I'm ambivalent on most topics, but more so on abortion than others.  The major arguments in favor the right to choose are, to me, by no means compelling enough to obviously override the objections to it; and they seem to be inconsistent with other "leftist" values.

The first argument is based on bodily autonomy (i.e. "keep the government out of my uterus").  It seems flawed because it fails to define and recognize the point at which a fetus also has bodily autonomy.  That point is definitely NOT at birth; I don't think many people would support the idea that you should be able to have an abortion the day before your due date.  So at some earlier point, the idea of bodily autonomy re abortion becomes pretty complicated.  What is that point?

The second argument is based on results; that it is better for quality of life (especially for poor people and people of color), and for society in general, if abortion is readily available.  Even if that is true, I would dispute whether it's enough to override the [potential] rights of the fetus.  That seems like dangerously utilitarian ("ends-justify-the-means") thinking to me.

All this is not to say that I think abortion should be illegal.  However, I would tend to support measures that create a higher standard of when it is available. Perhaps it would have to be very early-term (with exceptions).  The counseling requirements proposed by some legislatures seem to me pretty reasonable; similar in many ways to the "cooling-off periods" that many on the left would like to introduce, or increase, for gun purchases.

Ultimately, my hope would be that instead of trumpeting so loudly about abortion rights, we could focus on improving access to contraception and gynecologic health care, and better social support for new parents; as well as moving medical technology forward to the point where abortion becomes unnecessary (for example, by making it possible to transfer fertilized eggs to an artificial womb, or another natural one).

Comment