I was an
abortion
agnostic for most of my life. Everyone I knew seemed to have strong convictions in either direction, and I felt persuaded by both sides at times. At parties, I’d nod lightly in agreement with whichever side was being articulated by my present company. It was equal parts moral cowardice and genuine indecision.
On one hand, I sympathized with the pro-abortion contention that no one should ever be forced to do anything against their will. Legally enforcing what one must do is different from limiting what one can do. Conservatives use this principle all the time, such as when they refuse to render services or utter pronouns that run contrary to their consciences. Government has the authority to prevent certain actions, but it can neither put words in my mouth nor actions in my bones. Requiring a woman to endure a nine-month pregnancy against her will often struck me as a violation of this principle.
In addition, unwanted pregnancies underscore the biologically predetermined fairness gap between the sexes as it relates to sex and reproduction.
As I’ve written
previously, one of the many demented fruits of the
sexual revolution
is that our culture, particularly in our music and movies, has for generations encouraged men to objectify, use, and discard women. This has spawned a cultural wasteland of human trafficking, ubiquitous pornography, and millions of abortions per year. To be certain, women have been asked to bear the brunt of this dysfunction, while men have been free to flee, which they have too often done.
But while pro-abortion arguments raise valid concerns about individual liberty and disparities in fairness, one particular pro-life argument addresses something more fundamental: the inherent value of individual human life. It is easy to forget that an unborn baby (or fetus, if you prefer) is the center around which the abortion debate revolves. Each unborn child is made of the exact same stuff as every other; indeed, it is made of the exact same stuff as you and me. For pro-abortion arguments to truly make sense, one must believe that an unborn child derives its value from the degree to which it is “wanted”; that objective value can be assigned according to subjective whim.
I searched far and wide for a satisfying answer to this question because, like many, I desperately wanted to be pro-choice. After all, mainstream culture rewards those who advocate unfettered abortion rights. Indeed, supporting abortion rights is the equivalent of supporting women’s rights, we are told. The U.N. Human Rights Committee even
defines abortion
as a “fundamental human right,” and the
World Health Organization maintains
that “being able to obtain a safe abortion is a crucial part of healthcare” for girls and women (presumably those who’ve been born).
And yet, despite all the high-profile declarations of moral certitude, I never discovered a satisfying answer to the question of inherent value. What I found instead only solidified my inclination that abortion was wrong.
In a recent episode of Real Time, comedian Bill Maher said in relation to the overturning of Roe v. Wade that he “
never thought life itself was particularly precious
.” This struck many as a shocking and revolting admission. But I wasn’t surprised. For the past decade, I’ve listened closely to high-profile pro-abortion advocates on the subject of inherent value in search of answers. And Maher’s claim fits the bill perfectly.
For instance, Maher’s sentiments are reflected in comedian Michelle Wolf’s hideous “
Salute Your Abortion
” sketch on Netflix from 2018 that was lauded by mainstream liberal news outlets like
Vox
and
New York
magazine
. It was also on display when former Gov.
Ralph Northam
(D-VA) placidly
described the process of late-term abortions
on a radio show in 2018, assuring voters that a child old enough to survive outside the womb “would be kept comfortable” as she was euthanized.
That same month, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D-NY) ordered the Empire State Building to be lit pink to
celebrate the passage of the Reproductive Health Care Act
, which eliminated abortion restrictions up until the point of birth. Not to be outdone, former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams, also a Democrat, claimed abortion is necessary for economic reasons, especially during this time of high inflation, as if it were perfectly normal to quantify the value of human life in dollars and cents.
In increasingly clear terms, pro-abortion advocates have claimed the authority to decide which human lives are valuable and which are expendable. In the simplest terms, to be pro-life is to deny this authority. The grotesque callousness of prominent liberals underscores the moral imperative of this denial.
However, it is an equally urgent moral imperative to exhaust every available resource to support women during unexpected pregnancies and through early childhood, including increased access to childcare, health coverage, and all other forms of government assistance. (In a recent
article in
Compact
, Catherine Glenn Foster and Kristen Day outline a viable process for “making birth free” in the United States, which should be championed by pro-life political powers.) But there is no argument of which I’m aware that validates the subjective assignment of value to human life. Every time I hear a prominent liberal speak on the topic, I am more convinced that no such argument exists.
Pro-life advocates would do well to amplify the voices of the opposition. I might have never made up my mind without their help.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA
Peter Laffin is a writer in New England. Follow him on Twitter at @Laffin_Out_Loud.
