What Changed My Stance on Abortion
The Supreme Court appears poised to strike down abortion rights. With Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment I am forcibly reminded of the losing battle the pro-choice movement has fought against the pro-life narrative. Their story says that Justice Coney Barrett is our savior, a woman who is steering the court in a lawsuit brought about by Mississippi’s recent restrictions on abortion. And now, despite assurances she would be impartial, Roe v. Wade is squarely in the conservative bloc’s crosshairs. What I know, as someone who once was staunchly in the pro-life camp, is that many pro-life individuals are fighting a battle they do not understand.
Having been raised in a southern pro-life family, I am deeply aware of the wellspring of emotions and staunch resistance this issue calls forth in the conservative Christian home. As one of six siblings, I was homeschooled by my parents. Science was taught from a book entitled, It Couldn’t Just Happen. Works of fiction lined our shelves with several specifically intended to instill moral disgust at the institution of abortion. In one narrative, a teen girl’s parents even attempt to force her to have one against her will. We had no actual understanding of the history of abortion let alone the politics which had come to surround it.
I entered the abortion debate as an embarrassingly late 24-year-old conservative to change minds and save lives. But my utter lack of awareness was painfully apparent. I was angrily confronted with my ignorance by an ex boyfriend and realized that my sensitivity around the topic had stopped me from exploring it. Determined to prove him wrong, and hopefully to collect facts for others as well, I set out and checked every area: Biblical law, the Constitution, science, and English common law. I was not prepared for what I would learn.
The conclusion I came to is this: the United States has no right to make limitations on abortion because the government cannot and does not regulate sex. Rather, abortion does not break legal, moral, or Biblical law and protects women’s lives. I have collected what I learned from my research to share with readers here, to demystify the issue clinically so as not to make it difficult for those who consider themselves pro-life to read. I do hope you read with an open mind. Let’s get started.
Origins of the Issue
“The political implications of this case are largely ignored, but the origins of the issue of abortion are not what you think,” My history professor said. I mostly tuned her out, feeling resentful that I had to listen to ideological ideas I disagreed with. She went on to explain the beginning of the pro-life movement, which I’ve detailed below:
When the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade was released, it displeased some Catholic voters, but there was no general outcry. Before and shortly following this decision, the Southern Baptist Convention affirmed a woman’s right to choose in certain circumstances and said the government should have a limited say in the decision. After segregation failed as a rallying cry for the vote, it was later that a conservative political activist named Paul Weyrichthe decided on a different tactic to grow the Republican Party. To draw evangelicals out and get them reliably to vote, he joined anti-abortion activists and helped spread the message of resistance to abortion among evangelicals.
Thus, the issue of abortion was cherry-picked, choosing a stance to fit what would be useful to the party politically. To draw untapped political will into their party, the Republican Party emotionally dressed up the case and adopted a stance against abortion. And evangelicals, disappointed not to get vouchers for religious schools, and genuinely believing this message of advocacy for unborn children, were horrified. The next time the Convention met, in 1976, a resolution condemned abortion as “a means of birth control” but stated the decision remained between a woman and her doctor. This resolution was affirmed again in 1979. It was only after the political wave of the 1980s that the Convention would claim, “Southern Baptists have historically affirmed the biblical teaching of the sanctity of all human life,” and “All medical evidence indicates that abortion ends the life of a developing human being.” With its selected language, this stance attempts to erase an important history of affirming established protection for women.
My professor added detail of her personal beliefs that infuriated my young college self, “It wasn’t actually about the babies. These people wanted to punish women for having a sex life.”
I raised my hand, “How is it that when women get pregnant and want an abortion, the attitude is that it isn’t their fault? But when a guy knocks up a woman, everyone jumps on him, ‘you have to pay child support now, you signed up for this,’ and ‘you should have been more careful’?”
The room was silent, and a man from the other end of the room spoke up, “Good point. I hadn’t thought of it like that.”
Feeling I had exposed myself, I looked back down at my notes and held my pencil tightly. I barely paid attention for the rest of the lecture because of how emotional the subject made me. It took me so long to look into it for myself. Because, as you’ll see, the issue gets more complicated, not less, the deeper you dig.
To ease the discomfort of any non-religious readers, feel free to skip ahead to the Science section further down. Everyone else, let’s explore what different holy texts say.
Biblical Law
This recent political stance against abortion changed accepted Christian doctrine and British common law. Let’s look through the centuries.
