Recently one of my favorite political discussions resurfaced after a court ruling in Alabama. 

It’s been a while since we’ve had a proper political discussion. Why not start back up with abortion? 

Since it’s been more than a year, I feel like I could use a quick recap.

The case of Roe v. Wade (1973) established through the Supreme Court of the United States (federal level government) that a woman has a right to stop her pregnancy up until “the point of viability”. This landmark case established for the first time that, under the Constitution of the United States, a woman has a right to have an abortion.

This court ruling essentially ended coat hangers and seedy back-alley methods, allowing women safer options aided by qualified medical professionals. 

The ruling didn’t create law, however, leaving room for states to establish some of the details through their own legislation. States and federal governments have responded in a variety of ways. The federal government added a provision limiting how public funds could be used to pay for an abortion, essentially restricting the poorer class’ access. Among state governments there are laws which are restrictive, others not so much.

But Roe v Wade prevented state governments from making laws too restrictive. And because of the power of Roe, the ruling has been challenged for decades in the hopes of one day overturning it.

It wasn’t until the Trump administration, when three new conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices were appointed, that the possibility of overturning Roe v Wade came into view. And that’s exactly what happened in 2022 when the conservative-dominant Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dobbs v Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization that the United States Constitution does not protect a woman’s right to an abortion. This decision removed the limitations that Roe v Wade had been placing on state governments. Local laws could now be more restrictive without the barrier of the Roe v Wade ruling.

This decision essentially put the issue back on the state legislatures to define the legality and measures to determine if and when a woman can have an abortion. Since the Dobbs decision, several states have revived or established more restrictive abortion laws, now no longer hindered by the ruling of Roe v Wade. 

Feeling like this is a proper, boring political discussion yet? No? Then I’ll continue.

To this point in our review, the debate has been whether a woman has a right to abort her pregnancy, as a person making a decision about her own body. But we haven’t addressed the other half of the issue. 

Is the embryo or fetus considered a person?

Central to this discussion is the question of when life begins. Is it at conception (as soon as an egg is fertilized)? Or is it when the first breath of air is taken after the baby emerges from the womb? The debate is ongoing and, because there is no universal agreement on the beginning of life, it is difficult to establish the unalienable rights of an embryo or fetus.

Over the years certain measures have tried to establish the rights of the unborn. And over the years technology has continued to advance, giving us more questions about life and at what point should the law begin protecting that right. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is a particular technological advancement which has made things more difficult to determine rights and protections.

Enter Alabama’s supreme court. The decision has drawn a line further than any state has thus far, drawing the line at conception, whether fertilization happened in vitro (in glass) or in the womb.

Social media has since been flooded by memes and quips to express opinions and relieve some of the tension people are feeling about this ruling.

If the Supreme Court in Alabama defines a fertilized egg as a person, does that mean I can ride in the HOV lane with a few fertilized eggs in the passenger seat?

I certainly wish I had been able to get out of my accidental HOV violation and subsequent ticket when I was 2 months pregnant. The thought crossed my mind. 

As a writer of political articles and during my time as a political candidate, I’ve been fortunate enough to manage a few civil conversations with people on both sides of the issue. These conversations were uncomfortable and awkward. Some of our conversations had to be paused and resumed after a brief timeout.

From these conversations and the information I’ve gleaned, I’m hoping to be able to articulate what it is each side really cares about. By understanding the other side, hopefully we can see what the other person is trying to articulate despite the growing chasm between the two sides. 

Pro-Choice Vantage Point 

Pro-choice advocates, in a nutshell, are advocating for a woman’s right over her body. 

This position is not motivated by selfishness or a lack of respect for life. It’s also not an indirect way to give people an escape from the consequences of other bad choices. Fueling this position are countless stories of women and girls who have been forced into unexpected or unwanted pregnancies. Those horror stories bring to light the awful truth that women alone bear the responsibilities and consequences of the crimes of men and boys. 

Are we really okay allowing a 12-year-old, who is not legally able to give consent, to go through with a pregnancy and become a mother? Is the law really going to require a police report and maybe include a few interrogation questions? Well, I guess if you look at what she’s wearing it is clear to see that she was asking for it.

In the context of some laws, pro-choice advocates are horrified by the attempts to appease differences of opinion. For example, a law may require a look at the heartbeat, which at a stage early enough for a legal abortion, can only be viewed through a vaginal ultrasound. 

Look, uh, sorry about that. I can tell you from personal experience that those are not fun. Oh, we’re still talking about the 12-year-old? In that case, those are REALLY not fun. But, she’s about to have something much bigger come out of there, so, oh well. 

With our young tween in mind, if you don’t understand why pro-choice advocates also don’t like the idea of requiring parents or boyfriends to have a say in the matter, think about what matters most. The rights of a woman over her OWN body. By asking parents or the boyfriend to have a chance to weigh in — legally — puts them ahead of the unexpectant mother. By law her decision could ultimately be made for her by someone else’s objections or opinion.

Pro-choice advocates want us to look at her and write laws which will protect her. Protect her from further trauma, further intrusion, and further infringement.

I’m sure you’re thinking, “Now, wait, what about a woman able to give consent? Shouldn’t she have to go through with the consequences of her actions?”

Her tale isn’t any less complicated and includes attempts to plan and control results. But staring back at her is the result, unexpectedly. Even the best attempts to use protection can have unexpected consequences. And life, no matter how well-planned, is ever changing. Plans change, relationships change, and in the case of pregnancy, it is the woman who is left to bear all of the life-changing consequences — alone. 

Should a woman’s life be required as a consequence of more than her own choices?

Historically, restrictive abortion laws have done just that. Unexpectant mothers, unable to cope, often find a way to end their pregnancies at the cost of their safety and sometimes their life. 

Pro-choice advocates want you to look at the women who are struggling under the weight they are left to bear alone. We should care. And we should consider whether laws and court rulings are making things better or worse for the mother. 

Pro-life Vantage Point

Pro-life advocates, in a nutshell, are advocating for the other half of this issue: the rights of the unborn. We all initially existed as a lump of rapidly multiplying cells and so, use whatever terms you like but that growing mass is nonetheless a person whose life should be protected. 

The crude rhetoric sometimes used by those who support life often distracts from the true motivation fueling this position. It isn’t about blaming a woman or girl for being immoral. At the heart of it are the countless, heart-wrenching stories of perfectly-forming babies killed via injection and born dead. It is fueled by the more grotesque procedures of perfectly-forming bodies, destroyed inside the womb and delivered piece by piece. 

It is encouraged by stories of survival as fully-grown adults remind us through their stories that “viable” is a term which should be considered seriously. They somehow survived their mother’s decision to end a pregnancy early. But if they weren’t really a person at that point, how are they even alive?

It’s a miracle! 

Or, it’s just science.

This position demands that you not look away from the truth of what choice is being made. A woman cannot assert her right over her own body without infringing on the rights of her unborn child. As my mother put it, “these lives are entwined” and though they may find themselves at “odds with each other”, they are still two valid lives the law should be considering — and protecting. 

Two lives. Not one.

This is by no means a simple question of a woman having a right over her own body. This isn’t a hangnail or an appendix. One of the two will have to make a sacrifice to end the entanglement. Understand why pro-life advocates ask for laws which force you to look. Those are arms and legs, a head, a heart, a little nose, forming fingers and tiny toes.

Mourn with those who are mourning. Don’t belittle the thoughts and feelings of those who believe that the unborn need to be seen and need advocates in our government. 

---

Look and really see each other, no matter how wide the chasm is growing. It might soften the way we discuss this issue.