Women Are Lives Too

Pro-life shouldn't mean anti-abortion. It should mean protecting the lives of those who cannot protect themselves.

“[Protecting the sanctity of unborn lives] matters greatly to us because the Lord has repeatedly declared this divine imperative: ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ Then He added, ‘Nor do anything like unto it.’ … As Latter-day Saints, we should stand up for choice—the right choice—not simply for choice as a method.” 

President Russell M. Nelson

 

We’re thinking about abortion all wrong.

Hey, unaffiliated conservative here who is voting for democratic candidate Joe Biden in November. I’ve heard a lot of conservative friends in a similar boat make comments like, “I’m voting democrat this year for the first, and hopefully only, time in my life.” I understand this comment, but I don’t entirely share the sentiment. The opposing political party is not our enemy. We’re all on the same team here. Everyone, in both parties, wants what’s best for America and her people. And both parties bring different, but often helpful, ideas and policies to the legislative table.

There isn’t much that I appreciate about Donald Trump or his presidency, but one thing I do appreciate is that a lot of people are far less committed to their political party now than they were before he took office. I’m not sure that would have happened without Trump and his toxic, divisive nature, but I’m grateful for this particular social outcome of his presidency. Shaking ourselves from the firm grasp of our affiliation to a certain political party is how we’ll start to find common ground with the others of our nation.

If we can continue to support this type of social acceptance for political moderation (e.g., moderate politicians like Mitt Romney aren’t necessarily “flip-floppers”), we’ll really begin to identify and implement practical, sustainable solutions that people on both sides of the isle can get behind.

Look, I get it. For a republican conservative, it can feel like casting a vote for a pro-choice presidential candidate is compromising their dedication to protecting the sanctity of life. That’s understandable. Fortunately, it's also not true. 

“Abortion” isn’t the problem we’re trying to solve.

Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to vote for a democratic candidate and still seek to protect the sanctity of unborn life. But not if we’re unwilling to renounce our political position as either pro-life or pro-choice.

The misconception that it’s impossible to both vote democrat and protect the unborn is, I think, to blame for the concerning number of mutuals I have who are justifying their vote for Donald Trump in November largely because of his political platform – most especially his stance on abortion – compared to Biden/Harris. Ironically, this firm dedication to party and policy is actually preventing us from finding a workable solution to the abortion problem. If we insist on maintaining the war between pro-life and pro-choice (which address the symptom of the problem), we’ll never get to the root cause.  

In fact, the problem we’re trying to solve isn’t “abortion” at all. The majority of even the most conservative pro-lifers believe in exceptions to anti-abortion laws in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity. So, what this demographic is actually legislating against is abortion as birth control.

Fortunately, the majority of the most liberal pro-choicers would also get behind legislation that supported (particularly, underprivileged) women with easy access to affordable birth control. Which means we can (and I argue, should) leave abortion legislation out of the equation entirely, and instead focus on protecting the lives of the unborn by preventing their unwanted conception in the first place.

"Pro-life" isn't about protecting lives. It's about preventing abortion.

If you were to guess how the number of abortions performed in the United States every year compares to the total number of women in the United States, what would you say? In other words, what percentage of women very year get an abortion (this isn't quite the right way to ask this question, since a woman can have more than one abortion but a fetus cannot be aborted more than once; but for simplicity let's assume every abortion is performed on a different woman). 

Go ahead, take a guess. I guessed 4%. 

I was wrong.

According to the CDC, the correct answer is 0.02%. 0.02 percent of women in the United States receive an abortion. And that includes all abortions, not just the controversial ones (e.g., "elective abortions," "abortions of convenience," "abortion as birth control," etc.). Of course, that number is probably a little low because a lot of abortions go unreported. But even adjusting for those as best we can, the number still likely isn't higher than 1.5%. And remember, that's only considering the population of women in the United States, not the entire population.

The debate around abortion seems like a whole lot of drama for an issue that affects such a miniscule demographic. In fact, the "issue of abortion" affects the majority of Americans very little, but affects those who are personally involved (women who receive an abortion) very significantly. All the more reason to carefully consider the position of these women, and be sensitive to the way our behaviors affect them.

Now, of course the next critique is, "but the babies are personally involved too." This is used as a supporting argument for all life is sacred and should be protected. Unfortunately, it's a supporting argument in impression only, as the pro-life agenda isn't about protecting each individual life. If it were true that every person who is adamantly pro-life was concerned for each individual terminated life (because of the value they put on human life), each of those people should be just as committed to the fight against going to war, or loss of life in America as a result of inaccessibility to healthcare -- both which kill far more Americans every year than abortions do. "But the babies lost in abortion are defenseless and need our protection." As are child sex trafficking victims, immigrant child lives lost in border detention centers, and every Gabriel Fernandez. But where is their fight? Their outrage? Their priority in political platform? 

If the pro-life agenda really was about protecting defenseless lives, we ought to see an equal amount of passionate outrage for every defenseless life lost. Not just those lost to abortion. 

But we don't. Because we've sensationalized the physical act of abortion and blown it out of proportion and context. As a result, we've succeeded in promoting a frightening amount of tribalism around the issue and lost sight of the real problem we originally set out to solve. Pro-life is no longer about protecting defenseless lives. It's about winning the fight against the "other."

There are so many issues that would be better served by our passion and determination to protect the sanctity of life than working to pass legislation that prevents abortions.

All actions have consequences.

If I've learned anything in my experience planning, implementing, and evaluating programs for social change, it's that if we fail to carefully consider the potential effects of our program on society, we could very well end up creating problems that didn't exist before our intervention -- and in some cases, even doing more collective harm than good. 

