Some considerations
Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:08 am
With the recent Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization bringing out the usual uncivil shouting match, I figured I'd try to set some of the record straight.
Abortion is a rare case where both sides view themselves as supporting a fundamental civil right. Pro-choice supports women's rights to autonomy and personal space, while pro-life supports pre-born children's right to life. The abortion debate is a case where these rights are in direct conflict, meaning one has to supersede the other, and the courts and legislatures are constantly trying to draw that line. The Supreme Court, saying the constitution does not inherently grant a right to an abortion, is putting it back into states' and voters' hands to determine where this line is rather than assuming it a priori on a national scale. One of the main criticisms of this decision is that it didn't strictly hold to stare decisis, where precedent is given significant weight, like occurred in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The court explained in its opinion that stare decisis does not strictly apply, citing cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, which set the precedent for segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned it and paved the way for desegregation.
With this court case decided, each state has to determine for itself what circumstances permit an abortion, if any. Most of what I see is targeting this phase, and there are a handful of misconceptions which appear frequently.
First, pro-life feels that the right to life should not directly be threatened by anyone. For example, if you are pro-life and pro-2A, you believe people are at liberty to own a gun because that act does not inherently threaten a child's life. The only thing not permissible is actually shooting someone with it, except in cases of self-defense, where the person waived their right to life by first threatening yours. (This is also why the death penalty can be seen as permissible, as the person committed a crime sufficiently heinous to waive their right to life; the debate is largely over whether committing such a crime is possible.) This is also why you can be pro-life and against government-centralized healthcare, as there is no direct threat to a child's life at any point. (It's worth mentioning there are still plenty of pro-life who still see these other categories as something to implement, they're just not required to be pro-life and consistent.) There are other categories still where people try to say 'if you are really pro-life you will agree with my solution to this problem' when pro-life sees a different solution as appropriate, for instance arming teachers rather than banning guns to deter or prevent school shootings among pro-life and pro-2A groups. I would argue that if you view your solution as the only one which could possibly preserve life, and try to say someone else is not pro-life unless they strictly agree with your solution even while you both agree on the problem as one which needs solved, then you are either being manipulative or a parrot.
Second, albeit less common, is the idea that somehow pro-life feels that legal personhood should be conveyed to unborn children solely for the purpose of abortion, excluding things like insurance or child support. I believe this is a conflation of the idea that many conservatives have a problem with either the theory or specific implementation of some of these ideas (in many cases based on the conservative stereotype rather than actual belief), and extrapolating that conservatives would jump at the opportunity to limit these to unborn children. No conservative I know believes this. If unborn children are legally considered people, I can't think of anyone who does not think this should apply categorically. I also don't know many conservatives who show blanket disdain for the categories pointed out in pro-choice arguments in the manner they imply, though I can't speak for everyone. Related is the idea that the father should not be required to bear responsibility if they don't want the child. I could see this appearing among some groups (mostly those who are conservative for conservatism's sake but refuse to actually think about what they believe and why), but again I don't know anybody that seriously believes this.
Third, pro-choice often seems to think that pro-life also wants to target miscarriage treatment, ectopic pregnancy, or other similar categories. I can't think of anyone from any walk of life who seriously thinks treating a miscarriage is comparable to abortion. I could see an argument for ectopic pregnancy, but again very few pro-life believe these are the same situation. Abortion is the termination of a living fetus within the uterus. Abortion is not the removal of an already-dead fetus. For most pro-life, abortion is not the treatment of an embryo who implanted in the wrong spot, all but guaranteeing the child will die anyway and take the mother with it. (That said, this last argument would likely change with a good procedure that safely moves the embryo to the correct place, as there would be a reasonable chance for the child to survive. As far as I am aware, such a procedure is not very well-known, if it exists at all.)
Most of these are misconceptions about the pro-life platform; this is mainly since, from my experience, pro-choice is so in-your-face about what they believe that to be misconceived they would have to be misrepresenting themselves. I will admit most of this is inspired by the arguments and accusations I see throughout social media, meaning that I am not necessarily aware of how common they are otherwise. I am aware that there are always people who fit misconceptions or are inconsistent or hypocritical; from my experience they do not necessarily represent the majority.
