight to mind because they’re commonly rejected by other pro-lifers. And I get it, many pro-lifers think pre-marital sex is immoral. I do too. But, if, for the sake of argument, abortion is murder - then pre-marital sex that doesn’t result in murder is better than pre-marital sex that does result in murder. The argument is slightly moot though, because sex rates actually go down with comprehensive sex education, but, more importantly, so do abortion rates! So, if we want abortions to go down, we need comprehensive sex education and easily available birth control. Full stop.

The Biggest Reason I hate Abortion

I do need to say this: People make poor choices when their choices aren’t restricted. Down syndrome births drop dramatically when abortion is legal. Why? I assume because people want to avoid hardship and having a down syndrome child is hard. You won’t hear me argue that it’s not. But my uncle had down syndrome and was in and out of the hospital for most of his life. On oxygen for most of his life. Could barely communicate, wouldn’t eat anything except pizza (with the cheese taken off and the crust cut off), and was the heart and soul of my family. He died over a year ago and it was a relief, for him, for his mother, and for the family. He was a burden, but a burden all of us would gladly take upon us even if it were twice as hard and we only got half the joy. My point is, morons abort down syndrome babies and all other kinds of viable fetuses because there’s something wrong with them that will make their lives hard or short. This is wrong. Full stop.

The Case for Why This Will Actually Result in Better Politics (And Why the Judicial System is the Worst Way to Legislate)

This is not my idea, I’ve heard it from a number of people, but essentially the argument goes like this: Roe has protected both sides of the aisle - allowed them to be the stupidest versions of themselves. Democrats have allowed morons into their party that go to rallies and say things like “Shout your abortion!” and Republicans have elected idiots who won’t even allow carveouts for rape and incest. This is because, while most Americans agree that there should be restrictions on abortions, but that it should be legal - especially during the first trimester - we tend to be more sympathetic toward one side or the other. So, because the court, instead of the legislature, has created the law, both parties have been allowed to become stupid. If you’re more pro-life than pro-choice, you’re going to say you’re fully pro-life and vice-versa. This argument holds for gun-control and any number of other areas where the court has done more than simply uphold or strike down a law.

Now that the court has pushed this back to the legislature(s), compromise can be allowed, politicians on both sides of the aisle can be less stupid versions of themselves and hopefully, we can bring down the temperature. Now, is this optimistic? Definitely. Maybe slightly too hopeful? Sure. But I think it’s important to remind people THAT WE AGREE ON MORE THAN WE DISAGREE ON. So, please stop listening to those hate-mongers on tv and radio and recognize that most people agree with you, and even if they say they don’t, they’re almost certainly virtue signaling.

In Conclusion

I know this isn’t very well researched, I know it’s not comprehensive. I know all of that. But that’s not the point. The point is to give voice to an extremely normal and popular opinion that is seldom heard. If you have qualms, I’d love to hear them. If you agree, please say something. There truly is a silent majority on 99% of issues and we’re letting idiots on both sides of the aisle take up all the oxygen. Americans are Americans and we agree on a lot and it’s important that we let that be known, because the loud voices are tearing this country apart and blaming it on the other side.