For millennia, a fetus was considered a child when the mother could feel the baby move inside of her, known as the quickening. Aristotle wrote the fetus becomes its own being — it achieves “ensoulment.” Likewise, the Catholic Church will not baptize stillborn babies, believing that since they never took a breath, they did not have as Adam did, the “breath of life.” At the same time, somehow, they were led to believe life begins at conception, due to a singular Pope’s decision. It was not until 1588, as explained by G Hovey, when “Pope Sixtus V declare[d] all abortion murder, with excommunication as the punishment.” A mere three years later, “a new pope found the absolute sanction unworkable and again allowed early abortions. 300 years would pass before the Catholic church under Pius IX again declared all abortion murder.” Thus, from 1869, “The Catholic Church’s current position on abortion is [only] 144 years old.” This paradox is, once again, a reversal of established Biblical law. Biblically speaking, an unwanted unintentional loss of a fetus is property damage. That is the only mention of the way the God of the Bible views the unborn.
Let’s begin with the Christian Bible. The Old Testament does not recognize causing a miscarriage (an abortion) as murder. Many Christians in good faith argue this point as I had, using poetic verses in Psalm they believe prove their point. Let’s take a look:
The verse I grew up hearing is the NIV version Psalm 139:13: “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.” A pretty verse and a nice thought, but the longer I thought about it, the more I believe it would be inaccurate to draw a legal conclusion. This verse is from Psalms, a poetic collection of songs and hymns. In embracing this verse as fact, Christians ignore an actual law ordered by God in Exodus 21:22–25.
In this verse, a caused miscarriage was treated akin to property damage, “When there’s a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life — eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.” For this reason, the Jewish community recognizes the right of women to choose. Notice, that the verse says if the woman is “not otherwise hurt” as in, the woman is prioritized.
You may think it’s silly to reference an Old Testament verse against the deep Christian belief against abortion, but Psalm is also the Old Testament. God in the Old Testament was certainly not sparing of fetuses, cursing Jewish women with “you will eat the fruit of your womb,” if they sinned. Meanwhile, there is nothing about abortion in the New Testament; Jesus said nothing of it.
Why is it that the holy text of a minority of Americans is being discussed in a political discussion for a secular society anyway? Let’s explore legislated morality.
Legislated Morality Against Separation of Church and State
Legislated morality is a relic of the Middle Ages. For centuries, the church was a political power as well as a religious one. As empires rose and fell, these kings who claimed the divine right by God to rule were eventually replaced with democracies, republics, and constitutional monarchies. Since then, secularization was woven into the fabric of our nation, with the freedom to practice any religion, but firmly establishing a line between religion and government.
Some remnants of legislated morality are hard to shake. Earlier examples are television censorship, blue laws, anti-sodomy laws, anti-polygamy laws, etc. While we still can’t buy alcohol on a Sunday before noon (get back to church!), we have shed many in the name of progress and true religious freedom. We have a secular government to thank for Roe and other fundamental freedoms, as Justice Blackmun, the majority opinion writer of Roe states, “We were deciding a constitutional issue, not a moral one.” The privacy clause of the Constitution first gave women the right to contraception and further control over their lives with Griswold v. Connecticut. Similarly, a decision reached in Lawrence v. Texas found that anti-sodomy laws (laws criminalizing anal and oral sex) violate the liberty protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sex lives and reproduction are not in the government’s purview. This is basic freedom is unfortunately not true for all nations.
Some countries in the Middle East have regressed and formed religious totalitarian states. These countries are frequently criticized by Republicans and the fear of “sharia law” still abounds. The fear of sharia law is misplaced, as the United States is not a theocracy. It would be nice if we all could agree at the end of the day, that enforcing your religion’s laws on others is wrong and directly conflicts with our country’s ideals of freedom. “Pro-life” supporters understand this about sharia law, but they do not seem to understand that others are not required to live by their own religious standards. And strange standards! If we were to live by the Old Testament, women should sacrifice two pigeons to “cleanse” themselves of their periods, and unwed mothers can only marry the father of their child after the father paid a fine. Isn’t it obvious how ridiculous any religious totalitarian government is?
So what, you may ask? Why does it matter how the issue became important or what religious texts say? Haven’t scientists learned more about when life begins, which negates the origins of the pro-life movement? Let’s look at the science.