Abortion is a rare case where both sides view themselves as supporting a fundamental civil right. Pro-choice supports women's rights to autonomy and personal space, while pro-life supports pre-born children's right to life. The abortion debate is a case where these rights are in direct conflict, meaning one has to supersede the other, and the courts and legislatures are constantly trying to draw that line. The Supreme Court, saying the constitution does not inherently grant a right to an abortion, is putting it back into states' and voters' hands to determine where this line is rather than assuming it a priori on a national scale. One of the main criticisms of this decision is that it didn't strictly hold to stare decisis, where precedent is given significant weight, like occurred in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The court explained in its opinion that stare decisis does not strictly apply, citing cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, which set the precedent for segregation, and Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned it and paved the way for desegregation.
With this court case decided, each state has to determine for itself what circumstances permit an abortion, if any. Most of what I see is targeting this phase, and there are a handful of misconceptions which appear frequently.
First, pro-life feels that the right to life should not directly be threatened by anyone. For example, if you are pro-life and pro-2A, you believe people are at liberty to own a gun because that act does not inherently threaten a child's life. The only thing not permissible is actually shooting someone with it, except in cases of self-defense, where the person waived their right to life by first threatening yours. (This is also why the death penalty can be seen as permissible, as the person committed a crime sufficiently heinous to waive their right to life; the debate is largely over whether committing such a crime is possible.) This is also why you can be pro-life and against government-centralized healthcare, as there is no direct threat to a child's life at any point. (It's worth mentioning there are still plenty of pro-life who still see these other categories as something to implement, they're just not required to be pro-life and consistent.) There are other categories still where people try to say 'if you are really pro-life you will agree with my solution to this problem' when pro-life sees a different solution as appropriate, for instance arming teachers rather than banning guns to deter or prevent school shootings among pro-life and pro-2A groups. I would argue that if you view your solution as the only one which could possibly preserve life, and try to say someone else is not pro-life unless they strictly agree with your solution even while you both agree on the problem as one which needs solved, then you are either being manipulative or a parrot.
Second, albeit less common, is the idea that somehow pro-life feels that legal personhood should be conveyed to unborn children solely for the purpose of abortion, excluding things like insurance or child support. I believe this is a conflation of the idea that many conservatives have a problem with either the theory or specific implementation of some of these ideas (in many cases based on the conservative stereotype rather than actual belief), and extrapolating that conservatives would jump at the opportunity to limit these to unborn children. No conservative I know believes this. If unborn children are legally considered people, I can't think of anyone who does not think this should apply categorically. I also don't know many conservatives who show blanket disdain for the categories pointed out in pro-choice arguments in the manner they imply, though I can't speak for everyone. Related is the idea that the father should not be required to bear responsibility if they don't want the child. I could see this appearing among some groups (mostly those who are conservative for conservatism's sake but refuse to actually think about what they believe and why), but again I don't know anybody that seriously believes this.
Third, pro-choice often seems to think that pro-life also wants to target miscarriage treatment, ectopic pregnancy, or other similar categories. I can't think of anyone from any walk of life who seriously thinks treating a miscarriage is comparable to abortion. I could see an argument for ectopic pregnancy, but again very few pro-life believe these are the same situation. Abortion is the termination of a living fetus within the uterus. Abortion is not the removal of an already-dead fetus. For most pro-life, abortion is not the treatment of an embryo who implanted in the wrong spot, all but guaranteeing the child will die anyway and take the mother with it. (That said, this last argument would likely change with a good procedure that safely moves the embryo to the correct place, as there would be a reasonable chance for the child to survive. As far as I am aware, such a procedure is not very well-known, if it exists at all.)
Most of these are misconceptions about the pro-life platform; this is mainly since, from my experience, pro-choice is so in-your-face about what they believe that to be misconceived they would have to be misrepresenting themselves. I will admit most of this is inspired by the arguments and accusations I see throughout social media, meaning that I am not necessarily aware of how common they are otherwise. I am aware that there are always people who fit misconceptions or are inconsistent or hypocritical; from my experience they do not necessarily represent the majority.