dobbs decision

The legality of abortion is one of the most polarized debates in America. We've seen reproductive rights swing back and forth between the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973 and the Dobbs vs. Jackson decision in 2022, with passionate people on both sides either lauding or lamenting the U.S. Supreme Court.

People have big feelings about abortion, which is understandable. On the one hand, some people feel that abortion is a fundamental women's rights issue, that our bodily autonomy is not up for debate, and that those who oppose abortion rights are trying to control women through oppressive legislation. On the other hand, some folks believe that a fetus is a human individual first and foremost, that no one has the right to terminate a human life, and that those who support abortion rights are heartless murderers.

You don't have to choose between the extremes of the abortion debate.Photo credit: Canva

Then there are those of us in the messy middle. Those who believe that life starts at conception, that abortion isn't something we'd choose—and we hope others wouldn't choose—under most circumstances, yet who choose to vote to keep abortion legal with few restrictions.

Some people don't understand being personally anti-abortion but still wanting abortion to be legal, citing the moral conflict seemingly inherent in that equation. But I don't feel conflicted about it at all. Here's why:

There's far too much gray area to legislate abortion.

No matter what you personally believe, when exactly life begins and when “a clump of cells" should be considered an individual, autonomous human being with the same rights as a person not dependent on a woman's body for life is a completely debatable question with no clear scientific answers.

When life and personhood begin aren't easily answerable questions.Photo credit: Canva

I believe life begins at conception, but that's my own religious belief about when the soul becomes associated with the body, not a proven scientific fact. As Arthur Caplan, award-winning professor of bioethics at New York University, told Slate, “Many scientists would say they don't know when life begins. There are a series of landmark moments. The first is conception, the second is the development of the spine, the third the development of the brain, consciousness, and so on."

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that a human life unquestionably begins at conception. Even with that point of view, there are too many issues that make a black-and-white approach to abortion too problematic to ban it. Medicine is complex, and obstetrical medicine particularly so. It's simply not as simple as "abortion is wrong." Every pregnancy is personally and medically unique throughout—how can we effectively legislate something with so many ever-changing variables?

Abortion bans hurt some mothers who desperately want their babies to live, and I'm not okay with that.

One reason I don't support banning abortion is because I've seen too many families deeply harmed by restrictive abortion laws.

Families who wanted their babies have been hurt by anti-abortion laws. Photo credit: Canva

I've heard too many stories of families who desperately wanted a baby, who ended up having to make the rock-and-a-hard-place choice to abort because the alternative would have been a short, pain-filled life for their child.

I've heard too many stories of mothers having to endure long, drawn out, potentially dangerous miscarriages and being forced to carry a dead baby inside of them because abortion restrictions gave them no other choice.

I've heard too many stories of abortion laws doing real harm to mothers and babies, and too many stories of families who were staunchly anti-abortion until they found themselves in circumstances they never could have imagined, to believe that abortion is always wrong and should be banned at any particular stage.

I am not willing to serve as judge and jury on a woman's medical decisions, and I don't think the government should either.

Most people's anti-abortion views—mine included—are based on their religious beliefs, and I don't believe that anyone's religion should be the basis for the laws in our country. (For the record, any Christian who wants biblical teachings to influence U.S. law, yet cries “Shariah is coming!" when they see a Muslim legislator, is a hypocrite.)

The government doesn't need to be involved in personal medical choices.Photo credit: Canva

I also don't want politicians sticking their noses into my very personal medical choices. There are just too many circumstances (seriously, please read the stories linked in the previous section) that make abortion a choice I hope I'd never have to make, but wouldn't want banned. I don't understand why the same people who decry government overreach think the government should be involved in these extremely personal medical decisions.

And yes, ultimately, abortion is a personal medical decision. Even if I believe that a fetus is a human being at every stage, that human being's creation is inextricably linked to and dependent upon its mother's body. And while I don't think that means women should abort inconvenient pregnancies, I also acknowledge that trying to force a woman to grow and deliver a baby that she may not have chosen to conceive isn't something the government should be in the business of doing. As a person of faith, my role is not to judge or vilify, but to love and support women who are facing difficult choices. The rest of it—the hard questions, the unclear rights and wrongs, the spiritual lives of those babies,—I comfortably leave in God's hands, not the government's.

Abortion is inextricable from healthcare.Photo credit: Canva

Most importantly, if the goal is to prevent abortion, research shows that outlawing it isn't the way to go.

The biggest reason I vote the way I do is because based on my research pro-choice platforms provide the best chance of reducing abortion rates.

Just after Roe vs. Wade was passed, abortion rates skyrocketed, peaked in 1990, and then plummeted steadily for nearly two decades. Abortion was legal during that time, so clearly, keeping abortion legal and available did not result in increased abortion rates in the long run. Switzerland has one of the lowest abortion rates on earth and their rate has fallen and largely stabilized since 2002, when abortion became largely unrestricted.

Outlawing abortion doesn't stop it, it just pushes it underground and makes it more dangerous. And if a woman dies in a botched abortion, so does her baby. Banning abortion is a recipe for more lives being lost, not fewer.

Comprehensive sex education and birth control are the proven ways to prevent abortion.Photo credit: Canva

At this point, the only things consistently proven to reduce abortion rates on a societal scale are comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control. If we want to reduce abortions, that's where we should be putting our energy. The problem is, anti-abortion activists also tend to be the same people pushing for abstinence-only education and making birth control harder to obtain. But those goals can't co-exist with lowering abortion rates in the real world.

Our laws should be based on reality and on the best data we have available. Since comprehensive sex education and easy, affordable access to birth control—the most proven methods of reducing abortion rates—are the domain of the pro-choice crowd, that's where I place my vote, and why I do so with a clear conscience.

The polarization of politics has made it seem like the only choices are on the extreme ends of the spectrum, but it doesn't have to be that way. We can separate our own personal beliefs and convictions from what we believe the role of government should be. We can look at the data and recognize when bans may not actually be the most effective means of reducing something we want to see less of. We can listen to people's stories and acknowledge that things are not as black-and-white as they're made out to be.

An we can want to see fewer abortions and still vote to keep abortion legal without feeling morally conflicted about it.

This article originally appeared six years ago and has been updated.