Say, for instance, we do pass legislation to prevent all abortions save those that are exempt for rape, incest, or medical necessity. Following the passing of such a law, we would likely see an increase in the number of reported rapes in the country. Not because more rapes are happening, but because women know that in order to receive an abortion under such strict regulation, they must report their pregnancy was the result of a rape. In an attempt to correct for this, additional legislation may be passed that would make it even more difficult for women to report rapes. It's feasible that these consequences of strict abortion laws would affect significantly more than 1% of the women in the country in seriously negative ways.

Let's consider another example. Say a doctor informs a woman she needs an abortion to save her life, but the abortion legislation has failed to consider her specific circumstance and she does not qualify for a legal abortion under the law. We've then inadvertently created a scenario wherein we are literally prioritizing the life of the child over that of the mother. Which is exactly what the pro-life position seeks to prevent from pro-choice laws (e.g., prioritizing the life of the mother over that of the child). 

When can uphold the Lord's commandment to "not kill, nor do anything like unto it" without weaponizing legislation to force others to do the same. 

"It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue. But also, abortions are unconstitutional."

Bringing constitutional rights into the equation is a particularly dangerous line to toe. As a conservative American, one of my fears is too much government. With a background in Public Health, I recognize that many regulations exist to protect the safety of the community as a whole. I generally support this type of legislation, because people aren't always great at considering the way their behavior may affect the health and safety of the people around them, nor are they often willing to adjust their behavior for the benefit of the greater community without the threat of legislative consequences.

Abortion laws are not in this category. Abortion legislation does not regulate the behavior of community members to uphold the safety of the community as a whole (as does legislation that prohibits underage drinking or requires masks in public during a pandemic) -- instead, it prohibits the freedom of a single individual whose decision has no affect on the health or safety of the greater population (though I recognize it does have an effect on the health and safety of her baby). 

This complexity about freedom further convolutes the pro-life/pro-choice debate. Considering that strict anti-abortion laws do not protect the health of the greater community, passing these types of laws limit only the freedom of one specific individual, in one specific way, to promote one specific moral ideology.

Not by chance, the moral ideology promoted in the pro-life agenda aligns with the Christian moral framework (among others, of course): all life is sacred, therefore abortions should be prevented. 

Religious Americans prioritize the important protection they receive from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. This is because the First Amendment protects their freedom to worship who they wish, how they wish, without the government interfering (e.g., without passing laws to force individuals to conform to a specific moral way of living). If the reason we're motivated to prevent abortion with legislation is because of our morality, as influenced by our religious beliefs, and we pass a law to force others who don't share our religious or moral beliefs to conform to our religious or moral beliefs, we're using the First Amendment to do exactly the thing for which we seek its protection from others (e.g., using legislation to force conformity to a specific behavior or practice as dictated by a specific religious moral code). 

Just as we enjoy the freedom to practice our religion and promote themes of morality, we should protect other religious and moral groups to do the same. This is the most important reason I see to leave abortion legislation alone, and instead promote our moral belief system through our teachings and our examples, rather than passing laws that force forcing others to conform to our ideology.

We, members of the Church of Jesus Christ, can uphold the Lord's commandment to "not kill, nor do anything like unto it" without weaponizing legislation to force others to do the same. 

Agency is our most important God-given gift.

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe in the sanctity of life and in protecting those who cannot protect themselves.

But we can’t do this by choosing a side in the war on abortion. Lax anti-abortion laws (pro-choice) may compromise or terminate the life of a baby, but strict anti-abortion laws (pro-life) may compromise or terminate the life of the mother. Even if strict anti-abortion laws include exceptions for mothers with a medical necessity, we’ve then gotten ourselves into the weeds of trying to determine the complicated lines between what constitutes a medical necessity.

Instead, I believe the best way for us to protect the sanctity of human life is to leave abortion laws unrestrictive, and instead 1.) promote the passing of legislation that helps women prevent unwanted pregnancies, and 2.) teach and instill in society a reverence and respect for the sanctity of human life. 

Leaving abortion legislation open allows women to exercise their own freedom, and agency – our most important God-given gift – when navigating the incredibly sensitive and emotional circumstance of deciding whether to abort her baby. And, as we were taught in General Conference on Saturday morning by Elder Christofferson, we’re much better off teaching people the laws of God and allowing that to influence their behavior than we are passing legislation to force conformity.

Protecting unborn lives doesn’t mean only those that have been conceived.

If my pro-life friends take anything away from this post, I want it to be that protecting unborn lives doesn’t mean only those that have been conceived. We’ll never get republicans and democrats on the same page about when, which, and why women are allowed to get an abortion, so fervidly fighting the pro-life/pro-choice battle is futile. It will only ever result in a viscous cycle of passing legislation for, followed by against, followed by for (etc.) the technicalities about who can get an abortion and under what circumstances. Instead, we should focus on teaching and upholding the sanctity of life, promoting legislation that continues to allow us our agency, and putting our legislative efforts toward preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Our morality doesn't do us any good if we can't use it to influence the change we want to see in our society, and we're no better off forcing others to conform to our moral belief system than they are forcing us to conform to theirs. I'm not out here to change anyone's mind about this (I know I don't have that ability), I'm just here to show that abortion is not a black and white issue. If we stubbornly refuse to consider that "abortion" is a complicated social issue that requires a well-considered and carefully crafted solution, we won't ever achieve the results we seek. 

This is why voting for a democratic candidate doesn’t negate my firm belief in and dedicated fight to protecting the reverence and sanctity of human life – especially the unborn.