The Science
Science is not the Golden Ticket supporters and opponents of abortion wish it was. The claim of “protecting life” in banning abortion isn’t based on science, because we do not know definitively when life begins. “Assuming that fertilization and implantation all go perfectly, scientists can reasonably disagree about when personhood begins,” says Scott Gilbert, a developmental biologist. “An embryologist might say gastrulation, which is when an embryo can no longer divide to form identical twins. A neuroscientist might say when one can measure brainwaves.” Diane Horvath-Cosper, an OB-GYN located in Washington, DC points out that a high number of fertilized eggs never implant, anywhere between 50% and 80%. She states, “I have come to the conclusion that the pregnant woman gets to decide when it’s a person.”
With 10% to 20% of pregnancies ending in miscarriage, these statistics muddy the waters. If it is statistically unlikely for a zygote to successfully implant in the uterus, and even less that it will result in a baby, how much of the early-term abortions arguing over is only noise? The abortion ban in my home state of Texas set a bounty of $10,000 on any who helps a woman (in any way) receive an abortion after six weeks. This is before most women realize they are pregnant. 1 in 3 people will learn they are pregnant past six weeks. It is a short window, considering nearly half of pregnancies are unplanned. Periods are often irregular, the classic fatigue and nausea don’t start until after six weeks (and who isn’t exhausted after the last few years we’ve been having?). While birth control can give women control over their own fertility, “A birth control pill taken exactly as it is supposed to be taken, for example, fails 1–2% of the time,” as Dr. Jen Villavicencio, an ob-gyn who lectures at the University of Michigan Medicine, has explained.
There is some confusion about what “six weeks pregnant” means because of the Texas S.B. 8 law. Six weeks does not mean six weeks pregnant, but simply six weeks since your last period. In the New York Times article, “What Does It Really Mean to Be 6 Weeks Pregnant?” this is explained, that “when doctors say a woman is six weeks pregnant, it typically means the embryo started developing about four weeks ago.” At this point, the fetus is a clump of two sets of cells.
The Texas law has also propagated a misconception that at six weeks, a fetus will have a heartbeat. But according to experts, the term “fetal heartbeat” is misleading and medically inaccurate. As Dr. Ian Fraser Golding, a pediatric and fetal cardiologist at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, explains, “While the heart does begin to develop at around six weeks, at this point the heart as we know it does not yet exist.” For those who do suspect they are pregnant early on, the pregnancy test kits one can pick up at nearby stores generally “work at five-to-six weeks,” according to Dr. Villavicencio. This being the case, abortion is being banned before most women would even know they are pregnant.
Even so, most abortions are performed at eight weeks when women discover they’re pregnant when the fetus is the size of a sweet pea. Unfortunately, when states enact abortion restrictions or bans, travel and appointment delays push this number up, increasing the fetus's development time.
Finally, we come to the abortions most don’t like to consider — “late-term abortions.” These abortions do not happen often (less than 1% of all abortions), and when they do, if they are likely the result of a disorder that would mean a short and painful lifespan for the child. Reasons range from “medical concerns such as fetal anomalies or maternal life endangerment, as well as barriers to care that cause delays in obtaining an abortion.” Restrictions on abortion are part of what leads to the few of “late-term abortions.” With this information widely available, one would think a Congressman in Alabama, a dentist in Texas, or hopefully, a great number of people might question their support for the “pro-life” anti-abortion movement.
“Late-term” abortions are generally understood to take place during or after the 21st to 24th week of gestation, but what is not shared and the Washington Post helpfully points out, the term “late-term” seems to imply a third-trimester pregnancy or even up to a full pregnancy (which is at least 37 weeks). Importantly, it is only in the third trimester that the nervous system develops, and until then the fetus is not capable of feeling pain. The bond between parent and child cannot be broken until viability, and the risks are innumerable.
Skeptics might say that if scientists can’t agree, would it be better to play it safe? Not quite so simple, when you examine the impact outlawing or restricting abortion has on pregnant people and their lives.
Medical Implications of Laws
The medical necessity of being able to act when a patient’s life is in danger is too great a risk. Some states have begun putting dangerous restrictions on the caveat of saving lives. Like requiring a second doctor “attend the procedure or to have multiple doctors sign off that a later abortion is medically necessary.” In the moment of a medical emergency, anything that ties doctors’ hands when death is imminent is taking away bodily autonomy. And, supported by Roe established by the Constitution guarantees, is the right to privacy. A private decision between a woman and her doctor and none other. The Constitution promises, that we have the right to privacy, and these abortions at the end of the day are and should be a private decision between the woman and her doctor.
