upworthy

pro-life

Reproductive Rights

Why I'm morally anti-abortion but politically pro-choice and don't feel conflicted about it

Many of us find ourselves in the messy middle of the abortion debate.

Photo credit: Canva

It's possible to be "pro-life" and pro-choice.

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.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsYou 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.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsWhen 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.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsFamilies 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.)

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsThe 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, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rightsAbortion 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.

abortion, abortion debate, prolife, prochoice, roe v. wade, dobbs decision, reproductive rights, sex edComprehensive 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.

From Your Site Articles
democracy
Popular

Pro-life pastor's post argues that an unrepentantly sinful leader is deadlier than abortion

Photo by Rod Long on Unsplash

We've heard that character is on the ballot this election—but also that policy matters more than personality. We've heard that integrity and honesty matter—but also that we're electing the leader of a nation, not the leader of a Boy Scout troop.

How much a candidate's character matters has been a matter of debate for decades. But one of the odd juxtapositions of the Trump era is that arguably the most historically immoral, character-deficient candidate has been embraced by the evangelical Christian right, who tout morality more than most. Trump won the right's "moral majority" vote by pushing conservative policies, and there is a not-so-small percentage of "one issue" voters—the issue being abortion—who are willing to overlook any and all manner of sin for someone who says they want to "protect the unborn."

So when a prominent, staunchly pro-life, conservative Christian pastor comes out with a biblical argument that basically says "Yeah, no, the benefit doesn't outweigh the cost," it makes people sit up and listen.


John Piper is the founder of desiringgod.org and the chancellor of Bethlehem College & Seminary. He spent 33 years as a Baptist minister and is the author of dozens of books on Christian theology, including a handful of best-sellers. And he recently published a post that, while certainly not endorsing Biden, makes a biblical argument for rejecting Trump.

In what he called a "long-overdue article," Piper pointed out the sins of "unrepentant sexual immorality," "unrepentant boastfulness," "unrepentant vulgarity," and "unrepentant factiousness," and questioned why so many Christians only consider such sins toxic instead of deadly.

"These are sins mentioned in the New Testament," he wrote. "To be more specific, they are sins that destroy people. They are not just deadly. They are deadly forever. They lead to eternal destruction..."

Piper added that such sins don't just destroy people, but nations as well.

"I think it is a drastic mistake to think that the deadly influences of a leader come only through his policies and not also through his person," he wrote.

"This is true not only because flagrant boastfulness, vulgarity, immorality, and factiousness are self-incriminating, but also because they are nation-corrupting. They move out from centers of influence to infect whole cultures. The last five years bear vivid witness to this infection at almost every level of society."

Piper even gave a biblical example of precisely what he means by the character of a leader leading to death for a nation.

"There is a character connection between rulers and subjects," he wrote. "When the Bible describes a king by saying, 'He sinned and made Israel to sin' (1 Kings 14:16), it does not mean he twisted their arm. It means his influence shaped the people. That's the calling of a leader. Take the lead in giving shape to the character of your people. So it happens. For good or for ill."

He also explains how Christian arguments along the lines of "policy over personality" ignore the real damage done by having a leadership position filled with a person whose character is destructive:

"Christians communicate a falsehood to unbelievers (who are also baffled!) when we act as if policies and laws that protect life and freedom are more precious than being a certain kind of person. The church is paying dearly, and will continue to pay, for our communicating this falsehood year after year.

The justifications for ranking the destructive effects of persons below the destructive effects of policies ring hollow.

I find it bewildering that Christians can be so sure that greater damage will be done by bad judges, bad laws, and bad policies than is being done by the culture-infecting spread of the gangrene of sinful self-exaltation, and boasting, and strife-stirring...

How do they know this? Seriously! Where do they get the sure knowledge that judges, laws, and policies are less destructive than boastful factiousness in high places?"

Piper then specifically addressed the "But what about abortion?" question, articulating both his strict abortion-is-baby-murder stance and his belief that abortion deaths don't outweigh the broader death and destruction caused by a selfish, braggadocious leader.

"I think Roe is an evil decision. I think Planned Parenthood is a code name for baby-killing and (historically at least) ethnic cleansing. And I think it is baffling and presumptuous to assume that pro-abortion policies kill more people than a culture-saturating, pro-self pride," he wrote.

"When a leader models self-absorbed, self-exalting boastfulness, he models the most deadly behavior in the world. He points his nation to destruction. Destruction of more kinds than we can imagine."

Piper made it clear that his purpose in writing the post was not to convince anyone to vote a specific way (an editor's note indicates that he won't be voting for Biden or Trump), but rather hoped that Christians would "be given pause" by examining the consequences of choosing a leader with "a pattern of public behaviors that lead to death."

It's a serious statement from a serious Christian leader, which Christians might want to seriously consider. You can read the full article here.

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
election 2020
Equality

Catholic priest explains what it really means to be 'Pro-Life'

via Now This

In a video by Now This, Father James Martin explains how people who claim to be pro-life are actually only supporting one type of life, the unborn child, while so many others also need help.

Father Martin is an American Jesuit priest, writer, and editor-at-large of the Jesuit magazine America. He was appointed as a consultant to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications by Pope Francis in 2017.

"Some people believe that being pro-life means being someone who reverences the unborn child in the womb, and that's true, and I do. But to be truly pro-life means to reverence all human life," he says in the video.

Father Martin then discusses all of the lives that pro-life people should value as well: The "Black man or woman fearing for their lives," "the refugee or migrant who are desperate to save the lives of their children," "the LGBT teen who is tempted to take their life because of bullying, harassment or violence."

The priest also explains that some people who've been cast away by society such as the homeless and death row inmates are lives worthy of saving as well.

"All these lives are precious, scared, and holy," the Father continues. "And all these issues — racism, refugees, homelessness, LGBT issues, the death penalty — are also life and death issues."

From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
religion
More

She had an abortion at 19. Here's what she wants the author of a pro-life op-ed to know.

Renee Bracey Sherman was 19 when she had an abortion, and she doesn't regret it.

That, she says, is why she was livid after encountering activist Lori Szala's stark, anti-abortion op-ed in The New York Times, which is generating furious responses from readers.

Photo by Zach Gibson/AFP/Getty Images.

In the piece, Szala argues that labeling abortion an economic issue is "dehumanizing," both to prospective parents for whom child-rearing should be about more than money and to their prospective children.

"Parenting presents undeniable challenges, but no one argues that those challenges give parents the right to kill their children.

It’s also patronizing, and patently dishonest. Of course unplanned pregnancy presents challenges. But it doesn’t have to lead to economic failure. Abortion is society’s easy way out — its way of avoiding grappling with the fundamental injustices driving women to abortion clinics."

It's a belief, Szala explains, that is largely derived from her personal experience as a young mother-to-be who nearly ended her pregnancy — though she ultimately chose not to.

Pressured to abort when she became pregnant in high school, Szala says that she was dissuaded by a friend who told her she'd had an abortion and later came to regret her decision.

Bracey Sherman wants people to know that her choice to end her pregnancy without guilt is common to far more women — and there's data to back her up.

A longitudinal study published in 2015 found that 95% of women who had abortions felt that it had been the right decision. And other research has found that women seeking abortions are more certain in their decision than people considering other surgeries.

If she had the chance, Bracey Sherman says, she would ask Szala if she appreciated the freedom to make her decision on her own terms.

"Isn’t it nice that you had a choice?" Bracey Sherman asks, rhetorically. "Someone didn’t force you to do something that you didn’t want to do, whether it was to continue the pregnancy or not. Isn’t it nice that you had a choice?"

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

At the time of her pregnancy, Bracey Sherman says she was working a low-wage retail job and in an abusive relationship. The notion that people who are pregnant — particularly people of color — can simply pull themselves "up by [their] bootstraps" and make it work as a parent is a dangerous myth, she argues.

"[Szala] ignores the fact that so many people don’t even have boots."

Other critics of Szala's piece argue that, in a rush to chastise women who end their pregnancies, she fails to offer solutions for preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Some pointed out that Szala, who works for an organization that owns and operates crisis pregnancy centers, could stand to benefit financially from people taking her advice.

Still others argued that terminating a pregnancy — for any reason — should always be a matter of choice and insisting it shouldn't be often comes from a desire to punish or control women.

Bracey Sherman wants more women to tell their friends and family about their experiences with abortion, especially in the face of a surge in high-profile, anti-choice opinion pieces like Szala's making it into print.

A 2014 study conducted by Sarah Cowen at New York University found that people who are opposed to reproductive rights are roughly 21% less likely to say they know someone who has had an abortion than those who are pro-choice. Bracey Sherman believes that's not by chance — and that people who terminate their pregnancies may be less likely to tell their anti-choice friends and relatives.

Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

"Everybody loves someone who has had an abortion," she says. "Pro-life people have abortions, religious people have abortions, we all have abortions," she says.

After getting involved with reproductive rights activism, Bracey Sherman started a project called "We Testify," which highlights the stories of people who have terminated pregnancies in an attempt to broker an understanding with those across the aisle.

If people aren't hearing, she believes, it's not for lack of speaking out.

"We’re here. We’re making our voices heard," Bracey Sherman says. "The question is: At what point are people going to actually listen to us?"

Trending Stories