But in reality, sometimes it comes down to control by what many consider the boogeyman of the left — the patriarchy. It cannot be denied that certain societal structures have survived to the twentieth-first century merely on the basis of being the status quo. As explored in this article by Oxfam International, “Gender inequality is one of the oldest and most pervasive forms of inequality in the world.” Despite the steps of progress we have made over the past centuries, no country has completely eradicated differences and brought equality between the sexes. Not in civil liberties, daily lives, or wages. They remain profoundly unequal, even in the most affluent nations. Among the top countries for women’s rights is Norway. In Norway, while “advertised positions must not specify a desired gender for a job role…consenting action in [favor] of one of the sexes is allowed.” And in poorer countries, it is truly bleak. One in five girls under fifteen is living in extreme poverty, according to a 2019 study. Though low-income women tend to already have chronic or mental illnesses and a lower life expectancy, they also suffer from, at the same time, having less affordable child care, comprehensive sex education, reliable birth control methods, and good prenatal care.
This is the kind of damage that replicates across the generations. We are taking steps to push a level of poverty and death on a scale we have never seen before. The population of the world in poverty will make the recent past a distant memory — and quickly unrecognizable. When abortion is outlawed, women die. This is a statistical fact that cannot be argued against. These laws will not affect the wealthy who can afford to travel to another state or country to have the procedure done. These laws do not affect influential politicians because they can send their mistresses where they need to go. These laws only affect those who are poor and are more likely to seek out other methods in that case.
Some wonder why anyone would be willing to risk their lives to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. But at this point, you have backed them into a corner. They have nowhere to go because you blocked all the manageable exits. To get the medical care they need, they will be spending money they likely don’t have, as almost half (46%) of Americans couldn’t afford a $400 expense. There is no way to take off of work to travel across states to stay in a hotel for three days going through hoops to get an abortion without money. Yet, no one can stop them, as Doctors Without Borders explains, “When a woman or girl is determined to end her pregnancy she will do so, regardless of the safety and legality of the procedure. Where safe abortion care is not available, she will often risk her life with an unsafe abortion because the prospect of continuing the pregnancy is unbearable.”
This matters greatly, because according to them, “More than 22,000 women and girls die each year after having an unsafe abortion.” This is not a step those who claim to value life will be willing to take. It is a reason to support those who feel they have no other choice than to have the procedure, whether they are unable or unwilling to continue the pregnancy of a few cells.
Preventative measures
Unfortunately for those with uteruses, there’s no 100% effective method of birth control. Sex education is not required in many states and results vary from state to state. My state of Texas doesn’t require sex education in schools, and “if they do, educators must stress abstinence as the preferred birth control method.” The lack of affordable contraceptives is an issue now as it has been in years past. Offering free birth control such as IUDs (as Colorado did, and saw a large reduction in abortions) does more than outlawing bodily autonomy.
Offering medical care to those in poverty certainly does more than restricting or outlawing abortion. As we can see below, abortions are at an all-time low currently, and with these attacks on abortion and birth control, a non-problem is about to unleash chaos in red and blue states.
The Ugly Legal Side
There is also the other side of the equation, which is the father. In many states in our country, in the rare cases when a parent has filed a police report about their rape and given birth, that police report does not shield that parent from sharing custody of that child with the dangerous “father.” Many states require a conviction of rape to sever a parent’s rights. When rapes are underreported because of how our criminal justice system handles rape cases and treats women and trans men, this is unconscionable.
Those who may be afraid of being raped and impregnated in the future? Governor Abbott announced without a proposed legal framework, or actually any proposed plan at all, that he will “eliminate all rapists.” Abbott says he will do it, so there’s nothing to worry about there, then?
Only most rapes do not happen in dark alleyways where Abbott may install floodlights and extra patrolmen. Rapists are someone known and close to you, 8 out of 10 times. Maybe they are a family friend of your parents, maybe your babysitter, or even a member of your family. The victim can be anywhere between five and seventeen — a minor — not ready to fight a war, vote, get married, or adopt a child, but evidently ready to be an unwilling parent. A Texan thirteen-year-old, raped and impregnated by her grandfather, recently had to travel hours to get an abortion. Under SB 8, she would have been forced to give birth to her own aunt/uncle, and relive the trauma of that broken trust and brutal rape. Her story isn’t the only one we will hear. 1 in 9 girls under the age of 18 will be sexually abused by an adult. Young girls will soon be condemned to give birth. Hundreds of Jaycee Lee Dugards in the nation, are all condemned by others’ misplaced religious beliefs.
These laws that are being passed and proposed are meant to harm children AND their parents while restricting their rights, not protect innocent children. For example, ectopic pregnancies, meaning pregnancies out of place, have the zygote implanting into the fallopian tubes. This is extremely common, and the treatment for this type of pregnancy is an abortion. “Without one, the zygote will burst through the fallopian tubes, causing massive hemorrhaging and death. About “1 in 50 pregnancies (2 percent) in the United States is ectopic.”
If an 11-year-old child who gets pregnant by rape is forced to carry that child, that is unconscionable. If a woman is prosecuted for having a miscarriage that others deem suspicious, that is unconscionable. If a woman has a malformed fetus that is simply a spinal cord and a brain in her womb and is forced to carry that to term and risk infection and possible death, that is unconscionable. If a woman is forced to keep an ecotopic pregnancy and dies from a ruptured fallopian tube, that is unconscionable.
The exceptions to abortion restrictions, such as in the cases of rape or incest, have been largely abandoned by the Republican Party. They do not trust women to be honest about sexual assault, and openly have stated they are concerned women would lie to be allowed to have an abortion. Women are doubted on the stand and in the doctor’s office. “But was it a legitimate rape?” Todd Atkin might ask.
Texas is leading the way against women’s rights. Oklahoma abortion clinics, overrun with Texans after SB 8 passed, are now shut down. The state passed a “near-total abortion ban with no exceptions for rape or incest that would make performing an abortion a felony.” I read a quote somewhere, and it is very poignant to this essay, that “when the punishment for abortion is worse than rape, you know it is a war on women.”
Patients are already being turned away at the doctor’s office for miscarriage treatment, something experts warned us would happen. The drugs to perform an abortion and treat miscarriages are the same, and as doctors explain, “It’s next to impossible to tell the difference between an abortion and a miscarriage in many cases.” The United States’ maternal mortality and maternal care when compared with 10 other developed nations is currently ranked the worst. The United States, without Roe, will now be grouped with poorer countries like Poland, Nicaragua, and El Salvador. Since 1994, these countries have rolled back abortion rights, while 59 other countries have expanded them. Presently, Greg Abbot has suggested letting migrant babies starve during a countrywide shortage of formula while Roe hangs in the limbo, allegedly while he believes in “life.” Will he suggest for the upcoming forced pregnancy babies to “eat cake” next?
It seems that life is not Greg Abbott’s aim. The question has to be asked then, what is his aim, if not to hold onto political power? To propel himself into national politics, having secured his Evangelical bloc with the lie told so often, it is accepted as truth.
Conclusion
I could have discussed many other topics in this essay. In the leaked memo, Justice Alito mentioned a “domestic product” of infants to be adopted, leading many to believe he is referring to the current low availability of white infants. All the while Black children suffer in foster homes and sleep under desks in social workers’ offices when there are none to be had. I could have written about how overrepresented Black children are in foster care, “In 2018, Black children represented 14% of the total child population but 23% of all kids in foster care.” I could have written about maternal mortality in the United States and how black mothers are 3x “more likely to die from a pregnancy-related cause than white mothers in the U.S.” I could have explored why the maternal mortality rate in the United States is worse than in every other developed nation, where “17 mothers die for every 100,000 pregnancies.” But while these issues are important, I believed I should focus in this essay on the clear truth that abortion is not what it has been made out to be. Abortion is safer than childbirth; it is a human right and does not break any religious doctrine. As we run out of baby formula around the country, as women stock up on Plan B pills and abortion pills, trust is lost between doctor and patient, and women begin to get sick and die in even higher numbers, I beg you to rethink your stance on abortion.
Otherwise, this will be our future. Women’s lives lost, ending hers, and the fetus’s. How “late” is acceptable to save the mother and let the child die? It is the only logical choice when you cannot save both. How much is a woman’s life worth, in America?
I support getting contraceptives to those who want them, sex education classes for young people, and Medicare for all. These will do more to erase the need for abortion. This is statistically the best lane, and after examining my research, I hope you agree with me.
